Archives

October 2004–December 2005 January 2006–December 2006 January 2007–December 2007 January 2008–April 11, 2008 April 12, 2008–present

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I just added User:Gary King/localize comments.js to my monobook and was wondering what I need to change so it is set to my time zone. I'm in -5 or EST. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be automatically set to your timezone. It uses your computer's built-in timezone. Gary King (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I should have looked a little closer before asking. It works great! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to look at it, it'll probably be tomorrow before I can get to it, I just got home from a trip, so things are a bit hectic. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that'll work for me. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow vandal fighter, allow me to share a piece of advice here. Fyi, the recalcitrant vandal, 'Cane sg', which I reported at WP:AIAV earlier, has been blocked indefinitely by an experienced admin later [1] contrary to your cursory checks & comments. If u are inexperienced in handling such vandals/trolls or unaware of their prior 'cat & mouse' tactics, do exercise due diligence on their history log profile (including mentioned links), OR refrain from making such comments that may jeopardise the efforts of fellow vandal fighters and embolden such vandals in the long run instead. Besides, I've witnessed quite a handful of good contributors whom having seen their works being vandalised repeatedly, left Wikipedia for good due to non or belated admin action previously. Some of these admins were later taken to task by indignant folks or audits to account fully on their misplaced 'sympathetic' stance towards the vandal(s) concerned, where many lost their credibility & their adminship challenged later. Kindly note. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I will keep it in mind. Gary King (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do take care to assume good faith nevertheless. If you have concerns, state them, and keep WP:BITE in mind. Administrators have been criticized over such blocks, but it is extremely rare for desysopping to occur (often requires an ArbCom case). In the end, administrators perform these blocks all the time. They deal with the criticism, as expected of them. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly always continue to AGF. If I come across a vandal and am ultimately unsure of the action to take, I would ask for an experienced administrator to take a second look at the case. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldwinteo (talk · contribs), anyways, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was verbally sparring with you. Sorry if it seemed that way! Cheers! Gary King (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo mate, just a friendly advice in my case. Due to protracted fight with recalcitrant vandals/sockpuppets (like this dude), there're some hard-core vandal fighters (non-admin) whom I know of, who are not tolerant of such easy-going comments made without exercising due diligence in the first place, and they will not hesitate to take on the admins or admin wannabes subsequently in the cases mentioned above. Take care. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this brief for now and expand later, as I'm really sleepy. Whether you wish to undergo another RfA is entirely your decision; however, I must stress that ultimately, a RfA is not about content building, no matter what heights you take it to (a conspicuous lack is obviously detrimental though). Through content building, you can demonstrate your knowledge of guidelines and policies, and your ability to work civilly with others, but participation in the core administrator sections is all but necessary if you want an RfA to pass. That said, they can take a backdrop to your content building in the long run, so long as you keep your participation decently high in those areas. This also might solve the pace problem that was brought up at your RfA. Instead of commenting on ten AfDs in one given day, find one every so often that fits your fancy and leave a well supported and detailed opinion, and return to back up your stance if necessary. Revert vandalism during your normal course of editing and report them if necessary rather than constantly looking over a recent edits feed. If you can show a consistent change in judgment in this regard, then it will go well for your future RfA. You can particularly begin to show your hand at discussion sections in the project mainspace; WT:FLC, the village pump, and related items are great simply to present yourself as a knowledgeable and involved editor. Trying for this more slower, concerted, and thought-out approach might be good to resolve the issues brought up at your RfA. As for how long you need to wait, three months is the generally accepted minimum. As for the editor review, I would highly recommend it. Feel free to contact people who opposed at your RfA and ask for feedback. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll mull over this a bit. Also, is it possible to see a user's edits on a single page besides browsing through the page's history? Gary King (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for giving me the image to put on my page. Is there anything else I can put there? Also, are there any more articles I cna help get nominated? Thanks!!! Stealth (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will not work on improving the Star Wars article to Featured status, at least not in the next few days. Maybe in a few weeks :) Gary King (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the boilerplate text I use to explain why I don't do many supports or opposes:

If you look at the other FACs up, you'll see that I've been investigating all the candidates sources, not just yours. While I'd love to have time to devote to every candidate and do a full review of the prose and other aspects, I just don't have the time. It has been a failing of FAs for a while that no one was investigating the sources and commenting on the reliablity or non-reliability of them for quite a while, and I've tried to step up and help with that. Others at FAC specialize in other areas, User:Tony1 does MOS issues and prose, User:Elcobbola does a lot of work on pictures and fair use. I put my comments under "comments" so that folks don't think that I've done a full review, and I won't support or oppose unless I have time to do a full review of everything in the article.

I just can't find the time to review completely everything. I'll very occasionally oppose if the sources are just horrid, but most of the time, things are resolved, but the sources are only one part of the criteria, and I should at least read the article in some depth before supporting. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank YOU for noticing that I will be reviewing the article. I will read the article and I will a review on the talk page and let's see what happens. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]