User talk:Zsinj/Archive 2

Your vote on the RFR poll
Hi, Zsinj, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Prussian Blue
Please stop automatically reverting reasonable edits. This is inapparopriate. If you have something to discuss, take it to the talk page. 38.2.108.125 15:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My reply --Zsinj 02:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cunt cockney rhyming slang
Why did you revert the Cunt entry for cockney rhyming slang? Billy Hunt is widely accepted and a reference was given. Please explain. 88.109.65.115 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My reply --Zsinj 02:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

AbleNET AfD
Greetings,

You voted to remove the AbleNET article. Could you please explain your position? There is no current protocol relating to IRC Networks, the article is now fairly long standing and the Network is fairly established with a traceable path of history. The listing itself is not even in the 3 most unusual entries.

Thank you for your time. Santavez 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I explained my position in the comment I posted in the AFD. -- Zsinj Talk 03:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your comment; however, I was looking for more substance. What makes this entry least suitable out of all the others? I respect your opinion as a member of the community, it only seemed that this particular one was non-specific and arbitrary.

Santavez 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My reply[]. -- Zsinj Talk

Vandalism
Thanks for your reverting the sillyness on my page. Nomen Nescio 17:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about IFD
Cant see why you would want to vandalize my user page. Am I not free to put what I want on it?--=Motorhead 01:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The procedure for uploading images is far from clear to me. Just delete what ever and whatever happens, happens. I'd rather not spend time on it.--=Motorhead 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK good. I am sure a few unintended copies are hidden somewhere.--=Motorhead 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Big Spring, Texas
Thanks for lending a hand on this article. Amazingly, the last few edits by the anon have been OK, but I'm suspecting that they will try to sneak the POV stuff back in at some point.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your message and the Iranian Ethnic Group Known as Kurds
I will not stand by and let facts be switched for false statments. I am not going to let people write that people in Africa are greenskinned or we live on the moon or other rubbish. Go read the discussion history and you will see that certain invidiuals are manipulating that page. It happens to be my field of study they are spreading their rhetoric in. I am fixing the information and am merely reverting others vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs)

Vandalising and 3RR on kurdish people article
69.196.139.250 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [ page moves] &bull; block user &bull; [ block log])

This anon user (both vandaliser and suckpupet broke 3RR low. Thanks  D iyako Talk + 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20:00, 17 February 2006 William M. Connolley blocked "69.196.139.250 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 36 hours (repeated 3rr; this time Kurdish people)

RfA
I'm sorry, I've voted oppose on your RfA, based mainly on edit counts. I've reviewed your contributions, and I think you've done a fabulous job so far, and have contributed quite a bit to this community. Please keep up the good work, and you'll be assured of my vote on a future RfA. -- Samir ∙ TC  08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cambodia CWCC revert...
Greetings,

I would like to raise an issue regarding the 'Cambodia' page where you reverted an deletion I made. I don't know weither you thought my IP was a robot randomly deleting part of articles in wikipedia, I can assure you I'm not :)

If you carefully look at what I deleted (and the reasons why I did it, see in the discussion page on the article), you will hopefuly understand my motives and remove once more what I considered a paragrap that goes against the neutral pov policy of wikipedia.


 * This CWCC story should go in wikinews as far as I'm conserned, it's an on-going story.
 * I'm living in Cambodia since 2 years and while I've heard more than once stories of perpetrators buying the families of the victims to drop the charges and make false testimonies, this on-going story does not represent the general picture in the country. Right now the paragraph offers only one very subjective point-of-view, is focussed only on one case rather than trying to be general (like the article 'Cambodia' should be), and relies on only 1 more or less reliable news source
 * The 'Cambodia' entry should not be used to try to make a point and help a person getting out of jail in a corrupted country.

Please remove this badly written paragraph that goes against the ethic code of wikipedia. Thanks (202.178.112.80 13:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

Format on your RfA :-)
Hey Zsinj, I'd like to let you know that when you are responding to votes on your RfA, you are forgetting to add a # before your comments. What this does is perform an act of continuity with regards to the votes numbering. Please see this diff to see what I mean. :) KnowledgeOfSelf 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm always happy to help if I can. I'd like to say I think your an asset to Wikipedia, I only voted oppose per your time here. You keep up the great work and I'm sure you'll have a wonderful result next time. (Though you might pass with this one, stranger things have happened!) KnowledgeOfSelf 18:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Albany Attack jersey copyright issue.
Hi. I just received your message about a potential copyright issue for the image found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AlbanyLrg.jpg

I have edited the description of the image with the following:

"The source of this image is from an obsolete (circa 2002) webpage from a Projoy website when Projoy was the manufacturer of most National Lacrosse League jerseys. Similar images existed for all of the NLL jerseys which Projoy had manufactured at that time. It is believed that Projoy holds the copyright for this image."

I hope this is sufficient. I do not believe that Projoy would have a problem using this image in Wikipedia since the Albany Attack no longer exists and Projoy no longer manufactures Albany Attack jerseys. Projoy's website is: http://www.projoy.com/

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Ree (talk • contribs)