User talk:Malinaccier/February 2009

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Just wanted to let you know if your the guy that runs Redwall wiki that I have deleted my name off the user page thingy. I've lost all interest in this series and will no longer help. Thanks! Warriormartin (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Wondering if you could take a look at this? Hope you're alright :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by J Milburn, on behalf of the judges. 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyclonenim
Hello, Malinaccier. Are you User:Cyclonenim's admin coach? I've left a review here. Dloh cierekim  01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyclonenim
My pleasure. We need more qualified admins, and I'm not good at training people. I'm glad for folks like you that do take the time to coach candidates. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey, just a quick drop-in note; how much longer before you're ready to have me as a coachee? (Why does everything I say come out to be too brunt?!) Also, what do you reckon I can do to promote a successful RfA? (And no, I probably won't be able to get a GA, or God forbid, a FA, for my entire life span. D: ) Thanks! Cheers, and Happy Editing,  Im per a t § r (Talk)  18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your message at User talk:Coppertwig. Yes, please, I would appreciate semi-protection of User:Coppertwig/Signature. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Some help please? - Mario Petrucci
I made a page some time ago entitled "Mario Petrucci". Being new to wiki, I really didn't understand the ins and outs of wiki-quette, particularly about notability and what wiki means by spam. I was probably too unbiased about the content! But I see this page has now been deleted, apparently because it was a clear case of 'advertising'?!!

I wonder if you could look at the deleted page (just before it was deleted) and offer an opinion on whether or not YOU think it should have been deleted. I want to honestly learn from this experience, and I'll stand by your decision. But I would like to get a non-partisan view. My feeling about wiki is that people like me probably do abuse it to begin with, because we're excited about our subjects of interest and what we might want to promote, but are also (sorry) a little ignorant of the whys and wherefores. But we learn, I hope.

I designed the page using wiki itself - down to the subject headings - by cutting and pasting templates from other British poets as a guide, and trying to get a sense of their tone. I felt the content was factual, spoke for itself, and well backed up. I'd have thought the achievements and publications constituted adequate notability? The pages of British poets of equivalent stature were very much like it, and yet it was cited as not being "balanced and reasonable". I don't feel I can get involved with this again, or reinstate it. I just wish some other administrators could have got involved outside the one or two who seemed to take against it. There are two things I'd be interested in:

1. Your opinion. 2. How can I get hold of a copy of the page as it was when deleted?

I appreciate your help, and will be more wiki savvy in the future, I promise. If the page is eventually reinstated, I won't interfere or contribute in any way. The relevant page I saw was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mario_Petrucci&action=history

Please don't be confused by an earlier deletion (from a year ago) which occurred because of a technical hitch on my part. It seems the page was terminally deleted in the last few days.

As an afterthought, I've found that wiki seems to contain too many groups of people (administrators) intent on securing their version of certain pages. They police them constantly, stripping out any additions rather than trying to work with them. Even where material is added inappropriately, or too effusively, surely the facts can be wiki'd from that if those facts stand up to scrutiny. It's made me very suspicious of the whole enterprise. Anne Prouse (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Malinaccier. The thing I most wanted to check with you was whether or not the calibre of content itself had been broadly appropriate. My sense now is that before (and if) I proceed with any more wiki involvement, I'd need to understand better what the protocols are. I came in rather naively, honestly believing you could post up additions, facts and subjects you felt wiki users might want to know about (both as a convenience and because you wanted it out there) - provided that content was true and had been verified. I see now it's far more complex, and (it seems) more dangerously insular, than that. There do seem to be plenty of sacred wiki-cows you're not allowed to touch. I may or may not have the time for this, or remain as an editor. But thanks nonetheless. Anne Prouse (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

RFA tip
Hi, thanks for the great tip :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyfan (talk • contribs)

Thanks
...for closing that AfD –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar!
Thank you for The Barnstar of Diligence - now I'm averaging one barnstar every 5500 or so edits. Thank you for your excellent timing as I was beginning to doubt if anybody noticed. Thanks again! B.Wind (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!


A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks for the smile, A Nobody :)! Malinaccier (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

 * 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin Coaching
Hia Malinaccier how are you doing was wondering if you would be able to help me prepare for a RFA Application so that i may become a sysop i have done two other previous RFA which went horribly wrong.Hope to hear from you soon take care.And /or Admin coaching in general i am very motivated about things i do and i hope to become a Sysop soon but for now i't seems i need some assistance in doing so.

Thank you for your time

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 16:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)