User talk:Osarius/Archive 3

Sports Barnstar

Well, Manadude, as I imagine you've seen, your new Sports Barnstar didn't make it. Not many people came in on the discussion, and none of them supported us. I appreciate your efforts, and if I had the ability, I'd try again to make a new one. I think that the concept of the Barnstar you created is far better than the one we have now, but I guess the images themselves just didn't work for most people. Thanks for trying, and we'll see you around. Unschool 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, it was worth a try, thanks anyway unschool. manadude2 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Rfa

Hi Manadude. Your RFA is really not going to pass. I'm sorry, I know it's a bit miserable, and don't think you're work on Wikipedia is not valued - it really is. I admire the way you've responded to suggestions made, that's clearly a good thing - but you're not going to fly through this time (but in the future I'm sure you will). I'd suggest you withdraw unless you have a need for further feedback. Pedro :  Chat  21:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Pedro. I understand what the opposers are trying to get at, but the only issue is how many edits I have made. I would like to draw your attention to an WP article I read, from which I quote: "It is not the number of edits that really matters, but the quality." therefore saying that lack of edits is a downside is pretty poor. I think my edits have been of good standard.

As I have said already, I have been busy revising and studying for my upcoming exams which are very important, and editing Wikipedia is not one of my main concerns at the moment. When my exams finish, which is about the middle of June, then I can start getting involved in Wikipedia more as I will then have 3 and a half months of doing nothing before I start my course at college. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you and your fellow opposers are saying, but please give a little thought into what I have to do, not something I do to keep me occupied, i.e editing Wikipedia.

I think I have the potential to become and admin, and I think my edits would help a lot. I fully regret the edit block I was given at the start of my WP "career" but I can assure you that I have changed since then and become less naive and a bit more mature. It was stupid of me at the time. I hope you give this some thought.

Your friend, manadude2 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there are probably some bits I can add value to here. As a (rather too often!) regular at RFA I'm generally "on the pulse" of community norms in this regard. What you've indicated above is exactly why you should knock this RFA on the head and continue editing as before. The community cannot be expected to second guess how good you will be in the future - they need evidence when you ask for the tools. Promises to edit further are academic, as the community judges you by past experience not future work. I'm sorry to be blunt, and trust me I do understand how you feel - yes I really do - but the time is not now. Chill, enjoy making a reputation on Wikipedia, edit some articles, whack some vandals and help out around the place. Adminiship really is nothing but some buttons on a website - however given the visibility of the website they don't come as easy as they should. E-mail me if I can help. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Manadude - I've closed your RFA, since I'm afraid there was little chance of its passing, as Pedro says. I think the edit count expectations are unnecessarily high too -- I've done what I can over the years to keep RFA standards from skyrocketing, but they've done it anyway. I'm sorry about this, but I hope you'll stay with us, edit some more, and come back to RFA in a while. Happy editing — Dan | talk 01:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Manadude. Don't be discouraged by this. My thoughts concerning RFA can be found at User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA. In addition, an editor generally needs an activity level of at least 500 edits per month to stay sharp and keep in practice. Good luck and hope this helps. Dlohcierekim 14:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To All of you: Again, you say "at lease 500 edits per month". As I quote: "It is not the number of edits that count, but the quality." I am absolutely fuming that the requirements to become an admin is to make at least X many edits. The user does need to make edits, but they need to be of quality, not quantity. Think of plastic toys for instance. Before the trade was moved to China, things were made better and lasted longer. Yes there weren't as many around, but the quality was there. Now the trade has moved to China, the numbers have increased dramatically, but the items don't last 5 minutes. This is what I am trying to say. It is NOT the QUANTITY that matters but the QUALITY!! After all, what people want is an online encyclopedia which they can use unhindered by spammers, vandals, incorrect information or anything that would disrupt the usability. Without suitable people to look after the website, then the aim of Wikipedia is never going to be reached. The english Wikipedia has 1,654 admins out of 9,629,495 registered users, which is miniscule. No way could that amount of people look after 9 million. I don't want to ramble on, but please remember, Quality, not Quantity.

