|Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you are a new user, you may find the help on talk pages helpful.|
My question at your RfA
Thanks for your quite perceptive answer. However I was aiming at when, if ever, an admin ought to speedy delete a page which does not match any of the criteria exactly, or perhaps not even very closely, but which the admin honestly believes no one could possibly defend as a valid article or page on Wikipedia. DES (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi DES,
- In most cases like that I think it would make sense to PROD anyway. If the consensus there is that it is worth a speedy delete then we don't need to wait 7 days. If there is some problem with the article being in main space while it is being discussed then it can be userfied. If and only if I thought that some significant harm being done by an article, and that this harm would continue if the article was userfied, then I would consider speedying an article that did not look like it met any criteria.
- There are several advantages to going to PROD in this way:
- It reduces the chance of making a mistake.
- Someone at PROD may point out a criterion that is does meet, which would be useful to learn from.
- If no one can point out a criterion that it does meet, then we may be able to work out a new criterion which is worth adding to the list.
- Yaris678 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Closing ANRFC discussions
Hi Yaris678. I noticed that you wrote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yaris678:
Requested addition: I created most of the summary of the discussion that can be seen at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. I think this shows that I am good at following and summarising a large discussion, which is essential for determining consensus.
Would you consider assessing the consensus at discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Your analytical background and impressive work at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 would be very helpful in resolving disputes. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Cunard (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|Your RFA has not yet been closed; but you're going to get the mop soon. Good luck for your future Wiki-career. Congrats! EthicallyYours! 12:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)|
Your request for adminship
Hello Yaris678, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations! As a quick refresher, the administrators' reading list is always worth a read and the new admin school is available if you need any practice with the tools in a safe environment before applying them for main use. Good luck! Acalamari 18:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well done! Congratulations! Best, Matty.007 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- So close to WP:100. Welcome to the mop and bucket squadron. --AdmrBoltz 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, 99%. Way to show your nominator up! Congratulations, my friend. I've no doubt you'll make a great admin, and you know where I am if you need anything. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well done! My hearty congratulations. You will make a great admin, and if you ever need anything that you don't want Harry to screw up, you know where to find me :D --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on your RfA
- I wanted to be the first to say congratulations for your RfA, but l
ooks like EuroCarGTfive other users beat me to it.… Anyway, congrats! Epicgenius (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you Acalamari for the bit. Thank you Harry for the nomination. Thank you to everyone who took their time to assess the nomination and give their opinion on it. I was touched by the different aspects of my editing history that different users chose to highlight. I was particularly surprised by the editors who remember interacting with me a number of years ago. There were even a few pointers that I can learn from. I found the whole experience very positive.
We need your help testing latest huggle
I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!
Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think they serve a purpose, searching those terms is how I googled this Wikipedia entry. I have no reference for aggressive, but have heard it several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)