User talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

USRD banner

This edit made a change to the USRD banner that removed |needs-map=no. Just a friendly reminder that our banner does employ negative logic on a few parameters, and that parameter is required, even if the answer is no. Imzadi 1979 → 00:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. I'll go back and fix that. I see there's only a few in the category so it shouldn't take too long. Kumioko (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the ones I found, just wanted you to be aware for the future. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted you to know in case there was a tweak to some coding that would avoid it. Imzadi 1979 → 02:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects next big Thing

Am I right to believe that now due to standardisation all WikiProjects have class = Category, Template, File instead of NA? Am I also right to believe that |class= is not need to be included in these cases since the banner will automatically detect the namespace? Do you know any exceptions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Your partially right. Not all projects use Category, Template etc. classes. If the project uses the WPBannershell template then yes it will automatically assess as certain namespaces like category and no NA is not necessarily deprecated. Some still use it to identify things like user pages, sandboxes and template doc pages. Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I only need to know if there are any WikiProjects that use "NA" for categories, templates and files. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but I'm not sure which ones. Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I see 1,429 banners with category class. How many are on total? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There are about 1750 projects including inactive and defunct...give or take a few. Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Another approach would be to check whether there are any categories in the subcategories of Category:NA-Class articles which I doubt. I think my assumption confirms. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think that the banner now automatically arranges to add "NA" in case it is needed. So in any case categories, templates, files don't need any extra coding from AWB's side. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Kumioko (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

wikiprojects

You are better at this than me. Could you respond at User talk:Bgwhite#WP:GER and make sure I have it right and make any corrections as you see fit. Bgwhite (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment of Marcus A. Smith

I noticed you have slapped a Start class assessment on Marcus A. Smith with this recent edit. Your action leaves me with several questions. The assessment indicates the article needs additional material and that locating reliable sources should be prioritized. While I have done some significant work on the article, your assessment indicates you are more familiar with the subject than I am (How else could you know that there are important gaps in the coverage of the subject?). What additional sources do you recommend consulting to cover material not handled by the current set of references utilized by the article? The assessment also indicates that the prose is "distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent". Could you provide links to the appropriate MOS guidelines that needed to be addressed. Finally, your edit history shows that this assessment was one of four performed during a single minute time period. Do you even bother to load, let alone read, the articles you are assessing before you slap a tag upon them?

The assessment process is only as good as the people performing the assessments. When you fail to perform basic steps such as reading an article before tagging it then the end result is worse than nothing at all. --Allen3 ^talk 03:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are reading too deep into it. I am attempting to mass assess thousands of unassessed articles giving them basic assessments so that they are no longer unassessed. The assessment process is and has always been a judgement call so if you think I made a made decision, change it, no big deal. I looked at the article in question and it looks good, I would say its probably at least a B class and with a few minor tweaks it could be a GA very easily. In the future though I suggest you be a little more calm and courteous when leaving comments. When provoked I have a reputation for responding in a matter that is likely to hurt your feelings and I will feel no remorse in doing so. Oh and I see your an admin, that figures. Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

oi! Agathoclea (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Civil war medal of honor recipients

I can't remember exactly, wasn't alot of Civil War Medal of Honor recipients not supposed to get an article? I want to say it was because of flag issues. User:Jwillbur has been creating Civil War MoH articles. Some articles appear ok and others are iffy. As this is your area of specialty.... Bgwhite (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The last I heard the Medal of Honor recipients and the Victoria Cross recipients were notable enough to each rate their own article. I do think that there are a few that will always be stubby because very little is known about them though. Kumioko (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

nested

I think now nested is not included in any talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

these left are these that have nested with other value than yes/no. I've seen low/now/yno for instance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also found a few with nested- or nested with no =. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems this was a problem cause by your bot at some time in the past. [1]. Maybe we add a tracking category in WPUSA to fix these all? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so if you look at the history it was already there when my bot edited it. Kumioko (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I fixed as many as I could. In many cases nested was mixed with other parameters. One more evidence we need simplified banners. I think now we can remove the code for the custom module. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah we can do that. Kumioko (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Now there are about 40 transclusions since CBM added some back (with value =no). -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit window changes

Thanks for commenting on the VP discussion on edit window changes; we've got another set of ideas if you want to chip in :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Image requested AWB script.

Traveler100 has an AWB script that better defines photo requests. For example, if the WikiProject Wyoming and Biography banners are listed, the image request will add {{Image requested|people of Wyoming}}. I told him about your WikiProjects module so he added it to his settings. The script is located at: User:Traveler100/imagereqproj. Bgwhite (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

The portal is tagged under U.S. Roads already, which is a subproject of WPUS. Therefore, tagging for WPUS is redundant. --Rschen7754 18:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

USroads is not a subproject of WPUS and never has been. The only time USRoads claims affiliated with WPUS is when we tag something. Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

deleting some redirects

There are 7 WikiProject Biography redirects that "could" be deleted. No article talk pages uses them anymore. It was suggested that the nothing uses them anymore before taking them to TfD. But I don't know what to do with the bot logs. Here is an example. Do you know what to do? Bgwhite (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Botlogs don't count. Just articles so you should be able to take them to TFD with no problems. Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Botlogs? Where? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

botlogs here

User:Kumioko/sandbox1 contains: Template:WikiProject biography Template:Wikiproject biography Template:Bio

