User talk:Werdna

.NET Bot Framework

Hi, thanks for applying to use the .NET Bot Framework.Your request has been approved, and you should soon receive instructions as to accessing the source code of the framework. You have also been added to the Spam list for announcement emails regarding the framework. If you do not wish to receive these announcements, please feel free to remove yourself from this list. Messages sent will involve announcements of new versions, features and other important information. Thanks, and enjoy your use of the framework,Werdna bot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C on behalf of Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What about my request? Is anything wrong with it? CodeMonk 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CodeMonk 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

I never personally attacked anyone. Check the history of the page you claimed I defamed. --24.83.101.207 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

Please delete all your personal shortcut pages. Shortcuts are only for public pages in the Wikipedia namespace. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer that I move my .NET Bot Framework page into project-space, I can do that. However, this shortcut is useful for some needing to quickly access the page on my .NET Bot Framework. Thanks, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 17:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you get other users to let you add it to the WP namespace, that's great. Just bringing the shortcut stipulation to your attention. - ElAmericano (dímelo) 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your RFA

I see you have your name on the list of users who would like help with their eventual RFA. I'm here to help. after reviewing your edit count, contributions, and behiavor, heres my advice before we make you an RFA:

you have almost 2000 edits, i suggest you wait until you have 2000 to RFA, i myself would like 2000 to get my vote. (though im not too strict)

thats about it! everything else looks good, user page is nice, talk page is in order, you seem to be a nice kid. and youve been here long enough.

if you would like help with forming the actual RFA page, contact me. (i'd be happy to nominate you.) Vulcanstar6 02:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing I'm mainly waiting for is a bit more mainspace contribution, as that's what a lot of people are after (So I'd like to get the remaining 200 or so edits in mainspace.) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thats a good idea, if you still want help when you have the edits, you know where to find me. Vulcanstar6 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee

I've replied to your note on the mediation committee page. Please understand that I'm not trying to be mean or anything; it's just that I wanted to make sure that you were checking back every so often. I'll re-judge my vote after you reply to me. Ral315 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for something completely different! You started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MHTMLRedir.Exploit that was never completed. I listed it on today's AFD page. Ral315 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Woggly

I have opened a Request for Comment on User:Woggly due to harassment which is clearly evidenced by her in a harassment campaign that she has organized on her talk page User:Woggly 4 On this page one can witness how accusations of using sockpuppets were never confirmed before she accused me of these actions and others. Werdna - can you please provide advice on this matter through e-mail. Thanks, Joel IsraelBeach 01:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. and this affects me... how? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRE RFA vote

Hi Werdna, I wonder whether you might not try to phrase your support for HRE's admin in a slightly less offensive manner. Yes, I suspect that there are "racists" voting in that RfA. But some of them are supporting and some opposing--dividing, naturally enough, on whether they see HRE as their champion or chief enemy in the ongoing edit wars in Balkan articles. Most voters surely have honest concerns. (I know I have.) Perhaps you regard them as mistaken, which is fair enough--that is why you are voting to support. But you should assume that they are made in good faith. Best wishes, --Bucke ts ofg 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not directed at those who are voting Oppose, rather they were directed at the people who caused the necessity to have the RfA restarted - and hence sabotaged the entire RfA - as many of the Oppose voters are voting oppose because of the controversy. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this from the start, and the disruptive elements (who caused the restart) have been equally divided between support and oppose. But even so, isn't the way you've phrased your support likely to inflame things even more? Bucke ts ofg 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apologies for my position. Racially intolerant people are a liability to, and have no place on Wikipedia. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect you to apologize for it, not least because it is something that everyone agrees with (even the racists who you direct it at: most of them won't admit to being racist). But I guess we'll just have to disagree about this. Bucke ts ofg 15:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my position aside, my wording was a little uncivil. Next time I'll try wording a little better. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 14:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording aside, I think you need to explain your reasons or they won't count the vote as valid. --Asterion ^{talk to me} 21:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

best wishes with the rfa

Hi, Werdna. I thought I'd drop by and give you a fuller explanation about my concerns. Please, please, please, don't take this personally. First, as I mentioned yesterday at the time, I thought "stupid racist" was way over the top. I appreciate that racism and other kinds of prejudice gets under your skin; mine, too. But reacting the way you did, in the circumstance you did, was more likely to start a flame/edit/revert war than help encourage both sides to find a neutral edit. That is something that I think is important in an admin, and the fact that you don't seem to agree makes you seem not ready (yet) for an adminship. But that is only my opinion, and I am only one of the hundred or so who are going to participate. I won't support you, but I wish you the best success in your candidacy and (if you succeed) adminship. Bucke ts ofg 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knox

Hi Werdna, please be careful of what you or your bot label vandalism (or Rvv). My last edit to the page was to get back to before 210.84.57.29 started his or her spurious edits (10 of them). In the process a genuine link to E Company and a full stop in "Lt. Col." may have got caught in the wash, which is my error but hardly vandalism. Also if Tony Higgins really is a "journalist in felines", please cite your source as it sounded pretty sus to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose 16:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the diff - I'm having trouble remembering what I've reverted on that article (it's pretty regularly vandalised). I don't think I stated that Tony Higgins was a "Journalist in felines" - however I do know that the careers advisor at that school is called Tony Higgins. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 16:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]