{U|PhantomTech}
- That's how I perceive them (unless you're saying I'm not human and therefor not allowed to have my own perceptions of things), and I'm not the only one. In that reply to {U|FoCuSandLeArN}, I also said "I have no issue with that and have found other things to do with my time to be productive."
- I saw an issue and poked around on IRC (per comment , like you said), was told by {U|Legoktm} on IRC not to worry about it since the queue had already been turned on (I stated in that same thread the next day ) and was functioning as it was expected to. It turned out it needed more poking, but I wasn't aware of that until after the changes.
- What part of the canvassing policy does it violate to notify users of a script of a discussion about upcoming changes to that script that will directly impact them? I'm not aware of any such verbiage, and would be happy to comply if you can point me to it.
- I offer two options near the very top of that comment after I explain why I don't do discussion on IP talk pages. Those two options were "We can discuss it on ANI (since you started the discussion there) or we can discuss it here I suppose (although I am pretty busy, so I may be very slow in responding to any comments you may make)." ANI (the hard way), or on my own talk page (the easy way). What exactly is wrong with that?
- I explained my interpretation of why it wasn't a canvassing violation per WP:APPNOTE. I'll expand this to say that of the 886 users notified, 182/220 were inactive editors (82.73%) (7 are blocked, I admit I should have filtered those people out of the list). That means I mathematically notified 154 active users. I don't consider that a lot, sorry.
- So, you admit that you dehumanized me by calling me a bot. Shame on you. My claim is that I followed the letter of policy by not using a bot. I could have very easily posted it as an RfC, but my goal wasn't "just" about the topic of a humor page. The biggest part of the goal (based on a sample of 20 random names in the list of about 1,700 that yielded a result of about 93% of people (technically 95% at 19/20, but one was real close with only one edit in a year that happened to drop them in the "active" group, so I gave only 3% for that one) using those templates being inactive (about 120 active users)) was to try to encourage some of our now retired and/or inactive editors to come back to Wikipedia and join a "fun" discussion about a silly humor page to remind them that Wikipedia is still here and try and peak their interest to come back. We kind of have declining numbers of editors, and I was hoping to poke at a few decent retired ones to get renewed interest.
{U|Rschen7754}
{U|L235}
{U|Kharkiv07}
{U|TheMesquito}
{U|Spartaz}
{U|Robert McClenon}
{U|Floq}
{U|Iridescent}
{U|Newyorkbrad}
{U|B}
{U|OccultZone}
{U|Kurtis}
{U|Salvidrim}
{U|Jehochman}
Arbitration Committee
- {U|Guerillero}
- pending
- {U|GorillaWarfare}
- {U|Courcelles}
- You accepted based on a fact that has been determined to be false, is your position still to accept?
- {U|Seraphimblade}
- {U|Euryalus}
- {U|Doug Weller}
- {U|DGG}
- {U|DeltaQuad}
- {U|Thryduulf}