I'm not sure what to do about T:WPBIO, specifically with it being on Template:WikiProject Biography/doc. Bgwhite (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reedy and I delete all the logs of Reedybot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikify

Hi, just to let you know that the Template:Wikify tag has now been deprecated. Please use Template:underlinked or Template:dead end from now on, cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I know, did I add it somewhere accidentially? Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, using AWB and continue to, see here. I've written on AWB's talk page to ask if Wikify can be removed as a suggested edit. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Trust

Just been seeing a few of your recent edits. Trust takes many forms. Sadly some people do not trust your judgement but I am hardpressed to find anybody not trusting your technical ability. I certainly can trust my judgement that if I edited one of those templates that they would turn into a pile of dung, whereas if I can proxy your work they would make sense. I am sure many others feel that way and not to get any credits for edits but for this needs doing. Anyway - maybe flagged revisions can be used to find a solution. Agathoclea (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your right there are some out there that trust me unfortunately there are far more that don't. As I mentioned in other venues I can live with that and I am continuing to edit in areas where I am allowed to edit but I am no longer going to edit in areas were I am not allowed or not trusted. There are plenty of things I can still do, it just means that some things will not get done unless those with the rights do it themselves. That's the cost of telling an editor they are not trusted. Kumioko (talk)

AWB edits

Hello, Kumioko. Thanks for all the fixes you have been doing to talk pages! Could you slow down though? The rules of use state that users should not be making more than a few edits (5 tops, in my opinion) in less than a minute. Thank you! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The general rule is ten a minute I thought. If I limit to 5 or less a minute I'll be here for weeks trying to get these edits done. Also, I have requested several bots in the past for this type of edit and they have all been rejected so getting a bot task is out. Kumioko (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

10 edits a minute? Could you please give me a link to where it says that? Either way, you have already made 10+ edits per minute (which you made after I posted this message) I know it takes longer, but I ask that you abide by the AWB rules. :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no direct link. Just discussions that have occurred in the past. Unfortunately no one wants to give a reasonable number so that when they want to put the screws to someone they (they being anyone who doesn't like the edit) can just use whatever number they want from 3 to whatever. Especially if they are an admin. Anyway, I don't feeling like fighting about it so I'm just gonna stop completely for tonight. For what its worth though the AWB rules don't say 5 either.Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This would also go a lot faster if someone else where helping out. Since its just me, I'm trying to maximize the use of my time. Kumioko (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the rules do not state -5, I was just saying it as a suggestion ("5 tops, in my opinion"). I don't feel like fighting either and I am not going to :). The rules do say "few edits a minute" though and I don't think 14 edits a minute counts as "few". -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

To me, 10 edits a minute is too fast, but it also depends on the person and what they are doing. Kumioko is one of the more seasoned editors with AWB making around 400,000 edits. So, I'd normally cut Kumioko a little more slack. (full discloser. I do consider Kumioko a mentor) However, if there are errors happening or he is working in an area that requires a slower pace of editing, then concerns should be raised and slower editing maybe required. 14 edits a minute for anybody and I would ask them to slow down. Bgwhite (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know if you notice any errors. The edits I am currently doing are very basic and doesn't require a long time (just a glance) to see whats being changed so that's why its so fast. I would also note that its faster because I have 2 versions of AWB open at the same time so when one is saving I am reviewing the other and I alternate back and forth.Kumioko (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography redirects

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October_10#Template:Wpbio Bgwhite (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New messages for you...

... at User talk:Magioladitis#Is that really intended?. Thank you.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 08:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian tracker

Please take a look when you have the time. I think that the picture from the Mason book (page 88), which is out of copyright, should be added. They did that for Icelandic Sheepdog. I haven't done that. If assistance is appropriate, it would be humbly appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I long ago gave up on uploading pictures. Its too much of a pain and too often they just get deleted. I'll take a look when I get home tonight though. Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I've been avoiding that. There is a large hassle factor. If you don't do the picture, your other assistance would be greatly appreciated, as always. Unfortunately, there ain't much on the web about this (that I could find). The discussion on the talk page of Golden Retriever (yellow retriever discussion) tends to bear this out. While I have books that deal with existing breeds, I've got precious little that deals with extinct ones. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– Connormah (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked my Email but didn't see anything. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I believe I did send something using the EmailUser function.... 13:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess it doesn't really need to be e-mailed so I'll post it here - it's about the NARA stuff - would you still be interested in helping out? I have some image accession numbers of some of the generals images. – Connormah (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. Sure. Just give me the numbers and I'll see what I can do. I'll try and go by the archives later in the week and get those. Kumioko (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds awesome. Here are the numbers of images that I have already uploaded at Commons, but I imagine that they are all in a group of photos (at Still Pictures in College Park) of General officer official portraits, so if you have time, you can also see the thread at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Requests, but any one of these images would be awesome. Thanks so much. – Connormah (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure no problem I should be able to swing by later in the week. I do notice that a lot of them already have images though. Am I looking for other pictures or just better copies of these? Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

These should all be in color (the ones with the numbers) - ideally I'd like a high-res scan of a color four star general portraits (with the four stars on the epaulets of the uniforms). Thanks so much. – Connormah (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'll see what I can do. Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Actually I think there are a bit more here if you don't mind [2] - they all seem to be in the 342 grouping or whatever, so I imagine that may make things easier. Thanks again. – Connormah (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not sure how many I'll be able to get done in one visit but I'll do what I can. Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	Medal of Honor
	Thank you for quality articles on recipients of the Medal of Honor, for quoting the wisdom "We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back.", applied to an honorable oppose, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (5 February 2010 and 22 January 2011)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

تشاو

You'll be missed. Godspeed. May you return soon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hate to see you go...

