User talk:Zapptastic/archives/requests for adminship

=Second Request for Adminship=

Image:ZapptasticRfAplease.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ZapptasticRfAplease.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, please go ahead. Probably should've requested that speedied before I left...  I'll leave a note on the deletion page.  -Zapptastic (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind - see it's already been deleted. -Zapptastic (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 13:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar, but I really would have been much happier with it had you succeeded. Obviously I felt you were ready for the tools, or I wouldn't have nominated or supported you, but I guess you can't argue with other people's opinions or standards. I can't help but feel that I could have done a better job with my first real crack at coaching and nomination; if you have any constructive criticism, I'm always open to it. I'm sorry I couldn't do enough to get you through, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time for you. The good thing is that you came much closer this time, and I think the opposes are very fixable. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you need anything in the future, either via email or my talk page. Cheers, EWS23  (Leave me a message!) 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA question
Hi Zapptastic, I have asked you an optional question on your RfA page. I know it's getting a bit late to ask these, and it's entirely optional.--Konstable 06:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. I've answered it, and I hope that it helps you decide.  Well, actually, I hope it helps you support me.  Thanks, Zapptastic (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA message
Hi, my RfA criteria is supposed to be a joke, and not to be taken very seriously. Please understand I didn't oppose purely on the fact you spammed users talk pages, but I failed to see any significant experience gain since your last RfA. I hope you understand and don't take this the wrong way. Please stay longer, get experience with admin related chors and I'm sure you'll pass. :) I also removed the image you left me, as I disagreed with it being on my talk page. Hope you understand.-- Andeh 13:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I got it was a joke, as was the picture I posted. I realize your concerns regarding experience gain.  If you're still not totally 100% decided, you could have a look at my updated answer to question two - I posted some diffs of major mainspace contributions.  Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hey! Check out Requests for adminship/Zapptastic. Please answer the questions and look through my nomination. Let me know if there's anything you want me to add, delete, or change, including which diffs I use. Once we're happy with it, we can transclude it to WP:RFA (you're welcome to do this yourself, just make sure to change to ending time on the nomination). You even already have one over-zealous supporter! I'll be sure to leave them a message after we transclude it to make sure they update their timestamp to a time after the nom begins. Let me know if you have any concerns whatsoever. Cheers, EWS23  (Leave me a message!) 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton for all your hard work and your humbling nomination statement! I've accepted, answered the questions, and am now going to transclude it.  Wish me luck!  -Zapptastic (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

