User talk:Cecropia/Archive 20.1

Seeking guidance

I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to kindly post my talk page please. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks. --Bhadani 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your kind message and suggestions as regards Mahuri. I am always cheerful while doing anything on wikipedia, and you have made me more cheerful. Thanks again, and it was nice meeting you. --Bhadani 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

You are invited to take part in Wikipedia_talk:Changing username#Dropping inactive user names. Ems2 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke137

Ummm, did you forget to notify Joke when you promoted him? Dragons flight 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the close! Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns in the future regarding my actions as editor or administrator, please feel free to contact me posthaste. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 04:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam photos

I don't have time for an exhaustive search right now (it's bedtime where I live) but I might suggest http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/PhotoSearchSearch.asp or even calling them on ++63(02) 6212 3600 as I doubt anyone can be sure what search terms to check under. The French National Archive is available at http://www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/. I obviously can't guarentee either will have the desired photos but it seems to me a logical place to start. Even if they don't have actual pictures themselves I find it hard to believe the French didn't have any documentation of atrocities to back up their propaganda campaign for entering the war in the first place (before the US became involved) so they may have other sources such as news paper reporters that they could put any would be researcher on to. Which probably means, come to think of it, that a quick phone call to the Associated Press, might not hurt either.

Hope that helps. Coricus 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Message from the Kindness Fairy

Hello Cecropia. In honor of Random Acts of Kindness week, I want to express appreciation for your dedication to managing the RFA process. You've been the welcome wagon for new admins for so long, it is hard to imagine what promotion could have been like before you got the button. Thanks for all your effort and sense in managing one of Wikipedia's core functions. The Kindness Fairy 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for welcoming me to the fold of administrators. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise and blocked a vandal (after I said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your congratulations and doing the final "admin stuff" on my request for adminship.

Regarding my name - I'm a friend to elves ... the funny thing is, it is not really a nom de Wiki, as it is the meaning of my real name, Alwyn. (See [1].)

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 10:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection and Jew

Hi Cecropia. I saw your comment last you protected, yes. I don't think the analogies are quite right: the KKK for example are/were determined and in for the long-haul whereas most vandals are bored teenagers/people on a drive-by. Today's visitor to Jew for example could and should have adequately been blocked without needing any further restrictions on others' editing. The semi-protection on George W. Bush has resulted in a marked drop in vandalism but also a marked drop in non-vandal edits (the stats are on the talk page or its archives) — I guess this is what I see as the cost of semi-protection. Even on article as detailed as that, there is still good stuff that can be done by new and/or anonymous editors. The same must surely be true of Jew. I've also argued, indirectly at times, that we shouldn't semi-protect articles where it is not clear when the protection might be lifted; this is a wiki, after all and we have encyclopedia-based (i.e. non-community-based) problems more serious and hard to fix than vandals. I've said that if people are asking for protection, they should be clear on when we can unprotect, and, if that point in time can't be identified, then (semi-)protection is not a solution we should use. As you say, Jews aren't getting any less 'famous' and so I'm inclined to think we should just handle the vandals as we have for a long time. We should semi-protect when there's a particular attack that can't be handled with the usual revert+block tools. I think, if I read your note on my talk page right, that you'd argue the other way: that semi-protection can, and indeed should, be used in indeterminate cases precisely because they are 'vandal magnets'. I've yet to persuaded to that case — this is a wiki, after all, and if you can't make that first "oh surely I can't fix that comma...oh!...I can!" edit on the article you come to (which is likely a high-profile one), you must be that much less likely to dive in. It's an encyclopedia too, of course, but an encyclopedia written as a wiki; the two concepts do not seperate. -Splash^talk 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I am just writing to say thanks for closing off on my RfA and welcoming me to the ranks of administrators. I hope I do well with the tools and will be sure to carefully read the instructions before trying anything tricky/irreversable. Thanks agin. --Martyman-(talk) 06:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Byrd

Thanks for your work on cleaning up this page. As you could probably tell from the edit history, I had to remove that accusation twice (I felt that it was strong enough that it needed attribution to be in the article at all) and apparently on the third attempt someone decided to turn it into a personal attack against me.

I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it and doing what I can in my decidedly non-admin capacity to keep it factual.

Thanks again.

