User talk:Jusjih/Archives in Jun 2006

Orphaned fair use image (Image:AngelokastroKerkyras.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AngelokastroKerkyras.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jusjih 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not orphaned. I just used it in the Corfu article.Dr.K. 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Tasoskessaris.

My RfA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again!

Cool3 talk 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

A haiku of thanks

 * Thanks for your support
 * In my RfA, which passed!
 * Wise I'll try to be.

-- Nataly a 04:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My Thanks
I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. &mdash; WCityMike (T  &dArr; plz reply HERE (why?) &dArr;  04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you should generally get at least 2000 edits before reapplying for adminship, but please do not get discouraged.--Jusjih 11:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for supporting me in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope that you will consider supporting me if I have another RfA. Thank you for your support. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 20:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You


afd
The result of the nomination of Shaker Aamer for deletion was "keep". I am not sure I fully understood your objections. I'd like to take them into account, if you are willing to take another run at explaining them.

Rumsfeld and others repeatedly claimed that the detainees were "the worst of the worst". And, so long as the DoD was able to keep the identities of the detainees, and the allegations against them, secret, there was no way for the public to make an informed decision as to whether to believe these assertions. Earlier this year the Denbeaux study methodically examined the (then anonymous) allegations. It found that approximately half of the detainees were not accused of being members of al Qaeda or the Taliban. Now the transcripts of the detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunals have been made public. IMO in most cases they do not support "the worst of the worst" claim. I think that is notable.`` --  Geo Swan 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I voted weak deleted based on low Google hits. If others can provide notability,, you still have to respect others who also voted for deletion.--Jusjih 18:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think asking for clarification from those who voted delete does show respect.


 * In many cases, including this one, I think that the number of google hits can be a very poor metric to determine whether a topic merits an article. --  Geo Swan 10:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Gurch
Unfortunately I don't have a brightly coloured RfA box to add to your collection, but thanks anyway – Gurch 16:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Finally, the wait is over! You have been assigned Voice of All and Kirill Lokshin as your coaches. Please wonder over to their talk pages to make contact, and I hope you find your coaching useful. Petros471 19:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey! Looks like I'm (one of) your new admin coach(es) ;-)
 * Since you're already an admin on other projects, I'm guessing that you're well-versed in the basic theory of being an administrator; is there anything in particular (presumably related to the quirks of en:?) that you'd like help with? Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Kirill Lokshin.


 * The copyright work you've been doing is very nice; that should get you most of the way throught an RFA just based on need (we never have enough admins to deal with copyright issues on en:). You also have enough process-participation (AFD and such) that there shouldn't be any objections on that count.  There are a few other things that might be helpful, though:
 * Vandal-fighting. Doing this properly requires a fair amount of time, unfortunately; but some people tend to be very antsy about potential admins that haven't participated.
 * Community involvement. This tends to be a particular issue with people who enforce the fair-use criteria: you'll tend to get people mad at you.  Some involvement in more general discussions (on a WikiProject, for example) should provide good evidence of being able to interact with people without rubbing them the wrong way.
 * Overall, though, I think you should be able to pass an RFA fairly soon; just keep up the activity level ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong (talk 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Having analyzed your contribs, you seem to be doing a good amount of WP work and you are doing a good job with edit summary usage and consistant involvement. AfDs and copyright tagging are a good way to demonstrated policy knowledge and involvement in an area that could always use more admins. Vandal fighting will make a good case for having the block feature. Mostly, in your case, all you'll have to do is keep doing what you are doing and you should have no problem at RfA. Voice -of-  All  01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Dear , Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuivi é nen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA


Hello Jusjih, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 19:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit summaries
My low editing summary in major edits was partly explained by voice-of-all's comment in the comment section here, though I do admit that sometimes I did omit adding a editing summary. After the concerns of edit summary was raiesd by othe users I tried my very best to add editing summary to all my edits, as shown in my contributions.

As for your implicit concern bring forth by this, I want to tell you that I believe all adminsitrative actions should be well-documented and explained because they should be subjected to audits and reviews.

I just want to tell you my feelings about this, so no follow-up actions of any kind is necessary. --WinHunter (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

major revisions complete
The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary user
I am the same. -phma 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)