Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 30

message: Anyone else feel the 88.110/111 abuse is getting out of hand? Would it be worth it to try and bring this case up to Wikipedia:Abuse reports? I might do it myself but I'm supposed to be reducing the time in spend on wikipedia... Nil Einne 00:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diffs? V-Man - T/C 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't the 88.110/111 abuse getting out of hand? 

message: I am going to remove the vast majority of the question/s and all of the answers, bar an amended version of Geogre's. I think that the tone of the question is offensive to Catholics, particularly in light of the questioner's other posts on Wikipedia. My responses in particular may be "feeding", and on reflection should go. I've also warned the questioner on his talk page about a variety of disruptive edits. --Dweller 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said ad nauseum, it is part of a consistent anti-Catholic campaign by this user.  I certainly find it both malicious and offensive.  The questions, such as they are, are incidental to the manifesto.  In the past I took this seriously, to the point of giving a measured response.  Now I do my best to ignore it; but it is, neverthless, soapboxing at its most pernicious, and deserves no place on the Reference Desk.  I thank you, Dweller, for your intervention, and have now purchased an Indulgence, ensuring that you will have remission for at least a thousand years in purgatory!.  Clio the Muse 11:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the questioner will come to find that anyone in a position of power is likely to abuse it, at least just a little, and that the expectation that the Pope would be beyond reproach is unrealistic and childish. Vranak
I just answered the questions which weren't soapboxing (where I had an answer, that is) and left the rest alone. StuRat 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanities Desk - "Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?" 

message: I've only just discovered that an individual applied to be an admin., whom I consider had neither the skills, the temperament nor, above all, the intellect for the position.  The matter is now closed (a failure, thankfully), but it disturbs me that I was not able to express a view.  Is there some way that I can be alerted to future nominations of this kind?  There is so much about this whole project with which I am still unfamiliar.  Clio the Muse 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can follow ongoing RfAs at these pages: User:Dragons flight/RFA summary or User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report. Or you can transclude it to a page of your own using the following text:  Rockpocket 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and if there is a potential RfA you are interested in specifically, you can create a link to the page it would be created on and keep and eye on it. When it turns blue, go and make your opinion known. For example, if you were keen to support a future nomination of Jack, you would create: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JackofOz. Rockpocket 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, just put it on your watchlist. Any page, even those that don't exist, can be on a watchlist.  When people start editing that page you will be alerted. Why has no one nominated Jack to be an admin? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: <edit conflict>The shortest shortcut I've found is to keep an eye on WP:BN. Five keystrokes in the search box. Jack's suggestion is also very clever, if you keep an eye on your watchlist. --Dweller 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that was David D's cunning idea. I think I may have asked Jack if he would like to be nominated, but he declined (like everyone else I ask!) Rockpocket 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, Jack of Oz would be superb in the position, measured, responsible and wise; though I doubt he has any interest in being elevated into Olympus!  Clio the Muse 19:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be successful, i think he'd need to do some work to distance himself from the question in this edit. Boy, what a nasty process RFA can be, here Jack hasn't even hinted at wanting to be an admin and i throw a diff at him. Could that maybe be one of the reasons he declined? I try and keep track of ref desk contributors at RFA, but us "regulars" should probably keep in mind that the desk is really a small part of Wikipedia, and try and make positive contributions to what can be a very contentious process.—eric 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm ... that's odd. I would have thought that an obvious option for Clio would be to simply place user pages on her watchlist. A little browsing around seems to indicate that is not sufficient, as an RfA can go through without it ever appearing on the user page!? How many other important developments relative to a specific user account cannot be tracked by watclisting the user page? Am I missing something here? dr.ef.tymac 22:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: RfAs often don't get mentioned on userpages to avoid the appearance of canvassing. There are a number of infomative pages relating to editors actions that are not obvious from userpages alone - e.g. see . Rockpocket 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I second the nomination.  Like it or not, you're running, Jack. :-) StuRat 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothetically very first thing I would do if I were a hypothetical admin would be to issue a decree banning bad English, even in jokes.  This would be binding on everyone, and punishable by death.  It's just so unfair that we who hold such exalted and lofty offices should be subjected to the speech of the common masses.  Now do you see why it would be an extremely bad idea for me to ever become an admin?  :)   JackofOz 05:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I need a spellchecker that catches mistakes like that (now fixed). StuRat 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Stu.  I thought that "your" of yours was an intentional ploy to unnerve me.  It worked brilliantly, regardless.  :)  JackofOz 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yore kidding, really ? StuRat 06:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Now there would be an unlikely triumvirate of co-nominators: myself, Clio and StuRat. I urge Jack to reconsider, if only for the potential for global harmony that such an unholy alliance could unleash. Do it for the children. ;) Rockpocket 06:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be very supportive. Maybe we could have a ref desk nomination rather than multiple co-noms? Put him forward as the unifying voice of reason. David D. (Talk) 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I too think JackofOz would make a good admin, which is probably most demonstrably reflected in the fact that he doesn't particularly seem to want to be one. Oh, and for the record, Jack, as far as I am concerned you can discuss any ole thing you like on the Reference Desk ... I'm sure that must be a weight off your shoulders. :) dr.ef.tymac 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd support that, too.  He's one of the most stubbornly patient and reasonable editors I've ever seen.  The only potential problem I see is in the likely demand for shrubberies from certain denizens of the RfA process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those denizens would also suddenly read some reasons and names they only rarely see in the support section. (Mine, for one) ---Sluzzelin talk 15:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is where I should make a Shermanesque statement.  When I can think of some uniquely Jackesque way of phrasing it, I'll get back to you.  :)  JackofOz 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFAs-How can I be alerted to these?