User talk:Dscos
My early days
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
I hereby present to you my User_talk page. You can write almost anything you want here. However, vandalism, trolling, and/or idiocy shall be reverted on sight. In addition, several users are disallowed from editing this page, and any edits they make will be reverted.
Just click Edit this page and add whatever you have to say to the bottom. I only ask (for the sake of organisation) that you separate it from the last person's comments by a ==level 2 heading==. Also, no horizontal rules allowed! Ever! And don't be a Cooch McGooch, sign your posts! Bon appetit!
Jackass?
C'mon, there's no need to call another user a jackass, even if it is Raul. anthony 警告 01:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I assure you, Raul and I are friends, it was only a playful jest. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You do good work
Impressive scholarship, ethics and technical expertise. Gives me some hope for the future. For a start, I hope against hope that Bush hangs his head in defeat tomorrow. But I suspect he will just steal the election (again) if he loses (again). By the way, I'll be interested to know what you think here. --Alberuni 02:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, thank you, good sir. I hope in vain right there with you. And thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it (VfD is hard to follow these days). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dore Gold
Aloha. See my response on Talk:Dore Gold. Your violation of WP:3RR is not justified by any claim that I have not shown regard for policy, when in fact such a claim is false. Even if you think I violated policy, two wrongs don't make a right. In fact, I had to log off before I was able to comment on the Talk page, so you might want to assume good faith in the future. And please, do not use my talk page as a platform for edit wars. --Viriditas 09:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- See my reply to your comments on Michael Snow's talk page. I hope you will come back to the Dore Gold page and share your thoughts. --Viriditas 04:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
?
Could you see Image talk:Blankfazemirrorpic.jpg? :) --BesigedB 18:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible
Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to Template:In the news, I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 19:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, just curious as to why you added a {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} tag to Image:WMBarnstar.png. Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I thought it was the best tag to describe the "Image may be used elsewhere without restriction", says SunirShah, creator, on Meatball:BarnStar. Original image from Barnstar Subterfuge (currently not available online). message already there. — David Remahl 12:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Vanunu and Israeli violence
Mordechai Vanunu is being attacked by pro-Israel sockpuppets and anonymous users. The same with Israeli violence against Palestinian children until it was locked. Is there a way of getting the IP of these vandals?- Xed 13:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please rv Mordechai Vanunu to neutral version. Jayjg is claiming he had no conflict of interest in locking it in it's current state - Xed 14:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'll look into it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Dbachmann (dab) seems to have come in there and instated a good version (I think it's the one you support). The version Jayjg protected it on it incredibly POVed. I definitely endorse the version it is on right now (15:48, 14 Nov 2004 Dbachmann m ("protected")). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be a great help if the users and IPs listed here could be blocked: Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Various_IPs_and_.22New_User.22_sockpuppets
They were involved in vandalising the above pages. All are sockpuppets with a few monomaniacal contributions - Xed 20:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
User:Deuxmachina has resurfaced as User:Deuxmachina2 - Xed 09:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your vote of support on my adminship. And HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! Joyous 23:39, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration Elections
You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm dedicating myself to this. --ℛyan! | Talk 19:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Technical Problem on Endorsements Page with Your Signature
Candidate blankfaze, there appears to be a technical problem with your signature on the candidate endorsements page.
For some reason, your signature is expanded out with the custom logotype in some places, but not in others.
Not a big deal, but I thought I'd let you know, in case you might know of a way to fix it.
Cheers,
DV
Arbitration Committee Election Get Out the Vote Effort
Hi candidate blankfaze,
I have chosen to endorse your candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.
I think the best way to insure that your candidacy is successful, is to help to increase voter turnout.
One of the technical people on this site, who goes by the name Danny, helped me to make a very convenient tag that makes it super easy to place this "get out the vote" banner on your user page:
(Image removed)
Please consider adding this tag to your user page, as a great many pages link to your user page.
Thanks in advance if you choose to help out. If there are any issues which prevent you from doing so, please let me know - I would be happy to make a custom version of this tag just for your page if that's what it takes for you to proudly display it.
