User talk:Giggy: Difference between revisions

User talk:Giggy/Header

The article I Don't Remember you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:I Don't Remember for eventual comments about the article. Well done! 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 04:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I appreciate the thought. Thanks for letting me do my first deletions on your subpages! I deleted the three pages very cautiously to make sure I didn't accidentally delete Wikipedia itself, but I guess I did something right since it's still here. If you need similar help in the future, just let me know. --Nehrams2020 07:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, do not do that! You scared the heck out of me. Now I need to go to sleep to slow down my heart rate. Don't make me learn how to block people by testing it on you. Just kidding, using your pages for deletion practice was good enough for me. Thanks again for the fun and good night/morning! --Nehrams2020 07:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take the way it is going too much to heart. Please stick in there and you will become an admin some day. It really is no big deal being an admin and you can do good work for wikipedia without being one. Good luck. --Bduke 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Winston Churchill. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 10:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and add as much relevant information as possible. Sebi _[talk] 08:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will support Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Music of Australia if you can fix up some stuff in the portal. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (Some) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mean to be a pain, but do you mind if I remove the Sydney Opera House from the Selected images? It's already a selected article using the same image, and the caption is the same, and it would help the portal if we varied the content. Sebi _[talk] 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dihydrogen Monoxide, Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I apprwciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for! — Edokter • Talk • 12:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and good luck! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorry to have to oppose. A pity. If the RfA doesn't succeed, and you've had a good few uncontroversial months go by, please do drop me a line if you run again, as I was dying to support you. --Dweller 13:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on your talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Edokter. 3000 edits is not enough?

Wow!

Once upon a time when I was regularly participating in RFA, I *would* actually review a person's edit history, often looking at almost every edit. Not enough edit summary usage? Get away! If many edits had no summary, I'd actually go to this person and ask them to explain what was up. After reading each edit, if I hadn't found what I was looking for (no examples of how they deal with conflicts especially, but also quality of their writing, and tone on talk pages), I'd make a comment stating so, and requesting them to make some more edits.

After about 750-1500 edits, people usually showed what it took, and that takes an hour or two to check (provided there are decent edit summaries). More just takes way too much of my time, hence my lack of participation in RFAs these days.

Of course, if a user has few edits, I might still participate, do a full check and find out if a candidate is decent, but what's the point if people go "Oppose, come back at 5000 edits and 6 months"? I can promise I don't have the time to check those 5000 edits at that point in time. :-/

So do I take it that you actually are very dedicated, and actually are willing to spend half a day or more sifting through people's edits? Or does your statement have other grounds?

I'm curious! :-)

--Kim Bruning 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on your talk page, but I get the feeling you're looking for Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the poke, haha. I wanted to wait until I was well, and then, as soon as that happened, I had to move down to school. Today was actually my third day of classes, but I think I can handle the RfA at this time, but might not be able to respond hourly or anything. I'm about to put it up today. =) And nope, no section links. With the way my page is formatted (the archive part), the edit links showed up incorrectly. For example, to edit the "*pokes*" section, you'd have to click the edit button for "Hoop Guy....". Tricky.  hmwith  talk 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding while I sleep...ungrateful *grumblegrumble* Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, We're on different time zones. I'm sorry! I didn't want to do anything that would remotely seem like WP:CANVASSing. About the links, I know. Same here. I'll work on it right now. I didn't know it bothered anyone else a great deal. I don't want it to hold one back from commenting on the page!  hmwith  talk 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy, is that you? good to see you again! Of course, if it is in fact you. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Irpen has taken on unilaterally removing the GA tags from Denial of Soviet occupation, which you reviewed for WP:GAC, apparently based on nothing more than his dislike of the subject matter. (Diffs: [1], [2], [3].)

What's the appropriate approach to solve this kind of vandalism problem? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked; the article appears to be still listed. It would seem Irpen only removed the tag, not other aspects of WP:GA listing.

Coming back to the subject of article quality, I believe I've made further progress, by heeding your suggestions for improvement. Thanks! Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's getting better. I've watchlisted the talk page for this debate, also added comments there. We'll see where it goes. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just recently noticed your proposed deletion of the UCL accomodation articles. I agree in retrospect that the individual buildings do not warrant their own article and so deletion/merging is a good idea. However it would be nice if in future deletions etc you could nominate the creator of the article (in these examples me). It is considered courtesy to nominate the articles key contributors and creator when proposing an afd. As it happens I am not able to comment on the schafer house article, ergo its pointless me commenting on the other two ucl residences. Next time please let the creator known when you nominate for afd. Many thanks. LordHarris 12:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake! LordHarris 12:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good apart from a few stumbles here and there, but I'll point them out at a future possible FAC and are not major. Good work! NSR77 ^T_C 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex, It's no problem mate. Thanks for the barnstar, I really do appreciate it. I've got gmail/facebook (I'm movin' up!) and I'll send you an e-mail. If I get around to it. Here's one more, of how an edior should be (in my mind)

And this one 'casue I'm a nerd.

Cheers! Dfrg.msc 02:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA is highly polarized. I see this as a good thing. You have more supports than I had, and twice the turnout. It shows less about you as a candidate and more about the process and the major tweaks that will hopefully follow. It's always said as humans, we have a pathetically short-term memory and are altogether too forgiving. This, of course, was said long before there was born the Request for Administration. the_undertow ^talk 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the recent change in events, but I am highly shocked by the recent revelation. This isn't to say I've turned, but I certainly am interested in an explanation considering (as you know) GA is where almost all of my participation lies and I'm exhausting myself in the endeavor of improving the project and ensuring quality. In looking over the article, I'm not at all impressed. Several things are brought into question for me, and I feel further review is necessary. For that reason, I'm noming the article at GAR. Again, I'm sorry. While friends are great on Wikipedia, I can't give special treatment, and I hope you wouldn't expect it from me. The project is why I'm here, and that's what comes first. LaraLove 07:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]