User talk:Gurch/Archive 11

This 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.

Please stop making mass amount of edits in a space of 1 minute. You may be running a bot without bot flag and violates the

This is not a bot, it is simply an account I am using to deal with vandalism. Such edit rates are perfectly acceptable and dozens of people will edit at this speed while dealing with vandalism – Gurch 03:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed – Gurch 12:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Qxz: Just looking at the above alteration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derby_County_F.C.&diff=next&oldid=114658627

Any particular reason for removing my link? (Derbygoals.co.uk)

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjpreston (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 May 2007.

Ah, sorry about that. No, the link is fine, I just had to find an old version of the page to revert to to get rid of all the "Insert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text hereInsert non-formatted text here" that someone decided to add. Looks like I went back slightly too far – Gurch 01:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(removed) is not a very informative edit summary and certainly doesn't explain why you are removing song sample links from multiple pages. John Cardinal 14:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'd checked the file description pages, you'd see that I uploaded these and have now tagged them for speedy deletion – Gurch 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Hey Jude, and you didn't upload it as far as I can tell. The stated criteria doesn't make sense; sound samples are not edited like article pages and the lack of edits to it are not relevant. Why are you deleting it? John Cardinal 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You uploaded a version of the file, but a version existed prior to yours. If you somehow control the latest version, it seems that a revert is in order, not a deletion. John Cardinal 14:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The general criteria for speedy deletion cover all namespaces, articles, files and other pages. In cases where I uploaded the file in the first place, I can therefore request that it be speedy deleted, provided no significant edits have been made to the description page (the bot replacement of a template hardly counts as 'significant'). In the two cases in which I uploaded over a previous version, that version was longer than 10% of the original song and therefore not acceptable under our

fair use guideline for music samples. It thus needs to be deleted as well. The reason I'm requesting their deletion is because three of them have already been tagged as having no rationale, and the rest would likely follow. Rationale or not, they would be deleted in five days anyway because administrators only use scripts now and don't actually look at what they're deleting. I'm also starting to be bombarded with template messages with big warning signs on them on my talk page. I don't want that. I'm therefore getting rid of them now. – Gurch

14:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they need to be deleted and I am willing to try and get an Admin to look into it. Will you assist, or at least be neutral, if I can make that happen? John Cardinal 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If they remain, then within a few weeks another eager media tagger will come along and tag them again. And I'll have more warning messages on my talk page, and they'll be deleted again. (If you think I'm being pessimistic, this has happened before with other files I've uploaded). If you like, you can download the files you want to keep and re-upload them; at least that way you'll be the one pestered when they go – Gurch 14:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give me a day to try and get this resolved. If the Admin says there is nothing we can do, then I'll give up. If he thinks he can fix it, I'll download/re-upload so you will be out of the loop in case it happens again. John Cardinal 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've summarised the situation as I see it and proposed a resolution at User_talk:Kingboyk#Help.2C_please:_Beatle_.28and_other.29_song_sample_deletions. Please comment. If you both agree, we can action it asap. Cheers. --kingboyk 15:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(I've seen the message on kingboyk's talk page and would like to give some extra opinion). While the users are clearly tagging the samples properly, I'm inclined to disagree with Gurch that CSD G7 is the proper thing to do here. Generally speaking, he is allowed to tag those samples and remove their links, but that's not improving the encyclopedia. We should at least give other users a chance to add a proper fair use rationale, if Gurch is unwilling to do so, to avoid a situation where the user who's going to retrieve them next will ultimately be the one bombarded. Michaelas¹⁰ 15:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably within his rights but not necessarily the best outcome. Never mind, though, it was done in good faith I'm sure. I've proposed that John add FU rationales and "adopt" the files. I can roll back the removals using admin tools (or "undo" if no longer top edit). --kingboyk 16:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, do you hereby agree with the removal of author-requested speedy deletion tags to permit the issue to be addressed? Michaelas¹⁰ 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes... but if they are kept, I have a feeling I'll be hearing from the file-taggers again soon. Oh well – Gurch 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't, if they have good rationales.

WP:KLF haven't had any complaints (so far, touch wood). I've also asked John to make it clear that he should get any notices in the future. --kingboyk

17:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

All samples should now be restored. Michaelas¹⁰ 17:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the fair use rationale per Kingboyk's advice. I guessed at the source (Past Masters Volume 2 CD)... If that is not correct, will you let me know so I can correct it? Thanks. John Cardinal 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this [1]!

See you, Bruno SL 00:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am truly thankful. I am so sorry that I had to have you teach me, that has to be a pain. I hope I did this right....if not i'm truly sorry. Thank you again! >.< Ikeyko 23:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gurch,

I know that warnings should be put at the bottom of the page, but my patrolling tool was primarily designed for fr: where warnings should be put (unfortunately) on the top. I submitted a request to the tool developer for it.

You may want to find a different tool, in that case. There are many available, and that would have the added advantage of giving the edit summaries in English instead of French.