If you choose to display this banner, please put the tag as near to the top as your aesthetic sense will permit. :)
Regards,
--DV 17:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you please protect this page? It's turning into an edit war. I'd do it myself, but have edited the page. Thanks. Exploding Boy 23:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Unimpressive track record so far
I fail to see how you can possibly be considered for an arbitration role when my experience of you is 1) that you revert articles without giving any reason, and 2) the articles in which you interfere are obviously something you are emotionally involved in, and as such should declare a conflict of interest, and leave arbitration in such cases to a neutral party. --Rebroad 11:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The only instance I can recall in which ever coming into contact with you was about an hour ago, when I reverted your edit to George W. Bush - you changed "popular votes" to "votes". The edit was so ridiculous that I assumed it was vandalism and reverted without giving a reason. I apologise if that was mean to be a legitimate edit. However, in the United States, there are two kinds of votes - the popular vote and the electoral vote. It appeared to me that by removing the word "popular", you were attempting to infer that Bush somehow "stole" the Presidency (which I myself agree with, but HISTORY does not record it as such). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 11:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Blankfaze. I apologise. I completely was not aware that you had two different types of vote in the US. In the UK we have just one vote. What is the purpose of the popular vote please? Is this given at the same time as the vote to say which person they want to be president? When would someone give different answers for their popular vote and their other vote? What does one call the vote that isn't the popular vote? Thanks, --Rebroad 19:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rebroad: No worries, I apologise for treating you as a vandal. Let's put it behind us, I hate getting off on the wrong foot. The votes thing is sort of hard to explain but I'll give it a go. The U.S. Presidential election process is a bit BIZARRE:
- In the United States, Presidents are elected by a body called the Electoral College. Each state has a number of electoral votes totalling its entire representation in Congress (i.e. number of Representatives to the House + number of Senators). Additionally, the federal District of Columbia (which has no representation in Congress) is alotted 3 electoral votes.
- A state awards all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (with the exception of two states who have the option to split their votes amongst different candidates).
- There are 538 electoral votes (the total number of Representatives to the House (435) + the total number of Senators (100) + DC's three votes). A simple majority, or 270 electoral votes, is required to win the election.
- The way the Electoral College works is: The different political parties select Electors who then pledge to give their votes to their party's candidate. Whichever party wins the state, those electors cast their vote for their candidate.
- Thus under this system, it is possible for a candidate to lose the national popular vote, yet WIN the electoral vote (and such has happened three times in US history, most recently in 2000). This can happen if a candidate carries a number of states with high electoral vote counts, yet loses states with smaller electoral vote counts. For an example of this see U.S. presidential election, 2000.
Well I tried my best, but I don't know how well I did. The system was established in the Constitution and IMO it's bizarre and outdated. See U.S. Electoral College for more information. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze, thanks for your explanation. I think I understand how it works, and I suspect we have a similar system in the UK, where we have constituencies representing a seat in parliment. There can be a situation in the UK where the majority of the voters votes for one party, but the other party can end up getting the majority of the seats due to the varying sizes of the constituencies. Does this sound like a similar thing to what you have? We don't refer to people's votes as "popular votes" though, just "votes", so even if The Conservative party won, we could still say "The Labour party got more votes" and this wouldn't necessarily indicate any "foul play". Hope this makes sense! --Rebroad 10:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No problem, you're welcome, I hope you don't hold my initial rudeness against me :-) BLANKFAZE | (что??) 10:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
I've added a note to the "Requests for adminship"-page to include my msg, so everyone knows I've sent them. It was primarily meant to make sure the people that have come across don't miss it. After all they have the knowledge to judge my actions. (I've tried to make the message as NPOV as possible). However, if you can show it's against current policy to do so, I'm happy to remove the messages. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to be in your shoes
You are a brave soul for trying to reorganize the Endorsements page yet again!
However, I support your "endorsement" and "disendorsement" dual-page edit. (Although I'm not so sure about the word "disendorsement" - my dictionary doesn't have that word - are you sure you wouldn't care to rename "disendorsement" to "opposition"?)
For my part in authoring this page, I will admit that it was starting to creak under its own weight.
Now that I can see the unified opposition on the "disendorsements" page, without a bunch of "support" entries interleaved that dilutes their overall effect, I think the opposition would do well to leave this new organization as is.
The problem I had with Michael Snow's subpage organization onto many user pages was that one would conceivably have to click through dozens of links to read everyone's comments.
You have only added one additional link, so it's still possible to read everyone's comments without getting out a compass to navigate your way around.
