John Cline (talk | contribs) →Withdrawl?: ty |
John Cline (talk | contribs) →This user doesn't give a fuck: new section |
||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
*Thanks for saying these nice things. All is well. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat#top|talk]]) 21:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
*Thanks for saying these nice things. All is well. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat#top|talk]]) 21:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
== This user doesn't give a fuck == |
|||
I've come through another round of RfA and wanted to ensure everyone feigning interest knows that I understand the message. You don't have to wonder if you will understand my words. I'll see to it that you do. To hell with writing like an 8th grade student. You'll see mine tailored for a goddamn 5th grade drop out. [[User:My76Strat|My76Strat]] ([[User talk:My76Strat#top|talk]]) 21:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:58, 27 June 2012
Re: Do we need another noticeboard?
I brought this up approximately a year ago over in a thread now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222#Noticeboards_and_related_pages. More recently, another user brought it up again, but I can't find the thread title. Now, I've seen you bring it up. I think we should just create the noticeboard and ignore the naysayers. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- You can count me in. Can you talk to the other user; three with a common goal can accomplish a lot; and I'm pretty sure we can get others to join too. I'd like to hear your ideas, and share a few as well. You are senior to me so for the sake of structure, you should operate the first office of the project until such-ever time. So take the lead, and tell this old soldier what you need him to do; keep me informed. I am pretty familiar with any aspect of forming a project, so just let me know. My76Strat (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try to find them, first; I wish I could remember who it was. Forget about that senior stuff, let's just contribute what we can based on what we know. Were you thinking of this as more of a community award board? For example, on the noticeboards in general, it's the community who determines consensus, so do we need to have a consensus for giving the award? For example, should the noticeboard be used only for users to nominate a user for an award, leaving the award up to the community? How do you see this being used? Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize for the delay responding here. I have been preoccupied with RL events. My initial post was geared toward an award, perhaps two or three levels, which would require community input and perhaps and administrative close delineating the consensus action. I would hope for the award to carry its own high prestige whereas being nominated would in itself bear significance. I would have suggested naming the notice board: Administrators Take Notice WP:ATN and hoped to offset the deluge of inconsequential drama with an apportion of discussion geared toward the many selfless acts that too often go unnoticed. Making it happen is the next logical step, if it is to be so. My76Strat (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea, but the name needs work. "Administrators Take Notice" might make a good name for a nerdcore band, though. :) In any event, what did you have in mind in terms of the "two or three levels"? Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I am certain we can forge a better name. This is a snippet of how I imagined this could work: create two awards of high aesthetic value and commensurately high prestige. Establish an attainable criteria that clearly exceeds the level of commendation. Whereas a barnstar, like a commendation, is a thing given; this should be proclaimed and the thing bestowed. The one award, upon consensus, ratified by a close; should be placed by the nominator, recorded, and thereafter held by the recipient. The other, I hope Jimbo would ultimately place, being the highest order. If consensus fails to accede either of the high order awards, an administrator would place a certificate of honorable mention for having been nominated. I think we should draft an RfC, not asking if we should, but stating that we will; and are seeking comments suggesting ethical standards of best practice; and expressions of collaborative interest. Pull the useful bits that may precede, and tell me as well, your thoughts. My76Strat (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Very interesting. I was not thinking along such formal lines, but for the moment I will entertain this line of thought. Would you agree that such a formal award should be properly logged, and that we should also propose the creation of an "awards log"? I'm thinking we should tie this into related certificate/badge proposals that are under discussion in various places for maximum effect. That is to say, we have "experts" on the project in various areas, but this isn't really known by the community in a formal way, so our users can't draw upon their expertise in any useful manner outside of specific content areas. In other words, you and I know users who are skilled at DYK, peer review, GA/FA, copyright, BLP, etc. By logging such a community award, and giving these users proper recognition, we can also create an effective means of recognizing user skills on Wikipedia aside from those purely adept at adminship or meta processes. Logging such recognition makes it official. Once such recognition is achieved, we can offer specific roadmaps. For example, a user recognized by the community for BLP skills could conceivably monitor a special category queue linked to a specific BLP template, or at the very least, monitor a special watchlist for BLP problems. I've often said that such recognition should encourage responsibility. And, knowing that we have in-house "experts" monitoring such queues increases our effectiveness and efficiency. I think we should link and tie such formal awards into this system, allowing us to 1) recognize active specialists and so-called "experts" and 2) identify weak areas in the project where these experts can make a difference with their acknowledged strengths. And, I'm not just talking about content; some users are proficient at social interaction, others with categorization and disambiguation. In conclusion, this formalized system of awards could identify strengths across the project to "change the wiki", using a meta-TED-like approach. