User talk:SQL

Need a little help on something

Hey man, how's it going? (BTW, you know me as "MITB LS". I just changed my username. Oh, I'm not sure if I already said this, but congratulations on your promotion to admin). I have a question to ask you: you've probably already seen these templates before. I just need to make one more improvement on it before I put it out on the mainspace. The thing is that I want to apply a certain code that allows a certain section to be optional (for example, if I don't need the "Related articles" section). The code is like {{#if:...}} or something (in case you're confused, here's an example of it's use). Anyways, do you know how to add that to the template? Thanks. The Chronic 05:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I've decided to scrap the plains. The Chronic 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hi SQL. I noticed you just deleted Image:Jarsofclay valleysong.jpg as a speedy delete. This didn't qualify for speedy delete, as it was a single cover and had the appropriate boilerplate. It did, however, qualify for listing for deletion, but not speedy. Could you undelete the file to follow the proper procedure and nominate it for deletion, allowing the page editors to povide a fair use rationale in the allotted time? --lincalinca 04:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Your deletion reason was a CSD, which indicated speedy deletion to me. Nevertheless, the others deleted at the same time, could I request their reinstatement and I'll provide all of the appropriate fair use rationales (I have InvHurc in my watchlist, so I'm surprised I didn't see their nominations in the watchlist). Sorry for the work involved here, but I want to make sure the articles are adequately represented. I'll also make sure the rationales are complete. --lincalinca 04:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are exactly the ones. Thanks for that! I'll get right on them! --lincalinca 04:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When Death Becomes You

Just do a damn google on the song When Death Becomes You by 50 Cent. I don't got time to explain. I work full time and I gotta go to work. So stop messaging me. † Tyler † ^{(talk/contribs)} 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian SQL,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.

The Placebo Effect

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA!
Or perhaps: INSERT INTO `en_wiki_usertalk`.`SQL` (`id`,`subject`,`message`,`editsummary`) VALUES (NULL,'My recent RfA','Thank you for supporting my RfA!','Thou hast been queried.'); -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 22:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

SpigotMap

Hello SQL,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you - I was out in reality for a while. :-) Thank you taking the time to address this with me first. Btw, I would love feedback in this whole situation to learn how to do this better (one of my primary motivations for getting into the middle of things like this). I'm more than happy to answer your questions and please feel free to ask any in the future as well. Here you go:

2) The original block was for general uncivil behavior, failure to abide by community guidelines, failure to sufficiently change the uncivil behavior after warnings (this is the basis of my Gaming the System) argument, and failure to show any desire or willingness to change this behavior in the future.

1) When I blocked the user originally for 2 days for the unspecific behavior it was not specifically for the 3RR violation; while I did count the reverts among the uncivil behavior I did not specifically think that this may be a 3RR situation. After further researching SpigotMap's behavior I found not only the instance of this clear cut 3RR violation but also the very recent 3RR violation that he was previously blocked for in a manner not related to this at all. Because of that, I decided to take a more proactive stance, further protect wikipedia from a disruptive editor, and extend the block period. I also did this because I considered the fact that SpigotMap got another admin involved in this dispute (and his attempts to further confuse the situation) to be further gaming of the system and requiring further protection for the community.

For what it's worth (and I've told this to SpigotMap too, if you read the history) I have no disputes with SpigotMap's content; I think a lot of the changes he wants to make would make Wikipedia better. What I disagree with is not only his approach involving uncivility while doing it, but also his unwillingness to change his behavior.

Also, a little background information: this is a new approach I am taking with editors whom I find to be disruptive but I believe could still be good Wikipedia editors. The idea is to take their disruptive behavior and use it as a means to funnel them into community process (wikilove, wikiquette, editor review, dispute resolution, etc) and I'd like to think that my behavior so far has been consistent with that (especially the many many many times I've told SpigotMap to do this exact thing). The idea being that if the editor is "savable" that the community process will give them the feedback they need to become a better member in it. If the editor's goals are nefarious (not necessarily proven so) then they should tire of the community process quickly and find other ways to amuse themselves while not disrupting Wikipedia.

I've tried to stay not only in the realm of the words of our policies, but also the spirit, while attempting to deal with this. Please please please give me feedback! I've been asking for it from various editors the whole time and have received very little. For as much as I go around trumping up the community process while trying to get various difficult editors to abide by it, at the same time, it seems to be letting me down in my support I need to trump it up. Such a shame.

Thank you so much, however, for taking this up with me first. I sincerely appreciate it and I look forward to hearing back from you. Triddle 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)