There is one caveat to making this change - if another candidate, whose listing was populated mostly with "oppose" entries, had made such an edit, it might have looked a bit unseemly.
Good luck. I think you will manage to do some good if you are elected onto the Arbitration Committee.
Cheers,
--DV 12:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I support it too.Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ITN
What exactly mean by "valid" information? That is a true news story, well then yes it is valid. Should that sort of US-centric news be on the front-page of wikipedia, definitiely not. Labelling me a vandal is not the sort of cool-headedness I expect from would-be arbitrators. The Dan Rather appears neither on BBC world news, or CNN international. I don't think the American community understands that outside of America he is completely unknown. Not only that, but his resignation is of no international significance whatsoever. ed g2s • talk 13:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- THIS IS NOT "INTERNATIONAL" WIKIPEDIA - This is the English-language Wikipedia - Dan Rather is a HOUSEHOLD NAME in one of the largest English-speaking countries in the world - it's news. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Right, and for the other 110 million people for whom English is a first language, and 350-1000 million for whom it is a second language, they will have never heard of this guy, and they never will. Regardless of how many people know him, a newscaster's retirement is of no real significance to anyone. There are far more important things happening in the world, even in the US. P.S. Please refrain from using FULL CAPS in conversation as it considered shouting, and therefore, impolite. Words can be italicised for emphasis. ed g2s • talk 00:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When I have to get points across to bigoted Anti-American quota-lovers, I must SHOUT IT OUT! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)- I shall rephrase my comment: Ed g2s, I believe you to be Anti-American, or at least biased against America. I believe that your notion that ITN should be patrolled to resist Amerocentrism is wholly ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous. Anyways, I was SHOUTING because I didn't seem to be getting through to you. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Blankfaze, now now, that's getting rather close to a personal attack, as well as pushing against the limits of Wikiquette and especially faux pas avoidance. James F. (talk) 11:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Can I request that you re-read Wikiquette and No personal attacks ("If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both.) as I would like to solve this amicably. I do not appreciate being called a bigot, and would like the comment removed. ed g2s • talk 14:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Actually the so called policy isn't actually a policy. It's a "proposed policy". I'm not taking sides though! --Rebroad 15:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- To Ed: I have read the policy numerous times. As with most Wikipedia policies, I'm terribly, terribly familiar with it. As James said, I suppose I skated a bit close to it there, but I do tend to be more liberal with my opinions on my talk page. Regardless, I've rephrased my statement. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Right, and for the other 110 million people for whom English is a first language, and 350-1000 million for whom it is a second language, they will have never heard of this guy, and they never will. Regardless of how many people know him, a newscaster's retirement is of no real significance to anyone. There are far more important things happening in the world, even in the US. P.S. Please refrain from using FULL CAPS in conversation as it considered shouting, and therefore, impolite. Words can be italicised for emphasis. ed g2s • talk 00:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Who on earth is "Dan Rather"??? --Rebroad 10:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Haha. Dan Rather - very, very famous U.S. newsreader/anchorman/televison journalist/whateveryouwannacallit. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 10:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- oh. Good for him! Seriously though. I do often get the feeling that Wikipedia is a U.S. only website, and it's this kind of example that tends to back up that feeling. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. There's on ongoing debate as to whether .org domain names are US organisations or International organisations. How does one make the distinction anyway? --Rebroad 10:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've just read the Dan Rather article. This is actually quite interesting! --Rebroad 10:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
Hi, Blankfaze. I'm doing some work cleaning up and clarifying the various barnstars on Barnstars on Wikipedia, but I'm kind of stuck on the The Working Man's Barnstar. As the creator, would you take a look at the summary I placed there, and let me know if that was your original intent? Many thanks, ClockworkSoul 18:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for trying to clean the page up. Your summary of The Working Man's Barnstar was good, but I changed it, hope you don't mind, to something I thought was closer to my original intent. Thanks again. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Arbitor elections
Blankfaze,
After reading the comments by Jimbo and many others (including you), I decided to remove all my disendorsements. Your response to my disendorsement would have seemed confusing if I would have left it in, so I removed your response as well. I'm not sure whether I should have done that or not – your response was fair and showed your acceptance of criticism, and you may have wanted it kept. Feel free to re-insert your comment, and you may re-insert mine if you wish – just strike it through if you do. Or you can leave it as is, which is my preference.
