User talk:Paul August.html |
| | | ca | | | de | | | en | | | es | | | fr | | | it | | | nl | | | no | | | pl | | | pt | | | ru | | | ro | | | fi | | | sv | | | tr | | | vo | | |
| |  |
- I'm sorry, you have reached an imaginary number. If you require a real number please rotate your telephone by ± 90° and try again.
Contents |
Returning vandalism: 69.213.37.242
Hello there. I am contacting you because you were the last administrator to deal with the problematic edits from 69.213.37.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- they have returned (not surprisingly). RFerreira (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
H.D.
Hi Paul, I just nomed Filiocht's article on H.D. at FAR and was hoping you might have time to take a look and comment. A FAR on a '04 promotion was going to happen anyway, so I'm acting preemptivly at a time when I will be able to respond. The page remans fairly heathy since the FAC, it is reasonably well cited, but just needs a little polish here and there. I remember the work you did during the Yeats FAR, and was hoping you might be able to help out here as well, even if only offering suggestions or fighting against the 1 cite per sentence police. Either way, best. Ceoil sláinte 22:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Reversion
Fair enough, as long as reasonable comments will at some point again be allowed. Mackan79 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
NOR
I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Blocks
I have unblocked 8 IP addresses that you indefinitely blocked. Per WP:Blocking IP addresses, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Additionally, "Vandalism-only account" should never be given as the reason to block an IP address, as IP addresses aren't accounts. Most of the IPs in question had never even been blocked before, so an indefinite block was particularly inappropriate for these cases, especially for run-of-the-mill vandalism. Finally, I find your block of User:71.201.234.208 particularly problematic. This user had his first edit (minor vandalism) in over 8 months, had never been previously blocked or even warned, and no notice of the block was given after your indefinite block of him. I realize these blocks occurred quite a while ago, so I hope that you have refreshed up on the blocking policy since. If not, I strongly encourage you to read up on its changes, as indefinitely blocking IP addresses, while it used to be a somewhat common practice, is virtually nonexistent now. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (slightly edited from original to better convey my intent).
- VegaDark, I am not seeing the problem here, and am concerned with the tone that you are using towards Paul August, who has been a member of WP:ARBCOM. Even just looking at the history of 71.201.234.208 (talk · contribs), the IP had been used for nothing but vandalism for years, so there was no reasonable assumption of good faith, so I'm not understanding why there was a need to unblock without consultation. We routinely place longterm blocks on anon accounts, for example see {{schoolblock}}. We also routinely place indefinite blocks on proxy IDs, and these blocks can be done "on sight" with no need for warning. VegaDark, it would have been better in this case, and more collegial, if you asked Paul August for his reasoning, per WP:BLOCK#Unblocking. For example, you could have said, "Hi, I was reviewing indefinite blocks on anon IPs, and I saw that you'd blocked the following IPs indefinitely (list). I found this curious, considering that there were no warnings, and that IPs are not normally blocked for long periods. Could you perhaps help explain? I look forward to learning more about blocking procedures on Wikipedia, thanks." --Elonka 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- The blocks in question are, well ... questionable. The tone of the message is ... questionable as well. Oh well, live and learn. Paul August ☎ 17:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize if you took any offense to the tone of my message, as that certainly wasn't intended. Mea culpa if so. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Don't fret. The patient may have been cured but the bedside manner was lacking. This patient didn't really mind, and took his medicine, however ill-tasting. The next patient might not be so agreeable ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize if you took any offense to the tone of my message, as that certainly wasn't intended. Mea culpa if so. VegaDark (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
WT:RfAr
Take a look at WP:RfAr if you haven't recently. Are you missing the fun yet? It's not too late for you to come back to us, I don't think. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I came, I saw, I left. Haven't I cautioned you once before about the evils of sarcasm? My sincerest condolences, Paul August ☎ 19:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)