Is Gurchzilla a bot, or assisted by you? Thank you, ♦ Pabix 11:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bot, and it's not "assisted" by me, it is me, as it says at the top of its talk page. I just use a separate account for dealing with vandalism – Gurch 12:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I just fixed the code. I cannot modify it since the .js pages are (by default) protected, so I forked. If you still have some comments about it, please tell me! ♦ Pabix 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

From commons:User talk:Golbez & wikinews:user talk:Bawolff

You recently deleted the wikipedia ads saying: creator/original uploader req; belongs on enwiki, not commons. Well they are free content, and we're using them on the english wikinews (not all of them all enwiki specific), why shouldn't they be at commons. Bawolff 03:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. While I don't have any problem with you using the ads on projects other than Wikipedia, can we try to organize things a little better? As uploader of the images I would have appreciated being notified that they were about to be deleted from Wikipedia, but I was not. When I found that files had been moved without regard for this, or preservation of the description page, and with no apparent reason for the move, I asked for them to be moved back.

If you wish to move them back to Commons, you are welcome to do so, but please do not delete the local description pages, please do not use the wrong license tag and please link to

w:Template:Qxz-ads on the Commons description page. You may also find it useful to copy the contents of that template and modify it as appropriate (I'm aware that Wikinews uses a different license, however barring trivial modifications I'm the author of the template and I'm not bothered what you do with it.) The ad project was originally a personal project in my userspace, I only uploaded the images for my own use and moved it out of userspace because I no longer had time to fulfil requests. It took a lot of time to create the images and while I can't impose any license restrictions on them I can ask nicely that people not misuse them within Wikimedia projects. Thanks – Gurch

20:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding. I'm glad you're okay with me re-uploading them. As for them being deleted, that is what the english wikipedia admins did. They deemed that it fell under the speedy deletion policy, and I have no control over that, you'll have to take it up with them. I did not request their deletion, I only noted that there was a version on commons. I believe everything was correctly tagged on commons, and linked back to the template. (however I uploaded them a while ago, so I don't 100% remember.) If that is not true, I'm sorry about that. I assure you that we are not misusing them in any way (to my knowledge). Sorry for all the confusion and happy editing. Bawolff 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you running a bot for double redirect fixing? Is it authorized? --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No – Gurch 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask, did you give up your adminship when you left? If you did, may I respectively request that you ask for it back. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. You may request all you like, but I can't have it back without an RfA – Gurch 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what controversial circumstances you left over, admitidely there was the Qzx stuff, but you weren't abusing multiple accounts and many users wanted to nom you for that account. Are you interested in being an admin again? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the Qxz stuff happened after I left. Er, the first time. I started a new account precisely because I wanted to get away from adminship (which is why I refused all offers of nomination). Then I left again. This account seems to be controversial enough now that nobody would offer to nominate me anyway... at least, that's what I thought, until just now. I ran an unauthorised deletion bot last November, and made a lot of inappropriate blocks that were overturned, among other things. Oh, and I used IRC, so I must be an evil scheming bastard. Look, none of that matters, at the end of the day I've been contributing to this project for 19 months, I've made god knows how many edits, I was an administrator for six months and I do not wish to be one again. I am quite capable of contributing usefully without adminship, and I don't think you can argue I haven't done enough for the project. Adminship is not compulsory and I have nothing to gain from it. Is that really so difficult to understand? – Gurch 23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand all the reasons you've given above, you are certainly doing an excellent job just the way you are now, personally, I think you should be an admin - but I'm not going to attempt to force anything on you. Just keep plugging away as you have been because it's very much appreciated (oh - I agree that because you use IRC you are an evil scheming bastard!). Just remember, that whenever anyone gets pissed off at you - that you most certainly have contributed more than them! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. My reward for four hours' work fixing redirects seems to be accusations that I am running an unauthorised bot. Not really appreciation. But surely the flood of meaningless barnstars I get for dealing with vandalism counts, you say? No, it doesn't. Especially not when I'm blocked for 24 hours for doing so. Oh, and accused of running an unauthorised bot again – Gurch 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember you got blocked for being incicil when you were leaving, you also had been editing just about non stop for 24 hour periods without a break - it sounded like you were annoyed at the way wikipedia was working. Your vandalism work was amazing, I remember a couple of weeks ago you were reporting users to AIV every couple of minutes - in the end, I didn't need to check them out to know they should be blocked. What I'm saying is that you work is appreciated, some people will get annoyed with you - like in the thread above, they just don't realise the speed you work at. When you start getting questioned for making wrong descisions, that's when you need to worry. I envy your dedication to the project, I wish more people could be like you because in about a week, everything would be sorted, we'd have no backlogs and everything would run smoothly. You need to understand that people will get pissed off, they always do, but it's more jelousy than anything. You should be proud of the flood of barnstars you got - it's shows how much you are appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I do wish people would stop repeating that "he left because he'd been editing for 24 hours" thing. I can't remember who said it, but apparently people like mindlessly propagating such things, and nobody cares to actually go check my contributions that day. Anyway, I wasn't referring to that block, I was referring to this one. Which was incorrect and swiftly reversed, but I still had to suffer the indignity of an autoblock and a line in the block log.

