→RfA oppose: re |
→RfA oppose: r |
||
Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
:::::Ah, I see. Yeah, let's hope it :-) |
:::::Ah, I see. Yeah, let's hope it :-) |
||
:::::PS: Hmm, good question, I discussed that with Cyclonenim [[User_talk:SoWhy#Barnstar.21|few sections above this one]]. I think I am ready now, but I would value the input of some admins and/or crats before I attempt it and as I said to Cyclonenim, I will wait for some admin/crat to nominate me, because I want to avoid opposes based on "selfnom=power hunger" (even if those opposes are ignored, I'd rather prefer to force those users who oppose on those grounds to have to supply some better reason than that :-). '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::::PS: Hmm, good question, I discussed that with Cyclonenim [[User_talk:SoWhy#Barnstar.21|few sections above this one]]. I think I am ready now, but I would value the input of some admins and/or crats before I attempt it and as I said to Cyclonenim, I will wait for some admin/crat to nominate me, because I want to avoid opposes based on "selfnom=power hunger" (even if those opposes are ignored, I'd rather prefer to force those users who oppose on those grounds to have to supply some better reason than that :-). '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Nice hint. :-) I'll take a look at your contrib history when I get a mo. Have you had a recent [[WP:ER]]? --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:14, 4 September 2008
RfA thank you
— JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008
03:25, August 20, 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I couldn't work out why it was " " around the text for the web link, lol. Maedin\talk 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and thanks for the talkpage headers! That didn't even occur to me! Maedin\talk 21:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you live and learn. You should convert the sources you added to {{cite web}} if you have the time (or {{cite book}} or similar). I will watch the article and make changes if necessary (if you have further problems with such markup I can fix them). Nice work for your first article, you rarely see such good first articles here :-)
- PS: Not in this case, but if you use article names in a section header on a talk page, you should not use another name then the article's full name (i.e. "Piotr Tomaszewski" instead of "Piotr"). That is less confusing ;-) SoWhy 21:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you :) I was nervous about moving it, having something out there in the namespace to be criticised, lol. I did notice though that moving it from my subpage meant that it didn't show up in the list of new articles. Doesn't that mean that a clever vandal could create a lot of vandalism pages (relatively unnoticed) by moving them into the namespace instead of creating them there?
- I will work on the {{cite web}} later today, and I will remember to use full names :)
- Oh, and sorry to be thick, but I didn't understand your edit summary for the talk back; I did search on talk back and to talk back but didn't find anything except the template, lol. Have I missed something? Maedin\talk 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm...good question. I think not, because it will still be listed on Special:RecentChanges as a move and thus someone will notice it via Twinkle or Huggle or suchlike.
- Well, you are the native speaker, so I probably made the mistake. My dictionary said it means "to reply to someone in a cheeky manner"... ;-) SoWhy 11:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I see, to talk back and not in the Wikipedia way! You didn't make a mistake, I was just being narrow in my definition. You are indeed getting away with an awful lot of talking back; but I like you being so cheeky so I shan't complain :)
- I've just redid all of the citations for my article using {{cite web}}. Looks sooooooooooo much better! Maedin\talk 14:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. So, you like cheeky boys? Lucky for me ;-)
- Told you. That's something you can do for other articles as well: If you look at an article and see refs used improbably, instead of being annoyed, edit it and improve them using {{cite web}}. If we all do so once in a while, it will make Wikipedia articles look much nicer in a short time. :-)
- As for the Piotr-article or new articles you create, always remember, as I said above, to look at other similar articles, preferably FAs or GAs and copy style and formatting from them, if you are unsure how to format an article :-) SoWhy 16:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Lucky for us both it is then? It's kind of the same that I hear from my gf as well, she calls me cheeky all the time. ;-)
- Congrats. You are on a good way, trust me, although reviewing your contribs, you might want to edit a bit more in the Mainspace. But hey, it took me almost 3 years to amass 300 edits - I just started much much sooner ;-)
- I was busy? Nah, I just had some free time on my hands and decided to fire up Huggle. Such sprees are quite helpful for the project I think :-)
- Oh, and I do not mind you posting such things here. It's for talking after all ;-) Good night! SoWhy 21:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, she would certainly know best, and just goes to show that you are consistently cheeky, which makes you cheeky indeed, :)
- You're right that I should get into the Mainspace more; I plan/hope to. But while I "find my feet" (which is a silly expression, because I know exactly where my feet are), I am trying to not fret about where I manage to "contribute". But thank you for reminding me, I can always wander astray! Maedin\talk 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, but I hope I am cheeky in a nice way and so that's not so bad. :-)
- Sure, I understand that. I just wanted to point it out. If you have some time on your hands at work or suchlike, you can always use Special:Random and fix stuff that is obviously in need of fixing. I just mentioned this, because you know, I want you to become an admin someday ;-) Have a good night ^^ SoWhy 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect
You recently undid a edit(s) by User talk:68.196.61.0, I wouldn't say that was Netural POV, I'd say the edit was vandalism. Message from XENUu, t 19:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see by the other contributions of this user, he/she is clearly vandalizing. See the other warnings. I reverted several of his/her edits, all of which were vandalism. If you think I made a mistake, please supply the diff of the edit in question. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"Bristol palin"
Have yourself a..
