Hi Lovetinkle. At Wikipedia, one of our clear mission statements is to keep good, regular editors and not scare them into complete retirement. I noticed your comment on
Giftiger wunsch's talk page, and while we appreciate input and feedback from all users, I personally think it is a little bit soon for you to be getting involved in RfA issues. However, if you feel sincerely concerned, perhaps you would like to read through recent posts and even contribute to
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. When doing so, try to put yourself in the position of an RfA candidate. I hope to see you there. Happy editing, and if you ever need any help with anything, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page :) Regards, --
Kudpung (
talk)
23:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Everyone and anyone is of course not only permitted to participate in RfA, but is most welcome to do so, but it helps if they have some experience in Wikipedia, and some knowledge of the processes it involves. My opinion is simply that you might wish to become more acquainted with our policies and processes before getting involved with the controversial areas of the running of the Wikipedia. You can also do this by following the links in my first message and
this one. Happy editing! --
Kudpung (
talk)
01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I thought so. For the record, I have taken considerable time to acquaint myself with the various policies and guidelines here. I have also been following the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship most closely. To my mind it is clear that the current process for selecting administrators is flawed. I often wonder if a process similar to that applied at Wikiversity would be an improvement on what we do here.
With regard to Giftger's RfA, I think my oppose was valid but as I said on his talkpage I regret that I was not more careful in how I worded my comments. I should have made mention of his many valuable contributions and adopted a less severe tone. I was (and still am) somewhat distressed that the RfA appears to have caused him to leave the project entirely. You may rest assured that I will be much more careful in future when I comment at an RfA -- whether I oppose, support or express indifference. That said, I must say that I think his reaction to the opposition he received (not just from me but generally) and the manner of his apparent departure certainly indicate he was, and presumably still is, not suited to the role for which he was nominated.
Well, I'll grant that he should probably have been just a little thicker skinned, it's no good being an admin if all one does is throw one's toys out of the pram every time there is a dispute. We have however completely lost some really good editors of first-class admin material because of the way they were treated at RfA. I've turned down many proposals to run for office, and I might even do the same, so I prefer to write for content, contribute to policy building, and generally gnoming around, and offering some advice. Please do not hesitate to chip in at RfA talk, if you can contribute some ideas for eventually making the RfA process a saner, safer place.
Kudpung (
talk)
03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)reply
I believe Lovetinkle has been around Wikipedia longer than his contribution history would reveal, and therefore probably has a better grasp on policies than the average new user. Most brand new users don't install
twinkle on their 11th edit. Whether he wants to reveal to us who he used to be is up to him, per
WP:RTV.
SnottyWongbabble20:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I am sorry your RfA is tanking but your assumption of bad faith on my part here confirms my belief that granting you adminship would not be good for you or the project.
This is my only account. I spent 2 or 3 years reading wikipedia as an IP and last year created this account when I felt confident enough to begin contributing. Prior to doing so I had taken the time to read up on the various policies and guidelines. So no, I'm not new but I'm certainly not a vanished user.
Lovetinkle (
talk)
23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)reply
contribution
removing comments, only that serve to be personal attacks. if the person will be wanting to keep it, then choose his words carefully, other than that, it's a personal attack.
Bread Ninja (
talk)
06:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)reply
A personal attack against whom? It seemed to be more of a generalised slur designed to create a fuss. I agree with you, his comment was not constructive but I think simply removing it could only create a greater fuss. Perhaps mention something on his talkpage would be a wiser approach?
Lovetinkle (
talk)
07:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I still think just removing his comment is not the best approach. Have you thought about asking him to consider rewording his comments to be less abrasive?
Lovetinkle (
talk)
07:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)reply
I am not. I only edit with this account and never as an IP. I reject your assertion that I am vandalising those articles. Your insistence on inserting egregiously non-neutral edits is contrary to WP policy.
Lovetinkle (
talk)
02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)reply
I've done nothing non-neutral and the IP user in question is the one vandalizing. You, by restoring his edits, are complicit to his vandalism, it would seem.--Львівське (
talk)
02:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't think there's much likelihood of us seeing eye-to-eye on this matter so any further exchanges between us are are not going to yield anything constructive. You're in danger of tripping over the
three revert rule though. Be careful.
Lovetinkle (
talk)
02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)reply
I read it somewhere on the internetz. For the life of me I cannot remember where, otherwise I would give due credit. I'm glad you like it. Cheers,
Lovetinkle (
talk)
03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Thank you for twice reverting the vandalism of my user page. Surprisingly this is the first time in my nearly 3.5 years on the project when I have had to deal with a spat of this :o)
Redthoreau-- (
talk)
06:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)reply
I see you have opposed due to concerns around temperament, and feel I cannot be trusted with the tools. I am wondering why you feel this way and what I can do to improve. Thank you. N419BH07:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)reply
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)reply
FRC
FYI, it's not a question of finding references; there was a recent (and extensive) RfC on the talk page leading to a consensus that the material should not be in the lead. It is, however, in the body along with several references. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Was my edit to the lede? I didn't think it was. But if you've taken the time to bring the issue here I must have made a mistake. Please accept my apologies and continue as before.
Miss E. Lovetinkle (
talk)
08:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
So long as that relevant information appears in the article (appropriately referenced) then all is well. Thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter with me. I am most obliged.
Miss E. Lovetinkle (
talk)
09:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Knock if off
Your personalization of issues on an RFA do not belong on the RFA, where we should focus on the contributor and his content-- you aren't helping yourself or the matter, please stop disrupting the RFA. I suggest you might want to remove your comments to talk yourself, which is where they belong, and refrain from personalizing issues and badgering opposers.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
10:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
As far as I am concerned my comments stand. Your conduct in that RfA has, frankly, bordered on the distasteful. I will neither move nor refactor so much as a single character. That is for editors uninvolved in our exchange to prosecute. If I might offer an opinion I would suggest that you would do well to turn your piercing insight on yourself, young lady.
Miss E. Lovetinkle (
talk)
10:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)reply
Then it's time for you to put up evidence...accusations without them are not viable. The edit-summary in this response continues your now pattern of poor wording choices. I sense a block in your future if you choose to continue this way.
DMacks (
talk)
09:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)reply
(ec) If you are "deadly serious" about Lionelt being a sockpuppet of mine, then I suggest you file a report at
WP:SPI. Just for reference I edit with the fixed IP 82.66.163.12 from the South of France. That might save you a little time. Alternatively we can go together to the talk page of Jclemens, a checkuser and member of ArbCom who has blocked several of the accounts under discussion. There you can explain with a little more care (a) the evidence you have for sockpuppetry by Lionelt and me and (b) which edits I have made that deserve a community ban. Making unfounded assertions that you know to be false is spelled out fairly carefully in
WP:NPA#WHATIS. Thanks,
Mathsci (
talk)
09:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
WP:ANI. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
blocking policy).
Whilst I may have been abrasive, I've not been disruptive in the slightest. I have edited within policy and respectfully request that the block be lifted. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the
guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you continue making baseless claims of sockpuppetry against either me or Lionelt on this talk page, your talk page access could be revoked and the length of your block extended. Now please stop this. Thanks,
Mathsci (
talk)
10:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)reply
No really? You really are a fucking idiot. That said I prefer it this way. The block will expire and then I can go back to my several endeavours. Given that CU is not magic pixie dust or to be used for fishing I feel confident that my malign purposes will not be revealed.
Miss E. Lovetinkle (
talk)
10:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)reply
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (
pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and
pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles
here and
here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate
WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page.
HuskyHuskie (
talk)
20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)reply