User talk:Unionhawk/Archives/2010/May

My Name
I suggest you please take a break if you are confused or upset. When you return, be nice, no need to back negative comments about me in your edit summary. I am trying to do a good job here. If I make a mistake, please tell me and I will fix it pronto. I am really trying to make a small improvement here. I hope you enjoy the Wikipedia as much as I have today. I think it is neat that I can help make things better. 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Archives
Are you sure you want your archives protected? I've done 2 or 3. If you do, just say and I'll do the rest, if not, I'll unprotect them or semi them, whatever floats your boat. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was literally just putting up the request with the full list, and checking to make sure nobody tampered with the archives when I got this message... (because I'm paranoid like that). Worst case scenario is ClueBot attempts to file an archive incorrectly (maybe thinks it's 2009, I don't know), and it still shows up on the history anyway. Anyway, I'm not going to edit them anymore, and I hope ClueBot isn't going to do anything with them, so go ahead and full protect them all.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's what you want. ✅. Let me know if you want 'em unprotected for any reason (or if you want future archives protected). Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

your RfA
Hi there Unionhawk. I'm sorry to see that there's some problems at your RfA because of some immaturity concerns; you seem like a generally good candidate otherwise. I think you should take the rest of the concerns raised to heart and wait for yourself to mature on your own time. You will at some point make a good candidate, don't worry. ;)  ceran  thor
 * Yeah, yeah. I had completely forgotten about that edit summary. Would you mind closing it as withdrawn? I sent the 'crats an e-mail a couple of hours ago, but, there hasn't been any response...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole incident reminds me of something... what was it... oh yeah, it was when pretty much the same thing happened to me (I also note you supported me anyway while others were tripping over themselves trying to switch to oppose). Don't lose hope, because you can always get another chance and if you take on board the criticisms and remember that even one freakin edit summary that is the slightest bit uncivil is enough to get a lot of RFA regulars to oppose you, you too could receive the golden turd uh I mean vast honor that is adminship on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I intend to go for it again. A few months (probably 6, to satisfy the RfA regulars), less biting, more activeness, and you can count on my name being back up there for another go.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you got some very solid support this go-round, things will probably go better next time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been off travelling and didn't even notice. Let me know next time.  - Hordaland (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no problems with your RfA Unionhawk, just better researched opposes than supports and they  discovered a couple of chinks in  your armour that  the vultures all  went  for. It's also not  easy to expect younger people to have accumulated sufficient  subject  knowledge to create lots of new articles about  serious topics. This doesn't  exclude the fact  that  there might  be a couple of topics that  you  are already highly  knowledgeable about and could significantly  contribute to. I'm sure there is a wealth  of advice in  your RfA for you  to  work  on too. Remember, your selfnom  was made in  good faith and was a very brave thing to do,  and so  was your decision  to  withdraw. These things have gained you respect, and I look forward to  being on  the support side the next  time round. --Kudpung (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, that's enough moral support. I'm not discouraged, not depressed, and I've finished flogging myself with a wet trout for those stupid edit summaries. I'll wait a bit, fix my errors, and try again. You can count on that.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 12:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me Kudpung? A vulture? :) Anyways, Unionhawk, There was nothing wrong with your contributions, in my opinion, and I originally supported. That edit summary... Well... It just shocked me that someone would do that, and it was only nine days before. Anyways, my point is that your edits are fine, and I think that you will do much better next time, and I no doubt will !vote support. Hi878 (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA
Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)