Anyway, you also seem to have forgotten I was an administrator long before Qxz ever existed. And had resigned before he existed, too. Please do not try to pin my refusal of adminship on anything that happened to Qxz because by the time I created it, I'd already made up my mind. After resigning adminship I left in a perfectly civil manner; I'd simply had enough. That was in January. Qxz's departure, on the other hand, was provoked. I didn't handle it well but the point is the two events are not related – Gurch 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

...hey, kid, R is 12 y/o! Do you want me to put myself in jail? ;) And you'll get a day... be patient, everyone will... but I can only have one Wikipedian per day, I can't go any faster! Seriously, thank you again for your help, sweetie - you and I know why ;) Love! Phaedriel - 23:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that... must have been past my bedtime ;) Severo^TC 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Gurch, why are you blanking all those talk pages? Anything wrong? Phaedriel - 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked for 48 hours until you can explain what the hell is going on. Daniel 02:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you need to go take a break for a while, but we'll be waiting for you to come back. I'm sorry you're so frustrated. For every 10 people on Wikipedia, 6 people think they know copyright, and 1 person actually does. Sean William 02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know it's me who blocked your account for 48 hours. You should really cool off.--Pharos 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me for saying "Let it all out" Daniel on someones talk page but that's exactly what he needs to do. The project is so overwhelming and so far off from perfection and completion his shoulders can't stand the burden. 99.244.236.121 02:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch: you'll not that, in the conversation, only one person was truly confused about our free content, and it wasn't a Wikipedian. Some people just don't get it: please don't waste your time on them. Well, we all know how our best contributors leave... I fear... sigh. Do come back.

Come on, man! I know things get frustrating sometimes on Wikipedia, but you need to think about why you're here, and if necessary, take a short break to cool down. I hope you do come back, Gurch, because your work here has always been appreciated. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your frustration, blanking multiple pages is not an appropriate reaction. Both this account and

Aren't indef blocks reserved for accounts used solely for vandalism? 99.244.236.121 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They're meant to be preventative measures. An indef block like this seems punitive.

Gracenotes^T

§ 02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. He just needs to cool down. Sean William 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When a one-time easily reversable incident happens a "forever" block is a little over the top. Nevertheless it should be week to allow time to reflect. Actually I suggest he openly discusses it to let out his feeling on this talk page. 99.244.236.121 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to reflect. Someone on IRC was trying to criticize Wikipedia's take on a lot of issues, and Gurch patiently explained why those ideas were not realistic, and in my opinion, inflammatory and pedantic. I guess... there's not much to say. Gurch, this troll should not deserve the credit for making you leaving Wikipedia. I... don't know.

Gracenotes^T

§ 02:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "forever" block but an indefinite one. If Gurch can explain both what is going on and why there is no further threat from him, the block can be lifted. Blanking pages is vandalism, if another admin feels Gurch no longer threatens to vandalize Wikipedia then they are welcome to lift the block. Gwernol 02:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, Gurch, take a little while to calm down, relax, and do return. You've done much, much good to let it all end like this. Besides, if you leave, how will I give you a day? :( Email me if you wish to blow off some steam, k? I'll be there if you need me. Love, Phaedriel - 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah man. I (somehow find a reason to) get pissed at this site(or the people on it) every day. I need a cool off period before I do nasty things once in a while. I hope you realize that the good always outweighs the bad and come back. It would be such a waste for such a wonderful contributor to leave. Wikidan829 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What up? bishzilla _ROARR!! 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

some of the ads are now at commons again. I reviewed the license tags on the page and could not find one example of them being mistagged. (The only semi-example is the edit box one which had the wikipedia-screenshot tag on it. That was because it was of an older version then the one currently at wikipedia. When I uploaded it to commons, that was the right tag for the version I uploaded acording to the image description page at the time. I have since uploaded the newer one not based on a screenshot with the proper pd tag.). Anyways if you could be more specific about that, or if there are any other issues with this or anything else, please let me know.

P.S. I didn't tag them {{

P.P.S it appears you've now left, or are going on an extended wikibreak, or something. Anyways, if you're no longer here I'll understand if you don't respond, and good luck in whatever your future endeavors are. If you're still responding to messages, please feel free to leave me a message on my wikinews page, or find me on irc (usually #wikinews and #wikinews-en on freenode). Bawolff 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In short, what the hell happened this time? o.O —Миша13 10:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that every time me and you have a conversation, you end up leaving?! Something must really have got to you last night on IRC, I don't quite know what, but you were frustrated and blanked a few talk pages - not the best idea, but not something you should hang for and understandable in the situation. I had a look at that 24 hour block you got for the so called 3RR violation, hmmmmm when was reverting vandalism added to 3RR??? I think what you've got to understand is that one administrator completely ballsed up with that one, and quite rightly took a bollocking for it, it wasn't anything personal, it could have happened to anyone. Maybe some admins are a little trigger happy, but the point is it was quickly sorted in the end. Now, what do we do about this......