But I wish you the best of luck on your endeavors outside of Wikipedia your contributions will be greatly missed.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 21:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

300,000 edits

Don't think I'll let you retire that easy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's over 450,000 according to my maths, still it is impressive either way. Yea, please come back. I created lists of stuff for AWB work, your help would be appreciated!. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Projects, and happiness

Kumioko,

I didn't mean to denigrate you on Jimbo's talk page. I thought I'd leave a message here to explain my comments at more length. First, I have to confess that as far as projects go, I think the main thing that makes a difference is having a bunch of interested editors already here on Wikipedia. I don't really think tagging and organization affects things much at all. This spring, I tried to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Pteridophytes. I wrote up an initiative with a reasonable scope, made a big table to help track progress, and basically sent messages to all the people who had made significant edits to American fern articles to ask if they wanted to participate. Jaknouse (talk · contribs) and Richtid (talk · contribs) both wrote an article. And that...was it. Having a goal and an organized structure didn't really lead to a burst of activity, because there just weren't that many people working on it. If you have a lot of people busy editing, like some of the WP:MILHIST task forces, it makes sense to have a structure to coordinate them, but the structure itself won't make people appear, at least not in my experience.

OK, so if I don't believe placing articles in projects and so on helps, why do I go around tagging articles? Am I stupid? No, I do it for two reasons. One, if the project perks up in the future (Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, right?) it will hopefully be useful for people who do come on board to have things tagged. Two, frankly, even if it doesn't help much, it doesn't hurt and it makes me feel good, even if no one else particularly appreciates it. That's true of a lot of things, not just tagging articles. I spent a lot of time writing the article on this guy. I don't want to take it to GA or further up, because I feel it needs more information about his personal life that would be too difficult to research. So, a C-class article on some obscure guy that no one else on Wikipedia cares about. Why? Because it felt good to do, and when it was done, I was happy I'd done it. (And maybe it will help someone somewhere out there on the Internet, someday.)

The important point, I think, is that I find things on Wikipedia that make me happy and go do them by myself and I don't care what other people think. Maybe they think I'm wasting my time on some of the things I do. So what? I hope you can do the same for yourself. Right now, it seems like you have your heart set on things that require a lot of other people's cooperation. Whether it's getting a lot of people to show up and work on WikiProject United States or agreeing to make you an admin or getting a bot approved or whatever, you've chosen goals that you can't get to if other people don't get involved. Why should you make your happiness dependent on what other people think or do? Find something you can do by yourself that you enjoy doing—the simplest thing is probably writing articles about a subject you enjoy looking up and reading about, but I'm sure there are others. Then do it! Be happy! If people will give you stars and praise and so on for doing it, that's even better, but as long as you improved the encyclopedia and it made you happy, it's good.

You seem really caught up in social reform right now, and while it's a good thing to want to change Wikipedia for the better, I don't think it's healthy as a sole mission. I've been here for a long time now, seen a lot of people come and go, and in my experience, when people get caught up in trying to change or reform Wikipedia and stop paying attention to articles, they tend to burn out or come to a sad end. You're a good-hearted guy who's worked very hard to try and improve the encyclopedia, but you're clearly also upset and unhappy nowadays. I would much rather you could find yourself a niche where you can be productive and happy and not get stonewalled then be increasingly unhappy and bitter trying to get your way and not succeeding.

If you're feeling really retired now, don't feel obliged to post a followup. But I hope there's still a place for you here.

Best wishes, Choess (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post. Unfortunately most of the content and areas I have been working on (like templates) require admin tools which I probably will never get, I want to help with vandalism (because I have 22000+ pages on my watchlist I see a lot of it) but I can't do anything about that. In honest I truly do not care about being an admin, at all, but unfortunately things are getting to the point where you need the tools to do anything. Also, I am not a basic editor. I do edits and I did a lot of article creation and promotion, but I am interested in and damn good at the maintenance stuff too and there is a lot of it that needs doing. I find it more irritating than I should that I see these things and I either have to ignore them because I cannot edit them or spend time submitting it for someone else to do (like template changes) and then 50% the time they don't understand how to do it so I have to spend my time, doing something I,'m not allowed to do, so they can get "credit" for lack of a better term for the admin action. But then on my RFA's, I don't have enough experience in X area, because I can't make the change.

Another thing that really pisses me off is that we have so many asshole admin's running around blocking everyone they come across, protecting every article they touch and generally just being a pain in the ass. But I don't have the "temperment" to be an admin because I told some editor who wasn't following the rules and wouldn't listen the polite way where they could stick it.

