Jump to content

User talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re:Citation templates

[edit]

I apologise for the late reply. I hadn't touched "S" so the way was clear for you. I had a little bit of time earlier so thought I would get through "T". Must admit that I am impressed at how quickly you have gone through them. Great stuff. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. I remember having the same problem a while back when it was being put together. It's easy to source a term being used but finding one that explicitly states what it means is much harder. I'm chuffed that we won yesterday, it takes a lot of character and gives us hope that when the takeover is complete we'll be able to stay up. We were going to sign Darren Purse and a forward on loan before the kind folk at the Football League decided to block it, because they want to help their member clubs who were messed around by sharks... Hopefully the deal will be done this coming week and we can start functioning normally again. I hope to see us challenging in the second division again by the time I'm 30! As a kid between 1998 and 2001, I was told how it had never been so bad but it was all football-based, we were managed poorly on the pitch and our chairman was an egomaniac. The amount of deprivation and human suffering I have seen and heard about over the last twelve months is not something I ever want to see again. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I have no intention of archiving the sections below to an archive until it is time to archive this entire page. I am very happy for people to have easy access to the discussions below, investigate the background and draw their own conclusions. I should note that I removed two comments which I did not consider conducive to productive discussion. I have no intention of restoring them, but for those who wish to read all comments, they were dated 15:51 4 October 2011 and 21:39 7 October 2011 (UTC+1). I feel that this is the time to draw a line under the matter; I have stated an intention not to take further unilateral action, and the vast majority of comments on this page are related to that. I will therefore not take any further comments on those events on this talk page.

But for the record, let me be clear. While I will not do it again, I have no regrets. My actions may have been wrong, but they brought to the fore the true mood of the community, in a way that discussion alone seldom can. On Wikipedia, due process is everything. —WFC— 14:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFC!

I really wish that you would reconsider your insult about "backbone", and consider rephrasing it.

Please remember that ArbCom volunteers shoulder a huge workload of ArbCom cases, and also do a lot of work behind the scenes, dealing with suicide threats, etc.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The solution for the above user is very clear cut, and the groups I have mentioned have shyed away from it for too long. I take on board the point that such phrases should be carefully considered, and in the past I have said things that I later regretted and retracted.

But with hindsight I would not retract what I've said. In response to your point on the RfA, I have no reason to assume any good faith in the person in question. A comment that extreme in isolation can be looked over, and I know I've been guilty of one as bad myself. The difference here is that there is a long term pattern. I'm sorry that I feel the need to say this so strongly, but backbone is an entirely applicable phrase in this specific situation. —WFC— 10:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from archive) Could you show me where arbitration was requested regarding Keepscases? I couldn't find anything. –xenotalk 16:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is preventing an admin from doing the blindingly obvious in the interests of the project w.r.t. Keescases? The nigh-on certainty of an Arbcom case, that's what. —WFC— 17:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't follow. You have suggested that the Arbitration Committee is lacking a backbone or has shied away from the Keepscases issue. Could you show me where the issue was brought before the committee? –xenotalk 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC) (In response to your question, probably what is preventing an administrator from exercising summary judgment on this issue is the long-running history [stretching back to before I was even active!] and the many previous threads on this issue, here, here, here, for example. An administrator who feels that Keepscases should be prohibited from participating at RFA should indeed raise the issue at WP:AN, as the issue has been discussed before and did not find consensus for a restriction; accordingly, summary action would be ill-advised)[reply]
A large majority of arbs have regular involvement with RfA and are aware of this user. If you are looking for me to confirm or refute whether the appropriate post was made on the right subsection of a subpage, I'm happy to concede that I don't know.