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I like your ideas very much, I think we should proceed with these as tandem functions. I am very interested in these kinds of "official" recognition. We would definitely need to respect that not all subject matter experts desire to function as a community resource, and remain thankful to each who are willing. My76Strat (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Very interesting. I was not thinking along such formal lines, but for the moment I will entertain this line of thought. Would you agree that such a formal award should be properly logged, and that we should also propose the creation of an "awards log"? I'm thinking we should tie this into related certificate/badge proposals that are under discussion in various places for maximum effect. That is to say, we have "experts" on the project in various areas, but this isn't really known by the community in a formal way, so our users can't draw upon their expertise in any useful manner outside of specific content areas. In other words, you and I know users who are skilled at DYK, peer review, GA/FA, copyright, BLP, etc. By logging such a community award, and giving these users proper recognition, we can also create an effective means of recognizing user skills on Wikipedia aside from those purely adept at adminship or meta processes. Logging such recognition makes it official. Once such recognition is achieved, we can offer specific roadmaps. For example, a user recognized by the community for BLP skills could conceivably monitor a special category queue linked to a specific BLP template, or at the very least, monitor a special watchlist for BLP problems. I've often said that such recognition should encourage responsibility. And, knowing that we have in-house "experts" monitoring such queues increases our effectiveness and efficiency. I think we should link and tie such formal awards into this system, allowing us to 1) recognize active specialists and so-called "experts" and 2) identify weak areas in the project where these experts can make a difference with their acknowledged strengths. And, I'm not just talking about content; some users are proficient at social interaction, others with categorization and disambiguation. In conclusion, this formalized system of awards could identify strengths across the project to "change the wiki", using a meta-TED-like approach. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I am certain we can forge a better name. This is a snippet of how I imagined this could work: create two awards of high aesthetic value and commensurately high prestige. Establish an attainable criteria that clearly exceeds the level of commendation. Whereas a barnstar, like a commendation, is a thing given; this should be proclaimed and the thing bestowed. The one award, upon consensus, ratified by a close; should be placed by the nominator, recorded, and thereafter held by the recipient. The other, I hope Jimbo would ultimately place, being the highest order. If consensus fails to accede either of the high order awards, an administrator would place a certificate of honorable mention for having been nominated. I think we should draft an RfC, not asking if we should, but stating that we will; and are seeking comments suggesting ethical standards of best practice; and expressions of collaborative interest. Pull the useful bits that may precede, and tell me as well, your thoughts. My76Strat (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea, but the name needs work. "Administrators Take Notice" might make a good name for a nerdcore band, though. :) In any event, what did you have in mind in terms of the "two or three levels"? Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize for the delay responding here. I have been preoccupied with RL events. My initial post was geared toward an award, perhaps two or three levels, which would require community input and perhaps and administrative close delineating the consensus action. I would hope for the award to carry its own high prestige whereas being nominated would in itself bear significance. I would have suggested naming the notice board: Administrators Take Notice WP:ATN and hoped to offset the deluge of inconsequential drama with an apportion of discussion geared toward the many selfless acts that too often go unnoticed. Making it happen is the next logical step, if it is to be so. My76Strat (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try to find them, first; I wish I could remember who it was. Forget about that senior stuff, let's just contribute what we can based on what we know. Were you thinking of this as more of a community award board? For example, on the noticeboards in general, it's the community who determines consensus, so do we need to have a consensus for giving the award? For example, should the noticeboard be used only for users to nominate a user for an award, leaving the award up to the community? How do you see this being used? Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, what "attainable criteria" are you thinking about? I'm thinking we should recognize and encourage innovation as a primary criteria. We want people to identify and solve problems. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't meditated on specifics for generally these are best honed by collaborative discussion. My thoughts in general are that they should be reasonably stringent standards, conduct above acts that rightfully earn the various barnstars (of which many exemplify high standards)
These acts, producing proclamations; ought rise above. These; ought reflect spontaneous acts; which can not be contrived; and the full grandiose; a sharp abundance of philanthropic deed; filleting the man's charter bare. Then, upon scrutiny, the uncommon find of self-evident authenticity. The unique, immeasurable qualities that succumb to one rule; for they produce tangible things; intangibly; legacies; fortified by cherubs; silencing slander.
