User talk:Essjay: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:41, 25 February 2007 view sourceDurin (talk \| contribs)25,247 edits Response to two← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:16, 25 February 2007 view source Essjay (talk \| contribs)21,413 edits →Re: Changing username: Archived; this has been read by all involved, and doesn't need to sit out to cause more hurt feelings.Next edit →
Line 73:		Line 73:

	:Sure, I'll change it in just a moment. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 14:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)		:Sure, I'll change it in just a moment. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 14:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

	== Re: Changing username ==

	*I am utterly flabbergasted by this. My every intention in this has been to ''help'' the project, not to cause any harm to it. I ''did'' check, quite some time ago, whether there were any sort of official clerks regarding WP:CHU. There weren't, at least there was no mention of it at all on the WP:CHU or on its talk page and archives, or on ]. It was only on February 15, 2007..THIS year, THIS month that the addition was made to the instructions on front matter, and only a mention of it in the archives twice, in January 2007 and late December 2006. It is clear to me this is a breakdown in communication. A clerk corps apparently has existed for nearly two months, but only in the last two weeks was anything done to make it clear there was such a corps .
	*I have been contributing to WP:CHU since September of 2006, and I will readily grant that I do not read the front matter every time I look at the page. I '''''DID''''' check to see if there was any clerk position because I saw people using "clerk note" type annotation in their postings to the page. I couldn't find anything, proven by the above, and continued my efforts. I did not consult with anyone because there wasn't a clerk corps to consult with, at least not publicly visible. I'm sorry you do not appreciate my efforts, but they were done in good faith and after carefully checking my facts...as I always do. You didn't raise this issue to me before, in our disagreement from three weeks ago, and did not ask me to stop contributing at WP:CHU at that time.
	*Would you please inform me of who has resigned due to my actions? I would like to apologize to them. --] 14:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

	:I'm sorry you weren't copied on the memo; I asked the clerks to begin clerking the page at 06:51 on 30 December 2006 (UTC), via a post to the RFCU clerk's noticeboard. On January 11, a user ] asking about becoming a clerk, and was told there were sufficient clerks, and that intersted users should list themselves on the ]. This was available on the talk page of Changing usernames until 00:00, January 22, 2007, when it was archived by EssjayBot II to ].

	:Over a week ago, I posted to ] with a very-carefully worded post, encouraging non-clerks to stop clerking the changing usernames pages. As you had been active on that page previously, I expected you would see my post, and that it would not be necessary to single you out by posting to changing usernames or your talk page. Quite honestly, this has been going on since we had our discussion several weeks ago, and I have been trying to send subtle signals since that time; I had to give that up when the resignation issue arose.

	:As to the resignations, the majority communicated to me that they were going to resign if I didn't do something about the CHU issue; I managed to talk them out of it by addressing the issue. They all watch this page, and are welcome to make thier names public if they choose to do so; I'm not going to out them. If the current status quo continues, it will become quite clear who they are, as they will be the users that have removed themselves from the list of clerks.