You know the ironic thing is I restarted WikiProject US, the US collaboration, the US newsletter and a few other things to get folks to work together. But then I had a few rebels from certain projects start bitching and moaning about how I and the project where overstepping our bounds, displaying strong article ownership, violated 3RR several times and a few other policy violations but when I bring it up what happens, I get blocked, when I try and get them to stop removing the WPUS tag what happens, I am blocked or threatened that I am showing article ownership...but I wasn't the one removing, or telling other projects they couldn't add tags, to articles. The admins didn't stop it and several participated. They don't have a problem with WikiProject Bio or Milhist or several others that have more articles that WPUS, but they had a problem with us. So now the collaboration is shut down, the newsletter is cancelled and now that I am gone several and possibly all of the projects supported by WPUS will go inactive and or defunct because I was the one frankly keeping them going. But I was the asshole.

So although I very much believe in the project, its clear at this point it doesn't believe in me so its time to go. I will probably continue to monitor my talk page for a while and might do the occasional edit if I see a problem as I am reading (probably as an IP though). Other than that I have better things to spend my time on than to continue to be insulted, denigrated and bullied (not by you) for volunteering my time and trying to make WP a more productive, happy and collaborative place because some entrenched editors and admins feel threatened that I am swerving into their swim lane. Good luck and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity

You wrote:If I am brash and rude these days its because I feel strongly that these ideals and policies need to be upheld and my credibility was destroyed by an overzealous admin so now I see no need to be polite and politically correct. Several years of hard work and dedication was destroyed because one admin made a bad decision.

It piqued my curiosity and gave me an impression that you have been through a rough experience or maltreatment by an Admin, but when I checked your log it said that it was created just recently. Am I missing something here? :) cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes some trouble indeed. Its complicated but I was well respected (I think) till about february. I had been having ongoing problems with a couple users who didn't like WikiProject United States adding tags to their articles and removed them fervently. I finally got fed up with it and tried to get the issue enforced but rather than uphold policy they blocked me for submitting it. That was when my attitude took a left turn rather than staying straight. The reason my account looks new is because I got fed up and locked my account. After a couple months I wanted to come back but the software couldn't handle renaming an account with 400, 000 edits so we moved it to User:Kumioko (renamed) so that I could recreate the User:Kumioko account again. If you look at that account you will see the bulk of my edits dating back to June 2007. The ANI discussion where I was blocked is Here but there are several other discussions on my talk page, ani and others relating to it also. But this was the catalyst that caused me to really lose faith in the system and in the admin community. Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point and can very much relate to your predicament. (See This and then this) I think there is a tendency among editors of a certain category, to pick on good-faith editors who make edits they do not like. They object against those editors (in droves) by blowing absolutely trivial matters out of proportion to the point ridicule (and more problematic issues then get side-tracked).

This cliquish mentality needs to be weeded out. We talk about the existence of large-scale bias or an overall Wikipedia bias. IMO, this is what makes it worse. This propensity (present in many admin as well, not all though) to connive at the elitist abuses of admin privileges needs to go away ASAP. Otherwise nobody can rescue this project without banning literally scores of Admins and veteran editors in a day or so (only Jimbo and his few trusted friends can take such bold step, but will they? Probably never). Sometimes I wonder how on earth could some of these guys be elected admins and remain so with such obnoxiously supremacist and, pardon my candor, idiotic attitude here? In all fairness, I was lucky to have come in contact with some of the most respectable and worthy Administrators of Wikipedia also who time and again have upheld Wikipedia polices, before their personal predilections. P.S. Don't be disappointed there is no "up" without a "down". What is the point of winning a battle if you do not have to fight for it? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The end statement is the key here to me. I have no wish to fight anymore. I did that for years and I'm tired of it. There is too much of a barttleground mentality and too many people using the admin tools and their stature as an admin as a bludgeon. Someone recently asked me if I thought I was a Knight in shining armour and I quiped I was more like Shrek and all people see is a big green ugly ogre. Even Shrek one in the end and there is no winning here. There always seems to be some idiot who wants to fight about meaningless crap for the sake of it and I am tired of it. CBM is just one of many bullyish Admins who do too little work and then single out the folks who are doing all the edits. Look at his edit history, even in a retired states I have done more useful edits in the last 48 hours than he has. The majority of his edits in the last few days were to revert the good faith work of another editor. He does very little but waste others time and bring them down and he isn't the only one. There are a handful of bad admins that terrorize other editors and the place would be better off without them. Your comment about Jimbo is on point too and I agree that's probably what it would take but he unfortunately lacks the desire to get involved. Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, in that last line of my previous comment, by "fight" I was not, in any way, inciting you to evince battle-ground mentality. Allow me to abstain from commenting on any specific editor, but yes, there are Admins who knowingly abuse (with impunity) the privileges that they have been entrusted with. This is a downright odious way to play with community's trust. Why don't you request for adminship?? There are actually some editors who would like to nominate you? How about that? If you want I would co-nominate you but I think associating your name with a frowned-upon editor like me won't do you much good. The best part is, you don't have to edit Wikipedia everyday. But in 24 hours you'll be able to perform more useful edits than some (not pointing towards anyone specifically) admins can. Please at least think about it, okay! I am expecting an affirmative answer. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate that but I have tried and failed twice. Both were quite clear failures actually with stunningly low support rates. One back in about 2007 and the second one last month so its definately too soon. I doubt I will ever be an admin, on here anyway. Besides that I have basically given up editing on En as far as articles go. I may comment in discussions and levy a vote here and there but I'm not going to edit here at least for a while. Here are links to my failed RFA's, attempt 1 and attempt 2. I would also followup by saying your rep is more tarnished in being associate with me than the other way around. I am about one comment away from being blocked at any given time. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment here is pure wisdom, "The Wikipedia culture is one of the few who will let you be the scholar but restrict who can be the janitor.". Made my day. I also saw a lot of praise. I think if you had expressed it quite clearly as to why you want to be an administrator as opposed to remaining what you are, that would have helped you more the second time. Like the way said the other day, you feel the policies of wikipedia are bent, downright abused and need to be upheld immediately. Its incumbent upon an experienced and well-trodden editor like you to apply for adminship. You have already done your part. It's their loss. It's like comitting suicide after getting criticized in life. But, this analogy might not be a good one. So...don't retire. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately one or 2 votes aren't gonna be enough and there are far more that would oppose than support. Your right there was some praise as well and my failed RFA isn't the only reason I'm not editing here much anymore. I'm investing my time in Simple Wikipedia now. I'll still return comment here but my time is better spent there where I feel (at least for now) like my time is both appreciated and I'm trusted. There is a cost to repeatedly telling an editor they can't be trusted, the cost here is that there are other things I can do rather than continue to participate in a place where the majority don't want me to participate or don't trust me. Kumioko (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your valuable comments on the recent discussions. Magioladitis (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple English

