User talk:Kurtis/Archive 5

Treats

Thank you for your note to missed PumpkinSky, with special treats - all the way to the bottom line please, for United Nations Convention Against Torture, 8 years ago, and the title story, - we talked about your part in it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Not a problem, but... sorry, what are you saying? Kurtis (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I said enough, trying harder: click the title of the story, scroll all the way to the bottom line (a link to an improvement of the article United Nations Convention Against Torture on 31 October 2004), the link to the article with the story is the line above it, - it actually told me a detail I did not know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking around on this page and I can't find anything relating to me personally. Am I looking in the wrong spot? Kurtis (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note pertaining to PumpkinSky, I've known him for several years now (i.e. back in the days when there was no "PumpkinSky", just some guy calling himself "Rlevse" with a fancy green signature and a bunch of advanced permissions). He's a great guy, really — he was (and I think remains) a superlative Wikipedian. He's made some excellent content contributions (albeit somewhat marred by the close paraphrasing issues, but it's not that big of a deal) and was also very active in maintenance areas. As an administrator, his name was practically ubiquitous with SPI; for a long time, I saw him as sort of a poster child for the idea of applying a zero tolerance policy towards illegitemate uses of alternate accounts. He was probably the overall most stringent arbitrator during his time on the committee, advocating sanctions in most cases as a means to remedy the situation — he had supported banning several productive contributors if he found that their personalities were incompatible with the project's collaborative environment. I didn't always agree with him, but I at least respected his perspective on matters. Rlevse vanished from the project in October 2010 due to... well, you probably know the story, but then he came back in 2011. I actually had no idea PumpkinSky was the very same user as Rlevse until July 2012 when he posted on my talk page about me submitting an RfA to become an administrator (he'd offered to nominate me back in March 2009). I've seen PumpkinSky around quite a bit, but never did I suspect a thing until I visited his userpage. Kurtis (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - your history around here is much longer than mine, Rlevse vanishing was the first time that I noticed on this project what people do to people. The person behind Rlevse grew up, I think, and did not support this time to ban a productive contributor ;) - I hope he will grow up further to ignore mistrust as long as the right people trust him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link above was deleted, I tried again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "troll" link of candidacy not in good faith

Asking you to retract accusing me of being a troll. Context is important. You are obviously not around long enough to know what made me take long wiki-breaks since November 2008 (that was my first time running for ArbCom and I was controversially blocked by another candidate before the election. A block later arbitrator FT2 deemed unwarranted according to my block log. This incident is documented here User_talk:NWA.Rep/Statement#Personal_encounter_of_admin_abuse_on_Wikipedia with supporting diffs) or the background of my block log (many of which are 1 second apology blocks). Don't call me a troll when you don't know the whole story. Retract the personal attack--YOLO Swag (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been registered since June 2008, so I do remember things from back then pretty well. What does that have to do with your ArbCom candidacy today? You don't honestly expect to be elected, do you?

In any case, I went ahead and redacted that segment of my opposition to your candidacy. Just as an aside, I did not make a personal attack — I was accusing you of trolling based on your recent actions, not explicitly calling you one. The reason I would say something like that is because WP:AGF can only be stretched so far, and when somebody runs for ArbCom or does something else when there is clearly no chance of them succeeding, it is hard for them to be taken seriously. Kurtis (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not considered good form...

...for me to question an entry in a voters' guide, but I cannot resist:

"What does that even mean?" -- Happy to answer a question about this on the respective page, but I thought that the answer is obvious: Arbitration does no sentencing, only findings of fact. This might not be the case everywhere in the world. I should probably have considered that when writing that phrase. My bad.
"Technically he is right" -- Then what's the problem? I checked all elected users, and I considered founder-appointed editors irrelevant, as this was an election statement.
"how would a Checkuser be able to find the username of someone who created a subsequently deleted page if they are unable to view deleted pages to begin with?" -- CheckUsers have that ability.
"professor" -- unfortunately not. Our institution is not a university, thus I may not use that title.