On a related note, I want you to know that my non-endorsement isn't mean as a disapproval of you or your editing. The way I see it, an arbitor is just a wiki-job, like tagging images or greeting newcomers. For an arbitor, the requirements for my endorsement are (1) to have proven they can admit when they're wrong (2) to have shown restraint in a situation where they could have made a snarky comment but didn't, and (3) to treat everyone – even trolls – with respect. Some of the people I endorsed, such as Neutrality and Theresa Knott, were borderline. Others who didn't make the cut, like you and Charles Matthews, were very close. You're a great admin, but I've seen you unable to resist taking a verbal swipe at an annoying user. Not all users, or even all admins, should fill those requirements I have for arbitors; I think some people are much more fun because they don't.
You do stand a reasonable chance of being elected, of course. If you are, I hope you'll take the above as heartfelt (though unsolicited) advice. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 21:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I am grateful for your decision to remove disendorsements, not because of your sentiments against me, but because I feel disendorsements in such things, in general, are, as Jimbo stated, not what this community is about. As far as your criticism – I didn't take offence to it, it merely surprised me. But I suppose I understand what you mean. I promise you, however, that my fairness is uncompromised, even if I do take a swipe at a troll or a vandal every once in a while. I really truly want the best for this project, and if elected I will do my absolute best to make fair and unbiased decisions. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do not make disendorsements note
IMO the Jimbo's urge to not make them and supported by the weight of him beeing the founder of Wikipedia is not appropriate.
- It not such a crucial issue. I can't find any such strong statement by Jimbo.
- It casts bad light on those who allready made dis-endorsements, who may look as if they were disregarding organizers and Jimbo's recommendation. (Which was not the case, statement against dis/endorsements was made ex post.)
Statement of organizers distandcing themselves from (dis)endorsements and explaining the page allready had been there when they made the statement is IMO fair and enough.
I hope you can rephrase it somehow - I dont want to simply revert it / start yet another useless dispute on endorsements talk. --Wikimol 23:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I can't find any such strong statement by Jimbo.
- On Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Disendorsements, Jimbo said, "This page is a magnet and incentive for a different approach, one which I most vigorously reject for our community. I encourage people to avoid the use of this page, and instead stick to positive endorsements of people who you think will represent our values thoughtfully and rationally. If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level. Jimbo Wales 16:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)" - Sounds pretty strong to me. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, that's quite strong. I didn't looked good enough, shame on me.
- As to your second concern, I understand it and am going to look into possibly modifying the statement accordingly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. -Wikimol`
It's completely wrong if, as it seems to me, anyone is saying we can only have candidates praising themselves, and endorsers praising them, but no comments from opposers of candidates. Just the chance to vote. (In an "election" that's not even been mentioned on the front page and will probably be totally unknown to most of the quarter of a million Wikipedia users. And which has other faults too.) The candidates have already had an advantage given to them by censoring/moving "disendorsements", which has given them a headstart on people who oppose them. Imagine a presidential election where you can support the candidates but not campaign or speak against them. That's not democracy it's fascism.WikiUser 18:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And on a completely unrelated note
I've noticed that your signature has been broken in many places where I have seen it over the last two days.
Is there a technical issue which is preventing your "sig" template from expanding reliably?
No big deal, but I was thinking about using one as well, and now I'm having second thoughts when I see your signature failing to expand correctly from the template in so many places.
Cheers,
--DV 07:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, it mostly happens on this talk page and a few others. It seems kind-of random. It's kind-of annoying me. I may switch back to old style soon, I dunno. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 10:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This data point might interest you - I've noticed that on some very long pages, your signature is broken, but if I click the Edit button on a subsection where your signature appears, and then click Preview, your signature is then fixed! (As a matter of fact, the problem is exhibiting itself right here in this section.) When I earlier clicked Save on such a section (on another page), your signature then went back to being broken on the full page.
This behavior indicates that there may be a problem with signature template expansion on pages over 32K in length? I'll test that theory out and get back to you if I find solid evidence that page size is the problem. --DV 11:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- This data point might interest you - I've noticed that on some very long pages, your signature is broken, but if I click the Edit button on a subsection where your signature appears, and then click Preview, your signature is then fixed! (As a matter of fact, the problem is exhibiting itself right here in this section.) When I earlier clicked Save on such a section (on another page), your signature then went back to being broken on the full page.
