User talk:Masterpiece2000/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Masterpiece2000. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
AfDs
Thanks. I haven't been withdrawing as many as I have been, so I think I'm improving. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm probably gonna wait until September or so to run for adminship again. Last few times out, I wasn't taking enough of a break in between RfAs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank You :-)
Thank you for your compliments :-) -RavichandarMy coffee shop 00:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Infobox Scientist
I think {{Infobox Scientist}} is sufficient, certainly it should be used in those articles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Infobox Scientist should be used in the biographies of social scientists. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Heyy!!
How are you? Zinta is now an FA!!!
Great work on creating a new article for Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya - I'm always willing to help you whenever you want me to. Shahid • Talk2me 11:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for this message. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church
- The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
- Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for this message. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
joining the ranks of the admins
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Rfa thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: My RfA
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I see you withdrew your RfA last night sometime after I logged off. I look forward to being able to support your next one. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Your request for adminship
Hello Masterpiece2000, I have just closed your request for adminship in accordance with your wish to withdraw. I am not PhilKnight (who you asked to close your RfA) or a bureaucrat, but since PhilKnight wasn't totally sure about the procedure regarding non-bureaucrat closures, I went ahead closed it for him. I kindly suggest you work on the concerns raised by your opposition, and than re-apply in a few months time when you feel you've gained more experienced and addressed those issues. Good luck. Acalamari 16:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- While I second Acalamari's advice on taking criticism, I certainly had many doubts about the objection rationales. I'm sure you'll do great the next time - all the best! Vishnava talk 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
A carpenter amidst the wrong equine herd
Hello, and thank you for your kind message. I was genuinely appalled by the dismal arguments that were made against your RfA. Trust me, you did not fail -- your fellow editors failed you.
Sam Rayburn once commented that any jackass can kick down a door, but only a carpenter can build one – a point that the 19 naysayers of your RfA were incapable of acknowledging.
Unlike those negative characters, I respect creativity. Please accept this as a token of my esteem:
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your extraordinary contributions to expanding the depth and scope of Wikipedia’s contents. Job well done! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
- Permit me to second these sentiments. In only a few months you have mastered an impressive array of wiki capabilities and made great contributions to Wikipedia. It is only a matter of time before you will attain your goal. Those whom you have helped will be happy to reciprocate if you need help and advice. Nihil novi (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I am sort of surprised more people aren't trying to clobber me on the head with a shovel! But thank you for the kind words. I will be there for you when you go for RfA #2. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if you could help me...
In the "Bolesław Prus" article which you have done so much to improve, I would like the "External links" "Images and media from Commons" link to connect with the more complete "Commons:Category:Bolesław Prus" instead of with "Gallery:Bolesław Prus" as it now does. (The Category site subsumes everything that is now in the Gallery.) How may the Commons link at "Bolesław Prus" be reconnected in order to do this? If it can't be, how might the "Gallery" be deleted from Commons as redundant? Nihil novi (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Jesus
It was in Who's Who, I get the index through my subscription to ancestry.com. If you have other people that you need the middle name for let me know. If you want to put him back to the truncated name, make the full name a redirect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Name: Borjas, George Jesus Birth - Death: 1950- Source Citation:
- Who's Who in America. 46th edition, 1990-1991. Wilmette, IL: Marquis Who's Who, 1990. (WhoAm 46)
- Who's Who in the World(R) (Marquis(TM)). 18th edition, 2001. New Providence, NJ: Marquis Who's Who, 2000. (WhoWor 18)
Your RfA
Hey there!
First of all, let me again offer my opinion that, if and when you do become an administrator, this project will benefit from your access to the extra buttons. Article building administrators are in fairly short supply these days and you are primarily an article builder. So far, your body of work is as comprehensive as anyone else's I've seen so that is definitely something that the community can learn to appreciate and respect.
