User talk:Ultraexactzz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Admin coaching

Hey Ultraexactzz, I see you request the help of an admin coach/experienced user on WP:ADMINCOACH. Would I be able to do that? I've seen you around quite a few times and your profile is excellent. If you have any queries about me, just ask. :) Regards, Rudget. 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Create a page in your userspace (example: User:Ultraexactzz/Admin coaching) and we'll proceed from there. I'll start the questions tomorrow! :) Regards, Rudget. 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing before tomorrow, could you give a history of time here on the wiki? Like here for example? Be great if you could. :) Thanks. Rudget. 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about Rudget, who was a friend to both of us. Would you mind if I took up his reins to continue your admin coaching? bibliomaniac15 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I added to the page. Your answers to the questions were very good, and I feel quite confident in your skills as an editor. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So...without Rudget, what's gonna happen here? *hopes to here a "you nom me now!"* Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

oh, btw. replied on my talk page if you're still online. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry.

Don't worry about Rudget -- You probably already know this, but apparently it was just his cousin playing a joke with his account when he left his computer on. See AN and his talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your RfA's formatting

Sounds good to me, thanks for the heads up -- pb30<talk> 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nom?

I think it's fairly obvious that you are well-fitted for the job. I think we can cut this short, as I did before with User:Malinaccier. Would you like to be nommed now? bibliomaniac15 05:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'm ready. Yes, I would indeed like to be nominated at this time.UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't help but intrude, but I think you'll make a great admin. You'll have my support at your RFA. Good luck! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. Please answer the questions and transclude into the main page when you are done. Good luck! bibliomaniac15 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would have to say that Biblio knows what he's doing. ;D Malinaccier (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it too hard. You will do fine. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Ultraexactzz/Archive 2, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD question

Could you please explain this deletion: Reserved people rules. As it was in AfD and the nomination was a mess and there was no clear agreement I think closing it early was not the best call. I can't know because I can't see the article but I'd like it relisted. Hobit (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

C. Vernon Mason

Are you planning to return to the discussion that you started at Talk:C. Vernon Mason? I'm not surprised at all that the Bloomfield anon has failed to pay any attention to the talk page, but I am disappointed that you would use the threat of page protection in order to get people onto the talk page and then not follow up with those people who actually do want a meaningful resolution. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

		Thanks!
		[[User:Ultraexactzz/Archive 2|Ultraexactzz/Archive 2]], thank you for showing your support in my RFA which passed with 38 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral! I also want to give special thanks to my Admin Coach and nominator, Useight for all of his help and support. I promise that I'll give my best effort as an admin, and I hope that your confidence in me proves to be justified. If I can ever be of any help, please let me know. In the mean time, I have some cleaning to do. Have a great day! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AFDsort

I noticed at your RfA you mentioned that you weren't sure if anyone else was using a script you wrote, AFDsort. By coincidence, just before visiting your RfA with the intention of perhaps voting, I was looking at User:Pb30's RfA, and had happened to notice that that user apparently uses AFDsort. I thought you might be happy to know this. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Note that I've just posted a follow-up question to question 5 in your RfA. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response at the RfA. Well said. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My transclusions

Thanks for catching up on them for me. I don't have any more lurking ou there, and will double-check next time. Thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

	Happy Birthday	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Ultraexactzz/Archive 2 a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

You now have your own mop. Dlohcierekim 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. I knew you could do it! Just don't get too hasty with your newfound powers! bibliomaniac15 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congrats! Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

When you feel you are experienced as an admin, please remember to pass on the knowledge. bibliomaniac15 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yo! Congratulations, and welcome to the club of downtrodden, poorly-paid, jacks-of-all-trade who keep the place clean! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! -- Alexf⁴² 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Enjoy your "lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility" -- LOL! --Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, and congratulations! Earthbendingmaster 01:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Have a great time, you should do just fine. Rudget. 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

About your RfA

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 02:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 02:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work! Tiptoety ^talk 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and congratulations on becoming an admin. :-) Lradrama 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question on Warnings (Hope it is not too silly)

Hello! Sorry to bother, but I wanted to get your opinion on Warnings.

Specifically, would it make sense for me to issue a Level 1 Warning relating to inappropriate humor against an editor who made a small but sarcastic crack designed to belittle a comment I made in a WQA resolution conversation – a conversation where that editor was supposed to be offering unbiased moderation.

The mediation thread is here: [1]

I initiated the complaint against someone that I believed was a potential troll. This person acknowledged having no knowledge of the subject prior to his posting, to which I commented that I only edit articles where I have a knowledge of the article’s subject.

The mediating editor then went to the page in question, fixed a tiny typo, but added a sarcastic comment that was designed (I believe) to ridicule my comment about subject knowledge. It is the top edit on this page: [2].