If you can think of a few specific articles which can be addressed at Simple English, maybe like some of the core articles on a topic, I think we might be most effective in maybe specifically mentioning them in the newsletter. For some of the important articles which haven't changed much, I am in the process of trying to include articles from some of the most highly regarded public domain encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, in WikiSource, which could then be used as at least a source to determine what material should be included, and as a kind of template for articles. I am in the process of contacting a few other editors, one of whom is I think a professional reference librarian, about what other public domain sources might be useful for other topics. If there are any topics which are clearly woefully undercovered at Simple English, I can maybe make a bit more of a priority of copying the relevant articles on them to WikiSource. I started a list of the articles in the more recent highly-regarded Encyclopedia of Religion at User:John Carter/Religion articles. It's not perfect, but it does serve as a starting point. Maybe, if you would be interested, you could review which articles Simple English does have, and doesn't have, from that list and contact me, and I can try to do what I can about maybe focusing on content relative to them first. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John I appreciate it. Let me talk to some of the other folks over there and see if this is something they would be interested in. Kumioko (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Saw that there's a discussion about Simple English WP here, something's come up at Village pump that might be interesting (here) and at the Village pump (idea lab) (here). Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I also posted a link to these discussions at the Simple WP talk page here.Kumioko (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Way of thinking

Hello. I've just read your input on how some Admin. worked here (on an admin talk page). I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your very logical way of thinking. Thank you --Francparler (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See?? You're an asset bro. You're from a rare species of extremely/ridiculously logical editors. It just breaks my heart to see that you didn't pass the RfA even after attempting twice. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Its ok. Its just natures way of balancing out those who would use the tools from those who get them and then never use them, or rarely use them. On that note here is a little something you might find amusing.

"Wikipedia itself has no moral stature or structure, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be edited by vandals, sockpuppeteers, copyright violators, advertisers and editors who have their own agendas for evil purposes, but there are more good editors than bad, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good editors with the revert, protect and block tools!" Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

AWB edits

Hey, thanks for the advice :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem I hope it helps. For what its worth though I am not particularly well liked (hence the Semi-retired status) and my views of editing do sometimes conflict with some High status and entrenched editors with what I consider to be very narrow and conflicting views of what is best for the project. Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WPUS talk page

Greetings, friend. Minor thing here on the WPUS Talk Page. The top section "Greetings from GLAM" has been sitting there since March 2012 and doesn't archive. Should it? — Maile (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings to you as well. Its done. Kumioko (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

What have RF and his bots to do with the problems at DYK? How were they preventing any of the problems at DYK? Fram (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:State of Louisiana v. Frisard for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:State of Louisiana v. Frisard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:State of Louisiana v. Frisard until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not sure what this has to do with me. Kumioko (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a critical eye...

Hello -

You've made many edits to the List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. I have a new list in preparation concerning mainly WW1 recipients of the Tiffany Cross pattern of the MOH, and I would appreciate a critical eye's critique. If you have the time, its in my sandbox here. I too have been unable to find Siegel's picture. Thank you for any time shared, taken from your retirement. ☺ JMOprof (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job, I think its a good start. Here are a couple notes that might help.

1. Try not to use bullets, make the comments in Prose form instead.
2. Same with the bullets in the body
3. The lead should summarize information from the article but there are quite a few details in the lede not mentioned in the article.

