User talk:Caulde/Archive/32

My case

Hi. I know I am not popular there. I am in the political minority on a controversial issue. And I know that I am on a tight rope. My activity there has been drastically reduced though. Look back in the archives back in the Spring or Summer and you would see me posting there a lot more than I am now. Also keep in mind that they're trying to ban me because of my edits on talkpages and not on the actual articles. Talkpages and the articles are two very different things and I take NPOV very seriously. For example, I started this article from scratch (which has since been turned into a redirect), see how I started it here: [1]. You can judge for yourself if that is the work of an unproductive troll (who has donated two different times to the WP foundation by the way). I admit that I have been in edit wars (and on the international reaction article usually it's with the same editor). However, if I am dealing with more than one person then I will stop and give up because I know that I will not win. I will also admit that I have lost my temper on a few occasions. Not to make excuses but when you are outnumbered you tend to get even more defensive. As someone who strongly supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia, the situation that Serbia is dealing with is upsetting to me and that probably tends to leak out on my talkpage comments. There is only one person on that talkpage that I geniuely dislike. I get along well with Ijanderson, who disagrees with me on the issue. Finally, I think my presence there is crucial to the article staying as NPOV as possible. With me gone, there would really only be one other editor who is pro-Serbia that posts consistantly. If there is any more information that you need from me, feel free to ask. --Tocino 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Mitt Romney

Aloha. Yo semi'd the Mitt Romney article last February apparently without setting an expiry date. Do you think it might be excessive under current circumstances? Sincerely, the skomorokh 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ironholds RFA oppose

It was the oppose. Saying that a user with 450 edits requesting adminship because it's no big deal annoys him is pretty bitey, and the way he said it... eeek! Special K(KoЯn flakes) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
• If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy •
·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 22:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd also expressed concern about my report of User:Fullyang to WP:UAA. I had actually created that account per an Account Creation request as part of my duties on the account creation team. I didn't notice until after I'd created it that the e-mail address was using the Fullyang.com domain name. Do you still think the UAA request was wrong? I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Caulde/Archive, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.

I would also like to thank my nominator Realist² and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel ^(talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CHU

See Wikipedia:Changing_username#Medievalista_.E2.86.92_Xaverius Pls move to CHUU. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is already there. Original CHU requester went to USURP 13 minutes after making request at CHU. Useight (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Useight got it in one. Caulde 19:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Caulde/Archive/32's Day!

User:Caulde/Archive/32 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Caulde/Archive/32's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Caulde/Archive/32!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Caulde 11:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your quick and frank responses to the questions at your RfB. To be honest I would expect a candidate for bureaucratship to dodge the question or parrot uncontroversial and politically correct dogma, so kudos to you for being forthright. Regards, Skomorokh 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have a strong sense it will fail, but at least there is always tomorrow to look forward to. Kind regards, Caulde 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Theatre

Hey, this portal has been sitting at WP:FPORTC for two months now, could it be closed? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this

For whatever it's worth, I was just about to support with the following argument...Oppose per no reason provided and [2], but support per approached discussion like a discussion, [3], and [4]. Three to two means the support wins slightly! :) Also, although the candidate has been blocked several times, they all seem to have been unblocked as well. So, anyway, if it makes you feel any better, you would have had at least one more support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you say, it's of no significance now; given that the RfB is closed, but I appreciate the sentiment nevertheless. XfD isn't really my strongpoint if I'm honest, but then again it isn't that important for bureaucrats' in my opinion, unless of course there is an undeterminable mass on either side and discretion is important. With regards to the blocking thing, all of that was related to the nicely-called "cousin hacking incident" - it wasn't because of any policy-violating behaviour during my normal tenure. I hope to see you again some time. Regards, Caulde 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sportscity (website)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sportscity (website), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportscity (website). Thank you. Schuym1 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Opted to delete; see XfD. Caulde 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Schools

Now that Portal:Schools has the support of RichardF, Cirt, and SusanLesch, would it be possible to get a decision? Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will soon, apologies for the delay. Caulde 16:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick close

Just bringin' this up with you; I had closed Realist2's RfA due to his withdrawal, as indicated by the strikeout of his acceptance and statement of withdrawal. However, if you think he just had misgivings and needs to reconfirm I'm not quite sure what to do; reopen it? Just bringing this up to see what you think. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 17:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closed. Caulde 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sgeureka

