|
|
LA moves
[edit]No offense, dude, but you're all wet. There is no reasonable reason why neighborhoods west of Los Angeles should be designated as the "Eastside". You've also removed 6 KB of perfectly good content on the real Eastside, which is east of the L.A. River. That was 90% of the content on that region gone from mainspace (fortunately, I didn't delete my userspace draft). I heartily disapprove of your actions, and I'd like some explanation as to why the current situation is preferable to the way I had it Purplebackpack89 00:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and you wanted definitive district boundaries. I've laid out definitive district boundaries for you. If you e-mail me, I'll reply with a map. It's a Google Maps overly, so I'm afraid it's non-free and we'll have to make a better one for mainspace Purplebackpack89 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've replied at Talk:Los Angeles, thanks! – cacahuate talk 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- In your comment, you asked me to direct my efforts toward the districts discussion. I've done just that. I'm still waiting for a reason why the old way (or any other boundary proposal, for that matter) is preferable to what I've proposed. Purplebackpack89 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've not commented at all on old or new districts and which are better; just asking you respect the process of consensus building – cacahuate talk 01:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- In your comment, you asked me to direct my efforts toward the districts discussion. I've done just that. I'm still waiting for a reason why the old way (or any other boundary proposal, for that matter) is preferable to what I've proposed. Purplebackpack89 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've replied at Talk:Los Angeles, thanks! – cacahuate talk 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Map_of_India.png
[edit]Hello Cacahuate, there's a conversation going on over at Talk:Pakistan about the issues with the India and Pakistan maps. In particular, we'd like to eliminate cross-hatching on File:Map_of_India.png, to match File:Map_of_Pakistan.png, and only cover areas accessible by an Indian visa. While I could do that, it would be against (admittedly often ignored) Commons policy for me to upload it over the original. Would you be able to fix the issue? Also, do you have an svg version of that map that you could upload to the Commons? File:Map_of_India.svg appears to be a blank map. Thanks and regards, —Quintucket (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I replied at Talk:Pakistan#Eliminating_cross-hatching_of_Indian-administered_Jammu_and_Kashmir as well, but the svg is here: File:Map_of_India_WV.svg – cacahuate talk 01:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
That LA Districts map you wanted me to create...
[edit]...is up for deletion. Do me a favor and ask that it be kept until we've made up our mind what we want Purplebackpack89 23:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Closing noms
[edit]outstanding opposition? that is not how I read it, at least 2 supports did not clearly indicate, also just because some editors chose to have a discussion about the lack of adequate criterion about how to identify what is required for a nomination hardly showed any opposition as such, I would have seen it more as using my nomination to sort their opinions out on some subjects. Also some courtesy to failed nominations might make it easier for editors who might actually feel they can still contribute, by at least a message you were unsuccessful, try again later as suggested - that might have actually help the sense of community rather than blanking the nomination and no comment. If it is not a policy it would be one worth considering. sats (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi SatuSuro, I am only referring to the criteria for adminship that there are "no outstanding objections after 14 days", please don't read anything further into my closing comment, that was not meant to be harsh. Indeed Peter and AndreCarrotFlower have not withdrawn their opposes, and while some others like Ikan and Jan seem to have done so quietly further down in additional comments, they also should have stricken their above "oppose" comment. I can see upon looking a bit deeper that there is slightly less opposition than I had thought, so I am going to unarchive it for a little bit longer and reach out to Peter and Andre to see if they wish to withdraw their opposition or still want to wait – cacahuate talk 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for re-reading, I appreciate your explanation, my apologies, I misinterpreted the usage of the word outstanding.
I was being encouraging to anyone who wanted to turn my nomination into a discussion about how to cope with nominations of candidates in different contexts. I have no problem if those who insist on a wait and see, to stay with that, so to speak. As long as the process is something that will be consistent across all candidates in the future, it would be better to see something that goes well for wikivoyage overall rather than dealing different for any one individuals situation. sats (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The process is actually pretty clear already and well established; the only thing new is the "temp admin" situation, which in my opinion should be noted by the nominator which they are nominating them for – cacahuate talk 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Cripes, I have read the comments at the nomination, and I am really amazed at the good will. Please accept my apologies for anything above tht might have in any way been in any sense impolite, as the result of my capacity to have misread your closing. I must say your re-instating the nomination also was a suprise and another sign of goodwill that I really appreciate from fellow wikivoyagers, thanks. Whatever the outcome, appreciate your consideration, despite my misreading things. sats (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that I have made comment at the point where you seem to be calling for the nomination to be closed. I have in part replied to your comment, and feel that at least parts of the nomination process and criteria are a bit clearer now, that's something. sats (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- The process is actually pretty clear already and well established; the only thing new is the "temp admin" situation, which in my opinion should be noted by the nominator which they are nominating them for – cacahuate talk 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Admin nomination
[edit]I was going to close the nomination for User:SatuSuro, but there is still an outstanding oppose vote from you. Can you comment on Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations#User:SatuSuro as to whether you still oppose the nomination? Thanks. -- Ryan • (talk) •