	:I have no doubt that your efforts were in good faith, and had no intent to question that; my issue is not with the good faith of your acts, but that they are causing disruption with the clerk corps, and by extension, the functioning of CHU and RFCU. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 14:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	:*I did not see the post that you are referring to. Now that I have read it, I see that it does not state that non-clerks/non-bureaucrats should refrain from contributing to WP:CHU. This is a bit of a constrast to your comments above, where you make it clear that you do not want me editing that page period. I did not know that WP:CHU was restricted to only appointed users and those making requests. Perhaps a notice should be added to the beginning of the page similar to: "Editing of this page is restricted to bureaucrats, appointed clerks, and those editors making username change requests" to help avoid such misunderstandings as above. In fact, I think there still is grounds for misunderstanding because it does not seem clear whether you are specifically targetting me to stay off the page or you want all non-bureaucrat, non-clerk, non-change request users to stay off the page. The nature of a wiki is that editing is open to anyone. WP:CHU makes no attempt to state that that particular page is not in compliance with that philosophy. If no attempt is made to state this, there will be other problems similar to this one in the future. People want to help. Keeping the door open for people to walk through and then finding fault with them because they went through it is not conducive to harmonious editing. Close the door. Post a notice at the top of the page that editing is off limits for all but a handful of editors. Unless, of course, you are specifically targetting me to stay off the page in which case I'd appreciate it if you could explain why I in particular am banned from the page. Thank you, --] 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	*You have been told again and again that your edits there '''are not helping''' and yet you continue to persist in editing. I don't see how you feel so wronged. You've been given plenty of lead and you've continued to belittle users over edit counts, refusal to follow templates, etc. You do not make CHU a pleasant place for anyone to be, and I cannot abide by users being treated so poorly. As such, I told Essjay I will not be clerking until this vilifying behaviour ceases. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	:*Ok, I give up. I'm completely, and utterly confused. The moment Essjay provided a rationale for edit counts not being used in change username requests, I stopped making any mention of it on WP:CHU. I have belittled ''nobody''. I haven't made a single mention of anyone not using the templates properly. '''''NOT ONE'''''. I have bent over backwards to try to ''help'' users. For that, I have been insulted, attacked, accused of things I never did, and all around told to shove off. I won't lower myself to insulting in kind. But, if you are going to make such accusations, you should back them up. Prove that I belittled someone, prove that I castigated someone for not using the templates, prove that I continued commenting on edit counts after Essjay provided rationale against that basis. If you can't, have the courage to grant me an apology.
	:*Look, you guys don't want me editing WP:CHU. Fine. I get the message. I don't know why I in particular have been targetted when I have done nothing but try to help, but it's obvious that a decree has come down that I, in particular, am not permitted to edit there. I consider this grossly unfair, but I have no intentions of attempting to disrupt this project. Please be so kind as to inform me of any other areas where I am disruptive, interfere, my edits are unwanted, frustrating, or cause delays in the furtherance of this project. If it's the entire project, then speak so and I will leave Misplaced Pages forever. --] 18:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	::*I hardly find it unfair that we ask people to treat people who make a good faith request with respect and dignity. In fact, last time I checked, it was ]. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::*Since it is apparently the case that due to factors beyond your control, you are suffering from clinical depression (according to your userpage), I'll forgive you your outburst against me. You do not have to prove your accusations against me; I know they are false anyways, and the reasons for your assault upon me are beyond your control. Forgiven. Let us move on. --] 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

	There is an easy solution to this issue. It has been repeatedly ruled that administrators (and by extension, other functionaries) should not use thier abilities while in a dispute. ] says: "If you're arguing, take a break." Pursuant to this, so long as the problems present at ] continue, I will be on break from it, and will perform no further renames. A bureaucrat not involved in the issue can perform the renames, or they can wait until the problems are resolved and I can return to activity there. Likewise, as they are similarly stressed by the problems, I'm asking that the clerks stop being active there as long as the problems persist. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 18:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	:*I said I would stop editing WP:CHU since it is apparent that I have been directly targetted to leave that page. I don't know why this is the case, rather than all non-bureaucrat/non-clerk/non-requesting change users, but that is apparently the case. Since the core of this is that you wanted to ban me from WP:CHU, and I have agreed to leave it, I fail to see any reason why you should excuse yourself from that page. If you want to do so for unrelated reasons, fair enough. But, if you are doing so because of me, there is no reason to do so. I am gone from that page. I only ask that you inform me of other areas (or if indeed the entire project) that you find me disruptive, unwanted, and interfering so I can seek to avoid those areas as well. I don't want any conflict with you. --] 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	*Indeed, I do not intend on going near there until these issues are resolved. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] (])</span> 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
	:*There is no issue to resolve. The issue was that you and Essjay, for reasons unknown to me, specifically targetted me to ban me from the page. Your goal has been achieved. I consider myself banned from the page. Since I am no longer editing on the page, there's no reason for either of you to avoid it. If you want to avoid the page for unrelated reasons, that's your call. We're all volunteers here. But, if you're avoiding it because of me, there's no reason to do so. I am not there anymore. --] 18:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:16, 25 February 2007

