Hey, it's finally the day...! Some of you have been really anticipating it, and helping Wikipedia by preparing nonsense for the Main Page or doing other silly stuff. It's only 1 day out of 365, so us overstressed wikiholics should use the day to look at things a tad differently. ;) Have fun! Jamie☆S9302:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
I had to archive your ER, it was open past the 30 day time limit, and due to the backlog, it needed to be archived. Feel free to open another in the future.--Truco02:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Dylan's way of doing that was a bit strange, he does have a valid point. Your last RFA was 9 months ago, so why not try it again? I'm sure you'd do fine :-) SoWhy21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it has come, up I vaguely remember you asking me a few months ago to do an RfA review on you... but when you told me that you were looking to run in a few months, I asked to do it closer to when you actually ran... if you are interested, I would be happy to do so.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This first paragraph is cross-posted from WT:RfA: Offline for a few hours and I'm confronted with this! To be quite honest, I'm not sure what's holding me back, but I'm still making certain mistakes here and there and last month my temper flared up in a civility issue (diffs available if you so please). Even though it turned out that my point of view was that correct one, I still didn't deal with it in the best manner possible, and therefore I'm not sure if I'm suited just yet. If someone could help settle those issues in my mind, I'd be more than happy to run again.
To Dylan, thanks for the offer, but I guess I'll see what I'm Spartacus' review turns out like before definitively running again for adminship. I'm flattered you thought of me, though.
To B'man/Spartacus, I didn't think you were still doing reviews like that, but I think now would be a good time for that review if you're still happy per my above comment that I'd be happy to run if someone could review my conduct last month in that dispute to see if it was overly out of hand. Also, I don't actually do that much that requires the tools bar a few move over redirects and possibly some CSD/AfD work + AIV (but I've little experience there). If these aren't too much of a problem, and assuming no other issues, I'd be happy to run. —Cyclonenim| Chat 23:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do it as often as I used to... or to the depth that I used too... but I still take a look ono occassion... unfortunately, I tend to drag my feet sometimes... which is what I did here... I took a quick look the other day, when I realized that running was probably not a good idea. (Note, unlikely to pass an RFA <> unlikely to be a good admin. I haven't had enough time to look at your edits and whether or not you would make a good admin.. my belief is that you probably would make a decent admin... but I don't know yet how I will !vote.---I'm Spartacus!NO! I'm Spartacus!01:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The really important issue isn't whether you're prepared to run, it's whether you're prepared for failure, perhaps ego-crunching failure. Think very hard about that. No matter what Sparticus or anyone else comes up with, for one week it's you against the world, with the world maybe telling you what a shit you are. I'm not saying that's what would happen I'm just saying. --MalleusFatuorum23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than willing to trudge through the hellhole that is RfA again if I believe I have reasonable chance of passing ;) I've been there twice before after all, the only difference is this time I've had more time for people to conjure up evidence against me (and perhaps for me). That's why I'll wait for the review first, and see what turns up. —Cyclonenim | Chat 23:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd offer to review you as well, although I do not have the same experience that I'm Balloonman! does. But on the other hand, more eyes are usually better ;-) I'd like to see those diffs you wrote about, if you don't mind providing them at my talk page (with your reply to my offer). In response to your inquiry: I'm doing fine with the mop (I think, noone brought me to ANI/RFC/ArbCom til now^^). I think you would too ;-) SoWhy08:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Malleus, the questions is are you ready to run in the sense of having the requisite knowledge, understanding, experience and temperament. If the answer to that question is "yes," the other question is moot. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cyclonenim. Before going forward with Cyclonebiskit's RFA, you might want to consider my comments/advice offered on his talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim02:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. Go forth advisedly. While I would likely support, depending on evidence of readiness apart from experience in the admin related areas, a sufficient number of opposers may require experience before RFA to sink the effort. Certainly experience in AFD, CSD, and AIV will give a clearer picture of a candidate's readiness. At the very least, (it's an open book test) a candidate should thoroughly review the relevant policies. One should also be careful to not give the appearance of recklessness. A vandal should be reported at AIV only after a full set of recent warnings, unless they are operating at bot-like speed and clearly intent on causing damage/disruption. Before tagging for CSD or listing at AFD, an effort should be made to rescue the article through a search for sources and indications of significance/notability. An important distinction in CSD tagging under A7 is that an article need not assert notability to not qualify for CSD. It need only, "indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Another pitfall is using G1 to IAR a speedy deletion. While some admins will delete that way, tagging this way can result in significant opposition at RFA. Deletion should be regarded as a last resort, after all efforts at improvement or salvage have been exhausted. There are, by the way, a number of "block on sight" criteria, but that is for a later post. Hope this advice helps. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that both the opposes so far are pretty baseless, but I'm not going to reply to the second one for fear of badgering. Keep your chin up, it's still early days yet and it can still go either way. Lankiveil(speak to me)14:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I agree - hope you'll keep positive and not withdraw early as I think you'll ride out the relatively small points being raised by opposers. Dean B (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medical student? Yes I am. I'd be happy to contribute to the project, however my knowledge of wikipedia is pretty weak (it took me a while to figure out how to reply and it'll probably come out wrong) and I often struggle to work out how to, so tentatively I might start. Out of curiosity, where are you applying / have offers from? From your info it looks like you'll be having some funtime revision going on at the moment, so good luck. MedicRoo (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial College, bleugh, exams, I have 4 in three weeks time which is why I've suddenly started spending a lot of time editing grammar and trying to answer things on the reference desk, which is fairly counter productive but never mind.
Finding references isn't too bad, and textbooks are good aswell and I have a few knocking about, it's more the making of the tables on the sides and the fear of making a mistake and it looking terrible, but I'll get the hang of it eventually.MedicRoo (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonenim. I just wanted to say that in my unsolicited (and inexpert) opinion, you might be getting quite close to the point where opposes start appearing for 'oppose-badgering'. I know it must feel unfair, but there are other editors replying to your opposers so perhaps best to let them take the weight. Anyway, I hope you're doing well and the negro thing isn't getting you down too much - I can't say I envy you! Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad your RFA isn't going great. You're a valuable editor and I'm sure you'll make a great admin in a few months time :-) Pattont/c13:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...but I've replied to you in the relevant section. I almost feel it's a matter of semantics between vote and discussion, because essentially both apply. —Cyclonenim | Chat 11:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course, that's pretty disappointing, but given the way things were going, I think you made the right decision, and I of course support you whichever way you want to go. I'll take the time tonight after work to provide some more detailed feedback on your responses to that particular question, if you like. Lankiveil(speak to me)21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Hello. Sorry I felt I needed to oppose your RfA, I hope there's no hard feelings. I'm sure you've learned from that episode under discussion and that it would be irrelevant when you try again. Better luck next time. Nick mallory (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cyclonenim. I see that I missed your RfA. I'm not surprised that editors criticized your comments about "negroes". I am sure that you will become a good admin in the future. Don't lose heart. Best wishes. Axl¤[Talk]21:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry things happened the way that they did. I can continue to coach you if you'd like, and we can concentrate on the points brought up by Jc37. Malinaccier (talk)22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark22:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa
: 13 April 2009