User talk:Dragon's Blood

Welcome!

Hello Dragon's Blood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hello Dragon's Blood. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your neutral vote at my RfA. I appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like, I can go through your edits to give you some examples of how you assume that certain people have less than honorable intentions, but if we can agree on that point then the issue becomes, "Do some people have less than honorable intentions?" In order to answer that, we have to define "honorable intentions." It is my position that an honorable intention is defined by the person who is taking the action in question. If my position is true, nobody else could ever assume less than honorable intentions in another person; we would always have to give the other person the benefit of the doubt.

This is something I have learned as an administrator over the course of two decades on other web sites and bulletin boards. When I stopped trying to hold back the river, and instead channeled all of the currents to where they could do the most good, a little more work upfront made for a lot less headache in the long run. I don't expect you to believe me, and in fact I've never seen anyone truly come to believe this except through experience, but some day you might look back and realize that the people you considered evil today merely had a different but valid way of looking at the world.

I recently wrote an article on Von Neumann's catastrophe about how one of the greatest physicists in history demonstrated mathematically that no two people can share a common view of the world, but how both views are entirely accurate. The funny thing is how long it takes us to accept that ours is not the only accurate view.

I have great faith in you, and I know that, with a little more experience, you will be able to channel all of the currents yourself by working with them instead of against them. When that day arrives, I will wholeheartedly support your nomination. --Dragon's Blood 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. --Dragon's Blood 17:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm just wondering one thing: how can you have such an intimate knowledge of Wikipedia and my contributions to it if you just registered yesterday? --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 17:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to assume good faith on my part, how do you think I could know such things? --Dragon's Blood 17:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you edited anonymously for a while. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I think you're getting the hang of it. I also heavily research any site before contributing to it, or before supporting or opposing a nomination. --Dragon's Blood 18:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2[edit]

For what its worth, I wrote Tawkerbot2. Tawker's involvement with it is in the administrative and creative departments. joshbuddy^talk 17:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a good piece of programming, and thank you for the information. However, I was referring to statements like this: "I would be using [administrative power] to deal with blocked proxies (see WP:OP) either blocking or unblocking depending on scans (the proxycheck script on the OP page is hosted by myself)." --Dragon's Blood 17:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Hey, I live in Rhode Island too ^_^ Warwick, actually. Glad to see another fellow RI editor! — Deckill e r 20:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you are a Star Wars fan too. It's good to meet you. --Dragon's Blood 21:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi there! Could you please write a bit more elaborate edit summaries? While everyone might know what rvv means, shortcuts such as ansagf, anslook, ansenl, nomupd, ansnor, ansadvr take quite some time to decipher/guess without looking at the actual diff. For some people they even might appear as complete rubbish. Writing few words instead won't hurt the servers. I also made a layout tweak on your userpage. Hope you like it! Cheers, Misza 13 ^{T C} 14:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can write more elaborate summaries. No problem, and thanks for spiffing up my user page. --Dragon's Blood 02:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SOCK page[edit]

You might be interested in taking part in this discussion. --Dijxtra 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of alternate accounts[edit]

Thank you for the information about the new table. It seems much clearer and intuitionally distinguishable.--ComSpex 06:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're about it, there are actually 5 categories, not 4, and I'd do the table this way:

Types of multiple account
Legal:
Declared alternate account	An editor publicly declares that an account is an alternate account, states it will be not be used against sockpuppet policy, and identifies clearly the other names he edits under. (Generally okay)
Legal but frowned upon:
Declared anonymous alternate account	An editor publicly declares that an account is an alternate account, states it will be not be used against sockpuppet policy, but does not identify the other names he edits under. (Frowned upon, unless clearly used responsibly)
Undeclared alternate account	An editor uses an alternate account without declaring it, but is careful not to use it against sockpuppet policy. (Frowned upon, avoid unless good reason, and confirm if asked)
Illegal:
Evasion alternate account	A banned or blocked editor uses an alternate account or changes IP to circumvent the ruling. (Should never be used)
Sockpuppet	An editor uses more than one account or changes IP to harass users, vandalise articles, make deprecated edits undetected, or deliberately influence the same vote or discussion without declaring it. (Should never be used)

and I'd add underneath against the "legitimate but frowned upon" that:

"Due to their potential for abuse, editors should avoid these where possible, and may be directed to cease usage or declare their use if (suspected) multiple accounts cause other editors concern."