As far as your RfA is concerned, the only issue that seems to have been raised against you is your AfD participation. In my opinion, this is pretty easy to fix. I would suggest to you that you choose your AfD debates more wisely and to only participate in those debates in which you can offer something substantial. Rather than leaving only a Fails WP:N type vote, run a Google search and summarize the results or quote portions of specific policies in question that may apply. In other words, demostrate your findings for either deleting or keeping an article. I know that this will be much more time consuming than offering your opinion on whether or not it meets policy and guideline criteria but the advantage that you have is that you don't have to worry about a high edit count - you have already amassed enough edits to satisfy anyone's minimum edit threshold for adminship. Worry only about the quality of those AfD votes. And also, try to find a few more AfDs where you vote to keep the article. Go through the same procedure of fact finding and summarization that you would if you wanted to delete an article and don't worry if you can only get to do 1 or 2 of these per day.
I think that, after two or three months of this type of AfD activity, your second RfA will leave no major objections to be overcome. It would, actually, be my pleasure to nominate you at that time if you don't mind.
Anyways, thanks for the note on my talk page and best of luck to you!
Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your RfA
Hi Masterpiece2000, I'm fine: thanks for asking. :) You're welcome that I closed your RfA for you. I'm sure that with a few more months of good work and demonstration of your knowledge of policy, your next RfA should be a success. Thank you for the comment about my username too. :) Good luck. Acalamari 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome. :) Acalamari 03:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
re: vandalism
happy to help clean it up. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 23:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- and I answered your other question TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your kind input in my Editor Review. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Temple Sinai
Thanks for your kind words and kind nomination. I've made one small change. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your kind words. I've made a few small additions to the article. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Designing Economic Mechanisms
I've prodded the article as, by itself, there's no assertation of notability and it's completely unreferenced. However I don't know if you were planning on using criteria # 5 of WP:BK to claim notability.... I know almost nothing about economics, so bear with me :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please see the section "references", you will find a reference. This book is about mechanism design. Please read that article. The authors of the book, Leonid Hurwicz and Stanley Reiter, helped found the field of mechanism design. In fact, Hurwicz shared the 2007 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences with Eric Maskin and Roger Myerson for their work on mechanism design. Hurwicz recently died. I was doing some research on him, and I created this article. This book is considered an important work of Hurwicz. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- The reference quoted is, I would have thought, invalid here in terms of proving notability as you're using a book to reference an article about the same book, which is circular reasoning - all that's really proving is that the book exists, not it's notability - I would have though a third party reference would be better. However, what you're then saying is that the person is considered notable enough in their field for any work they do to be considered notable, which is what I asked you in my previous question. I've removed the prod, but I'm going to tag the article as needing third party references - I think this is a reasonable compromise until you (or someone) can come up with some. One thing I am still concerned about though, is that the article has very little content - 60% of it is just a list of the contents, rather than encyclopedic content - WP:LISTS states Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. What would be better (in my opinion) would be details as to why this book is notable. CultureDrone (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- CultureDrone, I'm not trying to prove notability by using that reference. The reference only shows that the book exists. I've replied on your talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. As I originally mentioned, books can be notable under item 5 of WP:BK if "the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" - and this is what you seem to be saying. Since I know almost nothing about economics, I wasn't really aware of the significance of the author (though I suppose, in hindsight, I should have checked more thoroughly). I think the article is much more reasonable now, tagged as it is and with that list of contents removed. Thanks for tidying it up, and happy editing :-) CultureDrone (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- CultureDrone, I'm not trying to prove notability by using that reference. The reference only shows that the book exists. I've replied on your talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- The reference quoted is, I would have thought, invalid here in terms of proving notability as you're using a book to reference an article about the same book, which is circular reasoning - all that's really proving is that the book exists, not it's notability - I would have though a third party reference would be better. However, what you're then saying is that the person is considered notable enough in their field for any work they do to be considered notable, which is what I asked you in my previous question. I've removed the prod, but I'm going to tag the article as needing third party references - I think this is a reasonable compromise until you (or someone) can come up with some. One thing I am still concerned about though, is that the article has very little content - 60% of it is just a list of the contents, rather than encyclopedic content - WP:LISTS states Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. What would be better (in my opinion) would be details as to why this book is notable. CultureDrone (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Possible sources are added on the talk page. Some are gated. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Hello Jc37. I withdrew my RfA. You asked me some questions and I answered. See: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masterpiece2000. How do you rate my answers? Are you happy with my answers? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Treating this as a "good faith request". And will attempt in kind.
