User talk:Jeffrey Mall/November 2009

Wiki
Thank you for your information. I am a new Wiki editor and I appreciate the advice. Mugginsx (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Orange Star


Edit Count
You responded to my question at the help desk about edit counts. I was asking about finding out other users edit count. Thanks. Mìthrandir (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

SORRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am soooo sorry for thretening the other editor!!! I was mad about how whenever I would upload to wikipedia it would be eraced. PLEASE don't block my account! I will keep my anger issues to myself and get better about what and how I say things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SylvieHorse (talk • contribs) 19:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA question
Would you consider expounding upon your answer to Q5? Not sure if I mentioned it in my weak oppose, but I was caught somewhere in between that and "neutral". It is concerning that you lack opinions on the entire WP:BLP subject, which could dictate your future decisions as an admin (being blase about taking action and no real motivation to push for high standards).

I have a feeling, since you haven't been around Wikipedia for too long, that you're just not very aware of how highly BLP issues are considered by the community. It takes time to observe these things and realize what the norms are, or how monumental certain problems are. And that's not a fault of your own, but it's an indicator that you're likely not ready yet, and wouldn't be able to strongly apply BLP to articles about living people, which is fairly crucial for admins. An expansion on your answer would be helpful - I might still hold concerns, but it's possible that the opposers are reading a bit too much into a statement that was intended to mean something else. Some background, or explanation, please? Thanks, Jamie  S93  01:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jamie, when I said "I don't have any opinions on the current BLP policy" I literally meant that I don't have an opinion on the policy, not that I didn't understand it, I'm fully aware of the importance of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. BLP articles are very sensitive things (we're broadcasting information about a living person to the world here) and care needs to be taken when editing such articles. WP:GRAPEVINE is something I strongly agree with, we can't have people adding negative original research to articles as sensitive as these, untruthful negative content can have detrimental effects on the subject of the article and this is just one reason why WP:BLP is and should be such a strictly upheld Wikipedia policy. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's asking that you add the above explanation to Q5 :). Airplaneman  talk 06:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Shepherd
This has been relisted a second time - I've rewritten it and nominator has withdrawn, but there are still a couple of "delete"s remaining from the article's previous state (one of them yours). Any chance you'd like to reconsider it? --Paularblaster (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that notification, I'd forgotten to add the AfD discussion to my watchlist but have now withdrawn from the discussion. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! I've been on tenterhooks all week to see whether I'd done all that rewriting for nothing :) --Paularblaster (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hello Jeffrey, I'm sorry to inform you that your recent RfA has been closed as unsuccessful. Please don't be discouraged, though; I'm sure that you'll have a chance in the future if you address the concerns of the opposition and maintain a fine editing record. If you have any questions about the closure, feel free to contact me. Yours, — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little embarrassed to repeat myself word-for-word, but I think exactly the same thing applies here as for Salavat's recently failed RFA: I think it's likely you'll pass the next time, if you feel like running again, and you don't have to do anything heroic between now and then to pass, either, just keep up the good work.  The tougher question is how long to wait; the current trend is 6 months.  Best of luck.  Two standard pieces of advice: RFA tends to kick up stress, and stress has a way of causing trouble even when you don't know it's there, especially when you don't know it's there, so take a little time off, and take things easy on-wiki for a week or two.  Also: everyone feels embarrassed, even after successful RFAs, because people say a lot of negative things that they rarely say until you're running for something.  But I compare it to being embarrassed when you take your clothes off at the doctor's office: it helps to know that they've seen thousands of whatever you've got already, they don't care, and they're not going to talk about it after you leave.  Most of that is true at RFA, too. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice Dank, I do plan on taking it easy for a few days, not because of stress but simply because I feel rather mentally drained after the RfA. To be honest with you, the odds were against me on this one anyway I think, maybe 5 months just isn't enough experience for some people, I believe someone even accused me of "ad captandum vulgaris" and referred to me as untrustworthy. Oh well. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That objection was copied boilerplate from other RFAs where candidates said they were open to recall; I think RFA voters are aware of that, and won't think that it has anything to do with you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi from me too. My first RFA was a bit of an ordeal, with seven different reasons why people opposed me. But four months later my second attempt went perplexingly smoothly, and I hope your second attempt succeeds.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you WereSpielChequers :). Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeffrey, I was one of the editors who opposed your RFA, but as you'll see from my (and several others) comment there, the opposition wasn't because we thought any of your past actions on wikipedia were negative, or even poor. The only concern that I saw was that you probably had not yet gained enough experience in some important areas of wikipedia, which is pretty easy to remedy. So don't let the RFA dishearten you; just go on doing your current anti-vandalism and maintenance work, and venture out once in while into content development and see what you enjoy. Give it some time, fiddle around, and you'll easily pass RFA and make a fine admin in a few months. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Abedecare (though I supported you, I think you'd do alright now). Keep doing what you're doing, don't let the excesses that happen sometimes in opposition get you down, and you'll be good to go the second time around. And, well, I speak from some experience in that regard. After my first RfA, I certainly tried to take into consideration the concerns of those that opposed, and next time it was fine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Abecedare, Seraphimblade, thanks for your comments, RfA's can be quite daunting things, I'm actually fairly glad it's over now. Most of the oppose votes were insightful and provided me with some much needed feedback on my editing habits. I found it quite interesting to look through your RfA's Seraphimblade, hopefully my second one will turn out as good as yours did. I'll be back in a while, once I've gained more experience. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaguar Award of Excellence

 * No problem friend :). Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)