Jump to content

User talk:Anonymous Dissident/archive 2

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

I don't disagree with the deletion, but I disagree with the speedy deletion: please see my comment at Meta:Requests_for_deletion#Ideas on how to write about--and how not to write about--film. Could you please transwiki this page to Wikipedia, or remove the closure? Thanks, Korg 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll reopen. It's just that two of the voters asked for speedy deletion, so I carried out the consensus. ----Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Just a note, 2 voters isn't really a consensus. Best to wait till the end :) Majorly talk 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, fair enough. But when you have 2/1 for speedy, teh end usually comes quickly, rather than "at the end" ;) --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I understand sometimes there are borderline cases, especially regarding old pages that were acceptable on Meta in the past. Best regards, Korg 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sul account[edit]

Yes I want my sul to be deleted so I can rename and re globalise under spliffy. Meta and En Wikipedia are the only two projects with anything other than trivial contributions. Thanks. Benon 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting out my rename etc :) spliffy 06:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply


For the help - appreciated - feel free to fix any of my errors too :) --Herby talk thyme 09:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No worries. :) --Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply


Hi AnonDiss.

Please have a look at the top of SRU. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, apologies. I guess I just haven't looked at the header for some time. I will do this from now on. And, should it be modified to say "bureaucrats"? --Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's the only possibility as long SUL is not disabled. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Btw., I've added it here, too.Reply
Good move. Now there is only very small chance anyone will miss it. Hopefully the devs can get to the request soon! :) --Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply


Please remember that RfD is rather a discussion, not a vote. Also, when consensus is not clear or when valid questions or remarks are raised, letting some time for participants to respond before closing requests won't hurt and would be pretty beneficial. Thanks, Korg 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, you are wrong. I will not stand down here. You were the minority here, Korg, and the majority of people, a consensus, wanted the page deleted. And it was. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Consensus was very clear in this case. Korg, you were the only one to vote Keep. Yes, it's not a strict vote, but this was a completely clear-cut case, and is not even worth fussing over. Majorly talk 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Majorly, how do you determine consensus? Korg 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I look at the general feeling of the people in the discussion. It was a clear-cut delete in this case. Majorly talk 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I can understand your reasoning; however it seems based on the volume of comments, so I don't think it is the best way to proceed... Korg 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't referring to the end result of this request, but rather on the way you closed it along with the other one. The closing summaries and your comment above show you consider RfD a vote. Another user, Hillgentleman, also pointed that out to you.[1]
Now, to refer to this particular request, that's not so simple. If you regard a request as a discussion, you should not simply count votes, but you have to value the different arguments, and new and unanswered questions or arguments should also be taken into account. In this case, a sensible approach favouring discussion would be to let some time for users to reach a consensus. Korg 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I do not think of it as a vote at all. hillgentleman obviously misinterpretted me; I stated the figure of 62% without relation to the following comment regarding consensus. The two were not necessarily related. I first noted a figure, and then also that there was general dsagreement and there was not a clear consensus as to what there was to be doen with the page. Korg, you were the only person to say keep. Whether you count figures or not, it is very clear that that discussion should have been closed as a delete. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your explanation (and sorry for the late reply...). I still disagree with your interpretation; ideally, arguments should be weighed, and unanswered questions or unrebutted arguments should require particular attention. Number of comments should not prevail over comments themselves, otherwise it is not a discussion. I am wondering why you chose to not let enough time to users to discuss the points that were raised. Korg 17:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree; that has to happen sometimes I guess. I certainly agree that arguments are much more important in their weighting that actual votes. But to have kept the page based solely on your argument, where you were the only person to vote keep, would have simply been an incorrect judging of the general consensus: and that was that the page be deleted. To have left more time would have been pointless in any case; in the days previous, you had already stated your view when you questioned other people's delete votes. So people had plenty of time to view your argument and change their votes, but, even then, you remained the one person to vote keep. Coincidentally, you are the only person to complain about my way of closure. I think, perhaps, you need to accept that your keep vote was in contradiction with the opinions and arguments of a great number of others; that's what consensus is, general agreement - there was general agreement to keep, and, after the set time, I saw that general agreement, interpreted the community's desire to have the page deleted, and I did so. Just because your vote was the last one made does not mean that more time should be added to allow for rebuttal; we could go on and on forever, and your vote was not particularly revolutionary; it was a statement of your own personal view, and it did not bring any new evidence to light, as such, that may have altered people's delete votes. I hope that we can leave this behind us now Korg. Cheers, and happy editing. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply


Both Lar and Mike.lifeguard have passed, so far, and I've closed them as such and placed the request on RfP. I'd like to ask that we wait until Drini's request passes (rather likely at this point) before allowing Lar to step down. Sound reasonable? Kylu 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That sounds perfectly fair; we necessarily must have 2 oversights at any one time. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

OTRS age[edit]

It doesn't matter about the whole age thing, I'm sure I'd have been asked later on in en.wiki - (if not I had already stated it by then). I'm surprised, dismayed would be more appropriate I think, that I'm still 'not trusted' even considering my work at en.wiki. It just goes to show nothing can ever rescue people from there doubts even when evidence is clearly there to the contrary. Kind regards, Rudget. 10:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've also withdrawn my request (which in itself probably shows I'm 'immature', but I couldn't care less). I'll stay wiki-gnoming on en.wiki. Rudget. 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little disappointed that you were unwilling and continue to be unwilling to understand why such matters (age) need to be done privately, off wiki, and in correspondence to an otrs admin. I think you are under the mistaken perception that the more people oppose on the age basis (or whatever basis) the less likely the otrs admin would accept the application. The page is not there for consensus development. It is there to help the otrs admin become familiar. Private matters need to be an email. As far as it happening in the past without any action, I'm sorry I did not see it, I'll watch the page more closely. Please reconsider your stance on this very important issue. Best, NonvocalScream 17:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is that message for AD or me? Rudget. 17:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
AD. NonvocalScream 17:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Rudget did not need to reply publically, but chose to. I don't see where AD thinks age is really important, or the other things you accuse him of. He simply asked if he was younger than 16, which is of course a requirement. He said nothing about how the page works, or how the admins decide things. I suggest this matter be dropped right now. Majorly talk 18:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
To Majorly: It is possible that I misunderstood the above comment I linked and the context, I don't think so, but its possible. NonvocalScream 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
NVS, I will e-mail in future. I asked this question for my own knowledge, but I did so at a public forum so that it would no be closed-door unless Rudget wanted it to be. He was always at liberty to decline to answer. I don't really care either way; I've frankly had enough of this discussion. You seem very intent on asserting and re-asserting the lack of community-driven consensus on the page, and how the otrs admin makes the decisions, but these are things I understand. I did not ask in the attempt to alter consensus. I asked for my own knowledge. I do not think age is an issue in these matters; I think it would be quite hypocritical if I did. That's all. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Top Ten Wikipedias/poll[edit]

Hey, can you full-protect that page (not the talk page though) so that people don't accidentally add more votes to it? While you're at it, please remove the link in MediaWiki from the top of the page OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your positive comments about me at OTRS/volunteering. I highly respect and value your contributions across multiple projects and I am honored by your kind words. Cirt 01:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's my pleasure Cirt. I wish you all the best in your application and fully trust you'll be an excellent respondent in this system. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


You come up with good ones :)

Any thoughts on resurrecting global sysop now that we have sets of wikis?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

And watch it getting tabled by big wikis that have nothing to do with it? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
/me recalls that "tabled" has the opposite meaning for you and I
The main objection (I just reviewed the entire discussion) was there was no technical opt-out - if that's been fixed we've crossed the major hurdle.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


Interesting: Help talk:Template#Refactor?Xiongtalk* 08:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Never mind; moved. — Xiongtalk* 08:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Clean and tidy[edit]