• Take a break, get off the computer for a bit, have a cup of tea if you wish. Think about things and answer these questions, is my work appreciated on wikipedia? Have I more to give here? I should hope both these answers are yes.
• I'll unblock you when your ready, both accounts, then we can forget about what happened here and you can move on with your excellent work - no time frame, if you want to come back in 5 minutes, I'll unblock you in 5 minutes.

Hope that sounds OK to you, the emails always there if you need it. All the best --Ryan Postlethwaite 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for fixing that double redirect to Wikipedia: Personal security practices. Much appreciated. Best,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, could you participate in a new poll for

WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2

22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

I just spent my lunch hour deleting redirects that you tagged as broken, so I think its safe to say welcome back. I've seen very few people who contribute as much to this project as you do, and I'm glad to see you decided to come back. Pastordavid 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hurray! Welcome back, Gurch.  :-) --Iamunknown 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Good to have you back sir, you've been missed - all those back logs were growing at a tremendous rate! Keep up your hard work :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I must say you're really anything but boring, Gurch... >_> Миша13 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• ***real96 huggles Gurch.
  Real96
  06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Have fun editing again! =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Question...

What the heck...first you fix redirects from

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States then after an obvious sockpuppet (Divestment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) once again unilaterally moves it back, you fix the redirects again! Why not just revert his changes instead? That would have saved a lot of time, wouldn't it?--MONGO

20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the choice between entering into a move war and doing my best to clear up the resulting mess (you'll note I also requested move protection), I chose the latter – Gurch 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, but wish you had examined who did the last move before you went and bothered to once again fix redirects. Whats going on with you anyway man..if you're frustrated, take a break...we need the old Gurch back.--MONGO 20:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The "old Gurch"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? The pre-adminship Gurch laboured under the false assumption that things were being run transparently and with some degree of competency. The admin Gurch saw a lot of stuff that for the most part he didn't feel like interfering with, some of which concerned him greatly. The sockpuppet Gurch tried and failed to ignore it, and this Gurch has, frankly, had enough.

Yes, I'm sure you'd love it if I went back to doing nothing but hour after hour of dull maintenance work without raising objections to anything. That's not an option. "Take a break" doesn't help, things don't have to be like this, and if they weren't, I wouldn't need a break – Gurch 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point...I don't think your current efforts will make the difference you indicate need to be made.--MONGO 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition...this comment is bull. I have been an active participant on all efforts to keep links to attack sites off wikipedia...my comments to said effect are all over the No Personal Attacks talk page--MONGO 20:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you're at fault for suggesting a user who disagrees with one of your proposed guideline is unfit for adminship – Gurch 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong...admins need to protect our editors from harassment that is imported here from these websites. I can't support anyone for admin who would support the potential or overt efforts to link to websites that spend either all or a lot of their time trying to identify the real life identities of our editors.--MONGO 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Harassment that is imported here" equals "personal attack". We already have a policy on that, there's no need to mechanically rule on which websites can and cannot be linked to in order to enforce that policy. I don't know why I'm trying to explain this to you, when others have clearly already tried, though perhaps the fact that you're not rushing to deny me adminship means you may listen to me. Opposing a proposal which one percieves to be intstruction creep, overly restrictive and open to gaming is hardly the same thing as "supporting attack sites". As for "admins need to protect our editors", frankly if someone gets themselves into a hole they can get themselves out of it. You know what? Once I saw a personal attack on a page and didn't remove it! Seriously. I was in a rush and had better things to do. Does that mean I "support personal attacks"? Apparently so – Gurch 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck no..I figure something is eating at you...I have no idea what has been going on in your Wiki world. I have listened to the arguments about linking to attack sites and I don't agree with them...these wesbites are nothing but hot air anyway, fail RS miserably and serve only to make the overall editing experience of our editors less than pleasant at times...lest we forget that many of these comments are made by banned or blocked trolls with an axe to grind. I can't fault you for NOT removing an attack...so long as you didn't put it there in the first place. There may be times that a PA is best left for the offended party to review...it would depend on the level of the accusation of course.--MONGO 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused now; your mention of reliable sources and the fact that comments there are made by blocked editors suggest you're thinking of the wrong application. Of course nobody would even suggest that these websites be linked to in articles. But there are other namespaces as well. I do not see the need for a blanket blacklisting of all websites that contain a personal attack – Gurch 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Suppose someone set up a MySpace page with personal attacks on it. Would we blacklist the whole of MySpace? Of course not. So where do we draw the line? Do we blacklist a wiki because it contains a personal attack – even if the site is otherwise useful and they're just a bit slow at dealing with abuse? I would certainly hope not. So does it come down to defining whether a site is useful? You may think you have a clear definition of that, but it is subjective and open to abuse – Gurch 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

blogspot.com is in the same position,

SqueakBox

21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I just read DakotaKahn's latest comment on the RfA: "No link to attack sites could be termed good faith." This, I think, demonstrates the unreasonable attitude that people are taking. Does he really think that? Even if it was added by a newcomer? Even if someone typoed the URL? What on earth happened to

