User talk:Leaky caldron/Archives/2012/October

Your comment at WT:RFA
Thanks - I enjoyed that. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Information
A query has been raised at Administrators' noticeboard concerning an issue in  which you may have been involved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA
Due to you I will never edit WP. Thanks for helping me avoiding me wasting my time. Your conduct appalls me.79.69.99.172 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You never have edited WP, so no great loss. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Σ‎
I am sorry about how you were treated at WP:AN earlier today and am grateful you've been able to keep your cool. Your questions were perfectly reasonable and were distorted so that they did not have to be answered. It's unfortunate that open, honest, robust discussion is discouraged. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank you both for taking a stand and am firmly opposed to this candidate. Jus  da  fax   19:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 2 of the nominator's (Reaper and Worm TT) seem fine with it, but Kudpung took real exception and took it to that board. I did try to be careful about the wording, leaving it open to the nominator to comment or not but far too many people took exception and deliberately set out to undermine me with false allegations about what I "really meant" by it. I've seen enough hounding and hazing to know I don't want to be part of it, although until I considered what Regent's Park said I would have let it run its coarse. The irony is that if they had come to the RFA and endorsed their nominee in the way that Reaper & WTT have on their talk page it would have been to the candidate's advantage. I have some outline questions which I will insert into the early part of similar strongly endorsed candidates in future. I also think it would be a good idea to prevent voting for a couple of days until the community has built up some detailed question & answers. Too many of the large number of early !votes are based on insufficient reviewable evidence. Votes are too often based on the good standing of the nominator, personal experience or the vacuous, "thought he was already" or "fuck yeh", or the oppose equivalent. As for Sigma, I strongly believe it is a case of too soon not never and that he has been built up on a pedestal to a certain extent. Leaky  Caldron  19:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When I first noticed the candidacy, I was inclined to support based on the reputation of and . One other nominator I have not encountered before, and another I have seen exercise poor judgment in the past. However, 's question about the Conservapedia vandalism and the comments alluding to it in the "oppose" section were concerning. There was no mention of it in the nomination statements, so I believed the candidate hadn't been rigorously vetted. When I reviewed the candidate's contributions, I found a number of concerning deficiencies, so wrote a detailed oppose since by then the candidate had over 100 supports with 90%+ support. I agree with your proposals to minimize the effect the nominators' reputation has on rubberstamping the candidate. The comment at your ANI hazing (my bolding), "nominators are likely to watch and would change their stance if they felt the need to. Especially Kudpung and Worm who are usually dead on with nominations and come to trust them to the point that I see no need to evaluate the candidate anymore" is shocking but honest. Too many voters supported the candidate at the beginning purely because of his nominators' reputation. It is not the candidate's fault that he was propped up as a good administrator candidate when in fact he was not. It is the fault of his nominators who either failed to vet him properly or failed to disclose the concerning issues up front. Your questions and concerns are insightful and will hopefully improve the process so that people do not over-rely on nominators in the future. Best, Cunard (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one solution which  would probably  meet with  your approval would be to  dispense with  the nomination system  altogether, and and allow only  self-noms. Perhaps you  would like to  propose it  at  RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Explaining Memorial List
Sorry Leaky, I'm rather new. I added a memorial list to help identify the unique magnitude of the disaster. I felt adding a list where readers could see the age and number of related victims would help them [readers] identify with the disaster. Sorry to bother, was only hoping to add to the page. (And I didnt copy and paste that table either. :P)

Thanks for your help and watching the Pages, just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.82.120 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sooooo... Would it be possible to replace the name table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.82.120 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhhh... I didnt know about the Talk page. I hadnt even looked there. I included the table not so much for the purpose of a Memorial, but to help drive home the emotional toll that disaster took on people there. Im still trying to figure this WP thing out, so excuse the noob-ness. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.82.120 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found your message about the Talk page and I added a comment to the Deceased List and added a reason why I thought it was appropriate. It's not so much a big deal for me whether it gets reverted, I just figured it would help. =P

63.88.82.120 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Yardeditor

Requests for comment/Civility enforcement
Just curious. Why'd ya delete my post? GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No harm, no problem :) GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sports Direct Arena
I have tried to discuss this on the Article talk page and provided a link with clear evidence. But no one seems interested in discussing it and seem to be quite adament to keep it as St James' Park even though this is not it's name. I thought it would be better just to change it to it's proper name, however it seems people are just happy enough to let an article be inccorrect rather than sorting it out to be correct. Robbieranger (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up - I've reverted the move back to St James' Park as being undiscussed and against earlier consensus. GiantSnowman 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, the (only) good thing the new sponsorship has brought? GiantSnowman 13:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I used to live in Newcastle, went to a few games and consider myself a follower; none of the fans I know are happy. Muslim players brings up a whole other issue, reminds me of Kanoute when he was in Spain. Sevilla had a gambling sponsor, he refused to wear the sponsor so had a blank shirt. GiantSnowman 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, good ol' Ashley - with two prominent Muslim players and the World Cup in Qatar coming up, they could have targeted the Middle East market. Not any more. GiantSnowman 14:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Consistency
We must reach a consensus on changing every other person first. If you want to start that dialogue, go ahead, but until a consensus has been reached we must be consistent. Lexstraviex (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh, I'm only using the standard that has been used for every single other Chief Whip. This isn't my claim, I'm going on every other article. Want to change every other article? Let's have that discussion on the talk page. Lexstraviex (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you want to do that to all of them then go for it, good luck to you. As long as it's consistent, I'm not bothered. Lexstraviex (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Post towns
Just to let you know that I have reverted your addition of Category:Post towns in the NE postcode area to the articles Bebside, Cambois and North Blyth, Northumberland. As shown in the infobox, the post town for those places is Blyth. A post town is a specific part of every UK address, usually shown in capitals by Royal Mail; it is not always the nearest village or town. You can check the local post towns at NE postcode area (which includes a new map and links to Google Maps or Bing Maps where you can zoom in to see the exact postcode boundaries). Alternatively, official post towns for the entire country are listed at List of post towns in the United Kingdom and List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom.

I hope that clarifies things. I have already categorised every UK post town, so you shouldn't need to add this category to any more articles!

Happy editing.

— Richardguk (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Grand Central Railway
Office of Rail Regulation press release 2 March 2011 states:

"refused Grand Central's application to run services from Euston to Blackpool, which, on the basis of the information provided, failed our primarily abstractive test"

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10328 D47817 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You !vote was confusing
Did you mean to oppose the interaction ban or the site ban? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)