Barnstar!
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For irritatingly beating me to reverting vandalism on Huggle. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC) |
- Coolio. Thanks! :-) SoWhy 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, keep it up! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- How else can I get all the edit count people expect from admins these days? If someone wants to nominate me in some far future, I should be able to please all those edit count fanatics :D
- Nah, just joking. You keep it up too, you do a great job, not only in vandal-whacking but I noticed you in a positive way multiple times. I should give you a barnstar but if I did so now, it would look like a cheap thanks for this one. But I will get you one - when you stopped expecting it ;-) SoWhy 21:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, you should be very aware, then, that this has an edit count section ;) Why haven't you self-nommed or been nominated by someone yet? I demand an answer! And thanks for the compliment, I've noticed the same from you. I'd give you another barnstar, but hey, two in one day is a little excessive, don't you think? ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- See, I told you there are such people ;-)
- As to nominations, well, I don't want to self-nom because I want a real reason for opposing from those people, who oppose all self-noms. And noone else wanted to do so yet (Rudget once offered to do it in October 2008, but he is quasi gone now). But hey, it's no big deal, I'll just wait if someone thinks I should do it. And while we are on topic, I could ask you the same thing! :P (I'd nominate you but now it would look like doing you a favor for the barnstar^^) SoWhy 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've had two RfA's. One was very premature and the other failed because.. I don't know really. I'm waiting for admin coaching with Malinaccier and then I'd consider getting nominated or self-nominating after that ;) But it'll probably be a while! To be honest, though, Kurt is the only one who opposes the self-noms. There should be plenty of support to counteract that? I'd be happy to nominate you, if you want. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, you should be very aware, then, that this has an edit count section ;) Why haven't you self-nommed or been nominated by someone yet? I demand an answer! And thanks for the compliment, I've noticed the same from you. I'd give you another barnstar, but hey, two in one day is a little excessive, don't you think? ;) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're very welcome, keep it up! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Stupid me. I remember that RfA, even if I have no idea why I didn't vote. But I think you should keep it up, if you do admin coaching, I am sure your coach or some other admin will be happy to nominate you. I might consider it as well, once this discussion now is well in the past because some people like to see conspiracies everywhere. :D
- And yeah, I know about Kurt, but I didn't want to mention him by name. I'd like to evade a self-nom-oppose from him anyway because he does have a point, it does look a bit like power hunger. I'd prefer some beloved admin to nominate me so that his/her glamour reflects on me ;-)
- Still joking, I think I will wait some time before I ask someone else to nominate me, but thanks for the offer. It means much to me. But currently my activity, as you can see by my edit count, has started only in the last four months and I have seen good editors being opposed because of that. But, to any nice admin reading this^^, I will still be happy about a nomination from those people. If it fails, I can still blame that admin for making a wrong nomination :P Okay, I am jesting too much today^^ SoWhy 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, fair enough! Well, best of luck, I'll see you around somewhere again, I'm sure of it. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So THAT's Why you removed it
Sry. I hadn't seen your comment on why you removed the SPEEDY tag. Thanks for clarifying! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I replied on your userpage because I left you a note at the same time :-) SoWhy 21:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
List of administrator hopefuls
Hi - I'm not sure if you're watching WP:HOPEFUL, but it is now updated per most of your suggestions. I think the only pending suggestion not implemented is to add counts for each section. If you have any other feedback, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am watching it. Great work! :-) SoWhy 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the barnstar. Oddly enough, it's one I didn't already have. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
my error