Basically these kinds of things. My76Strat (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Correct me I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are framing this type of community award in terms of a formal, military awards and decorations ceremony. I was thinking more along the lines of an informal community process like the current noticebaords, that would focus on positive contributions beyond the purpose and aims of the mostly useless WP:TEA page, such that anyone could "report" users for their positive, innovative, and creative contributions, whether it be in terms of conduct, project participation, socializing with new users, or just helping out with cleanup. The point, as I see it, is to refocus the community's priorities from highlighting and discussing negative behavior to praising and cultivating behavior that keeps us here and shows us what it means to be a Wikipedian. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are correct that I hold focus at the top tier of such an honors board. And that the military system offers a good analogy. That has no bearing against encouraging the wholesome discussion of a wide range of positive contributions and likewise recognition. Indeed I support such a notion. My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Correct me I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are framing this type of community award in terms of a formal, military awards and decorations ceremony. I was thinking more along the lines of an informal community process like the current noticebaords, that would focus on positive contributions beyond the purpose and aims of the mostly useless WP:TEA page, such that anyone could "report" users for their positive, innovative, and creative contributions, whether it be in terms of conduct, project participation, socializing with new users, or just helping out with cleanup. The point, as I see it, is to refocus the community's priorities from highlighting and discussing negative behavior to praising and cultivating behavior that keeps us here and shows us what it means to be a Wikipedian. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, what "attainable criteria" are you thinking about? I'm thinking we should recognize and encourage innovation as a primary criteria. We want people to identify and solve problems. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
So where do we stand on this? To paraphrase The Black Eyed Peas, how do we get this party started? Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards and felt this would be a good place to coordinate the particulars. Currently the project appears barely active; perhaps we can serve impetus for its revival. The list of project members is a good indicator of users who would likely be willing to assist and it is probably most appropriate to attempt forming a task force from within. Once a good model is developed, an RfC to ensure there are no unaddressed or overlooked concerns, and then implementation. The alternative would be to start a completely new project whose scope was narrowly defined in terms of community awards with good processes and categorized archives to be the storehouse of semi-official/official community placed awards. In my opinion they are equally viable options. My76Strat (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at that project and get back to you. Keep in mind, the admin noticeboards' (the first noticeboards) were created on a whim by a single individual. Additional improvements were made upon it, and new noticeboards grew from it. This is the wiki way. In other words, design by committee is usually a Bad Idea and bureaucracy only tends to slow things down. Skunkworks...works best! To recap, you have a great idea for an awards noticeboard. I contacted you because I also had a similar idea, as did another user (whose name I cannot seem to recall). I'm thinking we should just setup a mock board in our user space (yours is fine if you like) and experiment with it on the fly and try out new ideas to see if they might work or not. During the process we can invite others or go live and announce. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I checked the project out. I was surprised to find many of the editors still active on Wikipedia, which is good. I want to see an awards noticeboard used to recognize users in a way that is aligned with the Wikimedia Strategic Plan, particularly one that encourages user participation (awarding new user effort), recognizes efforts to improve quality, (cleanup and maintenance) and most importantly, the recognition of innovation. Would you be interested in posting a feeler message (essentially a probe) on the project talk page, briefly summarizing your proposal in order to get an initial reaction? That will give us something to go on, in terms of modifying the proposal. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, you have the more thoughtful ability to present this idea with merits. To incorporate a high end-structure is really an aside; and likely the hardest sell. I do stand ready to second whatever you might present! My76Strat (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's a creative way of saying "no"! :) I like your style, My76Strat. BTW, I thought your judgment on the TippyGoomba was sound and proactive, even if others disagree. Sometimes you can be right when everybody around you is telling you that you are wrong. Such is life. Still, if I'm going to propose it, I know I'm going to encounter stiff opposition. Can you give me any feedback on the opposition you already received to your idea and some hints on how to avoid or confront it? Usually, what I try to do, is argue both sides in my head and push the argument towards the middle to satisfy both sides, but that strategy doesn't always work since one side might push towards the extremes as a tactical bargaining maneuver. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- The opposition I anticipate is equivalent to all forms of consensus. It is simply impracticable to presume a good idea will appear good to everyone; for it never will. If we are going to approach the WikiProject for cooperative collaboration, I would simply lay out the idea while highlighting specific goals. I think it could be accomplished via a task-force from within and that is probably a good approach. I would focus on this as a thing that we are determined to implement opposed to an idea we are parsing. If the project members do not respond, we should simply form the task-force and commence development. If opposition is vocalized with stringent resolve, we should simply announce our intent to form a separate project with the narrow focus of community placed incentive awards. The alternative would be significant support and willing participants which is well worth the effort to endeavor. