User talk:Nscheffey/Archive 4

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.

==September 2006==

Hi Nscheffey, I do agree with you that the process followed was atypical. My agreement with the block includes the after-the-fact discoveries, but a formal RFCU before blocking would have been a better approach. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any formal RFCU, before or after, would have been better. There hasn't been one and I can't find where the Checkuser evidence comes from. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wiki-saying what a wiki-great wiki-article it was, If you would wiki-rather me wiki-complain about it, I wiki-will.Wiki-dawg 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Wiki-dawg[reply]

In that case thanks for the support! --Nscheffey^(T/C) 23:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, Nscheffey, I think Drini is using the Mugabe Formula again, namely silencing his opposition by admin powers. I think we should investigate this. This is really fishy. Arbiteroftruth 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Drini's actions (e.g. removing comments from other's talk pages) I was suspicious of the purported CheckUser and did a little "investigation" of my own. From what I found, there is strong circumstantial evidence that ShortJason is a sock. The Orange Rocks declaration wouldn't have been enough by itself, but the bizzare RfA for ShootJar sealed it in my mind. I considered filing a formal RFCU in the interest of transparency but decided against it, although you still could. Regardless, none of this after-the-fact evidence excuses the original block nor Drini's removal of comments he considered "attacks". If you want to pursue this I would suggest an RfC, in which I would gladly add my $.02. Cheers. -Nscheffey^(T/C) 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for heads-up! Arbiteroftruth 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I don't see using my admin powers to silence both of you. I stand for the fact such comments from ShortJason were inflammatory and thuis their removal is not vandalism as you accuse me, I'm more than willing to go into a RFC if you want. -- Drini 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the more notable I can show Encyclopedia Dramatica to be the easier it will be to convince people that it should be included. If I mention them do you want me to make note of the fact that you gave me the websites or just mention the websites by themselves? E.g., "Encyclopedia Dramatica is mentioned at *sites that mention ED here* (thanks to Nscheffey for the these)." Well, thanks again! --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way, you can mention me or not. To be honest, I'm not sure if those brief mentions are going to change anyone's mind, although changing just a few in such a contentious discussion could make a lot of difference. My main problem was with the nature of the discussions, very rancorous with a lot of personal emotions involved (understandably). I think it is those kind of decisions that really test the nature of Wikipedia, and in my opinion this time we came up short. Thanks again and good luck, feel free to contact me.—Nate Scheffey 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approved! Enjoy. alphaChimp^(talk) 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The implication is that admins are no better than the people they're blocking. To compare people who've made 20,000+ productive edits, written featured articles, etc. to blatent trolls is just insulting and sad. Wikipedia should thank good editors and tell trolls to leave... we shouldn't look for every reason to keep the trolls and every reason to critisize the good editors. --W.marsh 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that is the implication, and I certainly don't think anyone is honestly trying to "look for every reason to keep the trolls." I think "block people for what they are doing themselves" implies that admins are not above the law, and if they engage in personal attacks, continued incivility or other blockable offenses they should face the same consequences as any editor. —Nate Scheffey 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, my only offense was saying that I thought someone was trolling. That's unfornately a basic thing that we need to say from time to time, if someone is trolling we shouldn't be prevented from stopping them because saying so would be a "personal attack". It's the first time I'd ever said it in 13+ months of editing. If people think I should be blocked for that, I think they're quite misguided, sorry. --W.marsh 00:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might have missed it but I never saw anyone suggest you should be blocked. —Nate Scheffey 04:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the article on concepts and removed several links saying that there is a page on the "List of concepts in science"; but the link you inserted only leads to topics in science and not to concepts in science. Topics and concepts are noy synonymous for your kind information. Charlie 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are referring to this edit? I was trying to clean up what I thought was a long and unhelpful paragraph, and I figured all of those topics were covered in the page I linked to, or could be reached from said page. What would you suggest as a better solution? —Nate Scheffey 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on User talk:Tony Sidaway. I don't care about the rights and wrongs of the situation. I very much fear I'll be seeing them soon anyway. But it is just not on to edit-war with another user on that user's talk page. Please conduct yourself with a little more decorum and respect.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it was the wrong reaction. —Nate Scheffey 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was really confused, because I didn't know what you were talking about. I really messed up, I was looking at different tabs on firefox and I was editing another biography. I must have mixed up the talk pages.

Thanks for fixing it up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timkmak (talk • contribs) .

No problem. —Nate Scheffey 22:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nate hi. I just realized that I didn't reply to the most important part of your post at Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause#Is this a guideline already?, so I'd like to do that now.

In cases of WP:PROD and, as far as I'm concerned, WP:SNOW, it is not ok for any admin to just ignore objections because they decide the objector is a troll. Such actions, even if they're correct on some level, cause more trouble than they're worth in the form of ill-will.

If one finds another's comments unproductive, there are much better ways to say it than "you're becoming quite tiresome in your trollishness". There are ways to say one doesn't think someone is being constructive without poisoning the well. In fact, there's been quite a lot of backlash against that particular admin, largely because of such unhelpful comments as the one you linked to, and he's stopped using his admin tools as a result of that backlash. Most of us do not consider it cool or helpful to be dismissive or contemptuous to contributors who voice concerns (see point #7 here), and we're working to reinforce a culture where that kind of nonsense doesn't happen.

I think Wikipedia in changing, in a direction of greater respect and civility. I'm sorry you were called a troll; viewing your contributions, I don't think you are one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GT, and thanks for your thoughtful, personalized response. I have gotten the impression that Tony Sidaway is a bit of a special case, and certainly not representative of admins in general. But he is not the first admin to get a little too fired up with the "us-against-the-trolls" mindset. Nor will he be the last. This is what worries me about SNOW, which I otherwise think is a somewhat useful tool. I've written more in depth at the SNOW talk page, but my point is that we need to prevent SNOW from being used as a drama-causing weapon. I think we can achieve this, but we need to expressly agree on it first.

As for Tony's specific accusation against me, I concede that I was being a bit snide, after trying and failing to tone down the discourse. But I'm almost positive I'm not a troll, and I thank you for agreeing. —Nate Scheffey 05:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your girlfriend misses you and loves you very much. Please forgive her for anything that might have upset you. You are great guy and she is very lucky to have you. Love you 24.181.193.95 04:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{endspoiler}} template is only for use to end spoiled text midsection, not at the end of the section. If one whole section is a spoiler, then you don't need an endspoiler to end it, i.e.

 ==Plot==
 {{spoiler}}
 The plot would go here...

would need no endspoiler because it is understanded that at the end of a section, there are no more spoilers, but if a spoiler tag covers more than one section, you can have separe tags (which is preferred by many users) or...

 ==Themes==
 The opening/un-spoiling themes are discussed here...
 {{spoiler}}
 spoiling-themes
 {{endspoiler}}
 more un-spoiling themes.

Do you get it? I'm not sure how to really explain, but if there is only one section that is spoiled, no end tag is needed, but if there is less than a section, yes. Cbrown1023 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal clear. Thanks for the info. —Nate Scheffey 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]