FYI, you supported Sgeureka's RfA twice,[5][6] so I indented the second one. Best, - auburnpilot talk 21:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Kind regards, Caulde 21:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This time of year =]

·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs, 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Recognition

Thanks, mate. I appreciate the kind words! :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit problem

Hi, I'm sure it was accidental, but this edit [7] appears to have removed another editor's contribution. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, I will amend it now. Apologies for that, it was unintended. Caulde 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, looks like someone else has fixed it. [8] DuncanHill (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something small

I inadvertantly removed your comment regarding the Moreschi case on the RfArb page - I would like to state here it was unintentional. There's no beef on my behalf. Kind regards, Caulde 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings :P.

Seriously though, I wouldn't have noticed had you not inform me. :)

-- Cat ^chi? 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to working with you on other cases. Caulde 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth's RfA

I NOTNOW'ed seth's RfA, but I decided to get broader input on it as he is apparently an admin on two other projects. I've asked him to come by and expand his rationale for the bit here... but since I noticed that you !voted there after I closed it, I wanted to let you know that I reopened it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angry German Kid

I'm not sure how you came across this when you looked through recent vandalism. My edit was neither recent nor vandalism. Anyway, the reason I redirected it, is because the Angry German Kid is mentioned on the school page so it seems reasonable to point people in the right direction. The protection avoids anyone from recreating it. The redirect in question serves at least 50 people on daily basis. Not much, but it proves the redirect is helpful. I'm not seeing the advantage of deleting it. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that. Just no sure what you were patrolling based on your initial comment. How did you put those notes above this edit box? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#New page layout

Hey-hi Caulde.

I've offered a rebuttal to your comment on WT:Bureaucrats regarding the page's procedural instructions. If you have time to offer more detailed thoughts on why you dislike the instructions, I'd be grateful.

Happy holidays to you.

AGK 23:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Caulde 14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Eoghan Quigg

I think it is generally unwise to protect an article that is both tagged for cleanup and at AFD. Many articles get imprpoved while at AFD to the point of being kept (See WP:Hey), and your protection prevented such efforts. I am not saying you were wrong to protect it, as I have not reviewed the article history to see what extent of vandalism was happening; I just wanted to let you know about the special care one should take for cleanup articles at AFD, in case you had overlooked it. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, when I protected the page (the request will be in the RFPP page history somewhere) the consensus on AfD wasn't clear cut as to whether to delete, merge, redirect, keep etc. so until that motion would occur I thought it might be best to protect until at least we know what the immediate future of the article would be. I have unprotected now given that the AfD has been closed on the premise that it shall be cleaned up - which, more often than not – and as you say – is done by anonymous editors. Regards, Caulde 14:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:lugister seth rfa

You shouldn't understand it, because it is a HO. A HO is a "humble opinion". Some people don't think that's true, but in my HO it is true because he is a experienced candidate. HTH, MH LU^talk 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think RfA is a discussion; and, that editors should expect to have their statements challenged. However, I think you are correct; I got a little too involved. I'll back off. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to an opinion, just as much as the rest of us. I just thought it was slightly intimidating to keep replying to each oppose, as if they must change their mind. That was only my impression though, you may of course do whatever you wish! Regards, Caulde 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. I was getting too involved. Thanks for the heads-up. I don't normally get so involved in RfAs; I guess I had a strong opinion in this one. Regardless, thanks for the note. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Happy Anniversary

Indeed, thanks :) That year did go by extremely fast... seems like only a few months ago, really. jj137 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Mine is a year on Jan. 11th - unbelievable! I am also at a loss to why so many administrators are leaving - seems a shame, really. Caulde 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah

"Blah blah blah" and "kiddie admins" are verbal abuse (or rather, messages that can feel like verbal abuse). You handle yourself very well, but it's not necessary to respond to crap like that. If they stop, we can all forget it, and if they feel some kind of need to continually insult minors, we can deal with that at ANI. Either way, not your problem. Keep up the good work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You get used to it over a period of time, as I have done. Thank you for your comments though. Caulde 11:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible praise

