User talk:Kmweber/Archive11

EoGuy
Although I acknowledge a bit of gray area, I mostly disagree. If you look at common usage in respected publications, you are far more likely to see plural used. Each of them was a Beatle, and collectively it simply sounds better to a native English speaker to say that The Beatles are performing rather than The Beatles is performing. The vast majority of English grammarians would agree with that statement. Ward3001 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, British bands are referred to as "are" instead of "is". This is trodden ground. "The Rolling Stones are", "the Beatles are", and "Oasis are" all British bands. "Foo Fighters is", "Metallica is", and "Kiss is". Get the gist of it now? British grammar treats bands plurally. Hope this clears up any confusion you might have, Kurt. Scarian  Call me Pat!  17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the British are wrong, aren't they? I see no need to perpetuate wrong grammar.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, good one. Your sense of humour is immense. Consensus states it on Wikipedia. You will be reverted by numerous different editors if you attempt to change British bands from "are" to "is". Additionally, there is no such thing as "incorrect" grammar. I believe it's called "standard" and "non-standard". Thanks! Scarian  Call me Pat!  17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How dare those nasty Brits, trying to change American English! Don't they know that English started ... uh oh ... never mind. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
If there was anything that made my day yesterday, it was a support from you :D Thanks Kurt! -- Naerii  15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 4
Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process.


