User talk:SR Bryant

Welcome!

Hello, SR Bryant, 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:Questions, 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! --JW1805 (Talk) 05:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

To answer your question, please see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule for policy about reverting. The general rule is don't revert more than 3 times in one 24 hour period. But, in the case of the Flag of Texas troublemaker, he was a sockpuppet of a previously banned user, so 3RR didn't apply. Also, 3RR doesn't apply for correcting random vandalism. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me 3

Please consider rephrasing your oppose vote, as it is both insulting and runs against the spirit of WP:AGF. Obviously, since you just registered on Wikipedia 48 hours ago you wouldn't know that CSCWEM has been nominated twice before, and after a few dozen people had offered to do so he decided that it was best to self-nominate given the mitigating circumstances of RFA 2. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me too before making baseless and insulting assumptions about other hardworking contributors. Silensor 05:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this pattern too many times in Washington not to be able to spot it when I see it. Clown Will Eat Me will win his self-nomination, and a few months from now either you or I will look like a fool. I hope you will come back at that time and we can determine who ended up with the jester hat. --SR Bryant 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing some interesting patterns myself as well, and I'll leave it at that for now. Silensor 05:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can take your not to subtle threats and shove them were the sun doesn't shine, Silensor. I won't be bullied into voting one way or the other, and I think your comments go toward proving my point that something really stinks about this nomination and those supporting it. --SR Bryant 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have another account on Wikipedia, you might want to log in with that one instead to vote. The Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page has the following to say about voting and commenting in RFA: "Who may not vote: Editors who are not logged in ("anons"), or do not have an account. Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry." Extra points for your insinuation that all those who are in favor of promoting someone who deserves to be promoted "really stinks". Silensor 06:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that threatening me because I won't change my vote isn't doing your candidate any favors, right? --SR Bryant 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to feel threatened. Your vote will likely be discounted as a new user / sockpuppet, I just wanted to point that out in case you were not already aware of how votes and comments are presently being weighed by closing bureaucrats at RFA. And I do very much look forward to seeing you here a few months from now! I hope you will continue to contribute under this name. Welcome once again. Silensor 06:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, counselor.

As a fellow member of the bar, I can assure you that votes for adminship on Wikipedia are nothing like what you've seen in Washington. We have a potentially unlimited number of admins, so there is no jostling for seats, and the standards for adminship are not prohibitive - any Wikipedian who sticks around for a few months and makes a few thousand edits without vandalising or otherwise demonstrating bad character or incompetence will generally get the nod. Bear in mind also that adminship is not a position of authority so much as it is an assumption of additional work - deleting nonsense pages and materials which the community votes to remove, blocking repeat vandals, protecting vandalised pages from edits, and so forth. There is lots of this work to be done, and we are eager to put these tools into the hands of those who will do the work that must be done with them.

On a completely different topic, you may wish to add yourself to Category:Lawyer Wikipedians, and I hope you will consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Cheers! BDAbramson T 06:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and I will join your groups. As for the vote, I would have considered changing it given the information you gave me in its non-coercive form. I find it reprehensible that so many others thought they could sway me with their strong-arm tactics, however, and I won't be changing my vote for that reason alone. --SR Bryant 06:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read the comments directed towards yourself, and I personally find some of them unreasonably harsh, so I'd like to apologize on their behalf, and of course welcome you to Wikipedia as well. =) — TheKMan^talk 07:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, Wikipedia is sort of like Ross Perot's vision of government by town hall meeting - those who address an issue most passionately may not do so with restraint sufficient to allow their message to over-ride their emotion - but maybe others in town would approach the issue differently. BDAbramson T 00:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]