Hey buddy, thanks for reverting my userpage! I didn't realize it was vandalized. [[User:Qsung|Qsung]] ([[User talk:Qsung|talk]]) 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey buddy, thanks for reverting my userpage! I didn't realize it was vandalized. [[User:Qsung|Qsung]] ([[User talk:Qsung|talk]]) 04:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:You're welcome, glad I could help. [[User:Landon1980|Landon1980]] ([[User talk:Landon1980#top|talk]]) 04:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This time he's "Jackk of trades". Look out for him to start editing Used-related articles very soon, as he is now an "established" user and can edit semi-protected pages. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's him for sure. I'll keep an eye out for him, Landon1980 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not real familiar with using talk pages. So, please correct me if I'm doing this wrong.
I noticed someone (probably at Lennar) is deleting the "controversy" area that you and I and others have documented. I noticed you restored it, and so am I. Do you know what the process is for raising an issue about the improper deletions? I'd prefer not to go it alone. David Tornheim (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, why is there an "archives" thing on your talk page? Does it have to do with things you wrote? David Tornheim (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I put this on my talk page, but I'm not sure if it alerts you to that or not, or does it only alter you when I write on your talk page:
I see they did it again, but maybe a separate person. Should we do Wikiscan? I haven't tried that yet. This is correct to reply here instead of your talk page?--David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like things are heating up on the Lennar site!--David Tornheim (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a level 4 on Kneakie1; but no new edit from HIM since then. However, now there's a new guy, Jehochman doing basically the same thing. I put a vandalism note in the discussion section and on both and their talk pages (but I didn't cite the specific edits--don't know how to do that easily). Jehochman did give a reasons for deleting, but his reasons were very flimsy or inapplicable. See for yourself. I'm somewhat afraid to push to hard, as I don't know how firm the ground is that I'm standing on.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Now some user, Ckatz, who apparently is an administrator too, not only deleted my calling the deletions of sourced material "vandalism" in the discussion page of Lennar (is that okay for this user to delete what I wrote on the discussion page? I thought you are not allowed to delete what other people write on the discussion pages???); he also reverted back the Jehochman deletion of the BeyondChron, so now the link is gone again. Why can he just go and delete an external link like that without giving any reason other than it is an external link (EL)? I don't get it. I read the external link section & it seems like it is okay to me. I'm afraid to challenge either of the deletions Ckatz made, since he is admin. That would be messing with fire for a newbie like me. Any clues???--David Tornheim (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, you're more than welcome to enquire about any edits I make - although it would be better to ask me directly rather than asking someone else. (You should perhaps consider moving this conversation to the article's talk page.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz: At the time of writing the above, it did not feel safe to challenge you or anyone else who was deleting the stuff I and others had contributed to Lennar's "controversy section" that keeps disappearing, often without explanation. I felt that using the discussion page was particularly unsafe, since you already demonstrated that any concerns I raise can be wiped clean virtually without a trace (except in the history of edits section), sort of like the "free speech zone" for people who want to protest Bush or at the Democratic convention. I'm also not sure there is a remedy to that danger, as I will explain in the next paragraph. And having the other admin. join in made things look even more precarious. But first, I do want to say, I feel a tad bit safer now (with you at least), because you defended one of the edits I made. But with the other admin., no I don't feel all that safe challenging or questioning anything he does.
I base these fears on reviewing of Pokipsy76's page. He said there was a disagreement about content on a article and apparently an admin. who was contributing to the same article just went ahead and blocked him because that admin. did not agree with Pokipsy76's changes. My immediate sense was that appeared an arbitrary abuse of power, pretty much regardless of how improper the edits Pokispy76 made were. (I still have no idea what they were. For all I know he was arguing that space aliens will soon take over the earth). I consider it an abuse of power because there is a conflict of interest. The admin. obviously has an interest in the content of that page, and therefore he or she is incapable of acting as a disinterested, unbiased and objective judge--there is a serious conflict of interest. As a regular editor of said page, I feel that particular admin. should not be permitted to use his/her powers to dole out punishments to any other users of the article--only disinterested admins. should have that power. I read on, and was relieved that Pokipsy76 cited a rule that admins. are not allowed to use their power for an unfair editing advantage, which confirmed my feelings. Pokipsy76 subsequently appealed the decision, which certainly made sense, and I assumed he would win the appeal and the person who blocked him would get his/her hand slapped for an abuse of power. But, to my horror, the arbitration committee not only appeared to have denied the appeal, but unlike an appeal in a court of law--where usually either the decision is accepted or sent back to the trial court for review and further instructions (which I think was the appropriate remedy)--I think they imposed even greater penalties on Pokipsy76. Perhaps they agreed with the reason the original admin. blocked him--it could have been a very good reason (I don't know). But again, even if it were a good reason, I think it was inappropriate for the admin. to use his/her powers that way, just as it is unreasonable for a judge to pardon his/her friends of parking ticket violations (a judge in San Jose lost his seat for doing just that). So, the lesson I learned from that is admins DO HAVE AN UNFAIR editing advantage and to challenge or question that, is messing with fire. You better know what you are doing and know the rules inside and out before confronting them.
However, there may be more to the Pokipsy76 case than meets the eye. I learned everything from his perspective and I did not see the evidence, the reasoning for the ruling, etc. But until I learn otherwise, I think I have good reason to dread when any admin. starts taking interest in any article I'm also working on, especially if they have any difference of opinion... --David Tornheim (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you looked at my responses about what I think is superficial reasons for deleting at
and at the Lennar discussion area. It seems to me almost anything on Wikipedia can be deleted at any time by making the "not neutral" "biased", etc. views... I guess I don't see much difference between vandalism and raising any of these defenses in one-liners... Seems to me, more work should be required of the person deleting.
Hello, Landon. It looks like we both reverted at the exact same time on the Economy of Zimbabwe article. I reverted that edit pretty quickly and thought I successfully did it, but by looking at the page history, you beat me! Oh well... (and as a side note, I completely re-vamped my userpage, so now it looks better than before) SchfiftyThree 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, Landon1980!
I am grateful for your confidence and for your kind words: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromoklaquestions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I had waited, you would have nominated me? Funny how things work :) Obviously, self-noms are slightly less likely to succeed, but I'm almost glad I chose that moment to nominate myself, as it seems to have elicited a convincing nomination statement on my part. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate your consideration, and if you ever need anything, be sure to let me know. Thanks! Okiefromoklaquestions? 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