 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Committee
Not sure whether you are still following this ANI thread, but I'm letting you know here, for the record, that I've commented there, initially in your defence and then to object to your use of the phrase "Arbitrary Committee", which I managed to miss entirely when reading that thread (I must have misread it as "Arbitration Committee"). It all got a bit confused, really, but I notified those who I said should apologise to you, so in fairness I'm coming here to ask if you will apologise for what you said? Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC) PS. Sorry this notice is late, but the servers had problems yesterday about the time I was trying to leave you a note.
 * I have done nothing that requires an apology. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I left the note for the record, because I left similar notes for others. They also didn't see a need to apologise for what they said about you, or they explained why they had said what they said. I'm not going to ask you to explain right now what you mean by "Arbitrary Committee", but do you think you could in future articulate your concerns somewhere relevant, rather than taking pot shots? Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may think that you've done nothing that requires an apology Kurt, but continuing to take potshots when you've been asked nicely not to, is something at least I think you should be apologizing for. Again, cut it out. If you have suggestions to improve the ArbitraTION Committee, I suggest that you bring it forward. if all you have is potshots and attacks, I think that it'd be best if you didn't say any thing at all. SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When an admin removes your comment...
....it's not generally considered a 'smart' move to put it back. HalfShadow (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is when there's no valid reason for it to be removed. That you disagree with it does not make it "trolling"...my severe objections to the existence of the Arbitrary Committee and my denial of its legitimacy are well-known, and you're the first to try any stunt like this.  Stop it.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you'll find I am surprisingly apathetic when it comes to what you think; my only interest is in keeping the peace as I see it. If an admin feels your comment is unnecessary, it stays that way until another admin decides otherwise. HalfShadow (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Kurt, the softsoap approach didn't seem to work, so time to put a bit of steel behind it. Do not continue to edit-war and reinsert potshots at people or institutions that you don't agree with. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Replacing comments that should not have been removed is not edit-warring. Those who insist on removing those comments are the ones in the wrong.  And "Arbitrary Committee" is a perfectly appropriate moniker for an entity for which every single facet of its existence is, indeed, arbitrary.  Don't tell me what to do.  If the community has a problem with it, I will answer to them.  I do not answer to anyone else.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 03:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the members of the community have spoken above, several times over, and told you in no uncertain terms to quit it, I would hope that you would indeed cut it out. SirFozzie (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Two individuals do not a consensus make. I answer to the community, not to two individuals.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it on the basis of soapboxing at AN/I. Want to whine and complain? There are more appropriate venues, such as WT:RFARB. Ranting in various threads that have no relevance to your topic will only see your discussions removed without notice, and as what has happened at various RFAs and at AN/I, a precedent has already been initiated. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the first time anything I've said has been removed. It was a perfectly appropriate venue--it was a discussion of a block of one individual, and I was giving my reasons as to why that individual should be unblocked.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume I'm dumb, Kurt. I know about your history, and your bloody minded stubborness on principle. (oppose, self nom=power hunger, etcetera?) All I care about is that you cut out the potshots and not edit war those potshots back in where they don't belong. You haven't so there's nothing that needs to happen. SirFozzie (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a servant, not a master; therefore, you are not entitled to enforce your own will but only the will of the community. Show me the community at large has a problem with it.  So far every indication is that it doesn't.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 14:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to User:SirFozzie/Accountability
Please explain this to SirFozzie. I'm not sure whether it's a joke or serious. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He's serious. While I consider it frivolous and unsupportable, it's his right, per the terms I've set. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I added my request. It was based on the exchange above. It was not appropriate for SirFozzie to threaten Kmweber as he did. This is a request that SirFozzie relinquish his admin bit, per his promise to do so if requested by five users in a two week period. I'm certainly not going to campaign for this, and I have little opinion about SirFozzie in general, but the little example I saw here raised concern already, for me, and when I saw this questioning of Kmweber for making the request, I looked, and thought about it carefully. On the one hand, I congratulate SirFozzie for his courage in making the Accountability promise. On the other, the promise is there for a reason. If SirFozzie apologizes to Kmweber, I expect I would withdraw my request. As to being "frivolous and unsupportable," there is a real issue here, and that SirFozzie thinks it frivolous is one reason I'm taking it seriously. It is like some actual removals of the sysop bit I've seen: an initial offense, relatively mild, becomes a real problem when the offender doesn't get it and defends and even responds more intensely (though the threats may have stopped). Administrators are properly servants of the community, not of their own opinions, and should tread lightly and carefully. If Kmweber committed some offense, pursue it. Don't threaten him for doing what he has a right to do. And if you make a mistake, admit it and we can all move on.--Abd (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked him not to edit war his attacks (Arbitrary Committee, etcetera) back in, he didn't any further (he was at 2 or 3 Reverts when I asked, (note, none of the reverts were mine)) and as far as I was concerned the issue was resolved, and I never followed up on it or anything, until Mr Weber showed up on my recall page. I can show you the time stamps of the whole thing, if you want. I honestly do not think that I've done anything wrong here (of course, I would say that, wouldn't I?). My frivolous and unsupportable comment was that I found it unusual that he wanted to have me recalled for enforcing policies on civility and personal attacks, that's all. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you were "enforcing" them where there was no violation. It's that simple, really.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vivio Testarossa
Your oppose here made me giggle. Just FYI.  Qb | your 2 cents  15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

question
I'm just curious as to why you have a big, ugly, red linked image in one of the infoboxes on your userpage (the infobox saying you're a member of WikiProject Indiana). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi :)
Hi Kurt!

Missed some debates lately :) Was wondering if you could kindly point me of where you explained you reasons why you dislikes the coachees :)

Also, when you're around on IRC, could you give me a ping? ;-)

See you,  Snowolf How can I help? 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA
 Hello Kmweber, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you!  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow
What can I say? One the one hand I applaud your ability to pierce Obama's rhetoric and shake off his Svengali-like influence. On the other, I fear you've gone so far over the top, there's no more up or down! Dloh cierekim'''  18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Someone's calling for your head on AN/I. Just FYI, Wily D 21:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a followup to that: If expresses an opinion saying some article should be deleted, it does not make her a "deletionist vandal".  Wikipedia is a community, and as such the community can make up its own viewpoints of what articles are notable.  Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, and the community is formed to support the encyclopedia.  I'm starting to wonder if you have an interest in supporting either.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI
You are the subject of a thread on ANI (that I didn't start) located here. Saw that you weren't yet informed. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, above post links to the same thing (not sure why it wasn't an edit conflict...)  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)