FT2 (Talk) 09:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the newer table above is almost same as what I had tried to express.--ComSpex 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jay's RfA[edit]

Thanks bud for your support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, please voice them here. Regards, Jay(Reply) 02:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too...[edit]

I was a little concerned over the copyright status of my name, so I asked an Admin (Redwolf24, since very less active) if I could use it. He said it was fine, so I didn't think much of it since. I think since I am not really pretending to be the actual character, it's fine. Somewhere there was some discussion about copyrighted usernames, and I think it was deemed that Internet handles do not technically fall under the copyright restrictions. If I can find that discussion, I'll get back to you (I think it was on AN). Thanks for your input on my RfA. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your lack of faith... disturbing. [edit]

Dear Dragon's Blood,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your heartfelt response. Other nominees could learn a lot from you. --Dragon's Blood 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with the practice of thanking only supporters, as this is pretty much ignoring the others who took their time to give you advice and help you improve. And did you get the Star Wars joke? :P Mopp E r ^Speak! 02:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was amused. If I knew you were a Star Wars fan, I would have asked the same question of you that I did of Jedi6. [1] --Dragon's Blood 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not that big of a Star Wars fan; I just remembered that one quote from Darth Vader and decided to put it in here. Thankfully, everyone seems to have understood it. :P Mopp E r ^Speak! 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you like to mop up messes...[edit]

...and you also opposed lar's RfA. From my experiences with lar, I think you will have a lot of janitor work to do. He just seems unable to work in any admin role that requires significant amounts of co-operation. I have only had dealing with him in online LEGO communities (and met him a couple of times) but I have seen several examples, and it always goes the same way - lar does some good stuff to get in peoples good books - lar fosters a "network" of people who thinks he's great then cajoles them into nominating him for a position of power, making them think it was their idea - lar tries to change policy to how he wants it, and alienates other admins and members alike - lar gets kicked out of his position, or resigns. I know of 3 such instances, just in the LEGO community. He does a lot of work behind the scenes, both to garner support from those he thinks will be useful, and to trash those who have seen through him. He likes to control his sandbox. 58.178.148.25 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't told me anything that I couldn't see from a quick perusal of his edits. If you want me to consider your LEGO accusations, you'll have to provide links. You should be aware that I'm not going to take any action against Lar either way. My time is too valuable to sweat the small stuff. --Dragon's Blood 17:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly warning, nothing more.

Thanks for voting on my RfA[edit]

Thanks so much for voting!

Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your constructive criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.

Mahogany

Your opinion counts![edit]

Thanks for the comment about my editing work, although I am slightly puzzled as to why this should form the basis for opposition to an RfA? I have always felt that administrators should be chosen from good editors, especially those who are also willing to get stuck into the janitorial side of things. I would be interested to know if there is a more specific reason for your opposition, or if you have any questions? Nice one, Deizio talk 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on my RFA[edit]

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Dragon's Blood, a query has arisen as to whether this account is a sockpuppet account of a banner user, user:Zephram Stark. The reason for the concern is that you were engaged in re-writing WP:SOCK with User:Team Shocker, who is confirmed as Zephram Stark. I have therefore blocked this account until the issue is resolved. I'd appreciate it if you could e-mail me with details of your identity, or if you prefer to pass that information to someone else, I would suggest either an experienced admin or a member of the arbitration committee. I can help you to find their contact details if you don't have them. If this is a legitimate account, I apologize in advance for any inconvenience the block may cause you, and I hope you understand why we have to be careful, particularly when it comes to our policy pages. I'm also going to protect this page so that our correspondence can take place by e-mail. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To any other admins reading this, please do not unblock this account or unprotect this page without discussing it with me first. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA![edit]

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi, and thank you for your comments in my request for adminship. With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. If you have any issues or comments, please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and while I realise I did not have your support, I will do everything I can to justify the trust others have placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...