My sincere apologies for the problem caused by my use of WikiCleaner. I was using it to pinpoint pages in need of corrective action and was indeed viewing and fixing each individually. I wasnt aware of glitches or problems with the 'tool' and had no idea that it was automatically making so many inaccurate changes, entirely independent of myself. The realization of this dilemma is frustrating because I honestly contributed a significant number of accurate, productive edits. Thanks--1oddbins1 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
--SmashvilleBONK! 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA oppose
Why hazard a guess? Let the opposer respond for themselves. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because it is a similar behavior often found in many RfAs - and sometimes the opposer does not re-visit the RfA to explain it. So I thought it might be helpful to write what is likely, allowing the opposed to reflect on this interpretation (which might not be obvious to the candidate). After all, it does no harm, or does it? If so, tell me please, because I just tried to be helpful. Thanks SoWhy 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure it's a great idea. First, I want to reassure you that I can see your intentions were good and I'm not having a go at you. OK, that said, you don't know what he was thinking - he may have made a mistake (looking at his recent RfA activity that's more than possible). I left him a note earlier about his recent RfA contribs and after seeing your note asked him to return and clarify. Your suggestion doesn't really help because a Crat would ignore it as groundless speculation over the !voter's intentions. All you've done is note your own concern over the candidate, which is confusing, as you've supported him. It's just a bit of a mess. NB there's plenty of behaviour at RfA that's not ideal - let's, bit by bit, start raising the bar? :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I just pointed out, what could be a concern for some. As I wrote in my support, I firmly believe we need more admins and we need those especially, who, like this candidate, are good in fighting vandalism (with 200k edits a day, 1500 admins are not really much^^). But I am sure you know that there are many opposes of this sort imminent, mostly those who are based on "not enough FAs/GAs" / "not enough article building" which I never understood, because an admin should, as I see it, be able to clean up - you do not need those tools for writing articles.
- I have no idea of course, how a crat will judge such opposes (although I guess ignoring them would be a good guess here) and thus I did not have in mind to try and imply anything. I guess you are right about one thing: I should have looked how this user acted in other RfAs and then directly asked him to clarify him-/herself. Well, we all make mistakes, good thing you told me, so thanks for that. I will do my best raising the bar (but not that high, considering that I entertain the thought of wanting to jump over the bar some day^^) :-) SoWhy 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, bar for behaviour, not bar for admins :-) Any puzzling/inexplicable oppose would have to be ignored. I hope (expect) he'll return and clarify next time he's online. Cheers. Anyway, when do you think you'll be ready to attempt RfA? --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then it's okay. :-D
- Ah, I see. Yeah, let's hope it :-)
- PS: Hmm, good question, I discussed that with Cyclonenim few sections above this one. I think I am ready now, but I would value the input of some admins and/or crats before I attempt it and as I said to Cyclonenim, I will wait for some admin/crat to nominate me, because I want to avoid opposes based on "selfnom=power hunger" (even if those opposes are ignored, I'd rather prefer to force those users who oppose on those grounds to have to supply some better reason than that :-). SoWhy 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, bar for behaviour, not bar for admins :-) Any puzzling/inexplicable oppose would have to be ignored. I hope (expect) he'll return and clarify next time he's online. Cheers. Anyway, when do you think you'll be ready to attempt RfA? --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure it's a great idea. First, I want to reassure you that I can see your intentions were good and I'm not having a go at you. OK, that said, you don't know what he was thinking - he may have made a mistake (looking at his recent RfA activity that's more than possible). I left him a note earlier about his recent RfA contribs and after seeing your note asked him to return and clarify. Your suggestion doesn't really help because a Crat would ignore it as groundless speculation over the !voter's intentions. All you've done is note your own concern over the candidate, which is confusing, as you've supported him. It's just a bit of a mess. NB there's plenty of behaviour at RfA that's not ideal - let's, bit by bit, start raising the bar? :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)