I understand your other concerns, and I'm not asking for an opinion change. The "incoherent" comment hurts a bit, though. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's perfectly fine — I'm actually really glad you've addressed my concerns. Plus, I just learned that CheckUsers have the ability to view deleted revisions or pages without +sysop, something I wouldn't have known otherwise. =)

Sorry if you took offense at the abruptness of my rationale. Reading through it now, it does admittedly seem a bit too blunt. It's just that I had trouble making out what you meant in your paragraph and had a hard time following your train of thought. I'm going to strike that part out. I hope you have no hard feelings against me.

Take care, and good luck. =) Kurtis (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings at all, and thanks for reconsidering. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Due to another discussion, I've expanded/clarified a few of the answers to the questions. 1b in particular. Happy reading : ) - jc37 22:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. By the way, despite not being behind you in your ArbCom bid, I really do think you're a huge asset to Wikipedia and hope you'll continue to contribute here for many years to come. Kurtis (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was kind of you to say : )

And no worries. This is like any other request for additional tools/responsibilities. (People will support/oppose based upon their own personal criteria.) It just has the added wrinkle that there are only x number of seats to fill, so people have to weigh strategic "voting" too : ) - jc37 01:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note for you

I don't know if you watch the talk page of your guide, but I wanted to make sure you noticed I had left you a note there. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll check it out right now. =) Kurtis (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{ygm}}. — Coren ^(talk) 05:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resentment

You are correct that there is a certain degree of resentment on my part, but it isn't actually directed at Scott MacDonald. The resentment I have is towards Arbcom for enabling and encouraging his behaviour. Once this case closed, which endorsed and encouraged admins that performed unilateral deletions without discussion of articles that did not meet any existing CSD categories (while chastising all admins that took steps to restore the improperly deleted articles), it was kind of inevitable that he would feel empowered to wheel-war on much the same grounds. Do I think he should have been desysopped? Certainly: at the time of that case, wheel-warring had been described to all admins as an bright-line offense. Any admin that did it would be desysopped, and the only decision making to be performed was whether to restore it after the case was settled or force a new RFA. I also think he and a number of other admins should have been desysopped as a consequence of the linked deletion spree, yet Arbcom chose to endorse them.

For me to spend time agonizing over Scott would be pretty pathetic. For me to have a problem with an Arbcom that conveniently ignores all existing policies whenever it has a goal that it would like to achieve seems reasonable.—Kww(talk) 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll update my guide once my internet connection is less shitty. Hope you aren't offended by anything I've said, and thank you so much for all the hard work you put into this site. It's greatly appreciated. Kurtis (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Admittedly, I don't enjoy partaking in drama beyond just giving my $0.02 here and there, but I guess making my views known in this instance would give another perspective on things. Kurtis (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that reasonable response. Your 2 cent's is needed, and appreciated. My76Strat (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm going to take some time to finish the rest, but it'll be done soon. =) Kurtis (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks AS, I really appreciate it. =) Kurtis (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. As an aside, how soon do you think you'll run for adminship again? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime over the next year, maybe... this upcoming summer? I'm taking a bit of a break from Wikipedia for a little while, just so I can more or less detach myself from the drama that I've delved into as of late. I don't play politics, and I never will. Dispute resolution, though, is interesting to me. But I have plans to get back into article writing; I have my eyes on several different projects that I just haven't pursued yet. Thanks for asking, though — and likewise, I hope you eventually run again. I think you'll do just fine as an administrator. =) Kurtis (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^{my talk page} is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thank you so much Mike, I appreciate this. =) Kurtis (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Kurtis: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Northamerica1000! =) Kurtis ^(talk) 16:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Please don't browbeat editors bacause their oppose rationales don't meet your standards. Unless, of course, you intend to do the same to those who support without rationales. I realize you're trying to score points for RfA2, but it's quite unbecoming. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The view that it is important for oppose !votes in RfAs to have some stated rationale is hardly Kurtis's alone, and I didn't think that his short and courteous comment to the last opposer in the currently pending RfA constituted "browbeating." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Kurtis! When you have the likes of NYB answering for you, your next RfA is guaranteed to pass. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I don't think ... I supported Kurtis last time, right, and it didn't help (or at least it didn't help enough).... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you abstained from my RfA NYB (or had otherwise forgotten to support, thinking you had already done so). But, you did revert a sockpuppet after they had participated, which I thanked you for. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 02:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb — I've been active at RfA for years, even back at the time when I wasn't sure if I'd wanted to be an administrator or not. My only intention in the comment I left Cmach at Ocaasi's RfA was to give him some helpful advice when it comes to participating in an RfA. A support vote is something in which doesn't necessarily need a lengthy rationale; by signing your name there, you are in effect saying that you trust the candidate not to misuse or abuse the tools based on what you have seen of them (although it does help when you provide reasoning, and I typically do so). When opposing, you are saying that you do not feel comfortable with them having the tools at this time, which means you should give them a valid reason (eg. misunderstanding of certain core policies, some past issues with CSD tagging, etc) so they will learn from the experience and perhaps be able to better prepare themselves for a second attempt. And having the support of someone who is highly regarded by a broad segment of the community is no guarantee of passing an RfA or gaining some other position of trust; NYB actually is known for being lenient, in RfA and elsewhere, so those with stricter standards may not always put so much stock into his stance when expressing theirs because it's an entirely different perspective. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for that. My comment really wasn't aimed at you or yours, but at the comment which said Cmach's opinion was just about strike-worthy. Thanks for the clarificaton, though. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I figured you weren't explicitly condemning anything I've said, but I just wanted to make sure. Have a good one. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 10:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Kurtis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Received and responded. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 16:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation for you!