Assume Good Faith?! – Gurch

21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, the difference is that a very very few wesbites make it all or part of their mission to try and collaboratively or independently figure out the real life identities of some of our editors...this is not a major focus of websites such as myspace.--MONGO 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not the sole focus of Wikipedia Review. It wasn't the sole focus of Encyclopedia Dramatica. It's not even the sole focus of Wikipedia Watch. So what it actually comes down to is a definition of "major"? Again, very much open to abuse; not difficult for someone influential to turn a minor thing into a major one (one could argue this has been done already). You must realise that, just like Gracenotes, I'm not advocating that links to such sites be allowed to remain in place if they're deemed to be against our existing, quite sufficient policies – Gurch 22:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's a big, big difference between "site with a page containing a personal attack" and "website that makes it all or part of its mission to try and collaboratively or independently figure out the real life identities of some of our editors". Gracenotes' desire not to have the former universally blacklisted is being interpreted as outright support for the latter. I am absoutely certain this is not the case – Gurch 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I just blocked you for 24 hours for trolling in Gracenotes RFA and for reverting Musical Linguist warning, what is wrong with you, you should know better than that being a former trustworthy admin and such. And your recent block history doesn't help nither. Maybe this block will calm you down

^{wat's sup}

20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it – Gurch 20:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just take a break from editing for a while. I myself been rarely editing the last few months and it's been very useful and refreshing. Wikipedia isn't everything. There is other activities you could do. I understand that you were just trying to protect your fellow wikipedians but that's not the way of doing it by trolling in the RFA. Thanks

^{wat's sup}

20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problems here are not going to go away on their own. Why should I give in, back down and see them continue as badly as ever? – Gurch 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced your present approach will resolve the issues (where I tend to agrere with you),

SqueakBox

20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I – Gurch 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If it means anything, Gurch, you are like the coolest Wikipedian I've ever seen in action. If only I were as brave as you, not that I have anything to lose here. Fight the Power!—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you have a clear opinion and are involved in the matter, how do you justify your blocking of someone with a strongly differing opinion? I could understand you asking a uninvolved admin to perform the block, but it seems rather inappropriate for you to do it yourself, given the situation. --Constantine 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I was being a complete imbecile – Gurch 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

Ah, cheers, thanks for the clarification. I appreciate you dropping by my talk page to explain. As I mentioned, I wasn't offended at all and was just cautioning against employing certain language that could derail the discussion towards something more negative and personalised and steer things away from the subject at hand, which is your man's RfA. Thanks again for the note! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[Gurchzilla] Editorial assistance

I apologize for not recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page:

bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM ) 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I have now recieved a featured article userbox and a block for 3RR violation for exactly the same edits. Amazing – Gurch 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I assume you appealled the 3RR as your edits were for the benefit of the project. Your efforts were laudable. If you are in any trouble someone is not thinking straight. Keep at it. bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM ) 00:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Thank you Thanks for your explanation, Gurch, I appreciate it. It's a pity the candidate didn't see the need to explain properly ... :-( SlimVirgin (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC) It's relevant because if a person has made 5,700 edits to articles, and thousands of these were bot edits (or bot-like) which can be racked up in a matter of hours, and there are only 343 edits to article talk, it suggests limited understanding of the encyclopedia, limited interaction with other users over content issues, and therefore a limited ability to deal with these as an admin. It's also worrying that the candidate himself didn't point these things out. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) There's not much point in arguing about it here. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, but the relationship. If someone has made 5,000 edits to articles, I want to see more than 300 edits to article talk. Otherwise, we're talking about someone who just hits save thousands of times in a row, without interacting. This isn't a useless thing to do if the person is reverting vandalism, for example (though thousands of GN's bot edits were not reverting vandalism), but there's no need for adminship, and no preparation for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Categories Hey. I'll be doing that today. *huggles* :O--§hanel 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC) gracenotes the rfa doesn't close until well after shabath is over. I will review it again after havdala. cheers, Tomertalk 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Template:atn It doesn't work here :( 16@r 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC) For some strange reason subpages don't work in the Help talk: namespace. Notice how there isn't a link back to the main talk page at the top of the archive page, either. Unfortunately there's no way to get any template to work automatically in such a situation because {{SUBPAGENAME}} returns the wrong value (the whole page name, minus the namespace, rather than just the subpage name). Use {{ archive-nav|4}}, instead (change the number 4 to the archive number, if you add it to other pages) – Gurch 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) suppressed? It's quite a strong allegation to say another user "suppressed" your comment, esp. when that comment was a) clearly too long for the RfA page and more suitable for the talk page and b) simply moved there for the convenience of all participants. —AldeBaer 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC) "Convenience" of those who don't want anyone reading it, certainly. You'll note it was dumped in a section labelled "Moved from talk page" with absolutely no indication of which comment I was replying to, and no indication was made in place of that comment that I had actually replied – Gurch 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC) "those who don't want anyone reading it" is simply renewing the assumption of bad faith, you realise that, I take it? If you want to make it clear which comment you were replying to, why not simply insert that info on the talk page? —AldeBaer 23:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) A 40-user pile-on oppose initiated at the whim of a few users? Sorry, I'm well past assuming good faith now – Gurch 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Hi Hey Gurch, I understand, and to a great extent share, your frustration regarding the Gracenotes RfA. However, I humbly suggest that it might be best for both you and the candidate if you step back for a while. -- Visviva 06:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Your opinion is noted. The fact that the RfA is even an issue, however, is evidence that the adminship request process has gone too far, and the slew of oppose votes for the same, highly questionable reason is bordering on insanity. The project has already suffered, significantly, because dozens of users who should have receieved adminship did not, and dozens of experienced users have been driven off. This is perhaps the worst instance yet, and it stands to suffer a lot more. Frankly, what happens to me or Gracenotes is of little interest if the project as a whole can no longer maintain itself – Gurch 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Re: Warning established users "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia." does not seem to me to be an appropriate way to communicate with contributors who have been with us since 2005 and have thousands of edits, such as Ali doostzadeh. I recommend that you assume apparent vandalism by such established users is accidental unless additional evidence suggests otherwise, and leave a polite and personal message informing them of their error, rather than using a template that is not intended for such situations. Thanks – Gurch 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't know he was established. Is there a way for me to check how old they are, or do I just go into the earliest contributions of that user? GrooveDog 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Going to their contributions and clicking the "Oldest" link at the top of the page should get there quickly. Generally, if a user's userpage and talk page links are both blue, you know they're not completely new; if they're editing a page that isn't an article, that's also a sign that they may be established. Also if a large chunk of text disappears but more, new text is added, this generally indicates accidentally reverting to the wrong version, a browser problem, of something similar – revert such an edit and then re-add the new text, by all means, but one should think before using vandalism warnings. And after a while, you get to know people and recognize an established user when you see one (I have a private 'whitelist' of good users saved in a text file, which for example you're already on, as are Griot, Yonatan and Real96 above). Anyway, there seem to be a couple of messages regarding this sort of thing on your talk page, so while the odd mistake is inevitable, a little more caution might be necessary and would be much appreciated. Thanks – Gurch 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Gracenotes RfA First, thanks for your kind comments re Q13 on the talkpage. Secondly, I apologise for amending your comment in response to said question. I feel it important for Gracenotes to realise that he doesn't have to answer the question. If you are not opposed at my GF amendment (since correctly reverted) do you wish to re-add it? No problem if you don't and, like I said, my bad for doing it in the first place. LessHeard vanU 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC) He probably will, too, but thanks. It is a shame that someone who is prepared to honestly answer (nearly) every question then gets every word picked over to provide ammunition for the opposers... LessHeard vanU 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, well... It was exactly what I was expecting, a GF answer providing a avenue of attack. Gracenotes appears to always AGF and be honest; an admirable trait in an admin, but perhaps not so wise in a candidate. LessHeard vanU 09:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I tallied the oppose vote in the neutral section, and advised the editor by talkpage and email. I have since advised the editor that it has been moved. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC) {{Template category}} When did this start to systematically sort everything in category:Template categories? It completely negates the point of using subcategories! Circeus 03:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Nevermind that. I was looking for the category:Wikipedia templates tree. Circeus 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC) The idea is to have a similar system to that used by {{ Wikipedia category}}. Project categories are arranged in many levels under Category:Wikipedia administration, but are also added flatly into Category:Wikipedia categories. Having a list of all project categories easily available can be useful, and it requires no extra effort on our part as the categorization is done by the template. Similarly, template categories are in many levels under Category:Wikipedia templates, but also placed into Category:Template categories so that one can see them all at once if desired. As these categories are generally only in one or two other parent categories, I think having an extra link on the category bar at the bottom of the page is acceptable. Obviously template categories should be subcategorized by type, use and so on as well – Gurch 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I know. I just accidentally stumbled on that cat and got it confused with category:Wikipedia templates, which I have used repeatedly in the past. I feel really foolish right now Circeus 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Hmm, now you come to mention it, that could be rather confusing. I'll look into making the descriptions a bit clearer and linking one to the other. Thanks for bringing this to my attention – Gurch 03:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Your(?) Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia may or may not be failing I loved it. Are all our articles written by high-school kids with no knowledge of the subject? Is this a bad thing? Or has Wikipedia inadvertently done something rather impressive – taken the millions of kid-hours of spare time that these people would otherwise have wasted on video games and MySpace, and actually put it to productive use? Is the project run by abusive, power-mad adolescents? Or is this an unfair generalization from the inevitable disruptive few? Amen NightFalcon90909 Talk 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Congratulations! You are hereby awarded the Happy Falcon Award for inspiring me with your essay. NightFalcon90909 Spread WikiLove RfA Thanks for correcting my mistake. The page was a bit unwiedly and so I stumbled. Sorry about that. Str1977 (smile back) 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Script thread diff No comment... GracenotesT § 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Comment from Refusedalways "RESPONSE" I am disapointed and angered by your arrogance. Who says you have the right to deny the world knowledge of an existing band? If you wish for further proof of Empire On Fire's existence you may as well enter in: 'www.myspace.com/empireonfire' for your proof. This disgusting over-editing is the bane of Wikipedia. If you feel that we have no participation in the world of music, then you you should have been present at our concert on June the first. Very well, sir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Refusedalways (talk • contribs) 16:18, June 4, 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilyD Oppose per Q3 answer. An admin can't just take 5 days off because of a stressful incident. Somewhere along the line, you forgot that this is a voluntary project – Gurch 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC) I probably worded that comment wrong. What I was trying to say was that in MY opinion (remember, I don't have to agree with everyone), it's not a good sign to abandon the article, and the conflict, just because it bothers you. As a sysop, (I assume) you won't be able to shy away from conflict and let someone else deal with it, and that was my concern. By the way, is there a reason you didn't bring this up with ! Review me! 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Yes, because I know you, have some degree of respect for you, and expected better. I reiterate that everyone here contributes voluntarily in their own time, and nobody, administrator or not, is required to do anything. Contributors are not only able but encouraged to do whatever they feel is necessary to avoid issues within the project affecting their real lives; the last thing they need is for any problems they may have to be compounded by a stressful situation here. Furthermore, people fit their contributions to this project around real-life concerns and can easily disappear for a day, a week or several months before returning; often at short notice. I sincerely hope you wouldn't hold anything against a user who was involved in an accident and hospitalized for five days, and therefore unable to participate in a discussion in which they were involved. The same principle should apply no matter what the reason for their absence may be, as any concern – including a break to reduce stress – that affects a user's life is far more important to them than this project, administrator or not. Insisting that a user may not take time off from the project is unlikely to have a beneficial effect – indeed, it may eventually lead thm to stop contributing altogether. Bear in mind also that opposition to adminship is quite a strong statement – you are effectively saying that you do not trust the user – and try not to hold another user to a standard which you yourself could not achieve. Thanks – Gurch 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC) I am not suggesting that leaving the project for real life concerns is bad. I'm not condemning, or complaining, about wikibreaks, etc. However, neither of the cases mentioned are relevant to this case. I opposed this on case basis, not a blanket oppose, because I didn't think highly of the user taking what I considered "the easy way out" in a conflict. They didn't do it because of a real life concern, and I would've voted differently had that been the case. ! Review me! 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC) As you must surely be aware, real life has many stressful situations. The last thing someone wants is a difficult day at work only to have to come home and deal with this place. If that's more than they can take, they're not exactly going to quit their job in favour of Wikipedia, are they? Please understand that stressful situations here can have repercussions outside the project. I will happily discuss this matter further, complete with examples from personal experience, via a private and confidental method of communication should you so wish – Gurch 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC) I don't wish to discuss this in relation to real life, because the case at hand was not based on real life issues. However, I don't think we're getting anywhere with this, so let's just call it quits, eh? The RfA is over, the candidate is successful, and I've said what I needed to say. ! Review me! 