User talk:RyanGerbil10/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:RyanGerbil10. 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Please imagine a different catchy song:
- Believe it or not, this page is archived,
- Please leave a meesage at this page
- Scream all you want, but I'll never hear,
- 'cause I'm not here-
- Believe it or not, it's archived!
Signpost updated for October 2nd.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 40 | 2 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| New speedy deletion criteria added | News and notes |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS 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 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Late deletions?
I noticed that on some of the TfDs that you closed, the templates hadn't been deleted yet ({{CompactTOC7}} and {{Db-web}}). I've never seen any delays before and the TfDs were closed on the 31st of August, so I was just wondering if it might have slipped your mind or you were intentionally giving some extra time while deprecating or something similar. --Swift 01:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. Sorry, I didn't spot that. --Swift 17:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
TFD?
Ah, that's what they're called. I thought that since AFD uses at/ab and CFD uses ct/cb, TFD would use tt/tb but when I used those templates it messed up since they're used for something else. Thanks for reminding me. >Radiant< 15:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
{{philanthropy-org-stub}} was the template to keep; it was {{phil-org-stub}} that was nominated for deletion. Would you please reverse the process?! Thanks - ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
RfA thanks
|
RyanGerbil10:
Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, with the tally at 5/8/7, it was clear no consensus was going to be reached, so I have withdrawn the nomination. Most of the nay-sayers just want more experience from me, so I think I'll give it a try again in a few months. - Mike (Trick or treat) 11:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
- Got your reply. Wow, I really appreciate that you would be willing to do that for me! I'll drop you a note the next time I want to give it a try.
- I'm not disheartened at all by the failed nom. I kind of had a feeling that people would get nitpicky and tell me that 2,000 edits isn't enough (even though that's about 5 or 10 edits per day). I agree wholeheartedly that people's standards for adminship are getting way to high. I agree with the position that adminship shouldn't be a big deal. We shouldn't expect editors to have 5,000 edits, with a certain amount of edit summaries, and 3,500 of those in the articles namespace, 1,000 in Wikipedia, etc., ect. That's why - since you've probably seen me a around at RfA - I usually support nominations, unless there are civility concerns.
- Anyway, appreciate your reply, and I'll be sure to drop you a note next time around. Thanks again! - Mike (Trick or treat) 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, got a new sig for those guys who didn't like the alternating colors. -- Mike | trick or treat 18:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Page protection thanks
Ryan,
Thanks for helping protect the P!ATD page. I'm sick of all of these cowards who have nothing better to do and with my busy sched I can't keep up with all the reverts. --CJ Marsicano 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 9th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 41 | 9 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | 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 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA!
Atlant 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!
RfB With A Smile :)
|
|
Gary Kirk's RfA
|
Dear RyanGerbil10/Archive_7 Thank you very much for voting in my request for adminship. In the end, not many people let their opinion be known, and I didn't get the mop just yet. I have already begun acting on the issues brought up by the community, and will continue to do so. If you have any more suggestions for me, feel free to let me know.
|
Template:Hong Kong quick links
Re [1] - Would it be possible to extract the source codes and move it to user namespace, like the "German solution" to user boxes? The template should have been modelled after template:Canadian quick links. — Instantnood 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
TfD
Thanks for deleting Template:Economy of the United States for me. As you must have seen on my deletion request, I wanted to be able to speedily delete all economy templates that I upgrade to infoboxes on the main economy article. I assume I cannot do that (yet), but do you know how I'd go about getting the right permission to do that? I don't think this would fit under the normal criteria for speedy deletion, though. I am an admin, so there's no problem with technical capabilities, I just don't want to break any rules or guidelines, and at the same time, nominating each template separately (there are more than a hundred that I will eventually replace) would be unduly cumbersome. LittleDantalk 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA thanks
|
Hi, RyanGerbil10! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :) |
--Coredesat 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 16th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | 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 18:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
RyanGerbil10, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.