If you are the person in the video (referenced on another talk page), I would like to compliment you on your obvious competencies and abilities to express yourself. If you are 12 years old (or whatever), you are far more advanced that we older folks are, as we hang on to the way things have always been and have fixed views that all should remain the same. Have faith in your instincts, as people always seek to maintain status and stop change. Wikipedia wants to be the EB, which it obviously can not be. It is up to people like you (young, assuming you are) to make the future in a new form. People your age have the best feel for what that is. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not the boy in the video however I appreciate your comments nevertheless. Thank you. Caulde 10:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Iross1000

Hi Caulde
a number of people involved in Sri Lanka articles are trying to figure out why Iross1000 was blocked in the first place. His behaviour was not particularly disruptive. Furthermore, there are no warnings on his user page, just an indefinite block out of the blue. I can understand the trouble this user is having in addressing the reasons for his block, given that those have never been communicated to him in a clear way. I would ask you to lift this block on procedural grounds (SPA not a valid block reason, no disruptive editing, no warnings issued).

You can find other users' opinion on that matter here. Regards Jasy jatere (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to this later; I have other things to address in RL. Caulde 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already found out...

...but yes, I am :). Not a child for long...Sam ^Blab 00:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns. :) Caulde 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

Checkuser does not establish innocence, especially with regard to meat puppetry. I suggest you discuss this matter with me urgently. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caulde, ~~I would appreciate if you not interfere in sock puppetry cases when you display obvious lack of knowledge about how the Checkuser function works. C~~ checkuser can provide technical evidence of a connection, but it can never prove innocence. If you think the user is not a meat puppet, you should explain why you feel so. Jehochman ^Talk 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur here with Jehochman, Caulde. A positive checkuser finding can be used to finalize a case, but a negative one makes no guarantee either way; an unblock would need to be founded on matters other that an unrelated finding with checkuser. — Coren ^(talk) 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed to leave User:Wiw8 unblocked and without any restrictions after discussion on their talk page. The level of doubt is such that I do not feel comfortable keeping the block in place. Hopefully they will not do any questionable editing related to Jonty Haywood, and we will not have to revisit the matter. Also, all observing should note that there is a general invitation on User talk:Jehochman for any administrator to refactor my blocks unless I specifically request that they don't in the block message. My only regret is that you didn't notify that you were reviewing the block on December 23. Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously apologise for any misgivings here – I was unaware I had caused any, but that does not constitute "obvious lack of knowledge". I unblocked given that the block for Wiw8 had been implemented for that sole reason – no comment by yourself was given for the specific reasoning for a block for Wiw8, instead only a vague mentioning of the two sock accounts (which I assume is the other two accounts, considering their patterns are much similar to the Kernow account – at least based on my initial research on the 22nd). I understand that an "unrelated" result at CU is very much different to a "confirmed" result – due to the fact that "unrelated" is only based on the accounts that are listed on the CU filing. You are at will to re-block Wiw8; however, given that at the time of the review on the 22nd, there was a convincing argument (and therefore AGF) that the said user would refrain from editing the page, even suggesting that he "[hadn't] edited the article since" and you were vague at best with respect to whether or not you wanted the account to remain blocked, I felt it necessary to wait for CU (which although wasn't conclusive) which was enough, coupled with the short testament on Wiw8's talk page to recusing themselves from editing the article, to think that an unblock was 'the right thing to do' in such circumstances. I admit to making a mistake and I will discuss this with you further if you wish. Caulde 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now that your unblock rationale was, "Insufficient evidence, but I'll ask for checkuser to see if there is additional, technical evidence before processing the unblock." It would have been best while waiting for checkuser to also notify me so I would not be caught by surprise. I had offered to not block or to unblock the user if they stayed away from Jonty Haywood. Since this account accepted that condition, they are apparently not here to promote Jonty Haywood, and therefore they should be unblocked. I have told them that they are free to edit the article so long as they are moving it towards compliance with Wikipedia content policies. Sorry for any confusion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an amiable conclusion – you may not necessarily want it, but if you wish, you may feel free to discuss this case at another time if there are any more developments. I apologise for the prematurity at which I unblocked this particular account, however, I do believe the same ending would have occured with your input (which I confess may have been the more preferable option). Regards, Caulde 15:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That also takes care of my only concern: that you might have misinterpreted the strength of an unrelated CU finding and used that as the sole basis for unblocking. Happy new year. — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You've an email, Caulde. AGK 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied. Caulde 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear Caulde,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]