User talk:Veesicle/2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am sorry. I do not know who wrote that article under my user name, obviously using my password. I have changed the password, and I don't know who User: Tonya Bel is. - User: Xunex
Didnt mean to blank that page. It was a mistake. Thank you Thund3rl1p5 00:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by Grafikbot 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"Vandals"
Just gave you a wikicookie, thats all. I dont see how that could be viewed as me being a vandal? Thund3rl1p5 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"for my tireless defence of wikibullys". Don't try to misrepresent the facts, please. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Just stating the Facts Thund3rl1p5 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to continue this with you any further. I suggest you read up on blocking policy (and our personal attacks policies too). Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your RfA
Hi Veesivle, I have added an optional question to your RfA. Good luck, Gwernol 02:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks a lot for your support at my recent RfA- I have now been promoted. J Milburn 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Veesicle! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrbtalk 17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
 |
2, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, |
'Support' and 'Oppose' in RfAs
Thanks for your clarification. From what you've written, it seems we are mostly in agreement on the principle of how RfAs ought to be discussed, but not necessarily on how that ought to be implemented or how they ought to be closed. As you noted, the fact that compromise is rarely possible in an RfA (an editor trusts a candidate or she doesn't; a candidate is promoted or she isn't) makes attaining pure "consensus" extremely difficult when there is significant disagreement. But trying to create consensus when none exists isn't possible; that's what I perceive to be the flaw of the current attempt at RfA reform.
I'm all for trying to build consensus during an RfA discussion and if such attempts succeed, that's great. But if they don't, then I think vote-counting is an appropriate decision-making criterion in this case (e.g., 0-65% support automatically fails, 80%+ automatically succeeds, and b'crat discretion for cases in between). The problem I have with the current attempt to change RfA is that it has consisted so far of this: "given that it's difficult to create consensus in RfA, we'll just ignore any reasons for opposing that we find to be trivial, inappropriate, or [insert some subjective judgment criterion here]". Discounting the comments of others based on the fact that we do not agree with their reasoning is not consensus.
Regarding the comment you made at WT:RFA (and on which I initially commented): I can understand your frustration, but do not see a ban as the solution. I think that as long as they are not being obviously disruptive, editors should be able to write their comments however they wish, including prefixing them with 'support' or 'oppose'. I hope my comments shed light on my position and the intent of my comment. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Your RFA
Hi! I have closed your RFA as it did not have the level of community support needed for me to promote you. You may try again after a few months. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007
The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007
The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
don't worry
No worries, just felt like replying to Pciaroon and formatting that section on the RfA. No more bullshit from me for today. Sorry for the inconvenience. I just felt like making it clear to anybody. Bloody alcohol. Hey, my GF just arrived. Sex! 84.44.174.127 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. You won't be doing any more block evading for 31 hours, I assume. Try not to edit Wikipedia whilst drunk; there are much more exciting things to do. User:Veesicle 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Stone Cold Chillers Unite
We are up against the corporate government, voters find themselves asked to choose between look-alike candidates from two parties vying to see who takes the marching orders from their campaign paymasters and their future employers.
--EndlessDan 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Stuff
Hi Veesicle- just want to request that you consider rephrasing your position on VanTucky's RfA discussion. K. Scott Bailey is irrelevant to VT's qualifications, and in my opinion your comment will only serve to perpetuate a counterproductive side-discussion that is winding down of its own accord. Thanks, -Pete 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct, sorry for the trouble. User:Veesicle 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello
If I in some way offended you, or one of your friends, during my discussions of this RfA, I apologize. I am glad that you did not hold it against VT, though, as he is a great editor. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 22:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- No apology needed, I'm not offended, just a bit tired of seeing you pop up everywhere claiming that everyone's arguments are invalid. User:Veesicle 01:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have been considering "retiring" from RfA, as I think that my good-faith attempts to defend good candidates' records has been counterproductive. Thanks for your criticism, even though it was worded a bit roughly at the RfA, I accept it, and will consider changing my focus from the promotion of good admins at RfA to some other venue. Thanks again, and best regards, K. Scott Bailey 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you don't realise, but when you are as combatative as you are it tends to be more of a detriment to RfAs than a help. User:Veesicle 07:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have been considering "retiring" from RfA, as I think that my good-faith attempts to defend good candidates' records has been counterproductive. Thanks for your criticism, even though it was worded a bit roughly at the RfA, I accept it, and will consider changing my focus from the promotion of good admins at RfA to some other venue. Thanks again, and best regards, K. Scott Bailey 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
my rfa
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.