Mercury~enwiki

Due to circumstances beyond my immediate control, I will not be editing as frequently as I would like to. I will return soon, as soon as I can. I will attempt to check talk page messages daily.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Archives /Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive 3

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there. Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here. I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise. If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Contact Me

Please feel free to leave me a message on this talk page. This is the quickest way. I check my talk more often then my email.

Email me if you want to share something sensitive. Or do not wish to use the talk page. But consider using the talk page if possible.

Blocking of User:DonOfTheChron

Sorry, I may have been hasty in assuming that this user is a sockpuppet, but if you look at the history of the Astro Empires page you'll see that it has been re-created a few times after deletion. I can't actually see any constructive edits from this user either, but maybe 24 hours is too long. Deb 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done something on the talk page of that editor. Have a good one. Mercury

Regarding User:GHcool

Hi Mercury,

This is just a short RFC regarding the discussion here.

I am a bit confused... After repeatedly changing the heading of this section ("criticizing" vs. "calling out") and at the end of the thread, promising to correct his ways, User:GHcool changed his userpage only to reflect the last criticism mentioned (i.e. removing the quote "...limited ability to argue logically and convincingly, and... does not seem capable of making basic moral distinctions..."). The outing of User:Pco and the strongly worded criticisms of Finkelstein and other editors is still there.

As I said, this is an RFC, so here are my questions:

• I am very upset at User:GHcool's attempt at stifling the discussion by constantly changing the section heading. Does this warrant any action? Should I post this to WP:AN/I or is there somewhere more appropriate?
• What would be the next steps to take (i.e. the next administrative level) to make User:GHcool change his userpage?

Since User:GHcool has a slight tendency to troll, I would rather you answer here than on my own talkpage (this would also make a rather interesting test if he's also monitoring my contributions).

Many thanks and kind regards, Pedro Gonnet 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for information

I don't intend to take up a large amount of your time. I've seen your comments to multiple requests for adminship, and I would like to understand your meaning. If you have a spare moment, could you tell in what context you mean by "leader" and I'll try to connect the rest. Regards, Mercury 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mercury, I thought I'd reply to your question. As opposed to a lot of "voters" for admins, I take a different take on what makes a good admin. Although I think it is critical for admins to be good vandal-fighters, and get involved with stuff like RfD's and other housekeeping stuff, I don't think an admin should be exclusively interested in those items. Part of the reason we are here is to develop the project through new articles. I like seeing FA's and GA's from an applicant, because they get to really understand the whole process. They know what makes good content, they understand many more of the rules, and it shows the ability to build the project. Moreover, I look for leadership in other areas too. For example, there are a few very good admins that involve themselves in very contentious articles. They build consensus and occasionally smackdown POV warriors. These admins would probably not get "elected" today because they get down and dirty. We are just getting milquetoast editors who are becoming admins. They are essentially useless to the project, nothing more than low-paid janitors--keeps the place clean, but kind of sterile. I would love to be an admin, but I fight the dirty battles on this project, keeping the NPOV straight and narrow, sometimes getting tough to make certain individuals don't throw their POV into articles. I would never get to be an admin, because I do fight. It's sad, but the better editors don't want or can't be admins. So, out of the 5-10 applicants I see every couple of weeks, maybe one of them is going to actually make the project better. Even more troubling is that there are a cast of characters in the RfA voting process who don't do much else but vote. So, it's amusing that people who really don't help the project are pushing their POV to get others who aren't really helpful to the project either. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

AN thread about Talk:Thomas Hobbes

Hi there. There is a discussion on the administrators' incidents noticeboard about some edits to Talk:Thomas Hobbes, which are no longer there. Are they the ones you removed from the page history? I noticed you used the edit summary P11 - what does that mean? The thread at WP:ANI is here. Could you help clear up what is going on? Thanks. Carcharoth 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. PII, Personally identifiable information. Mercury 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In case you are interested, I've answered your off-topic question at ANI. Carcharoth 13:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I have raised the issue of your apparent content dispute on Vergina Sun on WP:ANI [1], including my concerns about your use of the protection facility. Thanks TigerShark 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag from ANI, as I feel that further community input would be useful. I genuinely have no strong feelings on this, except that we need to give the opportunity for further input. Thanks TigerShark 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on ANI. This is genuinely not a witch-hunt, although I am now starting to feel like the Witchfinder General :) I just feel that it should be discussed. Thanks again TigerShark 00:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I have the rack ready. No seriously, I don't think your are "witch hunting". I just wanted to be sure my opinion was known. Mercury 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

Why is the Richard Dawkins page locked for three days because of an edit war between two people? Is three days normal for such incidents on Wikipedia? StaticElectric 02:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I protected the article due to edit warring. I have the option of doing that, or blocking the editing of those two people. I chose the former option, using my discretion, I did not desire to put those two editors in the sin bin because they were contributing to other areas. Please note the stern warning I left on the talk page. Three days is on the shorter end of the spectrum. I could have protected for week. Best regards, Mercury 03:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)