The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Added 21:31 17 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:RFA/Cynical
|
Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
Muchas gracias
Hey Ryan, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Hey Ryan,
I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
(Yet another) RfA thanks
|
Hello Ryan! Thank you for supporting me during my recently concluded RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 77/2/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown. I'm still exploring the new tools, so feel free to point out of any mistakes on my part. In case you need help with anything, just leave me a message. Thanks again!--thunderboltz(Deepu) 11:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC) |
A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin
 |
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
|
- My, you have a nice pile of these. :) Thanks for your trust. Luna Santin 19:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Block of Will314159
Hi - I just wanted to comment on your recent block of Will314159 (talk · contribs). I believe Will is an enthusiastic editor who may have some things to learn about how things work around here, but I feel that the characterization of him as a meatpuppeteer and serial abuser is completely false. The meatpuppet links that Tewfik used to report Will are evidence of the solicitation of participation on Wikipedia - not the same as meatpuppetry. There is no guarantee that those who respond to Will's invite will edit the same way he does. It is no different from any user posting a web page in which he or she recommends people visit a particular wikipedia page if they have expertise on the topic. I also do not feel that this was an appropriate request for WP:ANI in the first place. Using the ANI page means that the user is judged and sentenced before he even knows he has been reported -- in this case, it would have been nice had Will had the opportunity to defend himself (whether or not he would have been successful is another matter). A user conduct RfC would have been far more appropriate than ANI, methinks, under the circumstances. The NPA questions raised are potentially arguable, and other users are usually heard from under such circumstances.--csloat 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, and I don't expect you to change your decision, but there is one thing I'd like to respond to. You wrote, "If a consensus of other users disagrees with me, I will gladly overturn it" -- yet there is no way to find out whether such a consensus exists given the process followed. This is why I don't think such reports are appropriate on WP:ANI. The user should have put together an RfC rather than circumventing any due process through the ANI page -- through an RfC, one can see if there is a consensus that agrees with a particular course of action, and it must be looked at by various users and administrators. The way it was done, there was no way for the user to respond (he does not even seem to have been aware that disciplinary action was sought until it was too late to do anything about it). That is entirely appropriate when dealing with vandalism or copyright violations or other significant abuse, but I don't see how the behavior involved fits those categories. Anyway, thanks for listening.--csloat 05:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to note that I fully agree with the block, and would have suggested an even more lengthy one. Jayjg (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 23rd.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | 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 06:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I do however very much appreciate your comments. I am still very much in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 08:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ohio Wesleyan page
3 months ago you noted some problems with the content and formating on the page. I am working with user:Bluedog423 on improving some of its formatting and content. Could you provide your opinion on outstanding issues in case of a future FA nomination? Your time is greatly appreciated! Any help is greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 03:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Truthseeker 85.5
Thanks for that response. I see I was right to trust you with the mop :))) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
RfA
Ryan, I'm only about 200 edits away from Daniel.Bryant's silly little 3,000 edit requirement, and I have been getting myself more involved in the Wikipedia space. I was thinking that I might be ready to take another run at adminship in the first or second week in November, but I wanted to get your thoughts as the nominator first. Thanks. - Mike | Trick or Treat 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, Packers fan is the most important of all of those qualifications :-). An FA could be happening in a little while though, namely Apple Computer. I've done some cleanup on it to get it up to GA standards, and I'm trying to rally some people to bring it up to FA (see Talk:Apple Computer). Still, I can always say I've contributed to bring an article up to GA standards. November 9th seems like it will be a great time. It gives me a few weeks to get some more experience and edits, so I'm sure that son't have to worry as much about oppose votes based on experience. - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding edit summaries, I think that I have 99% on major edits and 89% on minor. Minor is a little lower because I am using Godmode-light (a rollback imitator) that doesn't leave an edit summary. For this reason I usually go through the normal revert process. The only other time I can think of that I don't really use edit summaries is when I'm editing my userpage. - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Haha, no prob. Thanks in advance for the nom. I've noticed that self-noms are treated with a little more brutality. - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hesse constitution
I noticed you had started translation on Hesse constitution, as there is an in-translation tag on it. I'm guessing it may have slipped your mind, and wanted to say something, but that also brought to mind a question. The in-use tags direct editors to remove them if no changes have been made recently, which I interpret as a few hours. Do you happen to know if there is a different standard for in-translation tags? ENeville 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:3di 16 on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:3di 16. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.