User talk:9258fahsflkh917fas

Talkback

Hello, 9258fahsflkh917fas. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Peter Giblin.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Peter Giblin.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

I have some late questions I've added to your RFA. If you have a moment to answer them, that would be much appreciated. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dr Dec :-) For the record, I was considering supporting your nomination. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to say that I hope you don't take your RfA too much to heart. Yes, I was an opposer - but speaking for myself, I don't hate you. I would say that some of the phrasing you used didn't perhaps portray you at your best, and you didn't necessarily come across the way in which you might have hoped you would.

Whether you intend on going through RfA in the future or not, may I suggest that you ignore this RfA for a couple of days, and then when you feel up to it, re-read the comments. One thing that does come across from most of them is that people do value your anti-vandal work - it's a valuable part of working on the encyclopedia. Do continue with this work. But read the comments - they will give you some ideas for how you can improve as an editor, even if you never go through RfA again.

If you should decide to go through it again, leave it for at least a few months. Show that you have paid attention to the 'faults' that were perceived. I've found that editors can be very forgiving if they see that you have acted on these. As I said in my oppose, if you come up at RfA, and it is several months since the diffs that were provided, and if you have shown that you have changed then those diffs will either not be brought up, or ignored by most people.

Finally, if you ever have any questions (not necessarily about either RfAs - I've never been through that - or about adminship!), feel free to pop over to my talk page and ask.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I appreciate your comments. Thanks for taking the time to write to me; you didn't have to. I won't apply again. Many users are just downright spiteful. The bar has been raised to a ridiculously high level, and by admins that would never make it over the newly raised bar themselves. Thanks again Steve, but it's just not worth it. Don't these people realise that there's a living, breathing person behind the user name; some one that laughs and someone that cries? I've not felt this low for a long time, and for what — a bloody website! I need to get my priorities in order, and the users of this site need to realise what they've got before it's gone. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I just wrote a 'don't be disheartened' response to the failure of your RFA, and then hit an edit conflict because Steve above did the exact same thing. :) So instead I'll reply to this last comment. You're right - this is just a website, and you shouldn't take it too seriously. Unfortunately, most RFA voters don't often remember that. You're right as well that it's an incredibly spiteful and vicious place, where WP:Civility basically doesn't exist, and candidates who don't meet voters' high standards will get torn down mercilessly. It's been like that for a while, but I think it's getting worse - your RFA was more ill-natured than any I've seen for a long time.

However, even despite that highly negative experience, I don't think you should give up all hope of becoming an administrator entirely. It's actually quite common for candidates to fail RFA horribly, and then pass with flying colours on a later attempt; many of our most productive admins only passed on second or third try, and some even later. There will always be some opposers you'll never be able to win round, but most voters are perfectly willing to give a failed candidate another try and support them if they feel they've improved. (By the way, not all angry Opposers are admins themselves, though some are - many of them are ordinary users who know they wouldn't pass RFA themselves, and have a grudge against anyone else doing so.)

In your particular case, reading through the RFA, it seems to me your problems were more to do with inexperience and lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies than unresolvable issues. Those are things that will change with time anyway if you just carry on editing; but if you particularly take the time to learn more about our policies and other areas of Wikipedia, you could very well become admin material in a matter of months. I think you have plenty of potential, you're just not quite ready yet.

For the time being, I would just say: try to put this bad experience behind you, and just carry on as you were, and hopefully at some point you will feel confident enough to return to RFA. Good luck. Robofish (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with your comments about RfA more. Thanks for taking to time to offer a friendly opinion. It's nice to know that not everyone on the project is as cruel as some. There's still plenty for me to learn and I'll get stuck into that. Thanks again Robofish. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Invite to hang out on my user page...

RfA has become an ugly place as of late, please do not take the comments made too personally. There are lots of great contributions to be made outside of using the mop, fell free to hang out on my talk page anytime. And for what it is worth I think you would have made a good admin. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kind words. It means a lot. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)