User talk:Vodello/Archive4

"And as long as some people like to pretend that our carrying out of policies against posting private emails on the wiki is an attempt 'to suppress discussion' then we will continue to allow drama mongers to control the discussion of things on the site." [1]

Wikipedia Co-Founder Jimmy Wales
November 23rd, 2007

Vodello (talk) is busy preparing to devote 100% of his time to his future career and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Vodello is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2

Hi. I made this revert of your edit.

I think it's fairly well established that a simple support vote (without an associated comment) indicates that the voter supports the nomination / nominator's rationale. An unexplained oppose vote is more problematic for a few reasons (not providing useful feedback likely being chief among them).

It's fine if you don't want to see the user become an admin, but your behavior has been devolving on that page, and I don't think that's acceptable. I'm not sure I'd call it "hounding" to respond to so many support votes the way you have, but I don't think it's necessary or warranted. The request is going to fail. There's no need to make it more unpleasant for everyone involved by, for example, needlessly asking questions of those who support without providing an explicit rationale.

In the alternative, if you're going to insist upon such behavior, at least act consistently. For example, the votes by Tide rolls and Dwayne (among others) are submitted without a rationale.

If I were you, I'd take the page off your watchlist and forget about it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your intentions quite clear, and my social status is in not high enough on this site to defend myself. You can censor any other question or comment I have made aside from my oppose vote if it will make you happy. IShadowed can also have several comments censored to put the candidate's RFA in a more positive light. I have not read every single support vote, especially those made before #32, but I would have asked all voters, support or oppose, to provide some reason for their vote instead of none. It is moot now anyway as my unanswered questions will be censored. I will no longer post to the candidate's RFA until he reapplies at a later time for his 6th attempt at becoming an administrator. I will oppose, be 'hounded' repeatedly for daring to do so, and then censored for questioning supports. Rinse and repeat. Thing's RFA is at 65% right now. If you get it up to 70%, the odds of it passing significantly increase. I've been successfully bullied away from the RFA. Once you get rid of IShadowed and perhaps do some backdoor canvassing, you should get up to 70% in no time.Vodello (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I appreciate your participation there. In particular, your response to the so-called misapprehension has given me something important to consider (as I think about where to place my endorsements, if anywhere). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment

Rangers in six, huh .... always did think you had good judgment.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike. I'm a Braves fan, but the Rangers' extremely aggressive baserunning will get them the trophy. I think they'll lose Game 1 and Game 4, but that's it. Vodello (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

What's up with this diff? [2] It doesn't seem very appropriate for Wikipedia at all. Kansan (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke. I fixed it. Vodello (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (although a bit 'do what?' at the joke. You may have to draw a diagram). For some reason I find it gives me satisfaction to change someone's view based on 'seeing me in action'. And I could see that conversation going down the tubes if I didn't do something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]