User talk:Dragon's Blood

Welcome!

Hello Dragon's Blood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello Dragon's Blood. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your neutral vote at my RfA. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like, I can go through your edits to give you some examples of how you assume that certain people have less than honorable intentions, but if we can agree on that point then the issue becomes, "Do some people have less than honorable intentions?" In order to answer that, we have to define "honorable intentions." It is my position that an honorable intention is defined by the person who is taking the action in question. If my position is true, nobody else could ever assume less than honorable intentions in another person; we would always have to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

This is something I have learned as an administrator over the course of two decades on other web sites and bulletin boards. When I stopped trying to hold back the river, and instead channeled all of the currents to where they could do the most good, a little more work upfront made for a lot less headache in the long run. I don't expect you to believe me, and in fact I've never seen anyone truly come to believe this except through experience, but some day you might look back and realize that the people you considered evil today merely had a different but valid way of looking at the world.

I recently wrote an article on Von Neumann's catastrophe about how one of the greatest physicists in history demonstrated mathematically that no two people can share a common view of the world, but how both views are entirely accurate. The funny thing is how long it takes us to accept that ours is not the only accurate view.

I have great faith in you, and I know that, with a little more experience, you will be able to channel all of the currents yourself by working with them instead of against them. When that day arrives, I will wholeheartedly support your nomination. --Dragon's Blood 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. --Dragon's Blood 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm just wondering one thing: how can you have such an intimate knowledge of Wikipedia and my contributions to it if you just registered yesterday? --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to assume good faith on my part, how do you think I could know such things? --Dragon's Blood 17:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you edited anonymously for a while. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I think you're getting the hang of it. I also heavily research any site before contributing to it, or before supporting or opposing a nomination. --Dragon's Blood 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2

For what its worth, I wrote Tawkerbot2. Tawker's involvement with it is in the administrative and creative departments. joshbuddy^talk 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a good piece of programming, and thank you for the information. However, I was referring to statements like this: "I would be using [administrative power] to deal with blocked proxies (see WP:OP) either blocking or unblocking depending on scans (the proxycheck script on the OP page is hosted by myself)." --Dragon's Blood 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Hey, I live in Rhode Island too ^_^ Warwick, actually. Glad to see another fellow RI editor! — Deckill e r 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you are a Star Wars fan too. It's good to meet you. --Dragon's Blood 21:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi there! Could you please write a bit more elaborate edit summaries? While everyone might know what rvv means, shortcuts such as ansagf, anslook, ansenl, nomupd, ansnor, ansadvr take quite some time to decipher/guess without looking at the actual diff. For some people they even might appear as complete rubbish. Writing few words instead won't hurt the servers. I also made a layout tweak on your userpage. Hope you like it! Cheers, Misza 13 ^{T C} 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can write more elaborate summaries. No problem, and thanks for spiffing up my user page. --Dragon's Blood 02:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology requested

I have no clue what you're talking about. Generally, accounts voting on RfAs the day they're created are socks. I am not in a position of authority at all, however, and you didn't vote against me because I wasn't the one requesting adminship. --Rory096 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funniest sounding apology I've ever heard. --Dragon's Blood 20:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My failure to apologize is due to my not being sure that you're NOT a sock; why did you start voting on RfAs just over 12 hours after your account was created? --Rory096_(block) 17:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think ArbCom members would be bias the content of an article, or even have the power to. Not only do hundreds of Wikipedians vote for them (and I trust a few hundred people not to make bad selections), ArbCom deals with disputes between editors, not article content, and so wouldn't be able to do that at all. If they ever abused admin powers by protecting an article in a content dispute while still editing themselves, they'd be desysopped immediately and brought to the rest of the ArbCom, just like any other admin. How could you say someone who tested an open proxy and confirmed that it was one should have to get another person to block it just because they might be biased. What does that have to do with anything at all? --Rory096_(block) 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SOCK page

You might be interested in taking part in this discussion. --Dijxtra 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of alternate accounts

Thank you for the information about the new table. It seems much clearer and intuitionally distinguishable.--ComSpex 06:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're about it, there are actually 5 categories, not 4:

Official term	Criteria
Declared alternate account	An editor publicly declares that an account is an alternate account, states it will be not be used against sockpuppet policy, and identifies the other names he edits under.
Declared anonymous alternate account	An editor publicly declares that an account is an alternate account, states it will be not be used against sockpuppet policy, but does not identify the other names he edits under
Undeclared alternate account	An editor uses an alternate account without declaring it, but does not use it for sockpuppetry.
Evasion alternate account	A banned or blocked editor uses an alternate account or changes IP to circumvent the ruling.
Sockpuppet	An editor uses more than one account or changes IP to deliberately influence the same vote or discussion without declaring it.

Master Jay's RfA

Thanks bud for your support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, please voice them here. Regards, Jay(Reply) 02:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too...

I was a little concerned over the copyright status of my name, so I asked an Admin (Redwolf24, since very less active) if I could use it. He said it was fine, so I didn't think much of it since. I think since I am not really pretending to be the actual character, it's fine. Somewhere there was some discussion about copyrighted usernames, and I think it was deemed that Internet handles do not technically fall under the copyright restrictions. If I can find that discussion, I'll get back to you (I think it was on AN). Thanks for your input on my RfA. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]