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- The opposition I'm talking about are the arguments that have already been presented against the idea. I'll compose a list of them and add them here for your review. In general, it is a good idea to acknowledge the competing arguments in any proposals. This demonstrates that the proposer understands and has a good grasp of the subject covered by the proposal, and promotes fair and equitable discourse at the beginning. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- The opposition I anticipate is equivalent to all forms of consensus. It is simply impracticable to presume a good idea will appear good to everyone; for it never will. If we are going to approach the WikiProject for cooperative collaboration, I would simply lay out the idea while highlighting specific goals. I think it could be accomplished via a task-force from within and that is probably a good approach. I would focus on this as a thing that we are determined to implement opposed to an idea we are parsing. If the project members do not respond, we should simply form the task-force and commence development. If opposition is vocalized with stringent resolve, we should simply announce our intent to form a separate project with the narrow focus of community placed incentive awards. The alternative would be significant support and willing participants which is well worth the effort to endeavor. IMO - My76Strat (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's a creative way of saying "no"! :) I like your style, My76Strat. BTW, I thought your judgment on the TippyGoomba was sound and proactive, even if others disagree. Sometimes you can be right when everybody around you is telling you that you are wrong. Such is life. Still, if I'm going to propose it, I know I'm going to encounter stiff opposition. Can you give me any feedback on the opposition you already received to your idea and some hints on how to avoid or confront it? Usually, what I try to do, is argue both sides in my head and push the argument towards the middle to satisfy both sides, but that strategy doesn't always work since one side might push towards the extremes as a tactical bargaining maneuver. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, you have the more thoughtful ability to present this idea with merits. To incorporate a high end-structure is really an aside; and likely the hardest sell. I do stand ready to second whatever you might present! My76Strat (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I checked the project out. I was surprised to find many of the editors still active on Wikipedia, which is good. I want to see an awards noticeboard used to recognize users in a way that is aligned with the Wikimedia Strategic Plan, particularly one that encourages user participation (awarding new user effort), recognizes efforts to improve quality, (cleanup and maintenance) and most importantly, the recognition of innovation. Would you be interested in posting a feeler message (essentially a probe) on the project talk page, briefly summarizing your proposal in order to get an initial reaction? That will give us something to go on, in terms of modifying the proposal. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at that project and get back to you. Keep in mind, the admin noticeboards' (the first noticeboards) were created on a whim by a single individual. Additional improvements were made upon it, and new noticeboards grew from it. This is the wiki way. In other words, design by committee is usually a Bad Idea and bureaucracy only tends to slow things down. Skunkworks...works best! To recap, you have a great idea for an awards noticeboard. I contacted you because I also had a similar idea, as did another user (whose name I cannot seem to recall). I'm thinking we should just setup a mock board in our user space (yours is fine if you like) and experiment with it on the fly and try out new ideas to see if they might work or not. During the process we can invite others or go live and announce. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Point counterpoint
Statements (for/against) | Rebuttals (for/against) |
---|---|
|
The current awards process accomplishes the same endeavor. |
|
We are not here to encourage discourse. Our focus is misaligned when we are not writing into the Wikipedia. |
|
That can not be qualify! It is as likely that jealousy and jaded emotion will magnify negativity instead. |
|
You should not focus on low expectations or the potential for weak-link failure, unless you are fond of low achievement. It is well known that you will perform how you train; a truth consensus can not supersede. |
|
Clearly you are in no position to speak of a universal brain function while the entire world remains unaware. And it does not warrant the prediction that follows. Napoleon knew that battles were not won by strong Treasury; but rather by surpluses of ribbon. |
|
An editor working to improve the encyclopedia without disruption or drama practically defines what we expect of an editor. It is foolish to issue awards for simply rising to an expected standard. Why not issue awards as soon as they sign up an account. Imagine the award citation: "Hello new-user, welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some helpful pages to read as you begin editing. The Community is proud to award this commendation to you for the outstanding username you chose to register. We are so happy for all that you have done for this project. I don;t think you will see this statement pass. |
|
You are practically assuming incompetence of the users who expressed interest in developing this program. To be clear we have considered effective ways to prevent the very things you state will be easy. When we get things moving along, I intend to ask you to demonstrate this easy ability you have described. How will you retract these prophecy when they fail and your are unable to hijack a thing? |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
|
Answer |
A barnstar for you!