	Hello, Kurtis. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

I understand, but I disagree with some of you edits.--JTBX (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never aimed that at you, I just couldn't be bothered with long drawn out explanations at the time and now, but it basically had a lot of problems where the negatives of Stalin's rule were greatly emphasised so that even relatively unknown negative actions outweighed his other more important actions in the lead. One of your acts was to condense the paragraphs so that his industrialisation policy was merged with the first paragraph, a bad move in my opinion as it is a momentous event and opens the second paragraph well. Certainly a character like Stalin deserves this many paragraphs in the intro as it is now.--JTBX (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You call the Great Purge, the Holodomor, and the Gulag concentration camps "relatively unknown negative actions"? I made a point of mentioning the industrialization of the Soviet Union under Stalin, and it was noted in a positive light; that does not however overrule the other things he's done, and his atrocities most certainly ought to be mentioned in the lead section (which, by the way, is too long as it is; it should cover all the bases without going into too much detail, and that is something I intend to fix in short order).

I'll give you an analogy to convey my concept of NPOV: Let's say a majority of news stations report the temperature to be 60°F, but one or two other networks disagree and say that it is in fact 80°F — that doesn't mean the actual temperature is 70°F. It is not a biased claim to say that most modern-day views of Stalin's dictatorship are negative; it is a statement of fact. Of course dissenting views should be included, but it must be made clear that they constitute a minority. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I liked your statement and have long ago dropped the issue. The only reason I am appealing what I can only call the letter k topic ban is I would like to be able to use the full keyboard in making corrections, and not being able to make corrections went far beyond what was requested, plus how can anyone call it a consensus for a topic ban if there was strong opposition to the topic ban? Apteva (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. It doesn't matter much to me, anyways. Endash, hyphen, whatever.

Carry on. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 03:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on article talk page

I hope you don't mind I moved our discussion from my talk page to the Red Terror Talk page, where it really should be. cwmacdougall 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it'll get broader input that way. I placed it on your talk page because I was addressing you specifically.

Take care. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pratyeka

Hi. At the Arbcom case, you say "This clearly demonstrates that Pratyeka does not have the backing of the community at this time", but that link is to the history of the Jan 4 DR log, which doesn't appear to contain any mention of him - did you paste in the wrong link? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn... yes I did. =/

Hold on, I'll fix that in a giffy. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at Jason Quinn's talk page.
Message added 16:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jason Quinn (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: back

Thanks! Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Glad to see an old name popping up again. =) Kurtis ^(talk) 00:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]