- (I note this because not too long ago someone else asked me this, while apparently more having a "score" to settle with me, rather than actually wanting to know my sincere answer. I personally don't see discussion as a game of "one-up", "let me vent my aggression, or build my ego, or assuage my hurt feelings at someone else's expense". All of which apparently the editor in question felt the need to do. I don't tell you this because I think this true of you, but more so that you understand the sincerity of my analysis/responses.)
- You may have seen this already, but here's also something I wrote awhile back: User:jc37/RfA/Criteria
- Anyway, let me list a few things that I see right-off-the-bat.
- The answers to "protection" had some issues. For example, semi-protection vs. vandals. Either you aren't aware of what semi-protection does, or have the POV that (only?) IPs and un-autoconfirmed are vandals, or, or, or... There were other such comments in that section that really could have used some clarification.
- And IAR is really something that not everyone has a handle on. The best link I've found doesn't concretely describe it directly, but if you read the whole page, it should "jump out at you". User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles.
- And determining consensus means weighing the arguements, not counting votes (regardless of whatever "side").
- And your answer to the last question needed clarification. As the answer could be interpretated several ways. For example, it would be rather easy to frame it to mean that you warn IPs but only block regular editors. I don't believe that's what you meant, but it's somewhat suggested. While your summary of WP:BLOCK was ok, your answer in the last question appeared to indicate that you didn't quite understand what you were summarising.
- And based on your responses of my questions alone (though I usually look at more than just that), I would have opposed, with the suggestion of learning more about WP:CON and WP:IAR. I don't see anything in the answers to indicate major problems with trusting you as an editor, but the apparent lack of understanding would seem to indicate a need for more reading/learning/understanding/etc.
- Now all that said, as I re-read the above, it looks a bit negative. Note that I'm only responding based upon what your answers were. For all I know you may be a policy and guidelines expert, who merely didn't communicate that expertise as well as you might have wished.
- And finally to have the courage to ask an opinion, when (since it's withdrawn) you didn't have to (presuming that the request is in good faith, of course)... Well to me, it shows a bit more than the average editor.
- I hope this helps : ) - jc37 07:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. And thank you for pointing some of my flaws. Constructive criticism is always positive. English is my second language. Therefore, sometimes I find it difficult to express my views. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome.
- And if there is anyway you feel that I could help you with some of my above suggestions, please feel free to ask. And incidentally, please let me know should you be up for RfA again. I hope you have a great day : ) - jc37 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments
I'd actually bet big money that it's an imposter, but I find WP:AGF is most applicable to people whose good faith you strongly doubt. And it's not as though there's actually anything to be gained by assuming bad faith in that instance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just thought I would pop in from the ol' rockin chair and say thanks to masterpiece for catching that. I don't want a sockpuppet/imposter supporting my RfA regardless of good intentions, especially someone claiming to represent the
always rebuildingRangers. I also noticed the user also greeted some new accounts which is also very sockpuppetish.--Finalnight (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"Mononymous persons"
Thanks for your vote to retain the article on "Mononymous persons."
A related "Category:Mononymous persons" has likewise been proposed for deletion. Perhaps you would care to express your opinion about this, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_12#Category:Mononymous_persons? It seems to me that it would be a shame if the article were retained but the category were deleted.
Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks once again for your help. Due to your participation, both the article and the category survived! Nihil novi (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
I happened to see a message from you at User talk:Moonriddengirl and also coincidentally at Temple Sinai (Oakland, California). I just thought I would give you a commiserating message from a fellow editor whose RfA didn't succeed either. Good luck next time! I've put Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Masterpiece2000 2 on my watchlist. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Steve Waugh
I'll still be expanding this. You're welcome to do so as well, of course. If the article gets too big, then forking like Keith Miller is always an option, especially in the modern era, every captaincy decision etc is analysed a lot and there is a lot of politics in the open as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done some more on the run of 16. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you interested in Australian cricket in general? We have quite a strong group working on Australian cricket articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC) eg
and {{OzTestCaptain Advert}}
Yeah, per WP:BIO in general and WP:CRIN more specifically, DW is eligible for an article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Your message about your RfA
Hi, thanks for the message about your RfA. I do hope you do apply again in a few months, as you certainly have a lot of potential as an admin. I'll happily agree that your mainspace article contribs have been generally excellent, but that's not what I was really looking for when I was gauging your RfA. Everyone at RfA, as I'm sure you noticed, has different criteria that they judge a candidate on; and personally I weight effective implementation of admin-type actions very highly - CSD tagging, AfD participation, AIV reports, that kind of thing. They tell me that the user understands the policies they'd be expected to enforce as an admin, and AfD votes in particular are a good way of finding out how effectively an admin can communicate about Wikipedia's rules and their implementation. As many of your !votes were along the lines of simply "Fails WP:N" or whatever, it didn't say very much to me about how well you understood those policies you're pointing at... it kind of felt like you'd just been rushing to get as many AfD votes in before you ran for adminship - and even though that quite probably wasn't your intention, I think a lot of people might have seen it that way.
In any case, the fact that many people jumped on you for the same thing in your RfA gives you a very clear thing to work on. I do hope you apply again and I wish you the best of luck. :) ~ mazca t | c 22:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you can offer insight on the question I've raised on talk of that article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding Long: nothing as I haven't googled for his info yet... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania)
Thanks, but we'll have to see how it does in the AfD. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Welcome
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for June has been published. July's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
- Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
- Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
| Thank you for participating in my RfA, Masterpiece2000! | |
| I am grateful for your confidence: 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. Thanks again! Okiefromokla questions? 21:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral.
I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC) |
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.
Cheers!
J.delanoygabsadds 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Congregation Beth Israel (Lebanon, Pennsylvania)
That's a great goal! Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
RfB Thank You spam
|
Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
DYK questions
The "DYK column" (by which I assume you mean the update) can be prepared by anyone. However, it can only be prepared from hooks which have been independently reviewed on the DYK submissions page, which is to say, you can't review your own hooks.
If you want to help out at DYK however, I would encourage you to do so by reviewing hooks yourself first, so that people can see you understand the rules and know what you've doing. If you've done that for a few weeks and there are no complaints, you would then be welcome to prepare updates if you are so inclined.
In reply to your question re adminship, having the tools is not needed for preparing updates. You only need the tools to post the updates to the front page when they are ready, because non-admins are not allowed to edit the front page. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thankspam
|
Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for the considered neutrality in my RfA. On reflection, administratorship is not the best way for me to serve the project, so I won't be re-applying, but I'll certainly still be working in every other capacity, and I appreciate your willingness to give a guy a second chance. Be seeing you around! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks!
|
Thank you...
...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
Re:Message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- 06:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In case you wish to comment...
There is a movement afoot to delete "Category:Mononymous entertainers," at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31 — item 1.13. (There is also, slightly below that — item 1.16 — an analogous effort with regard to Category:Mononymous porn actors) Nihil novi (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Discussions are closed! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- I stumbled upon the two discussions late, myself. Thanks for your willingness to help! Nihil novi (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I stumbled upon the two discussions late, myself. Thanks for your willingness to help! Nihil novi (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for the very, very kind message on my talk page. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The game's afoot again!
Current venue: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 6, item 1.3: Category:Mononymous persons. Nihil novi (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your splendid contribution to the current proposal to overturn the deletion of Category:Mononymous persons. Nihil novi (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Category
Thanks for the message, I have added myself to that category. Cheers. Tymek (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for this message. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I am accepting Tigers on my userpage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do a lot of work on building articles (especially in Chicago) and oversee WP:CHICAGO. I would love to work with you on anything at WP:CHIR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- "most well known place in the Midwest"?????? As a building person, I thought you would describe it as the tallest skyline in the world!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Paul_Erik#Support
I have indented your duplicate vote. Gary King (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- That was an accident. I voted on Erik's RFA on August 12 and I just forgot about it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
tally-ho
Hey Masterpiece, Could I get you to do me a favor... when you update the tally on RfA's could you put the tally in the Summary?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)