|
User talk:Penwhale/Archive4RE: QuestionHello Penwhale! I cannot say that anyone can really judge the outcome of the RfA process however, I would be more than happy to give you advice if you ever desire to go for the plunge :). The three mandatory questions of any RfA indicate the important areas that are going to be considered upon submission of your nomination. Though number one may seem like the most important (such as what you are going to do with the tools); in reality number two (your past contributions) and number three (your civility) are the biggest factors people weigh you on and consider you on. As much as eagerness and well-meaning is great, people reflect on your Wikipedia activity beforehand. I'm glad to see that you do make active contributions to Wikipedia space, which would make people comfortable knowing that you are aware of policy and would most likely be able to enact it well. People also like to be aware of your civility and your willingness for discussion; keeping a cool head in heated debates, utilizing article talk pages every now and then, and approaching users politely on their talk pages is much more assuring to see in an RfA candidate rather than someone who is prone to being hotheaded and unwilling to discuss anything. Another factor often considered is edit count/member time; in other words the amount of experience an editor has, how long an editor has been a member of the Wikipedia project, and their activity on a regular basis. I see edit count as being too penalized very often. Showing a favorable amount of contributions in a variety of areas as well as quality contributions alleviates some of the heavy "Editcountitis". Lastly those involved in RfAs look at some optional parameters such as amount of vandal fighting (which you probably already know), article expansion (such as bringing articles to FA or GA status), copyright tag knowledge (for image cases with disputed tags or incorrect tags), and deletion experience (such as being aware of articles that qualify under WP:CSD and being active in Articles for Deletion debates). For now I recommend you look back at the areas mentioned above and identify the places that you feel you could expand upon. I think its best if you give it another month or two and submit around May if you feel confident that you are have become balanced in most of those areas :). Also, don't stress on this process. The last thing you want to do is allow submitting an RfA distract you from building on your Wikipedia contributions or deprive yourself from still enjoying the site!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC) WP:UW future?Hi Penwhale, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Enjoy!Good luck in school!Trampton 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).  Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Sorry about reversionsSorry about that, i've just started using popups and I am still getting used to how they work. Spork the Great 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC) WikiBrew You deserve a round of thanks. DurovaCharge! 19:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: 69.132.199.100 & CineWorldi was told via jimbo in email that i can delete user talk page all I want. are you now trying to tell me i cannot? i am being harass by many person on here, over a content waring. i speak greek, you speak greek, we talk greek. read this okay you see true. warning not right, they read by jimbo who say they not right, i am block for because 1 admin like actress, is big fan, he block me because i not agree. is not right use block to win war. 69.132.199.100 03:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
they say that dark-horizons.com is proof enough, but is just fan page, go see and then click contact, man is movie fan he make website, but is all "gossip" site, cinema.com is not real cinema.com is a fan website with cinema in name...go look... CineWorld 03:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShelby_Young&diff=116218248&oldid=116199512
those 2 site they list are ALL user driven just like wikipedia. she was NOT in the film, it doesnt even get uncredited, she was NOT in it. Just they wish she was so they add it and i fight it and they block me just to "win" but she not in it. read that link you see other editors agrees with me and they block too. CineWorld 03:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC) look hereread under racist
ISpy make edit my talk page laugh that I greek, then post this, Leebo warn me not be allowed to fight, this went over 5 different ip addresses, he is follow me everywhere. Look his edits after mine, read discussion page, you see well true CineWorld 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
sorrylast thing look here, is how they proove user shelbyyoung is real shelby young THAT IT!!! i getting picture tom cruise and making tom cruise account! CineWorld 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:69.132.198.252 look ISpy and Leebo CineWorld 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
TypicalHe's done this before, run to various editors complaining about me. Last time, it was a veiled accusation of pedophilia. You might wanna check out the Shelby Young talk page, as I've left a somewhat detailed account of this user's past abuses (on another anon account), not including the ones I suspect are him, but have no proof. Ispy1981 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC) And I can appreciate that. But, please don't think my actions are to further an edit war. I simply want to reach a consensus on this matter, based on the facts at hand, without constant disruption. He has, to my mind, violated several WP rules, under various names. Ispy1981 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC) And, that's been the main issue all along. He's spammed editors continuously (25 times in 2 hours), has repeatedly reverted the credit, been blocked and STILL has his hand in the cookie jar. I don't see how a grown man (I'm assuming he is a grown man) could be in such a fuss over one credit. And he keeps going back to IMDB, which has been proven invalid. As I said, for all we know, he could've been the one to remove the IMDB credit. Lots of users post erroneous things on IMDB. We're not going to resolve the issue right now, anyway, particularly as I have to go to work. If you want to leave me a response, that's cool. I'll get to it when I can. Ispy1981 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:CineWorldA request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CineWorld (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CineWorld 1. -- Real96 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Ted WilkesI have unblocked Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Fred Bauder 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you!Thank you for good advice with regard to "Internet troll squads" article. Unfortunately, it has been deleted. I would like to recreate the article under a slightly different name (say "Internet squads" - as in Russian Wikipedia). It seems that such Political Internet Squads (another name?) exist in China, Russia, and maybe somewhere else (?). I have found several good references about such squads in China. Any your thoughts about a better title for the article, good references, etc. would be appreciated. Perhaps we could make a new version of this article together.Biophys 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Also, I am a relatively new user here. If you trace my edits, you will see something like editing war between me and user Vlad Fedorov, for example in article Persecution of political bloggers. I tried to talk with him on the talk page of this article, but he simply deleted all my text. What would you suggest?Biophys 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Good evening (GMT time); I was just closing the above AfD, when I saved and up came the edit conflict screen. The redirect, etc.., has already been undertaken (see Digital clock and Digital-analog clock) with the consensus taken as merge (second post did not oppose, and so it taken to support) and as redirect (valid technical reason given by second post). With your consent, I'd like to close the AfD. anthony[cfc] 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC) RE: Status box?Check my talk page :).¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comment about an RfAI didn't forget your comment on my talkpage about maybe seeking an RfA sometime. I have taken a look at your contributions and I would say you are on your way but I don't think you would succeed just yet. Editors typically look for a long-term record of dedication, including work in the mainspace writing or editing articles as well as participating in policy creation, deletion debates, vandalism fighting, etc. No one thing is dispositive but in general you will benefit from some additional experience in all the different areas. If you watchlist the RfA page and read some RfAs you will get a sense of what qualifications people expect to see. I will add that your work helping us on the arbitration pages has been outstanding and will certainly be considered an asset to your overall record. Keep up the good work and thanks again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC) HelloSaw you on Nat's page and dropped to say a big hello. --MissingLinks 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |