User talk:NickCatal/Archive 2
Your RfA[edit]
Most people write an intro about themselves right above their acceptance (look at some other RfAs). Yours seems almost spartan by the lack of one. Purely optional though. Good luck. NoSeptember talk 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
With less than a thousand edits (even though you've been around for quite a while) and a lack of full statement, this RfA will probably fail. If you do not wish to see a pile of oppose votes you might want to consider withdrawing. This is not a reflection on your worth as an editor (which I am sure is appriciated), but rather an indication that people do not know you well enough for you to become an admin. See also my RfA criteria. Petros471 14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't look at your contributions before, what Petros471 says is true. Keep up the good work as an editor. You'll have to wait until you get bit by the Wiki bug and become quite active before you can seriously consider becoming an admin. NoSeptember talk 14:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- NoSeptember and Petros471 are trying too hard to be nice and their message is coming across ambiguously. Your RFA has no chance of passing', please withdraw and reapply in at least a month with at least a thousand edits. Then, as NoSeptember and Petros471 noted, it will likely pass. KI 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts on adminship[edit]
Nick, I'm sorry that I felt I had to opposed your RfA. I have some thoughts that I hope are helpful and constructive. You mention in your withdrawal comment that you are a good editor on Wikipedia. I agree: in looking at your edit history you are indeed doing good work. However, being an admin is not about the gratitude of your peers. You already have that. Its about wanting to take on some of the more basic janitorial tasks that are necessary to keep Wikipedian functioning. You'll need to know a lot about what those tasks are and how to apply policy and guidelines.
You've already started this process through your valued contributions to AfD debates. I'd like to see you gain some experience of RC patrolling and counter-vandalism work which is a great way to learn the ropes and start your transition to admin responsibilities. Its not simply more edits or more time, its about showing you have experience dealing with all the crap meaningful discussions that arise when you cleanup Wikipedia and have to make tough calls about the policies and guidelines.
I would love to support you next time around. All the best, Gwernol 16:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reading your withdrawal statement, I get the impression that you think 1000 edits total a month from now will suffice. Honestly I doubt you would succeed with under 2000 total and a history of at least 500 per month for 2 or 3 months (and your Feb and March were not so active). In addition you only have about 50 edits in all talk spaces, way too low. I know it doesn't seem fair, but if you reapply next month you are not likely to succeed then either. Not until you show about 3 months of consistent activity (500+/month) including participating in Wikipedia and talk spaces more will you overcome resistance. Applying too often can be harmful too, so I urge you to consult others and not think that the 1000 total edit level will be enough. Wait three months and only apply if you have been active for those three months. I know it is not terribly fair, but with the difficulty of desysopping people, RfA standards are quite high and nothing short of real activity and community involvement as described above is going to do it for you. Sorry. NoSeptember talk 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ahoy. I agree with NoSeptember here - 1000 edits just wont cut it for most RfA voters. This is not necessarily editcountitis. However, RfA voters look for a certain amount of dedication in a prospective administrator. One's level of contribution, rather than just quality, plays a big role in a voter's decision. To have a good chance, you need to exhibit a breadth of experience (not just time or quality, but quantity too) in all aspects of wikipedia: major edits, community involvement, vandalism fighting, Wikipedia namespace activity, and policy involvement. And it has to be at a much higher level than what you think - "Look at January, I did a hell of a lot of edits then" - I'm sorry, but 259 edits in one month? Some people do that in a couple of hours. You say "I really want to be an admin ... for my passion for this project. And soon I feel that passion will not necessarily rewarded, but at the very least acknowledged by peers who will confirm my ability to serve this community on an additional level." This belies a troubling misunderstanding of the process. Adminship is not meant as a confirmation of quality or validation of one's contributions, or worse - an award, it is meant as a tool for doing gobs of thankless, dirty work. Continued quality and validation have absolutely nothing to do with being an admin. Your work here is appreciated, and you do not need a mop and bucket to be shown that. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Latin America won![edit]
Joyous | Talk 18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Redcamera.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Redcamera.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Rocco DeLuca[edit]
If you're a fan, help me man! Thanks from England!
I saw your entry for Rocco DeLuca, saw the documentary and interview with Sutherland here in England so created Rocco DeLuca and the Burden. I am a HUGE fan!