I'm not really editing much here anymore but I'll take a closer look later and let you know if I have any more suggestions. Kumioko (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm in a mid-position here. The article I wanted to write is on the TC directly, but that redirects to the MOH page. The "List of Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor recipients" article is available, and that what I started to write. If I get far enough along, I'll drag in a sysop and break or change the re-direct, and propose this one as "main article." Thanks. Appreciate any steers you may be able to give. JMOprof (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Good luck. Kumioko (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't mind at all. Season's cheer. ...best, JMOprof (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ombudsman commission

Hi, I contact you as you took part in the discussion on Penyulap's talk page concerning the Ombudsman committee matter. I've started some proposals and discussion on meta about how best to reform the OC to fix the issues it currently has and I would be very grateful if you could drop by and voice your opinion at m:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw that that thank you. I will comment later. Kumioko (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Note to self about Meta

Watch this page and get account fixed on Meta: Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Kumioko (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I've left a reply about this for you at Snowolf's user talk page. Best, Thehelpfulone 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome thanks. Replied there too. Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 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. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 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. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Here, a slightly different one, but just as warm. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Kumioko

From Mrt3366: Christmas is the Blessed season which engages the whole world in a conspiracy of love! May your colleagues and buddies respect you.
May the angels shower their love upon you.
I wish you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Mrt3366/Xmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo" (Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year) Tony the Marine

Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

A longevity barnstar.

