User talk:RevRagnarok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at talk:RevRagnarok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:RevRagnarok.

If you received a vandalism warning from me and don't know why, you are probably browsing with an IP address used by many different people: consider creating an account. You should not be concerned, as the warning was probably not meant for you. If you are blocked and feel you should not be, you are welcome to put {{unblock|Reason why you should be unblocked}} on your talk page. Thank you. Further reading: Wikipedia:Blocking policy • Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

Archives Archives indexed by conversation Archives by date Other subpages

Contents 1 RfA 2 Your RFA 3 Categorizing musical artists by performance 4 Merge Tag

[edit] RfA

I would like to re-list you for RfA as soon as you are through with your wiki-break. Pleaseget back to me as soon as you're ready! Kntrabssi 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm back. I am split between waiting a little longer and just doing it; I have no idea how many people who opposed last time ever returned and looked at the ensuing discussions. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've removed the offending userboxes, they have no reason to oppose you. 5000 mainspace edits and over 8000 total edits should be enough to win over even the stingiest of voters. Anyways, tak your time, then respond on my talk page :). Take care! Kntrabssi 14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How frustrating. I felt the same way after going for RfA and being told I didn't have enough edits, while AIV, RFPP and Candidates for Speedy Deletion are all backlogged. Those of us who are willing to do this dirty work aren't being given the privileges to do it. And you are right, it will not be 3 months until you are nominated for admin again. I hope all is well :). Kntrabssi 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are only 130 articles waiting to be sorted thru... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Dear RevRagnarok,

Now that your RFA has ended, I feel that I owe you an explanation of the reason for my oppose. This is particularly in light of some of the more heated responses from users on your talk page.

I think that it's important that administrators have the appearance of neutrality. This is for two reasons: Firstly the administrators are, like it or not, often the arbiters of interuser or content disputes. This kind of low level arbitration helps wikipedia by making sure that everyone knows the guidelines and works in the same direction. Additionally the administrators carry out actions to enforce their decisions. They're more like a local magistrate than the supreme court, but the appearance of neutrality can help to get everyone calmed down and resume working towards the best interests of the encyclopaedia. Secondly the administrators are the face of wikipedia which the average user sees. They need to be users on whom a new user can model himself, and to this end having a mainstream set of ideals of what wikipedia itself is about and an appearance of neutrality will tend to nurture those same qualities in other users.

In the case of your user page you obviously didn't maintain the appearance of neutrality, and I think that this is clear in the responses of many of those who supported you. I would strongly encourage you to read your RFA considering only the support responses and consider how happy you are about the reasons for the support. However had you just removed the user boxes with no comment I probably would have supported you, since your other work seems to be exemplary. Your apparent belief that there would be no reaction to your stating of your political ideals was naive in the extreme, and I think that the belief that users who were offended by an "I hate XXX" userbox would be appeased by stating that it's just a joke was just plain ingenuous.

I realise from your responses that you probably didn't mean to offend, and maybe didn't even didn't think that your further clarification in question 5 was attacking or belittleing. However your RFA turned into the kind of partisan battleground which I personally think is counterproductive on wikipedia, and I would hope that you wouldn't want the whole of wikipedia to turn into that kind of discussion. I think that the lack of self-awareness which leads to this kind of trolling is a problem for someone who wants to be an administrator.

With that said, however I think that it's far from impossible that you'd make a good admin, and in 3 months you should be sure to leave me a note with a reasonable expectation that I'll support you. I wish you all the best.

Regards,

AKAF 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the 'public face' part, but I don't think it should be a uniform sterile environment either. In the middle of the RfA I removed the mist offensive ones. And it was no lie that they were intended to be humorous. As for three months, I don't think it will be that long, there are now two people waiting to re-nom. Thanks for your input. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing musical artists by performance

I don't think you understood what the list represents by what you claimed here. Correct me if I'm wrong though. Farsouth 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the CfD, I understand that there is a TV show that sometimes has guest DJ/VJs. And the guest DJ/VJs are musical artists. Categorizing artists by specific performances (like "Bands who have played on Letterman") have been deleted in the past as unneeded. I, and others, feel that this category follows the same general idea. If you there is a reason it isn't, then discuss it there, not here. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Tag

FYI - I just changed your tags to {{merge-to}} and {{merge-from}} because they are more specific and also both point to the same talk page so there is a single discussion. Just something to file in the back of your mind for next time. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 10:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I know about the merge-to and merge-from tags, I wasn't sure which one to merge to so I used the basic merge tags. AirOdyssey (Talk) 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK. Then I guess the optional parameters would've been better: {{Merge|ArticleA|Common Talk page discussion section title |date=MonthName Year|Username}} which allows them both to point to the same conversation; that's why I use from and to since they point to a common talk page. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! AirOdyssey (Talk) 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)