User talk:Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h/Archive 24

your RFA
I'm not sure you noticed that another admin undid your transclusion of your RFA because it was not ready yet. When it is ready, you will need to re-add it to the main RFA page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your RFA was closed as WP:NOTNOW. I missed my chance to ask you these questions. Please be prepared to answer questions 6 in any future RFA.  If the issues that led to me asking question 4 are still here in any future RFA, please be prepared to answer them.  Question 5 has to do with your coming off a long wiki-break.  Before running again, please have several months of sustained participation in the project and in policy- or other administration-related discussions before putting your name in the hat again.
 * Given how quickly this RFA closed, I recommend waiting until
 * You have at least 6 solid months of additional editing, with 100+ edits in each of those months,
 * Until you have at least 4 solid months in a row of editing immediately prior to your RFA, with only short wikibreaks during those 4 months, and
 * At least 4 solid months in a row participating in administrative decisions, with only short wikibreaks or breaks from administrative discussions during those 4 months.

I normally don't require 4 solid months of administrative-type experience immediately prior to RFA, but in this case it will show that you are able to handle the issue raised in question 4. I also sent you an email on a related matter. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As davidwr said, your RfA was closed early - I would suggest that you read it (and davidwr's excellent advice above) and pay attention to the comments made in the opposes - the editors who have commented there give good advice on why you are not yet ready to consider adminship.
 * Some reasons from me as well:
 * your attitude here ("Still being non notable...because I live in Chile and I've never heard about it") is either arrogant or immature - either way, the notability guidelines and notability guidelines for organisations say nothing about if specific editors have heard of it - they require a reliable, independent source of information (such as, for example, the New York Times) to be available. This could be forgiven if it was months ago, but it was only 23 hours ago - seriously, many editors would have opposed on just this one thing
 * You said that one of your best contributions was "Guide newbies (Daisy18108 by example) and other users that need it." - looking at your on-wiki conversations with Daisy18108, I don't see very much guidance - mainly it was just general chit-chat, not about Wikipedia at all. Looking through your contributions, I couldn't see any other newbies that you had helped - lots of welcome messages, but not any other guidance.
 * You said in question 3 "Sometimes, however, it's not possible (when I get angry), when a user reclaims about my contribs, but I try anyway to do it by the better way" - an administrator is held to a higher standard than a "normal" editor. They are supposed to be calm, and avoid getting angry: an angry admin will do the wrong thing, like edit warring or blocking a user: blocking is required sometimes, but only when it is the logical thing, the right thing to do - not just because an editor has pissed you off.
 * I'm not going to add any more to that list - but in your previous RfA, the first opposer suggested that you get admin coaching. I would suggest that this would be a good idea if you are serious. You may have been an admin on your school wiki, but there is a vast difference between that and Wikipedia: the scope of Wikipedia is so much larger (more than 3 million articles, almost 19 million pages in total, over 11 million registered users... it's a big wiki!) - and being admin isn't just about knowing how to use the tools, but when to use them - and just as importantly, when not to use them.
 * I hope you keep your keenness, and perhaps we'll see you with another RfA (hopefully not self-nominated, as some people really don't like those!) in several months (or longer) after some admin coaching. Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To add to what Phantomsteve said: Adminship is not really about the technical ability to press buttons, and it's not really about "do we trust you not to accidentally break the wiki" or "not deleting the main page, as those are the easy parts of being an admin.  The hard parts, the parts people are looking at in RFA discussions are
 * Knowing the rules inside and out, including the changes that just happened yesterday, or at least knowing what you don't know and not making decisions in ignorance.
 * Having judgment on administrative calls that is at least close to historical judgment. Is your definition of a no-consensus AFD close at least close to what most people expect it to be?  If you would routinely no-consensus-close something with 5 deletes and 1 keep, and the merits of the discussions greatly favored deletion, you shouldn't be an admin, or at least you shouldn't be closing AFDs.
 * Having good people skills. This means the ability to be calm, cool, and collected and have good written English skills.  It also means the ability to communicate with editors who may not be calm, cool, or collected and whose first language is not English.
 * Several editors have their own "criteria for adminship" that they use in RFAs. I have a partial list at User:Davidwr/RFAs.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have to add, you really should wait until you graduate High School before applying to be an admin on Wikipedia, so maybe a couple of years to go yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

About TT
Hey! About ToonTown Online, it's slow sometimes....-- Daisy18108  Talk to me here! Sign my Guestbook! 18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Brock Davis
Hi MisterWiki. I've removed your speedy deletion tag from Brock Davis since it says he played in the Major League, which is clear claim of importance and invalidates A7 (also it looks like you accidentally used db-band which is a sub-set of A7 specifically for musicians). Let me know if you disagree. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've used a wrong template, but appears that Brock Davis is notable. Greetings. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  19:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For taking the time to read some of the Spanish language sources on the English Opens Doors articles and confirming the result at the deletion review. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I've left you a message about in your talkpage. -- MisterWiki   talk   contribs  19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Foxyfan needs to be careful if they intend to use both accounts, or they'll end up being accused of being a pair of socks:) In particular, don't get them to sign up to your project under both user names.  If they only want to use one username that's OK. They can get their contributions linked up I think.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your chum Foxyfan just shot her mouth off on my talkpage. I have removed the personal info she posted about you - you should tell her to avoid doing that again, as WP:OUTING carries a block penalty.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Images
Hello, you may want to give your opinion here.--Ccrazymann (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Talking System
Hello! Your submission of Talking System at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DOSBOX Windows 3.1.png
 Thanks for uploading File:DOSBOX Windows 3.1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

ohai
Sorry I am currently busy with multiple things nowadays, perhaps catch you later on freenode. Your pal, Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pichilemu
Pichilemu looks much improved. I'll leave the new GA review to someone else. But I thought I'd offer some observations on the rewrite in case it helps:
 * The intro is very short. WP:MOS says that it should summarize the whole article, but the current intro doesn't say much.
 * There are still several paragraphs lacking references, especially in Important places.
 * The English usage is better but is still a little rough in places (e.g. "it have 5 Historic Monuments", "Surfing is one of the most biggest tourist draws").
 * I would remove the statement "This article have content extracted from the Spanish and the German Wikipedia." Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources and putting in statements like this implies that you have used these as sources.
 * The statement "Pichilemu is commonly called the South American version of California's Santa Cruz" is still using Pichilemu-based web sites as references. That is almost certainly going to be seen as biased by a reviewer.
 * The article still uses lists a lot. In general lists are discouraged in favor of just having discussions about the items in the prose.
 * There is still not really much discussion of the city's government, economy, and culture (e.g. annual festivals, religion, traditions, etc.). A reviewer might pass it without these but I think most reviewers would say that the article doesn't cover the topic broadly enough.

Anyway, good luck.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mcorazao, I'll work on it. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  20:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)