User talk:Essjay/Top User:Essjay/Talk TOC

New task for Essjay Bot IV

Hi, could you please add Talk:Structural history of the Roman military to EssjayBot IV's talk please. Thank you - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem sending the bot there, but I generally ask that there be a consensus building discussion on the page before we set the bot to doing it, so I have something to point to if someone asks later why the bot is archiving the page. I don't see anything there, and there don't seem to be any archives yet, so it would be helpful if you'd post there. Additionally, I need to know the number of days after which to archive and how many KB an archive should reach before a new one is started. Thanks, Essjay (Talk) 06:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand the need for transparency. I have started this discussion on the talk page now. I would like it to be sections older than 30 days and each archive to reach 50k. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Great; just give me a poke once there is support and I'll do the rest. Essjay (Talk) 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No support as such but no objections either - I think the problem is that I'm really the only one that has been working on the page recently, I think it has fallen off any other editors' radar, or never been on their radars in the first place! Anyway, no objections after 4 days, so can this proceed? Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not; if they object later, we can stop it until a new discussion can take place. Essjay (Talk) 08:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A query about changing user names

Thanks for changing my username Essjay. I changed my name for privacy reasons as my former user name is my real name and is quite unusal. However it appears that whilst my contributions to articles have changed over, my contributions to talk pages are still under my former user name User:Natalieduerinckx (which I notice is now in red, although one can still link to it through article talk pages). So, if editors who have been in communication with me want to contact me they won't be able to, or will contribute to my former talk page which is difficult for me to retrieve. I suppose I could leave a message on my old talk page redirecting people but that would rather defeat the object, which is privacy. Also, contributions to talk pages are far more visible as less people edit them. I hope that makes sense! Is it possible for the talk page signatures to be changed over too? Regards, Natalie West 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be done by manually changing them all, but the best option is to put a redirect on your old pages pointing to your new one, and anyone trying to reach the old pages will automatically be sent to the new ones. I fixed your link to your userpage as well. Prodego 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism accusation

After starting my account my_wan my house burned and I haven't learned much here yet.

Upon returning I had an accusation of vandalism from User A1 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC) and a warning in history.

The so called vandalism involved a single nonsensical word that anybody could see as needed. This is the original dif I made. Which I made full note of exactly what I had done. Nobody ever even thought it worthwhile to undo. I have much to learn but it is aggravating to get gratuitous warnings.

(My wan 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

P.S. I finally got to his page to ask. His user page defaulted to edit. Perhaps we can resolve it. Going through the diffs of the time it appears they were having trouble with some graffiti at the time .

I can only assume it was a mistake on his part. I don't see anything in the diffs you have provided to suggest that you've engaged in any vandalism, so I wouldn't worry about it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Essjay (Talk) 11:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Emergency request for CU

Moved to RFCU Essjay (Talk) 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help anyway, even if they can't be range-blocked. I'll just watchlist the deleted images, then. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's probably the best for now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Essjay (Talk) 12:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Thanks for the notice and congratulations on your appointment to Arbcom! :-) I'll send you a blank mail right away. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to you as well, thank you very much, and I've gotten you subscribed! Essjay (Talk) 13:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

It seems you are quite the protector of my userpage today, thank ye. Someguy1221 13:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem; if you'd like it semiprotected to keep them at bay, I'll be happy to do so. Let me know if they give you any more problems. Essjay (Talk) 13:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For all your hard work

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work as an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser yadda yadda etc I, Majorly award you this working man's barnstar for your continuing to do great work here despite being put under pressure, and with no real reward whatsoever, and being an all round great guy. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What was I thinking asking you to step down? Next time just ignore me being an idiot. Have a great day! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, thanks! Essjay (Talk) 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Change bot schedule

Would it be possible for the bot to archive my talk page every 7 days instead of every 14 days as it does now? My talk page stays too long on the current archive schedule. Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll change it in just a moment. Essjay (Talk) 14:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)