Your Friend, Manadude2 :  Talk  18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Manadude. Your are totally correct - edits are all about quality and nothing about quantity. This has been a long standing principle of RFA - however there are some points that surround it;

1. Not everyone thinks this way - some people will knee-jerk oppose to anyone with less than 3,000 edits or so irrespective.
2. Whilst in an optmial world 500 edits might be enough to assuage any doubts on policy knowledge it's very unlikely to be honest - the place is too big and has to many rules and guidelines
3. The admin / user ratio is more like 30,000 moderately active users and 970 active admins so the ratio is not a terror - and remember that a lot of admin tools are very specialised; anyone can revert vandalism or assist in sock-puppet investigation

Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) and I are both well versed in RFA and probably more lenient than many - neither of us actually withdrew the RFA - that was done by a bureaucrat - but our advice is, dare I say it, sound. It's not really you convincing us about the quality of your edits - that's agreed, we see they are. It's about the wider community and the various different standards they hold. There have been endless conversations at WT:RFA about the rise in standard requirements to no end whatsoever so, regretfully, it's likely the best move is to conform to the arbitary edit count / experience requirements. I know this seems harsh as you are only here to help - a spurned offer of assistance seems rather cruel - but it is what it is I'm afraid. Again - keep working, enjoy the place and wait awhile before askinf for the bit. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell, I've participated in RFA since 2006. Based on my observations as a participant, I feel I have worthwhile insight into the sort of advice to offer so that a user stands a reasonable chance of passing a subsequent RFA. One may accept or reject it. One does not need to please me to have a successful RFA. One must convince the community that they can be trusted with the tools.

Of course one needs to view quality and quantity. You would need to add a huge amount of high quality, well-referenced content to offset the "low edit count." I took that into consideration. I'm not a big content builder-- more a Wikignome. In looking at your edits, I see Wikignomic edits, new page patrolling, and vandalism reverts. When one considers quality over quantity, one looks at bigger edits and more research time than Wikignoming. Wikignoming is great, but you need to do lots of it to win the trust of the community. If you did not follow the link to User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA, you might or might not find reading it beneficial. Dlohcierekim 15:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Status Template

From User talk:Hersfold/StatusTemplate: If the scripts mentioned are installed correctly, clicking one of the update links should bring you to an edit screen which will automatically save itself. If this isn't the case, please let me know; some other editors have had some issues with those, although I'm not sure where the problem is stemming from. Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I haven't been around for the past month. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kodak Easyshare C813

It was only a proposed deletion, you can remove {{dated prod}} tags on these even if you created the article. snigbrook (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-redlink

Template:Uw-redlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I know it can be annoying to read, but do not fix spelling errors other people make on talkpages. Doing so violates Talkpage guidelines. TJ Spyke 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Correcting" spelling on my user page

Dear sir,

First, it is considered bad form to edit someone's user page (see Wikipedia:User page). So don't spell check my user page.

Second, the band is named Creedence Clearwater Revival. The band uses two E's, it is not the word credence. So, next time, before you decide to pedantically "correct" the spelling on someone's user page, why don't you, I don't know, look up the term in some sort of online encyclopedia, Wikipedia perhaps?

TuckerResearch (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you failing to assume good faith by assuming I don't know about assuming good faith? Let us just say that "it is considered bad form to edit someone's user page" is an unwritten rule. And, so I can further poke a finger in your eye, I doubt you were entirely altruistic in your spelling edit, because I think you want to get your edits up so you can be an admin. What else can I expect from an Englishman who is against English spacing?!?! If you can't tell by now, I am being a tad sarcastic. I'm not mad, I was just a bit peeved somebody would correct a correctly spelled word on my user page. Keep up the otherwise good work! TuckerResearch (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hello Manadude2, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 18:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Jochem P. Hanse

Hello Manadude2, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Jochem P. Hanse - a page you tagged - because: Claim to have received a notable award indicates importance/significance. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bamford Youth Club

A tag has been placed on Bamford Youth Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)