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Foundation & 18+ policy Thanks for your comment re "ageism" at DoomsDay349's RFA. Do you have any pointers to the accusations you mention? There's no great rush, I have to go off-wiki for a couple of days. Regards, Mr Stephen 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (Sorry to pop in) I think Gurch may have been referring to the Board of Trustee's resolution on access to nonpublic data, where they detailed that only Wikimedians who are "at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside" and whose identities are known to the Wikimedia Foundation may have access to nonpublic data. I don't know where specific accusations of ageism have been lodged (probably in the archives of the Foundation-l mailing list), but that is where some people have been at issue with the foundation lately. --Iamunknown 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia disputed policies and guidelines I don't think this is such a good idea. P&G are only rarely disputed, and then for a short time, and most often when the {{ disputedtag}} is used, it's actually used wrongly over some disagreement over the wording (e.g. "we disagree on the wording for now so hereby I revoke this policy" - happens surprisingly often). As the help page of disputedtag itself indicates, disagreement over the wording of or a section of a P/G does not invalidate the P/G (because if it did, we'd never get anything done). >Radiant< 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I was hoping a category would help prevent such misuse by drawing attention to pages on which it was used. But I guess that wouldn't work anyway. Never mind. You can delete it – Gurch 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, done. It's a well-meaning idea, but you wouldn't believe the wikilawyering we already see over guideline pages. >Radiant< 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia content That's a reasonable point, and I also see the cat is empty. I suggest it could be speedily deleted. >Radiant< 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC) And by the way, good job at brushing up those gl categories, keep it up! >Radiant< 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Actually I don't think you're confused at all and seem to be doing a good job. The list of guidelines was a bad idea to begin with (List of policies is ok but gives some wrong impressions, but in both cases the cats are far better). I've always wondered why I seemed to be the only one using CAT:G into subsections (other than NC/notability/MOS, which are good) if you can find a useful cross-section; I'd say "deletion" and "behavioral" are good bets if they have enough pages. HTH! >Radiant< 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah If you're looking over these areas, I'd appreciate it if you took a look at WP:LAP; if you find any policies/guidelines/essays that appear to be mostly or essentially redundant to one another, please list them there and they may eventually get merged. >Radiant< 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I'd suggest renaming the notability cat to "notability guidelines"; it shouldn't contain anything that isn't a guideline, and I don't see the need for a supercat that also contains any number of arbitrary essay rants on the topic. Same for deletion, really. It's okay if the cat contains guidelines and process pages (since the latter are, in effect, guidelines as well) as long as we can keep the opinionated stuff out. POV essays don't really need to go anywhere except in CAT:E; we have way too many of those as it is and there's no real sense in giving them more spotlight. >Radiant< 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Monobook.css/.js Hey - I hope you don't mind, but I'm new around here and I noticed that you seem to know a lot about the technical side of things. I was looking at Slan-cheh 19:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC) There are two special pages in your userspace. (In fact there are more, but only two per skin, and the names change if you select a different skin from 'my preferences'. I'll assume you're using the default, 'monobook' skin). You can use CSS to customize the appearence of the site. To do so, edit User:Slan-cheh/monobook.css. Once you've saved the page, be sure to clear your browser cache or press CTRL + F5 to ensure the changes take effect. One thing you can do with CSS is turn off a lot of annoying stuff in the interface. For example, the copyright warnings on the edit page – once you've been here a while you don't need to be reminded on every edit. Adding the lines, #editpage-copywarn {visibility: hidden} #editpage-copywarn2 {display: none} #editpage-copywarn3 {display: none} to your monobook.css page will hide them. Many other changes are possible (font sizes and colors, the appearence of some templates), however, copying-and-pasting stuff that other people have come up with requires knowledge of CSS. The other page, in your case User:Slan-cheh/monobook.js allows you to insert JavaScript code into pages. Many websites use JavaScript for advanced functionality; it can not only change formatting but add, remove or update elements of the page without needing to re-load it. Wikipedia does not use much javascript by default, partly for compatibility reasons, but it is often used by experienced users to add functionality to the interface. Again, doing anything complex requires knowledge of JavaScript, but some experienced users have posted their code in a central location for others to use. This is the list of scripts you have come across. One quite useful script that you might want to have a look at, written by User:Lupin, pops up a preview of the page when you hover the pointer over a link. Add the following to User:Slan-cheh/monobook.css, {{subst:navpop}} save the page, and then press CTRL + F5 so that the changes take effect. Then visit an article and try moving the mouse over different links. The "navpop" template was created for this script because of its popularity; other scripts will usually need to be copied-and-pasted from its subpage on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts . – Gurch 20:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Hey thanks so much - this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for! Everything is working great. Slan-cheh 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Recatting I was wondering - I spotted a few pages in the new Category:Wikipedia notability that are in fact guidelines. Shouldn't these then be in the subcat for "notability guidelines"? >Radiant< 10:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Edit to WP:WPVS It's interesting to read your answers, and you obviously have some experience with this, but couldn't you be a little less offensive in doing so? It's insulting to the whole project to effectively call it 'useless'. Gathering data and researching things is hardly useless; much of the data gathered has been useful already, both for informing debates and helping fight vandalism. Much more needs to be researched, and many of your answers are entirely inadequate for anyone who wants any detailed information on the subject. The research questions is just a rough draft of some possible research topics to stimulate further studies. You may not think it productive, but I certainly think it will be. You may now return to your useless vandal fighting, while we find a more efficient way to go about it :) Richard001 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Are you still around? Need your support. Nice to finally see someone else willing to stand up and question things. -- Jasabella 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC) And get repeatedly blocked, labelled a troll, and so forth. No, quite frankly I reached the end of my patience months ago. It's sad to see this place go to the dogs... well, never mind. You probably haven't taken a good look at this place recently – and you'd do well to leave it that way. Your main interaction with us has been through IRC, and obviously that is going to end, now. You used the IRC channel mostly for casual socializing and discussion of the project like the rest of us, things which apparently can't happen any more. Shame, really. I'm sure you have better places to hang out, anyway – Gurch 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Quotes and fair-use I said I thought the quotes were lovely and I hoped she didn't mind me raising the issue again, which was me trying to write something that wouldn't upset anyone. Should I have been more sensitive, or should you have realised I was trying hard not to upset anyone? Anyway, I would be very happy to take a discussion about quotes to a general venue (without linking to those examples), and leave Phaedriel's talk page alone. Where would you suggest? Carcharoth 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gurch/Archive_11&oldid=1147980495" Toggle limited content width