That, and you last comment, just reinforces my point though. People are scared of taking what they consider to be a necessary action because of bureaucracy. The whole point of RfA (as opposed to handing out tools based on robotic criteria) is that we are evaluating the judgement of admins to use the tools for the betterment of the project. Indeed, this judgement is a quality that arbcom voters look for. Bearing this in mind, on the Anomie RfA talkpage multiple admins and at least one current arb have stated in various forms their judgement that Keepscases has been causing harm to the project over a long period and needs to be stopped. And yet he hasn't been. Now, if we're not a democracy, and we're not a bureaucracy, what alternative explanation can you offer for why the matter hasn't been dealt with to my one? —WFC— 18:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that most editors would prefer the committee to act sua sponte only in exceedingly rare cases. To my knowledge, the issue of Keepscases and RFA has never been brought to the committee proper - so the committee cannot have 'shied away' from the issue as it was never given the opportunity to do so. That individual arbitrators have not acted unilaterally either is not surprising either, and certainly not an "indictment" on the committee as a whole.
People are scared of taking what they consider to be a necessary action because of bureaucracy → I do not think it is bureaucracy preventing administrators from acting unilaterally, but an apparent lack of consensus on the issue. In past discussions, the community has shown itself to be divided; with some feeling that Keepscases questions are fine (and even helpful), and others who feel they are disruptive. It does not surprise me that administrators will not act unilaterally in this case. For an example of the fallout that may occur when an administrator chooses to act unilaterally despite past discussions (as you suggest), see here.
Rather than railing against 'the committee' or collective 'administrators in general' (suggesting they are invertebrate), you should perhaps instead initiate a fresh community discussion on the issue to see if consensus now exists to formally restrict Keepscases from participating at RFA. –xenotalk 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be the wisest statement to make, but I wasn't being suggestive. Another few hundred KB of discussion might help, but in the knowledge that there is already consensus that we need to improve the RfA experience, I think I'll deal with this matter myself when it next pops up. —WFC— 18:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing how you 'deal with this matter' yourself. Good luck! –xenotalk 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WFC, what you are talking about would be a huge mistake on your part. The community has ruled in my favor time and time again. But if you want to be the guy who wastes their time yet again, go for it, I suppose. Keepscases (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that. —WFC— 13:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

Invoking IAR to edit-war

[edit]

...is probably not a good idea. 28bytes (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would invoking 3RR be a good way to defend restoring an abuse of the RfA process... —WFC— 19:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some value to seeing how the candidate responds to, or ignores (as that would be a justified response) the question. As far as I know there is no consensus for stopping those questions, and it has been discussed a number of times. Monty845 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that WP:EW does not require 3RR to be breached in order to block you for edit-warring, so the next time you want to justify edit-warring with IAR, do not be surprised if you are blocked without breaching 3RR. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WFC, there's no rule preventing Keepscases from asking those questions. If you feel that there should be then there are ways to do that - but edit warring is not one of them. Feel free to email me to discuss further. WormTT · (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm half tempted to get myself blocked simply to highlight the stupidity of the situation. I'll refrain, but I'm shocked at the number of people who would attack me for what is clearly an appropriate reason to invoke IAR, whether it was wise to do so or not. —WFC— 19:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's "ignore all rules", not "ignore what your fellow editors think". 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listening to sticklers for process is a rule. —WFC— 19:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll be able to convince me that Malleus is a process stickler. He does what he thinks is right, as do you and I. 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth it - don't climb the reichstag or some similar pithy comment. Like I say, there's ways to look at these things - this won't help. WormTT · (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You might want to read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Invoking IAR with a good reason justifies removing the question once. But if someone reverts you with their reasoning, then this is what WP:BRD is about: If someone reverts your bold action, discuss it. The edit-warring you did after Malleus' revert cannot be justified by the reasoning why you thought the question needed to be removed in the first place; you would have had to justify why edit-warring over it was in the project's best interest instead. Remember: Just because you think it was "clearly" appropriate does not mean that it really is clear, especially when a number of good faith editors disagree. That's why we have talk pages to discuss conflicting opinions. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask, if this is so vitally important to you that you have to edit war over it, then place a personal note on the page, why haven't you just posted to the talk page to discuss the matter? It doesn't seem like other editors either agree with you, or understand what you're trying to do. Dayewalker (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've pussy-footed around such issues several times without definitive conclusion. I felt seeing what would happen if I attempted to remove a disruptive comment from a user with a long-term pattern of disruption was absolutely necessary. I knew there were two possible outcomes: the edit would stand, and once the editor in question realised it would be difficult to do anything about it, or it would be reverted quickly and I would be lambasted for my subsequent course of actions. It was the latter; I can fend for myself, and am left in no doubt on the position of other users in relation to this matter. While I have no regrets at any damage the action might have done to my "reputation", I reiterate that I have no intention of continuing direct action. —WFC— 20:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find another topic

[edit]

I suggest that you leave Keepcases alone.

If, as you have repeatedly claimed, the community has reached a consensus, then the community can act without your butting in, again and again, despite the gentle cautions of Xeno and other editors (above).