Wishing you the Peace of the season and prosperity in the New Year. Thanks for your contributions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC) 2013 File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year! Hello Kumioko: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 16:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Happy New Year! Best wishes for the New Year! Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Your welcome and thanks for the well wishes. Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC) WT:RFA#Rfacom I'm surprised I wound up going in the direction I went ... I was sure I was going to stay out of the fray. But everything everyone's been saying lately has been pushing me towards that Rfacom approach ... including your pessimism about candidates being treated unfairly and how that's never going to change. It's one of those Sherlock Holmes things ... if you've given up hope on everything else, then whatever's left must be the truth. I think treating candidates fairly is really hard, and not every random person who walks in off the street to vote in an RfA is going to be able to do it. But anyone can contribute factual information to an RfA, and anyone can vote and express opinions in an Rfacom election, and help elect people that are going to do a better job of it. Anyway ... that's my current position, I'd be happy to be talked out of it, or if you want to take it in another direction. Thanks much for your input on that ... it really hit me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Its a pretty good idea really. I think it has a lot of merit. Unfortunately I don't think the community has the collective will to agree to any sort of change for RFA and we will have no choice but to go with whatever Jimbo comes up with. I also don't have a lot of faith in the committee mentality on here. I think Arbcom started off as a grand idea and over time its pretty much flopped. Now its devolved to the point where anyone who is sent there pretty much leaves because they know after weeks of debate, that's what will happen anyway. I think that is much what would happen with an Admincomm. It would start off good but over time it would start to erode and be less a help and more of a burden. I still think that debundling is the way to go, and I am under no delusions that would work either. We need people with the ability to do things but they don't need to have the keys to the kingdom and the inflated ego's and sense of entitlement and superiority that many of the admins have. There are some good level headed ones like you, but a lot of flakes and a lot that just got the tools and never use them other than to edit a protected page or some other benign use. I used to have a lot of faith and belief in the project, but more and more I view the project as a noble idea but a lost cause. I hope that the RFA idea you have gains support, I think if anyone has a chance at it, its you. I just no longer have the faith in the community anymore to do whats right. Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC) An invitation for you! Hello, Kumioko. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks but I think I am going to sign off for a while. At least a few days, maybe weeks. Call it a wikibreak. I'm just finding this place less and less enjoyable and less fulfilling. Its too much like a bad combination of an Abbott and Costello routine and Don Quixote tilting at Windmills these days. Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC) It would be good to have your input, can I email you if we start putting a proposal together? - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Sure. Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 9, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @810  ·  18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Abstractly; You might be interested in a conversation I'm having with David Fuchs on my talk page at User_talk:Hammersoft#Re:_User_talk:Doncram. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Just catching up... "You get users like Alan that get blocked for petty shit like this and you have other users and admins doing whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want and we just turn our backs to it." ... well.... that explains why I said this in his favour just after the last block was enacted. I also made this edit trying to explain how many good edits Alan had made, but why he was blocked since he'd transgressed the topic ban so many times. I get short shrift back from Alan himself (including the schoolyard - "so-and-so called you an asshole" nonsense) and now this personal attack from you. Please demonstrate where I "get users ... blocked for petty shit" and "have other users and admins" doing what I want. And also where "we just turn our backs to it"? The community ban was enacted by the community consensus. The ongoing blocks were enacted by not me. I tried to close down the animosity between Alan and I. Yet you resort to personal attacks on my behaviour? Without evidence, I would ask you redact your accusations. I had respect for you as an editor but this is, by far, too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I know the RfA stuff sucks, K, but don't let it stress you. We shall overcome. (And don't take it out on a crat, we need their support :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) @ TRM, First I want to clarify none of that was directed at you but the situation (and perhaps at CBM whom I have a history with). You were not the one that blocked him 4 times for petty infractions and I know you did make some positive comments about him. I also don't condone or support the comments he directed at you. I know there is some history between you as there is with me and CBM. I thought and continue to think that the reason for this block was extremely petty and the edits he made, although to categories, where not in the spirit and purpose for the topic ban. I also think that he seems to have followed the spirit of the intent of that ban and the occassional non controversial edit to a category, should not get him blocked for a month. I'm sorry if the comments seemed to be directed at you, they were not. @ Dank, I'm not really worried about the RFA to be honest and this wasn't a bi-product of that anyway. I have no need for the tools at this point in my editing. I'm working myself out of the system not trying to get sucked back in. I was doing over 10, 000 edits a month and as many as 30, 000 but now I am down to less than 200 for the last couple months. Soon it will be less than 100. This was more to do to CBM and his black and white view of things with gray area. Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Still, you obviously care about the dysfunctional bits, even if you don't need those bits yourself. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I still believe in the project for some reason. I'm holding out hope but lacking in faith I'm afraid. After being on the receiving end of the stick last year for standing up to an editor who was violating multiple rules and seeing how no one cared or wanted to hear the whole story or even took the time to investigate the problem I basically lost my respect for the process. Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Simple English proposal at the Pump Hello, As one of the participants in the original Village Pump RFC about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting re-hatting of off-topic digression on VPP. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC) The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For always putting the project first, for having a sense of honour and decency. Rich Farmbrough, 06:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC). Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) January 2013 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for referring to another editor as "a piece of trash", while knowing such conduct to be sanctionable as a personal attack: [3]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Sandstein  21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC) No problem. This is the first block I actually deserved. Kumioko (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC) No, you also deserved the block for sockpuppetry I gave you. 28bytes (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC) That's arguable. Unfortunately the way the rules are written in order for a clean start to be clean, there is a chance of it being called sockpuppetry. Also, there were some false accusions of sockpuppetry in my case. There were assumptions that some edits were me because they came form the same proxy server. That is because the Checkuser tool is far from perfect and difficult to use. That's why I just went back to using my original one. Because of my high edit count, wide breadth of editing and my knowledge of things like templates, policy and the history of the place it would have been impossible to start over. It would only be a matter of time before someone recognized me. Kumioko (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Truthfully, my situation was what opened my eyes to how screwed up things were, how often we get things wrong and how crappy editors are treated. Before that I thought very highly of the processes. I thought they worked and often supported them. Know I know better because I have been through it. Those who haven't been through it do not know how often the tools get things wrong, how often one bad admin decision can cause terrible harm to the pedia and how quickly the community turns on one of its own for petty and simple reasons without even taking the time to look into the situation. Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Well, no sense in us arguing about the past, I suppose. The discussion's in the archives if we ever need to debate it. 28bytes (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Agreed, besides debating it now won't repair destroyed reputation. It won't change that my bot was shut down and it certainly won't change my chances of ever getting the admin tools and being allowed to contribute to WP on par with my knowledge and abilities. I was pretty well respected up to that point but that all went out the window because a user violated 3RR, I reported them and then I was blocked for a snide comment that I should do it too. But thats the great thing about WP right, we can pick and choose when to follow the rules and one whom and then whoever is the better liked Wikipedia wins the argument. Truly policial democracy in action. Kumioko (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC) So what? Not all that is true needs to be stated on Wikipedia. What would it have hurt to let K's statement pass without comment? This is a five year, 50,000 mainspace editor...shouldn't our goal be to get him to return to editing productively? How's turning over months old dirt gonna help? NE Ent 23:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks NE, its ok though. These additional comments from 28bytes aside I deserved this block. Pissed off as I was at Fram's comments and at the situation I still knew better than to insult another editor and I knew that making them was going to have repercussions. I'm just tired of Fram's shenanigans. Frankly I'm surprised it was only 24 hours. I was expecting a week. BTW, I actually have 150, 000 mainspace edits but you have to add these.:-). See you in a couple days. Kumioko (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page. Message added 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Please stop All that's going to happen is RF is going to get dumped on even more and you end up being sanctioned for disruption. NE Ent 12:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC) The only way Rich gets back into the community is if he decides to get on board with the collaborative nature of WP. If it wasn't Fram it'd just be someone else, sooner or later. NE Ent 12:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I'm ok with it being someone else if needed. Fram is too involved. Kumioko (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I see you closed it already. No biggie I am going to keep gathering my links and evidence. It will come up again eventually so I'll just submit it then. Kumioko (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Look at the numbers -- within minutes of opening the ANI thread you've got five strong opposes and zero support. It's not going to happen. You know I thought the AC sanction was stupid -- I said so at the time -- but everyone's just fed up with the drama and Rich's pushing the envelope; you're not doing him any favors by raising the issue at ANI. NE Ent 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC) You know I think its funny. I have seen a lot of folks say they think its stupid. I've seen a lot of discussions about how Arbom is bad and yet, no one has the guts to do anything about either. My core problem in this really is not Rich's block. He's a big boy and he brought a lot of that on himself. My problem is with how the case was handled, with the wording of the decisions and how its being enforced through a constant stream of harassment from one or 2 users. It pisses me off even more seeing how the community supports it. Rich had his problems but the majority of his case is built around his performing minor edits. It wasn't the mistakes, it wasn't a violation of admin tools use, it was because he was doing edits that some think are minor. It is absolutely ridiculous. And people say I am an asshole! I just don't like seeing bullies be allowed to do whatever they want because they are clever enough to make attacks look useful. Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback 2 Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. —David Levy 13:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Award for Kumioko The USA Barnstar of National Merit For your work relating to articles about the United States, and your efforts in revitalizing the United States WikiProject I hereby present to you this award. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I wish I deserved it but thank you all the same. Kumioko (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC) You do deserve it, just because other people disagree with your actions, I have faith that your actions were in the best interest of the editing community. I only wish others would have the same faith in me when I edit in certain articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Well I wouldn't worry too much about it. These days the only editor not pissing off another editor is the editor who isn't editing at all. Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Autistic_editors. Message added 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) re curtaintoad Hi,just want to say thanks on behalf of my son curtaintoad, your comments in the discussion about autistic editors helped to restore his high regard for wikipedia..he had been feeling pretty low about being blocked. There have been a few users writing supportive comments and they have had a big impact on him, yours were particularly helpful. So, once again, thanks :) WendyS1971 Talk 05:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Your welcome. Kumioko (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Comments like this from editors with this kind of attitude make me question WTF I am still doing here! Its edits like this one and this one that make me wonder why I am even still here. I tried for years to build a project so that editors would collaborate and make the place better and all I get for my troubles is shit like this. Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC) OK, big Diddily-Iddily. - I have opposing points of view on both these issues. (If you are unaware of Ned Flanders on The Simpsons, that opening was lost on you) WPUS etal - You've done something wonderful with that, provided a forum for the small and ignored projects. Or in the case of Texas, a big whopping state with a virtually dead project. The most recent posting I see over there is Alan Lefting posted about discussion for renaming state categories on parks. It was the perfect place for him to have posted this. Agree with that particular discussion, don't agree, it doesn't matter. It's the best example of what you created - one centralized gathering place for any discussion belonging to the state projects, whether or not any given state is a member. There are some states that may never have an active project again. But WPUS gives a singular editor a place to post a discussion about some little-noticed state. You did a really good thing, and it just might last a long time. If somebody wants to break out of WPUS, and they have the votes to do it, just wave a fond farewell. It's on their shoulders if they later discover their individual project has scant participation. Rich Farmbrough. I've noticed. I sympathize with Rich on what he's going through. But I haven't posted, because I just don't feel knowledgeable about the subject matter. But I want him to be able to get up off the mat again. There's never been a doubt in my mind that you have empathy for Rich because you have been similarly flogged. OK, somebody else noticed that and made what could be interpreted as snide comments. As we used to say in high school, "Big Wow...(yawn)..." People can say anything they want about that. Rich probably appreciates that he has someone in his corner. Rich has tried to help me with a couple of things - volunteered, in fact. I suspect Rich has helped a lot of people over the years. I read his talk page, and I wonder where those people are. You and a couple of other people seem like lone lights in the darkness. If somebody notices that and doesn't like it, so what? I'm glad you're on Rich's side. Somebody needs to be. Notice to Lurkers here: Don't assume I need to be enlightened about Rich Farmbrough. If you are the type who assumes that if you just explain it, the heavens will open and I'll understand all the grievous sins he's committed - I ain't interested. I've read it all. I know what started it way back when. And I've a pretty good grasp on what the situation is now. Who gets whacked and who doesn't. - Like everything else in life, it all depends if you have the right people on your side at the right time. I've just been amazed at some of the peacocks who manage to float by, those who regularly get blocked and instantly unblocked by someone else. There's so much B.S. and testosterone overload on WP. This is not meant to detract from the good-faith work admins and bureaucrats put into trying to do things right. But, man oh man, I'm amazed at what slides by. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I wished more people felt that way. Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Maybe they do, and for a variety of reasons haven't said so. In re to WPUS, those who are able to utilize the forum over there might not even be aware that you made that possible. And as for Rich, it would be preferable if things hadn't reached the point they did way back when he originally got his tools taken away. This has been festering for years, if I recall. I remember reading about it before it ever hit the Signpost. I'm not in the dark about what he's done. But I also don't believe in kicking somebody when they're already down. In regard to the current stuff, it really takes someone with knowledge like you have to voice the error of this. Quite frankly, a lot of people probably don't want to become targets by association. You know how it is. Just because they aren't coming forward doesn't mean they don't agree. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC) K, don't listen to the sniping, you're doing fine. If you do decide to use a script to enforce a wikibreak, please make it short enough that you'll be able to offer us your good judgment during the second round of the RfA RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Fake move requests Kumioko, I know you're familiar with WP:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, so can you please not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? Either take a break from editing or don't, but please don't troll us as an IP. 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC) That wasn't me. That IP as well as .58 are Proxy Ip's for the Navy used by tens of thousands of people. As surprising as this might be and as much as some may wish they were, most of the edits that come from those 2 IP addresses are not and never have bene me. Even though I was accused of it and the assumption was made that I am the only one in the Navy to edit here. Also, I haven't even looked at WP except to change my template from Semiretired to Retired. The only reason I even knew about this message is becausse I got an Email notification on my phone. This message is all the more reason I don't need to edit here anymore. Its obvious that any edit made from this IP will be accused of being me so its better I just stay away. One last note, I just checked and any IP from 138.162.0.0 - 138.162.255.255 are related to the Navy or Marine Corps so feel free to assume they are not me or you might end up blocking a whole lot of good editors for no reason. 138.162.0.45 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC) AN discussion Your edits are discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Fram. Fram (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)