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
Awarded to My76Strat for not giving up on the proposed community awards noticeboard and for thinking through it like a Mentat. I raise a cup of sapho juice in your honor—let's get this done! Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC) |
I will remain fond of this gesture for its flavor is enhanced by virtue of it being the second time I've been complimented this way; in isolated examples. It begins to ring true. I can only qualify these sentiments by saying "I am poor at conveying my thoughts, in writing". It is the same filter that feeds my lament when playing guitar; for I well know; what you heard, as I play, is inferior to how I imagined it ought sound. My76Strat (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's actually a very interesting subject. Sometimes it isn't just inferior to how you imagined it, but altogether different, surprising even. When you really get into the zone, however, you and your instrument become one and the same; the same is true with writing. "I am playing guitar" is just as silly as "I am writing this text". Who is it that is playing? Who is it that is writing? Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Blekko
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blekko. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Coordinator sought for the US National Archives WikiProject
Greetings, WikiProject US National Archives member!
We are seeking a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.
Please see the full information at Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Coordinator and contact me is you have any questions. Feel free to pass this note along to any interested parties. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2012
- Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
- News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia
- Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: WikiProject recognition
I had somehow missed your post (here) among the other sections on my talk page, but I wish to thank you (albeit belatedly). Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
J. Cole discography draft
Thanks for noticing my work. I've refrained from publishing it to the J. Cole discography article for now, as the draft still needs some tweaks, but it'll be up very soon. Holiday56 (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds good, I look forward to seeing the content included. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
"Admin" userbox
Hello My76Strat. I noticed that you recently added a userbox to your page stating "This user is [a public] administrator on the My76Strat user page." While this doesn't claim that you are a Wikipedia administrator, the wording and appearance of the userbox is similar enough to {{user admin}} that it's rather confusing. Could I ask you to remove it? Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I removed it. I meant no harm when posting the derivative work; but truly didn't give enough thought to how it could seem to others. Thank you for the courtesy of letting me take it down. I am going to post an edit notice to make it clear that you could have. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2012
- WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics
- Featured content: A good week for the Williams
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
RfA
Hey Strat. I just noticed you put up another RfA. I've got to say, I'm surprised. Has anything changed since your last RfA, besides you getting older and wiser? I've got a bad feeling about it, and would really have preferred you spoke to someone in this group. I set up the group myself and would be happy to look over your work and discuss what I think you need to do before I'd be willing to nominate you. However, if you are resolute on this approach, I wish you the best of luck. WormTT(talk) 08:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you My76Strat (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- What the worm said: break a leg, My76Strat. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good luck from me too - you have my support. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, best of luck, you also have my support. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- You gentlemen are cherubs. I have just returned from labor and this is a pleasing thing to see logging in. I will return later with regards; but cherubs is a good indication of my esteem for you. My76Strat (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please finish answering the questions, as several supports might hinge on your answers. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Long time no see, I just thought I'd drop by to say thank you. I added my support to your RfA and wish you the best of luck. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- You gentlemen are cherubs. I have just returned from labor and this is a pleasing thing to see logging in. I will return later with regards; but cherubs is a good indication of my esteem for you. My76Strat (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawl?
Hey. Is this a withdrawl?--v/r - TP 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for that delay, I was away for a minute. Yes shut it down I get the message. My76Strat (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, buddy, I'm taking care of it. Listen, you're a good editor. Despite how the RFA went, that hasn't changed. Take some time to recoup and then don't let it keep you down.--v/r - TP 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did you know that you are an awesome Wikipedian (10 June 2012)? And this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, buddy, I'm taking care of it. Listen, you're a good editor. Despite how the RFA went, that hasn't changed. Take some time to recoup and then don't let it keep you down.--v/r - TP 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, you're a great editor, and a great help at ACC. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 20:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yea - don't be downhearted about this at all - you do good work/contributing here- thank you for that, very much - Youreallycan 20:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry things went the way they did. You don't need to be an administrator to be effective on this website and some of our best contributors are either former admins or have never been one...best wishes.MONGO 20:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This user doesn't give a fuck
I've come through another round of RfA and wanted to ensure everyone feigning interest knows that I understand the message. You don't have to wonder if you will understand my words. I'll see to it that you do. To hell with writing like an 8th grade student. You'll see mine tailored for a goddamn 5th grade drop out. My76Strat (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)