- that nomination failed months ago and should be archived as such. If Sats is now ready to be renommed, I suggest starting a new one.... Unfortunately the trail on that current nom was flooded with gibberish from Alice, so it's a bit hard to follow. But Peter F and I both had outstanding opposes, and the nom failed and should be archived. On principle, I'm not interested in letting a nomination fester indefinitely until the opposes decide to change their mind, that isn't how the process works, and it's uncomfortable for and unfair to both the opposers and the nominee – cacahuate talk 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Could I ask you to please state whether you continue to oppose the nomination? There's no point in renominating him if you're still opposed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't had time to watch the site lately so cannot comment on whether anything has changed, thus I would probably stay out of a new nomination. Though I imagine (or at least hope) that anyone starting a new nomination for this user or any other user would review their contributions, and be nominating them based on seeing some usefulness for the tools in their hands (patrolling recent changes, interest in mediawiki pages etc) rather than treating adminship as some sort of reward for every user that sticks around for longer than a week - it was getting a bit weird and loose (imo) right after the wv launch – cacahuate talk 00:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone thinks adminship is a reward, and I certainly don't. My feeling is that someone who is willing to do the job and is likely to do well should be nominated, as long as there is a need for more hands on deck. I was actually thinking of nominating another person, but I'm hesitating because of what happened with SatuSuro. Admittedly, I do think he nominated himself a bit too early, but within a couple of weeks of his nomination, he had gained my confidence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think a new nomination is in order. Circumstances have changed since that nomination. Looking at his recent contributions, Sats appears to have been a little inactive lately, going on long hiatuses. I'm not sure of the situation; he might have just been on a holiday. But prospective admins should be active to some extent. I'd give it a month or so at least before renomming. JamesA >talk 02:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think any other folks should be nominated at this point? I have someone in mind and have not yet approached the person. Do you two feel like we could use more help? If so, I'll approach him. If not, I will hold off. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think a new nomination is in order. Circumstances have changed since that nomination. Looking at his recent contributions, Sats appears to have been a little inactive lately, going on long hiatuses. I'm not sure of the situation; he might have just been on a holiday. But prospective admins should be active to some extent. I'd give it a month or so at least before renomming. JamesA >talk 02:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone thinks adminship is a reward, and I certainly don't. My feeling is that someone who is willing to do the job and is likely to do well should be nominated, as long as there is a need for more hands on deck. I was actually thinking of nominating another person, but I'm hesitating because of what happened with SatuSuro. Admittedly, I do think he nominated himself a bit too early, but within a couple of weeks of his nomination, he had gained my confidence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't had time to watch the site lately so cannot comment on whether anything has changed, thus I would probably stay out of a new nomination. Though I imagine (or at least hope) that anyone starting a new nomination for this user or any other user would review their contributions, and be nominating them based on seeing some usefulness for the tools in their hands (patrolling recent changes, interest in mediawiki pages etc) rather than treating adminship as some sort of reward for every user that sticks around for longer than a week - it was getting a bit weird and loose (imo) right after the wv launch – cacahuate talk 00:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really know, do you feel there's someone that patrols a lot that would find the rollback useful? Has there been a lot of vandalism and need more hands combating it? I haven't been around lately so not sure – cacahuate talk 05:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm also not entirely sure. Things seem to work differently around here in terms of how eagerly we admin nom people. I was surprised how soon I was asked to accept a nomination, but apparently mine was more delayed than usual. I also don't want adminship to be a reward someone gets after they've been around awhile. It needs to rely on two factors: whether the wiki needs more admins, and whether the nominee will make consistent and appropriate use of the tool. I can only speak for my timezone and say that things are usually dealt with fairly quickly, but I'm not sure if things slip through on the other side of the world. Did you want to email me who you were thinking of? JamesA >talk 05:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I still think that you should formally comment at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations#User:SatuSuro as to whether you still oppose their nomination if you are to be consistent in your earlier stated opinion that "letting a nomination fester indefinitely until the opposes decide to change their mind" is "uncomfortable for and unfair to both the opposers and the nominee". -- Alice✉ 07:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, there shouldn't still be a nomination to even comment on, because that one should have been archived ages ago, and it would probably be helpful and less uncomfortable if you could find something else to spend your attention on and stay out of this process as you are not at all helpful – cacahuate talk 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I still think that you should formally comment at Wikivoyage:Administrator nominations#User:SatuSuro as to whether you still oppose their nomination if you are to be consistent in your earlier stated opinion that "letting a nomination fester indefinitely until the opposes decide to change their mind" is "uncomfortable for and unfair to both the opposers and the nominee". -- Alice✉ 07:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm also not entirely sure. Things seem to work differently around here in terms of how eagerly we admin nom people. I was surprised how soon I was asked to accept a nomination, but apparently mine was more delayed than usual. I also don't want adminship to be a reward someone gets after they've been around awhile. It needs to rely on two factors: whether the wiki needs more admins, and whether the nominee will make consistent and appropriate use of the tool. I can only speak for my timezone and say that things are usually dealt with fairly quickly, but I'm not sure if things slip through on the other side of the world. Did you want to email me who you were thinking of? JamesA >talk 05:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Could I ask you to please state whether you continue to oppose the nomination? There's no point in renominating him if you're still opposed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Upload files, Upload Wizard?
[edit]
Hello! Sorry for writing in English. As you're an administrator here, please check the message I left on MediaWiki talk:Licenses and the village pump. Thanks, Nemo 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Administrator status (Official Notice)
[edit]- A similar message was also sent via e-mail.
Thanks for your service as a Wikivoyage administrator. As you may be aware, our Wikivoyage:Administrators policy indicates that administrators who have not edited on the English Wikivoyage in over two years should have their administrator flags removed. This is for account security purposes, not a reflection of a loss of trust or any disappointment.
It is in fact just under two years since your last edit (5 November 2016), but as we are contacting several inactive admins, you've been included.
As such, we will be removing your administrator flag on 7 November 2018. Should you wish to retain your status, simply come on back and make an edit! That resets the clock. And if you ever decide to return to Wikivoyage as an active editor, your administrator flag can be restored by request.
If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.