The reason is, transcluded content (such as your sig subpage) can't be repeated more than five times on a page. Observe:
(demo removed)
The last one should show as "Template:Merge" rather than "This article should be merged with". I believe there are plans to change this in MediaWiki 1.4. HTH. (p.s. delete the demo once it's read so it doesn't screw up category:Articles to be merged. thanks.) —No-One Jones (m) 01:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ah. Well that makes sense. Thanks, my friend. HTH? Also – any idea when MediaWiki 1.4 will roll out? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's up?
Hi! I want to ask why did you say that you are reluctant to vote for anything that I vote for? I have never met you, crossed words with you, offended you or even heard about you prior to this.
I was a little surprised to see that message on the McGuiver vote page, although not upset, just surprised, because I haven't the singlest clue as why you'd feel that way.
God bless you!
Sincerely yours, "Antonio Wikipride Martin" 2:26, (MST), Nov 25, 2004
- Nothing other than that I don't really care for you as a user, no offence. Sorry. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 10:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, thats ok that you don't care about me as a user, no offense taken. Although having friends here is certainly a big plus, I came here to help educate the world about interesting topics, not precisely to make friends. My friends at wikipedia are more than appreciated, although there is room for more, but if you dont care about me, thats perfectly ok with me.
What I would appreciate is that next time you say something about me, I would appreciate if you let me know on my talk page so I can at least, review the comment.
Thanks, and God bless "Antonio Jumping Tony Flash Martin"
G'day mate, could I get you to list Jihad on Wikipedia:Protected page? I think you protected it... Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, I remember that, I did it as I was going out the door. I hoped someone would notice and list it for me. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Copycat needs pointers
Hello. I used your user page as inspiration for how I wanted to lay out my user page. I've messed it up somehow. I don't know the markup and was trying to basically copy what you did and tweak it a little to personalize. Instead of occupying the right-hand part of the page, the Wikistress section stubbornly persists in staying below the main-body text section. The WP help pages I've looked at use a different markup than you used. If the problem is something simple, could you enlighten me? If it is a bit complicated, I would appreciate it if you could you point me to a page that explains how to use that particular markup. I'm willing to RTFM, if I can find it. :-) Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 09:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm not exactly sure where your problem is... Tell you what - I'll make a copy on a subpage in my userspace and see if I can get it working for you. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've put something together at User:Blankfaze/SWAdair. See what you think. It's not exactly what you were shooting for, I don't think, but it's the best I could cobble together. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This should establish enough notability
I give you my newest masterpiece. Mike H 09:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
A Message to my Fellow Candidate
Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.
Political viewpoints page
Hey, Just thought you may be amused that I filled in your political viewpoints page for myself. You can see it here. --Improv 03:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Haha. Cool. Interesting points, BTW. But I didn't get footnote 6... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 14:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ahh. I meant for removal of mention of deities from money. I'll clarify on the page. --Improv 16:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Question for you
Hi, and thanks for running for the ArbCom and taking questions here. I'm considering my vote, and I read your statement. I have a question for you: what is your opinion of the Three Reverts Rule? What would you recommend as punishment for breaking the rule? How about for breaking it repeatedly, over a number of articles? Thanks again. - Scooter 23:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for considering me, and thanks for asking. Well, if you weren't aware, a new policy recently passed a public vote and went into effect allowing sysops to temporarily block (for up to 24 hours) those who break the Three Revert Rule. That's the punishment I support, as it is the one accepted by a majority of the community. As far as repeated breaking of the 3RR, depending on the level of repetition and the time period over which they occured, I would perhaps support limiting a user's reverts (i.e. allowing them to be blocked for 2 or 1 reverts) as has been done in past cases. If a user significantly violates a punishment on that, I would perhaps even support banning them. While we should allow for reform of problem users, when it becomes apparent that they have no interest in doing anything other than causing problems, then we shouldn't waste our time with them. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Burying the hatchet
I'm all for it (I'm assuming this means I can post on your Talk: page again). I'm hoping this would involve an end to the type of comments I've seen most recently on the Mustafaa admin nomination page; would that be a reasonable hope? Jayjg 06:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)