User talk:John254/Archive 6

Thank You!
Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Петър Петров
Hello! Just to let you know that I have asked this user to select a Latin-based username and go to WP:CHU to request that a Bureaucrat perform the change. They are not currently blocked. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yo thanks man
You the man John254! Thanks for reverting my page back on Helen SalasSomemoron 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Somemoron 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

University of Phoenix
Yeah, that did occur to me at the time. I should probably have looked more cloesly at the situation though, I agree. I'll happily unprotect now anyway, and I'll be more than happy to semi-protect if that becoems necesssary, and deal with any furhter abuses. --Robdurbar 11:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

GIR (Invader Zim)
Editor (24.94.87.252) of GIR fame just signed off. Thanks for removing the mistaken warnings. Just wanted to ask you,does this happen a lot? Or am I the only one here looking like the villain? xCentaur | talk  22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. I understand now. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! :D xCentaur | talk  23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

user:ryanpostlethwaite
Many thanks for spotting and reverting the vandilism to my user page and adding the subsequent warning to the IP that did it. It is very much appreciated, you can't be on wikipedia all the time and spot everything! Merry Christmas and thanks again R y a n P o s t l e t h w a i t e See the mess I've created or lets have banter 12:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship
 

Thanks for your support on my successful Request for Adminship  (final result 78 Support /0 Oppose / 1 Neutral) I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months. I am humbled by your kind support and would certainly welcome any feedback on my actions. Please do not hesitate to contact me. Once again, many thanks and happy new year! All the best, Asterion talk 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your feedback on my RfA
Hi John254. I very much appreciate your feedback on my RfA and I appreciate your concerns regarding knowledge of policies and ability to apply them accurately. Since your comments a number of admins have weighed in about their experiences interacting with me, and I explained both that multiple people had made a mistake about the timing involved in the 3RR issue you cited and that a block had never been intended in this situation. Perhaps you might have time to consider this additional information at my rfa. I appreciate your time and value your feedback. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 07:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

PAIN
Sorry. I've reverted your closure. 1) 26 hours is far too premature for this important debate. 2) If you want to WP:SNOW this, the clear consensus at the moment is for a straight delete, I don't know where you get "the comments favoring deletion do not assert the desirability of removing comments made on this page from users' edit histories; consequently, there is no support for actual deletion". Most people are saying 'delete' that's pretty clear.--Docg 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you're not an admin anyway, so you aren't supposed to close controversial XfDs. -Amarkov blahedits 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard
Hi John254. Would you please take the time to explain your deletion of the the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard here ? Thanks!JdeJ 21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My Userpage
Many thanks for reverting the vandilism by user:164.107.222.254 on my user page and getting the subsequent block. Its happening nearly daily now!!! Your an absolute star, thanks again, it was very much appreciated R y a n P o s t l e t h w a i t e See the mess I've created or lets have banter 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideation
Yes, it's a notable term, but that's what dictionaries are for. When I tried to find something to support it's notability I went to the psych wiki - nothing there except for "suicidal ideation" used in a single article there. Thoughts? --Ronz 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant!
I am not sure if you saw, but on WP:3RR several administrators acknowledged Radiant! broke WP:3RR, and then decided to take no action on the ground that he is an experienced editor. If you look at the discussion you will see this is mostly because of SlimVirgin. KazakhPol 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Need to re-block 67.142.130.26
Once again this idiot is vandalizing away. I'll revert his latest on National Association of Realtors; whoops, too late someone already did. Thanks. Vivaverdi 00:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings
I noticed you used the test4im template here, when it can easily be assumed that the user's edits were made in good faith. Although it is not strict policy to start with mild warnings, in this case I think a milder warning, or better yet an explanation of Wikipedia practice, would have been more appropriate. Please try to take care not to bite inexperienced users when it is not clear they are acting in bad faith. --Ginkgo100talk 06:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you put a deltion template on the article Emory Folmar. The article was contested, and I ask that you examine the talk page to make your point/examine arguments, with the goal being to reach a consensus. Thanks! -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 07:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)
Hello ... when you closed the AfD on this page, you neglected to put a tag on the talk page pointing to the AfD discussion page ... just a friendly reminder. And I hope you don't mind my adding the talkheader template here ... I find it just makes communication easier when starting a new topic. &mdash; 06:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Julia Roberts
Hi, why did you delete my comment on the grounds that it was defamatory? You might think it was unconstructive, but actually it was making a satirical point about a rather stupid sentence in the article. 82.69.28.55 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

DPRK
The DRPK has a perfect religious freedom, that's not a political opinion. It's a fact. I can't understand why you toke out my comment, other then maybe the way I worded it was incorrect.

If my wording is correct, please inform me to change it. However, I find the change to be necessary, since it's a common belief that they do not have religious freedom in the West, however that's just not true.

Responded at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism
Oi! No Editwarring, try discuss with Azer Red already! :-) Drop me a line if you have any questions.

Kim Bruning 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool down
Your behavior at Vandalism has been unacceptable. Giving vandalism warnings like to users for good faith edits you disagree with in a policy dispute is very unacceptable. Please do not make controversial threats to block an editor when you have no power to do so, and when blocking someone would be very inappropriate anyway. Calling someone else's good faith edits vandalism is incivility. Also, edit warring on a policy page is unaceptable, and using rollback in a content dispute is even worse. Please take a day to cool down. Dmcdevit·t 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Azer Red's recent edits deleted the official policy vandalism section from Vandalism. Perhaps it's worthwhile to quote from the section that he deleted: "Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus..."I submit that my use of vandalism warnings, as well as javascript rollback, were appropriate under the circumstances. Indeed, Wikipedia has a vandalism warning, template:blatantofficialpolicyvandal, intended for precisely this situation. I particularly appreciate Azer Red's most recent edit, in which he states "revert me again, and you'll have violated the 3RR". Ironically, Azer Red himself violated the 3RR himself on this page, reverting to variations of his version 4 times in 24 hours. Note that WP:3RR states that "Reverting, in this context, means undoing, in whole or part, the actions of another editor or other editors. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that." John254 05:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll take the time to discuss that with him. I see you've gotten a 24h block by now, so we'll have to wait 'till this time tomorrow. --Kim Bruning 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that Azer Red appears to be a regular user in good standing, and afaict his edits were made in good faith. The particular section of the vandalism policy you're quoting looks a tad wonky, so we're definately going to have to take a look at that tomorrow. Kim Bruning 07:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)