User talk:Mdriscoll03/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Removing comments at AIV
Hi Mdriscoll03, could you explain why you're removed my comments here [1]? I've begun a thread at ANI. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC) @2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: It must have been a glitch because my messages have been removed by someone else as well. I think it maybe a glitch with the editing system. I apologize for this and I did not do this intentionally. :)
- Thanks. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. Your explanation here is incorrect [2]. If you look at the article's edit history, you'll see that I restored content deleted by a disruptive account. Please do make an effort to avoid me here. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: Hello, I see that I have made a mistake. I will happily remove the Vandalism Warning from your talk page. I apologize for any trouble that this has caused.
Cazza
Please have a look at my edits which you have hastily reverted. I am reducing duplicate references in the Cazza article. Have a nice day.96.127.243.112 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
Alex ShihTalk 17:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Revoked
Sorry, I am going to revoke your pending changes reviewer user right based on this edit. I didn't mind the mistakes made at Cazza, since we all make mistakes. But removing a comment (legitimate complaint about your patrolling) made by another user on my talk page, after admitting the mistake to the user here and said that you will take all responsibility
? This is very strange, please see WP:TPO. You may apply again when you feel more confident with exercising good judgement here on English Wikipedia. Alex ShihTalk 18:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Warning
If you make yet another ill-advised permission request such as this one after you were just declined two days ago here, you will likely be blocked (I use "likely" because I am going to recuse). Alex ShihTalk 02:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Maintenance tasks
Hi. Until you have made 500 unreverted mainspace edits, please restrict your editing to correctly adding new content or only correcting minor errors such as spelling and punctuation. Please do not do any maintenance tasks. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi Mdriscoll03! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:35, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
RfA nomination
This is very flattering, thank you. However, I'm going to decline at this time. Adminship is something I may consider in the future, but I don't think now is a good time. Simplexity22 (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think it was very misguided to put Paul2520 forward for adminship; his RfA is almost certain to fail, and possibly with 0% support too, although I won't personally oppose because he seems like a good editor and I want him to carry on doing that, with the possibility of a successful RfA in 2-3 years' time if he's interested in the maintenance side of things. In general, RfAs that aren't nominated by existing admins are unlikely to succeed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm offended that mdriscoll03 has so little respect for the Wikipedia community that he tries to forward insufficient candidates and with such paltry nomination that the RfA becomes an embarrassing affair. Anyone that wants to participate in the process needs to LURK MOAR. I think an apology is owed. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: I am simply offended that you think that I have shown disrespect for the Wikipedia community. I have forwarded a candidate that I thought would be responsible for the responsibilities that come with being an administrator so therefore I nominated him for Adminship. I will happily apologize to the candidate that I have put through this situation. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you'd spent any time at RfA, you will have noticed that Chris troutman says "you fail my criteria" when he doesn't think a candidate is suitable, and helpfully links to it - User:Chris troutman/My RfA criteria. For the record, while I think Chris might be a bit blunt delivering the line, the criteria is pretty good on its own merits, as far as I'm concerned. In your specific case, I would advise reading criteria #4 "Have a good nominator" carefully - some of us spend a weekend pouring over 6-12 months of CSD nominations just so we can get a candidate that's likely to get a strong pass with the minimum of hassle. I do think you owe Paul2520 an apology for telling him he was qualified to be an administrator; fortunately everyone at the RfA seems to understand it's not really his fault he landed himself in that situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I thank you for understanding the situation. I am very happy that people are blaming me instead of Paul2520. To be honest I think it was amazingly stupid on my part to even consider a candidate for adminship. I just hope that the Wikipedia community will forgive me for this huge mistake that I have made. I also am going to apologize to Paul2520 for putting him through this. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for saying that. One of the many criticisms about our RfA process is that it's too mean and it alienates good editors that aren't ready. I agree with Ritchie333 insofar as we have many good editors but just being a good editor isn't enough. I really hate to see anyone get un-asked for criticism in a public venue. We all make mistakes so don't fret about this too much. Please feel free to observe RfAs and voice your opinion on candidates. In time, you'll get a feel for which candidacies succeed and which ones fail, and why. WP:ORCP is also a venue worth checking out. I hope all concerned can continue the task of writing the encyclopedia. The mop and its inherent problems will always be around. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I thank you for understanding the situation. I am very happy that people are blaming me instead of Paul2520. To be honest I think it was amazingly stupid on my part to even consider a candidate for adminship. I just hope that the Wikipedia community will forgive me for this huge mistake that I have made. I also am going to apologize to Paul2520 for putting him through this. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you'd spent any time at RfA, you will have noticed that Chris troutman says "you fail my criteria" when he doesn't think a candidate is suitable, and helpfully links to it - User:Chris troutman/My RfA criteria. For the record, while I think Chris might be a bit blunt delivering the line, the criteria is pretty good on its own merits, as far as I'm concerned. In your specific case, I would advise reading criteria #4 "Have a good nominator" carefully - some of us spend a weekend pouring over 6-12 months of CSD nominations just so we can get a candidate that's likely to get a strong pass with the minimum of hassle. I do think you owe Paul2520 an apology for telling him he was qualified to be an administrator; fortunately everyone at the RfA seems to understand it's not really his fault he landed himself in that situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: I am simply offended that you think that I have shown disrespect for the Wikipedia community. I have forwarded a candidate that I thought would be responsible for the responsibilities that come with being an administrator so therefore I nominated him for Adminship. I will happily apologize to the candidate that I have put through this situation. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm offended that mdriscoll03 has so little respect for the Wikipedia community that he tries to forward insufficient candidates and with such paltry nomination that the RfA becomes an embarrassing affair. Anyone that wants to participate in the process needs to LURK MOAR. I think an apology is owed. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)