=First Request for Adminship=

Request for Adminship
It is my regretful task to inform you that your recent request for adminship failed to achieve consensus to promote, and has been closed. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination
I am happy to inform you that I have nominated you for administratorship due to your phenomonal record of legitimate edits and page creations. Please accept you nomination at Requests for adminship/zappa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack the Knife (talk • contribs)
 * The RfA page is blank - no place to accept. Even if it were there, I would not accept, as I currently have a RfA going on here.  Thanks, zappa.jak e  (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA optional questions
Having supported your RfA candidacy, I crafted some additional questions by the answering of which I hoped you'd be able to allay concerns that others had expressed apropos of your knowledge of policy, in view of your relative neophytity and modicum of project-space edits. Unfortunately, though they were to have been tendetious in favor of your candidacy, they likely would have tended to impugn your capabilities; I ask them here, then, in order that you might not feel compelled to answer, and I'll only copy them to the RfA page if you answer them and are satisfied that the questions are fair and that your answers well reflect the knowledge of policy I am confident that you have. So...
 * You adduce the enumeration on your user page of articles you’ve created in your response to question two, suggesting that the articles you’ve created are some of the contributions of which you’re most proud. One of the articles you created, Prayer Of The Children, has as its predominant content the lyrics to the song, ostensibly in violation of our policy with respect to primary sources and our understood proscription of articles consisting primarily of lyrics, not to mention our copyright policy, which looks with disfavor on the wholesale quotation of song lyrics.  A few questions about the article:
 * (a) Have the song lyrics been licensed appropriately, or is their inclusion likely a copyvio?
 * The song has been out of printing for a couple years. Therefore, reproduction of the song (in its paper form, the sheet music) is allowed by the publisher.  Although it is not profitable for them anymore to print the music and sell it, they don't want the music to just fade away into nothing - so they allow free reproduction of the sheet music to be performed.  Anyways, the article only contains the lyrics - not the tune.  Therefore, the song cannot be "pirated" or such, as you can't just sing lyrics - you need a tune to go with them.  Therefore, I believe publishing of the lyrics of Wikipedia is fair use.  -zappa.jak e  (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (b) For what reasons did you think the song to be notable (the composer is notable but none of the performances seems to be, and I don’t see that this piece was any more significant than any other the composer wrote) per WP:MUSIC/SONG (which is, it must be said, only a proposal)? Do you think, in any case, that you might better convey the notability of the subject were you, with more experience, to write the article now?
 * The song is the signature piece of the Northern Pines young men's chorale, of which I am a member. They have won multiple awards singing it.  It conveys an aspect of historical events also - war through a child's eyes.  It's not the most notable thing on the whole encyclopedia, but it is a well-known song among choral circles.  I knew a bit about it, so I tried to help out the encyclopedia and create some new stuff.  -zappa.jak e  (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (c) You have linked many basic words and concepts in the song (e.g., ‘’for something of their very own’’ to property). Do you generally approve of such linking (notwithstanding WP:CONTEXT’s proviso that plain English words generally oughtn’t to be linked)?
 * No, that probably wasn't a good idea - seemed like one six weeks ago. I'll take some of those off.  -zappa.jak e  (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Once more, you've no need to answer, inasmuch as I've already supported you and in view of my not having placed these on the RfA page; I ask them simply because I know each of us to have acted in a fashion different from that in which we later think we ought to have acted, and I want to give you a chance to explain how your Wiki thinking has evolved. Cordially, Joe 21:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In your response to Gwernol’s third question (#7), you say that you tagged for speedy deletion pages that appear simply to have been non-notable job descriptions for a non-notable business. Pursuant to which specific WP:CSD criterion do you think such articles to be speediable?  Were you an admin, would you delete speedily only articles already tagged by another user, or would you, having happened upon a new page you thought speediable, delete the page summarily, even in the absence of other input?
 * Mainly the criteria regarding test pages and unremarkable people/groups. Anyways, I would probably just start out speedying articles other users have tagged (and that I agree with).  As I became a more experienced admin I would probably begin finding those pages myself, as other users have cautioned me on my RfA to "ease into" my adminship (if I am approved).  -zappa.jak e  (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses; the celerity with which and the deliberative, reasoned nature in which you wrote them make me confident that, even as you may not be wholly conversant with policies and guidelines, you are sufficiently pensive as to be unlikely, even avolitionally, to make mistakes as an admin. I am sorry to see that your current RfA is unlikely to succeed, but I do, as others, encourage you to try again in the future.  FWIW, I agree with your interpretation of fair use w/r/to lyrics, but that understanding is not the dominant one here, and there does exist a consensus for the proposition that full lyrics, where still copyrighted or otherwise not licensed consistent with our policies, ought not to appear.  W/r/to the speedy deletion question, you might do well to  check out Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, where several discussions are taking place relative to whether articles that certainly will fail at AfD (as, for example, those I reference in my second question) but nevertheless cannot be classified under one the speedy deletion criteria should be speedied; although User:Tony Sidaway, to name one, has expressed that [The criteria] don't mean that we don't delete complete rubbish when we see it just because it doesn't fit some handy category (and, to the extent that our guidelines and policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive, he's right), many others (myself included) object, preferring that we codify policy very exactly here (even at the risk of pedantry) lest errors should occur.  I, for example, don't think descriptions of jobs at a given grocery store are speediable, but I recognize that WP:IAR and WP:SNOWBALL would seem to suggest that they may be speedied if we're certain that the disposition of their AfDs would be delete (we encounter problems, though, because one user's certainty is another user's doubt).  In any event, you've made an excellent case for adminship, and I believe quite strongly that you want to be an admin for the right reason, viz., because you belief that you can help the project with the mop and bucket.  I am confident that a future RfA will succeed, and I'll be pleased to support you there as well.  Joe 23:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The RfA thing
Hi Zappa.jake, I got your message about your recent RfA. With all due respect, I don't really know you all that well, so I don't think I could vote for you or against you either way. Please don't take this personally, but I have had rather limited involvement with the internal machinations of the Wikipedia community since I got here. --Eastlaw 22:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not expect you to vote. The "advertising" was not by me, nor was it connected to or approved by me.  Terribly sorry, zappa.jak e  (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
Sorry about the advertising, I figured it would be good to get the word out. Did the same thing for user:Cool3. Should I say something to him as well? ShortJason 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your discussion page for your publicity campaign. -zappa.jak e  (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Zappa, I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for such harsh criticism on your RfA. I wish you the best in it and I hope that, whichever way it goes, you will continue to make great contributions to wikipedia. Good luck and happy editing!--Kchase02 (T) 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your criticism - it helps me grow as a Wikipedian. It didn't end up well for me, but I still plan on making my same (hopefully) great contributions!  Good luck to you and happy editing also, zappa.jak e  (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Socks
Hi there Zappa.jake. The results as WP:RFCU have shown you to be innocent. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC).
 * Thanks for letting me know. -zappa.jak e  (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
I've added a question to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look. Thanks. JoshuaZ 04:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied. Thanks for the question!  -zappa.jak e  (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)