Sure, but a lot less informative to somebody who gets linked to Meta and doesn't know what it is. All the other projects say "From X, a project that does Y". Meta probably has the least transparent title of all the projects, but it's the only one that doesn't explain itself. Isn't this a pretty good reason to forgo a little bit of tidiness? — Dan | talk 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your proposed line was "a wiki about the Wikimedia projects". That's hardly saying anything and isn't really much more informative. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it was "a wiki about the Wikimedia Foundation's projects". That's a clear and succinct description of what Meta is. None of that information is present in the words "From Meta". None of the other projects' taglines are any more informative than this. It's just about as good as we can get out of the limited space, and it's certainly better than what's there now. It's a fine compromise between the two criteria you have suggested: tidiness and informativeness. Who could ask for anything more? Cheers — Dan | talk 04:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Dan, you said in your edit summary that someone could revert if there were objections. I am objecting. Firstly, the tagline is incorrect - it co-ordinates the projects, and "about" is too vague to be of any use. Secondly, the tag we've had for years is just fine. The tagline is not that important anyway; we have a fine description on the main page. Your proposed structure was messy and didn't look good, so I changed it back. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree "about" is too nondescript a word, but "From Meta, a wiki for coordinating the Wikimedia Foundation's projects" would be acceptable. Perhaps this discussion should take place on the talk page for the system message, with a pointer from Meta:Babel?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Anonymous -- I never said you shouldn't have changed it back: that's what was supposed to happen. (Actually, now that you mention it, I said "revert if unpopular" -- I guess I had hoped my change would draw various comments, rather than be immediately reverted on the strength of one person's opinion, but never mind.) I acknowledge your objections, but what I'm doing now is also what is supposed to happen: I'm trying to reply to your objections and maybe convince you that they aren't such a big deal after all.
Maybe the tagline we've had for years is okay, but this one's a little better. I take the point about messiness, but I don't think a few more words look especially messy or ugly. All the other projects have longer taglines than Meta. I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out what your priorities are: do you insist that it can't be the least bit messy, or do you want it to be "much more informative", as you said a few comments back? Is it possible to find a compromise between these two? What do you say to the line Mike.lifeguard suggests? — Dan | talk 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think I already made a suggestion :) But this should perhaps not be discussed on a single user's talk page, but rather on the system message's talk page.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes I see you did. That's why I asked Anonymous's opinion of it. If Anonymous feels like moving the conversation, I'll be glad to go where he sends it. — Dan | talk 00:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
We can start up another thread on the MediaWiki talk:. Essentially, I am fine with a better tagline if it is concise and more informative than what was originally added by Dan. I also think a gauge on whether the current tagline is fine or not fine from communal consensus would be a good idea. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Meta:Image use policy[edit]

You seem to be quite good at getting new proposals out there so they can be seen/discussed appropriately. Could you help me with this one? Thanks, Cirt 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re: Rename request[edit]

Many thanks! ;) --Lucas 04:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply


How old are you? -Byeitical 06:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why are you asking me this? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
To oppose future RfAs.. I mean, I'm just curious, and I understand you're young. No harm done if you don't wish to answer. Byeitical 20:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for editing our page[edit]

Thanks for adding the tag to our page Association of Patrolist Wikipedians. Any thoughts on how we proceed? :-) Thanks Fr33kman 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

btw: I've decided that the proposal tag is probably inappropriate as this is not the creation of a policy, but a user group and surely we don't need anyone's permission to congregate? Fr33kman 02:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply


[2] Didn't seem appropriate to keep it in there - or maybe it does? But at any rate I thought you'd get a kick out of that one. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

lol... I did quite enjoy that. :P —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Meta:Requests for deletion[edit]

Just a heads up, it appears that you closed the discussion as delete, but did not delete the 3 pages that were discussed. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Deleted now. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Question on SUL[edit]

I recently usurped Matty on en.wiki, and started an SUL account. There are already Mattys on 19 other wiki's, and on almost all of those I would not be able enough of the native language to request that those accounts be usurped. Is there any way I would be able to usurp all of the accounts from one place? I'm sorry if this request doesn't sound quite right - i'm not too familiar with SUL. Thank you so much for your time, Matty 09:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is only possible for projects with no active bureaucrats, I am afraid; see Steward requests/SUL. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

See my request, please[edit]

U are bureaucrat and can help me. Please see Steward requests/Permissions and solve my query as soon as possible (I mean removing of sysop access for me). Thank you. --Gruznov 10:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply