User talk:Malinaccier/June 2009

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifying my CSDs

Many thanks! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

About an RFD you closed

I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 8#Warp pipe (disambiguation) but it did not seem finished to me. I'm pretty sure the normal close after a week or so did not apply in it's usual way because the discussion seemed to be postponed until there was a decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warp Pipe (software developer) (2nd nomination). You closed it very shortly after the very impotent information, of what the AFD decision was became available.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have a concern about the closure of this RfD. You closed it with the decision to redirect it to the page concerning recurring mario gameplay elements... However, this page does not contain any information about Warp Pipes, making the redirect confusing. Surely if there is no information anywhere on Wikipedia concerning the topic Warp Pipe, it should not have a redirect? Even the page Warp Pipe itself was deleted with no redirect. --Taelus (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now added into the article a section about Warp Pipes, and redirected other relevant terms, so the redirect is now valid. --Taelus (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My userpage

Hi Malinaccier. I've changed the font color on my user an talk pages. Is it easier to look at now? Also, would you like me to change the color for the links as well? Timmeh!(review me) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 21:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

Thanks for bringing that up on my RfA. It made me take a look back and realize that my oppose and neutral !votes were very inappropriate, considering I was basing them on one isolated incident, the details of which were vague to begin with. I know you hold no grudge, but I feel bad about my !vote. So, I'd just like to apologize for that and let you know that, for what it's worth, if your RfA were held today I would have supported. Timmeh 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your prompt response regarding Autoreview. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoreview

Hi, thanks for your message, but isn't that what this is for? Mjroots (talk)

Thanks, I didn't realise JVbot was up for retirement. Nice to be trusted though. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

I saw your addition of this flag to my account, and then followed through the discussion directly above to the discussion on the pump. I think I get what this is about now, and I have no problem at all with that being added to my account.

Just one comment that I wanted to make. I'm not sure from where the stats are pulled that indicate someone has created enough articles to be considered for this flag. In my case, I've created very few actual articles — possibly no more than five. However, I have created a number of redirects as part of my regular gnoming activity — likely a hundred or more — and I'm concerned that those might be skewing the totals.

That being said, I've been here for a while now, I've done good work, and I understand how things are supposed to be done, so I'm confident that the Wiki's not endangered by my having this particular flag. I just wanted to check in with you, in case my theory is right. Thanks, Mlaffs (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You're too kind. I'm just doing what comes naturally. But I'm never one to turn down bright shiny hardware, so thanks very much.

In coming back here to respond, I took a look at your user page, as I'm wont to do when I encounter someone for the first time. Upon seeing your note about admin coaching/advice, I dug a little deeper and found your coaching page. I'm seriously impressed; you've obviously put a lot of thought into this. So I thought to myself that I'd knock on your door for a cup of sugar while I was here. I have an editor review running right now — well, less running than plodding, actually — and while I wasn't planning on looking for coaching per se, I was going to ask if you might be willing to have a look and contribute there if you had the time. And wouldn't you know, when I went to that page to copy the link for posting here, you'd already posted a question! Too funny... I'll respond there shortly, and I'd absolutely welcome any feedback you might care to provide. Mlaffs (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was unexpected! Thanks for the offer, and I think I'd have to say yes. If I understand the process correctly, the nominator creates a subpage for the nomination, and then I have to answer the basic questions and promote it at the main RfA page. I'd like to make sure I have the maximum availability to answer the early rush of questions — and not incidentally to make sure I've had time to consider the usual questions properly — so I might want to hold off on actually accepting the nom and promoting the page until later in the week. Thursday afternoon, likely, if that's not a problem, just in case you were thinking of this being an imminent thing.

For what it's worth, completely fair comment at the Editor Review as well about my lack of content creation. That's really the one thing that's held me back from taking this possibility too seriously, as I won't be surprised if I get raked for it. I do have a featured list nomination live right now. It's not an article that I started, but I did make significant enhancements to it and took it through peer review, as much to understand and experience the whole process as for any other reason. Ironically, I'm probably really qualified to create content, if such a concept exists; journalism degree, advanced research skills, significant experience in financial writing and editing, etc. I think it's just that there's no topic I'm passionate enough about that I've ever wanted to build an article up from scratch. I'm also so heavily involved in projects at work that take a long time to unfold and aren't inherently satisfying; my real charge here comes from the immediacy of being able to make the small changes that tend to go unnoticed, but that allow me to see the instant results. That's particularly the case with disambiguation, where one change to point a link in a template to the right place can ripple across dozens or even hundreds of articles and very quietly improve the user experience for a lot of people.

Anyway, that's a lot of words to say thanks for the feedback, the vote of confidence, and for your trust in making the offer. Even if adminship itself is "no big deal"TM, I think it is a big deal to put your name and reputation on the line by nominating someone, and I don't take that lightly. Mlaffs (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
296? Really? I can only see that being possible if that's including creating disambiguation pages, which I've done a decent amount of — in fact, I'm defending one at AfD even as we speak. I don't minimize the value of that work, but I think someone might get the wrong impression from that stat otherwise. As for actual articles, I've only created four: 1999 Major League Baseball Draft, 1998 Major League Baseball Draft, 1997 Major League Baseball Draft (I sense a trend developing!), and 1996 Major League Baseball Draft.

This is actually shedding a little more light on the discussion that got the ball rolling on all this. The whitelist you were using for granting that flag was probably properly ignoring the redirects I'd created, but counting the dab pages as new articles. Mlaffs (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool tool — hadn't seen that before. I forgot about the TSX lists too; my bad. You're right that from the perspective of new page patrol, counting the dab pages makes perfect sense. I was thinking more about the impending RfA. I wouldn't want to quote that total as any gauge of the work that I'd done here. I wouldn't want to quote any numbers, in fact, but especially not that one.

As an update, I've been reading through a number of the recent RfAs, trying to get my brain working on some of the questions that seem to be uppermost on people's minds these days. It's an interesting exercise, and one I'd actually encourage anyone to do, even if they weren't thinking about adminship. Anyway, I think I'm pretty much ready, so I'm good to go if you're still targeting tomorrow, or anytime before that if it's more convenient for you. Mlaffs (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for giving me access, I shall endeavour to be responsible ;) danno 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXI

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Move

Thanks there. It didn't even work the first time, and I knew that something wouldn't probably work the second time, and you were right on it ther. Thanks again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Okay, it's live. Thanks again, and here goes nothing! Mlaffs (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)