If action be taken against another editor, you are not the one to lead such action, because you have shown yourself to be utterly deaf to the community, this past week, despite a lot of good-willed advice from neutral parties.

We have a million articles and a hundred thousand editors. Find something useful to do, within your present competence.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would endorse that advice, and I also didn't like this. --John (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the bluntness, but there have been many gentle hints by our kindest editors. (I myself have benefited from direct and temporarily irritating advice, so I certainly empathize with you.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main page appearance

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on October 17, 2011. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/October 17, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watford playing in front of the Rookery End at Vicarage Road

The competitive history of Watford Football Club began in 1886, when English football club Watford Rovers competed in the FA Cup for the first time. The team joined the Southern League in the 1896–97 season, and renamed as Watford F.C. in 1898. Under Harry Kent's management, Watford won the Southern League title in the 1914–15 season, joined the Football League in 1920, and moved to Vicarage Road stadium (pictured) in 1922. After spending most of the following five decades at the third and fourth levels of English football, Watford's fortunes changed dramatically in the 1970s. With financial backing from local-born musician Elton John, and Graham Taylor as manager, the team ascended through the leagues. Watford won the Fourth Division title in the 1977–78 season; they came second in the First Division five seasons later, with Luther Blissett finishing as the division's top scorer. In the following campaign, Watford competed in the UEFA Cup for the first time, and also reached the 1984 FA Cup Final. Since relegation from the First Division in 1988, the team has spent all but four seasons competing at the second level of English football.

Your username

[edit]

Just a word of advice, I find anyone who pledges their allegiance to any football club, however good or, in your case, erm... questionable, in their username just opens themselves up to problems. Change it, and change your Wiki-career. – B.hotep •talk• 23:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WFC, I hope you don't mind me adding my 2p here, you've been on my watch list since working on the Marlon King article a couple of years ago. FWIW, I disagree with Bubba. I cannot see your username making one iota of difference to how you are perceived here by the vast majority of contributors. As for a Wiki-career, that in itself is a questionable notion. Just my opinion. Finally, very well done on the featured article. Best. Leaky Caldron 09:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleasantly surprised to come back and find advice unrelated to the furore above – how dare I put my neck on the line to expose how little appetite there is for meaningful change on this site? I have thought about changing name in the past (more because it's cumbersome than anything else), but on balance I think I'll stick with the name I have for now. I normally have a couple of natural wikibreaks during the year, before which I try to tie up the loose ends I'm involved in. Should I ever decide to change, I would likely do so at the end of one of those. Best, —WFC— 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that I'm screwed then. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Re:Glossary of association football terms

[edit]

Sorry for taking a week to reply. I was a bit busy in real life at first and than I got embroiled in a rather ugly dispute which got me blocked for 72 hours. It happens, I guess. As for the glossary, I'll run through it and see what I can do, although the Leigh/Wodehouse book Football Lexicon is more like a humorous lexicon of pundits' cliches than actual football terminology (I actually bought it because I was once hired to write about local football matches for an international news agency). Timbouctou (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

[edit]
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

New Page Patrol survey

[edit]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello WFCforLife! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

[edit]

Hey WaitingForConnection/Archive 7! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetable oils FLRC

[edit]

This might not be a bad time to stop back in at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. The overhaul of List of vegetable oils has been finished, so it's a good time to mention any remaining issues. Waitak (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

[edit]

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

  1. Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions)
  2. Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions)
  3. Greece Yellow Evan (submissions)
  4. Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions)
  5. Ohio Wizardman (submissions)
  6. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  7. Canada Resolute (submissions)
  8. Russia PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

2011 WikiCup participation

[edit]
Awarded to WFCforLife, who reached round 2 in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

Ivan Sharpe

[edit]

Hi, do you have a copy of the Trefor Jones book, or any others that provide a write-up of Watford players. If so, please could you add a cite to both his article and Nationwide Football Annual, detailing that he edited the News of the World annual? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the only words the Watford Who's Who have about his off-field career are that he was "A leading sports journalist for many years," (if that quote is of any use it's from page 208). Sorry I couldn't be of more use. —WFC— 01:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

Nomination for deletion of Template:TFLsound

[edit]

Template:TFLsound has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Template talk:TFLsound

[edit]

Template talk:TFLsound, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template talk:TFLsound and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template talk:TFLsound during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive_7&oldid=1142698997"