Unless I am mistaken, this is inappropriate humor designed solely to belittle my opinion -- especially when this editor is supposed to be unbiased and acting in good faith. What I wanted to know is (1) am I justified in issuing a Level 1 warning based on this, and (2) can I issue the warning directly or does a third party who is not involved in this dispute have to come in and do that?

I need to point out this editor issued a Level 1 warning against me at the conclusion of the mediation, but only issued a very soft message of caution against the person I saw as a perceived troll. I disputed the action, claiming the editor was not acting in good faith and showed very clear bias. The editor later acknowledged his decision was incorrect on his User page, but immediately removed that text from display when I called it to his attention.

In the scheme of things, it is incredibly small pickings. Still, I was interested in getting feedback on how to proceed.

Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to ask another question, but...

• Hello again! Your comment actually raised another question. The comment: "Since a level 1 warning is intended to notify a user that there was a concern over their actions, and it appears that you have already made this plain, I don't see the need for a further warning."

The problem I have is the user Doug did not acknowledge two key concerns I raised, which involved (1) his sarcastic comment in editing the Phil Hall (US writer) page with a comment that clearly was designed to belittle a comment I made in the WQA dispute, and (2) the statement he made in his User Doug/DR page where he claimed I was demanding unconditional agreement, which is not true and which appears to contradict Wikipedia's good faith doctrine.

What I would like to know is: do I, as an editor, have a right to issue a Level 1 warning against him based on either of these?

Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I promise, last input on this subject.

Question on this comment: "Your comments on his talk page here present your concerns over his remarks at User:Doug/DR, and do so in depth and detail far exceeding any level 1 warning." Does that mean a Level 1 Warning is worthless? Doug's resolution of my WQA dispute was giving me a Level 1 Warning but only giving a very soft scolding to the person I saw to be a troll. I don't understand the point of that warning, seriously.

Question on this comment: "The fact that he later refactored those remarks...shows that he received (and acknowledged) your concerns." But he later claimed that he did not acknowledge my concerns and claimed he was correct in his actions, even though his DR page comments showed otherwise.

Question on this comment: "As for the sarcasm you see in his edit summary - In my opinion, warning User:Doug for that comment would do nothing more than prolong discussion in ways which would ultimately not be of benefit to anyone." The problem is that I raised that point three times and Doug ignored this all three times. Making sarcastic comments is unprofessional, especially when they are aimed at someone he is supposed to be assisting in good faith (which he also acknowledged on his DR page that he did not have).

I assume that I have the right, as an editor, to issue this warning. That is correct, yes? But, then, what value does this warning have?

Thanks again! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• You know, you're 100% right! I will follow your advice. Thanks and be well! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi There

Mind helping out here?. The IP you just blocked has been making the same edits under other IPs and a username also. Thanks, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 04:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice Photo Vandalism

Thank you for responding to my vandalism report with respect to the photo used in the Condoleezza Rice article. While the problem in that article has been fixed, the same problem in the United States Secretary of State article has not been fixed. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured out how to fix the problem. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Considering an unblock of User:Bilbobag

User shows genuine contrition and a willingness to work within Wikipedia rules. They have requested an unblock, and I am considering doing so in the next hour or so unless I hear from you with some compelling reason not to... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it. Thanks for your quick response on my talk page. Later! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheel War!

Dude, nice one. That's smart thinking. Normally I'd only block IP's for 24 hours, but it seemed that 72 was better here, as they'd come back straight after the previous block. Like the plan of slanting those hours - I'll remember that fo rthe future, particularly for school IP's. Pedro :  Chat  15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi there,

Thats OK, I saw that edit, and as a result of that I was greylisted on #cvn-wp-en as admin rollback, no worries though.. I removed the incorrect listing :)

--The Helpful One 18:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

204.38.89.214's‎ talk page

You might have to semi protect it in case vandalism continues after this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks, you're doing quite well yourself. Best of luck with your lovely new tools! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Template:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-sTemplate:S-s

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

71.99

Sorry, but you removed an IP from administrators intervention because of no warnings, I should have made myself clearer but see this: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x, see Czechs and its talk page see Reservoir Dogs (video game) about ten IP's from this one person have been blocked tonight only, there is no point in warning since the user knows exactly what he's doing.--The Dominator (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't even matter anymore, he'll probably be rangeblocked anyway.--The Dominator (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, there are a few pages that could use protection: Reservoir Dogs (video game, Socialism with a human face. Czechs has been semi-protected, but he vandalises the talk, I'm not sure if there is anything we can do about that, he has also edited Joe Pesci tonight.--The Dominator (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA double

Thanks. Fixed. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)