--BinaryTed 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Accounts

Here is a list of accounts to delete:

• • Ariele
  • User:Puss'nPurpleBoots
  • User:Ethanol Ariele's sockpuppet
  • User:Cap'nKrunch my sockpuppet

I suppose you could delete User:Goddess of War too, but it has a lovely thank you note from another user; a very sweet gesture, but if we are to vanish, well, we have to make sacrifices-Puss'nPurpleBoots 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Guidance

Since my RfA is going to be continually turned down, I could use some guidance. I did manage to get to support votes which was better than last time. Either way... guidance is requetsed. I choose you because it seems we may have some common ground. Thanks in advance. xerocs 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: You and Rudy

You and the former Mayor are Brooklynites and Yankee fans. 'Tis strange ... 'this passing strange. -- Cecropia 02:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see Him at the game, too. It's not everyday You get a message from a user that can bless You with a promotion, let alone someone that knows about the Subway. :) -- Eddie 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for an opinion on Copyright

If you have a moment, would you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lutheran_Church_-_Missouri_Synod#Use_of_Logo and give your opinion on the matter? --CTSWyneken 14:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the opinion. Thanks! I respect your analysis on this score. I'll drop a note to the appropriate person at LCMS and point them to the discussion. Their graphic standard explicitly says that no website use of the logo is permitted outside of LCMS organizations. I suspect they would not like it if we use it here. Since I'm, in effect, an officer of the Synod, it would make me quesy to use it counter their wishes. --CTSWyneken 16:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Djr_xi RfA

Hi Cecropia. I just wanted to ask a question about the Djr_xi RfA. I'm not even an admin, much less a bureaucrat, so maybe I'm just not totally familiar with the process, but: Once the seven-day period has expired, why should any votes cast after that time be considered in the first place, but particularly when those votes are the result of an obviously coordinated attack against the candidate? (Yes, I admit there is a tiny chance that this massive, near-instantaneous ballot stuffing could have occurred spontaneously, but the chances of that are so tiny as to be, for all practical purposes, zero.) It seems rather obvious, IMHO, that some group of editors, mostly admins, decided at the last minute to attempt to make an example of Djr_xi as part of the ongoing userbox war, and as such, I don't see how those can be considered good faith votes, particularly given that they were almost all made after the RfA would have been closed, had another bureaucrat happened to have counted them up a few hours earlier. --Aaron 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment: It appears this revote may itself have been compromised to the point of invalidity. User:Kelly Martin put a block on User:Grue for voting support on this RfA in a way she didn't like. The block was quickly reverted, but the damage is done: Wikipedia users are now on notice that voting "support" is a good way to get banned. I now believe there is no way that User:Djr_xi can receive a fair vote, and I urge you to reconsider granting him adminship based on the unquestionably legitimate votes from the original RfA. (For the record, I do not know Djr_xi personally, and have no recollection of even having a single online communication with him on Wikipedia regarding any subject whatsoever.) --Aaron 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Likewise. He won, fair and square, and it smacks of something fishy that the rfa was held open just a bit longer for all those oppose votes to come in. I'm saddened, but this seems like another instance where there basically is no rule of law left anywhere on Wikipedia, and you're not judged on your merit, but rather on who you know, or if you can get people angry at something. Karmafist 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now let's not get too carried away with conspiracy theories. Other bureaucrats and I check the RfA pages periodically and make promotions or removals as we see them. Sometimes this happens almost immediately, sometimes in hours. Very rarely has this gone more than a day. As I already told Aaron, this is the first time I can remember that votes received after closing time actually had potential to change the result. As it was (even without the extra votes) the vote was in an area of bureaucrat discretion. Only bureaucrats can definitively close or extend a nomination. Sometimes in an unclear vote, the vote will be held open for 24 or 48 hours by a bureaucrat(s) to try to get a clearer consensus but then those is publically announced. In any other case, including this one, no one is "holding open" any vote to try to get a desired result. -- Cecropia 19:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the RfA (and the re-RfA) is already moot. - Mailer Diablo 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Adminship should not be entry into a clique. The amount of gratuitous criticism is enough to flag this as a sham, the ballot stuffing just makes it a joke. I can't believe Admins are spending so much time on the drama of weel warring and userboxes, when Wikipedia has so many actual problems that need to be solved. ...I post vandalism in progress 5 times, no admin responds, yet when someone wants to put their opinion in a damn user box, all hell breaks loose.--Colle||Talk-- 04:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Not that it matters too much, but I think Mjal voted for me twice (#48 and 82) - I ran across it when going through the usual thank-you motions. If there are any bean-counters, record-keepers, or anyone like that who might care, it seems I only got 90 votes in support. Thanks for taking the time to promote me. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad Mjal 22:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Request at meta

Your request at meta has been fulfilled. --Ascánder 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for promoting me!

I don't know if it's common practice to thank the bureaucrat who promoted you, but I will! I'll try to put the admin tools to good and responsable use. If I do anything wrong, you know where to find me. Raven4x4x 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)