User talk:SoWhy

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

List of administrator hopefuls

Hi - I'm not sure if you're watching WP:HOPEFUL, but it is now updated per most of your suggestions. I think the only pending suggestion not implemented is to add counts for each section. If you have any other feedback, please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am watching it. Great work! :-) SoWhy 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Oddly enough, it's one I didn't already have. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. And good thing I picked you a new one :-) SoWhy 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

my error

My sincere apologies for the problem caused by my use of WikiCleaner. I was using it to pinpoint pages in need of corrective action and was indeed viewing and fixing each individually. I wasnt aware of glitches or problems with the 'tool' and had no idea that it was automatically making so many inaccurate changes, entirely independent of myself. The realization of this dilemma is frustrating because I honestly contributed a significant number of accurate, productive edits. Thanks--1oddbins1 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville^BONK! 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA oppose

Why hazard a guess? Let the opposer respond for themselves. --Dweller (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a similar behavior often found in many RfAs - and sometimes the opposer does not re-visit the RfA to explain it. So I thought it might be helpful to write what is likely, allowing the opposed to reflect on this interpretation (which might not be obvious to the candidate). After all, it does no harm, or does it? If so, tell me please, because I just tried to be helpful. Thanks SoWhy 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's a great idea. First, I want to reassure you that I can see your intentions were good and I'm not having a go at you. OK, that said, you don't know what he was thinking - he may have made a mistake (looking at his recent RfA activity that's more than possible). I left him a note earlier about his recent RfA contribs and after seeing your note asked him to return and clarify. Your suggestion doesn't really help because a Crat would ignore it as groundless speculation over the !voter's intentions. All you've done is note your own concern over the candidate, which is confusing, as you've supported him. It's just a bit of a mess. NB there's plenty of behaviour at RfA that's not ideal - let's, bit by bit, start raising the bar? :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just pointed out, what could be a concern for some. As I wrote in my support, I firmly believe we need more admins and we need those especially, who, like this candidate, are good in fighting vandalism (with 200k edits a day, 1500 admins are not really much^^). But I am sure you know that there are many opposes of this sort imminent, mostly those who are based on "not enough FAs/GAs" / "not enough article building" which I never understood, because an admin should, as I see it, be able to clean up - you do not need those tools for writing articles.

I have no idea of course, how a crat will judge such opposes (although I guess ignoring them would be a good guess here) and thus I did not have in mind to try and imply anything. I guess you are right about one thing: I should have looked how this user acted in other RfAs and then directly asked him to clarify him-/herself. Well, we all make mistakes, good thing you told me, so thanks for that. I will do my best raising the bar (but not that high, considering that I entertain the thought of wanting to jump over the bar some day^^) :-) SoWhy 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, bar for behaviour, not bar for admins :-) Any puzzling/inexplicable oppose would have to be ignored. I hope (expect) he'll return and clarify next time he's online. Cheers. Anyway, when do you think you'll be ready to attempt RfA? --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then it's okay. :-D

Ah, I see. Yeah, let's hope it :-)

PS: Hmm, good question, I discussed that with Cyclonenim few sections above this one. I think I am ready now, but I would value the input of some admins and/or crats before I attempt it and as I said to Cyclonenim, I will wait for some admin/crat to nominate me, because I want to avoid opposes based on "selfnom=power hunger" (even if those opposes are ignored, I'd rather prefer to force those users who oppose on those grounds to have to supply some better reason than that :-). SoWhy 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice hint. :-) I'll take a look at your contrib history when I get a mo. Have you had a recent WP:ER? --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hint? Me? Never! ;-) Nah, I don't think I had to hint, I got the Userbox which exclaims "Wanna wanna wanna!!!" and it is on this talk page, jsut a few sections above...okay, maybe a little hint. I am grateful, if you could do so of course, not solely with RfA in mind but on a general basis as well. I had an ER in August, it's at Wikipedia:Editor review/SoWhy. I have closed it after 3 weeks then, because apart from Rudget, there were no real comments for 3 weeks and ER has a huge backlog anyway, so I didn't want to take more space than I needed. I think Rudget's comment was quite nice and helpful and I tried to improve by what he told me, unfortunately he left by now so I could never thank him for that. SoWhy 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You have my support. I have been waiting for this a while now. Btw, deine Englischkentnisse sind bemerkenswert. :) --Cameron* 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, those are nice words. As I said above, I would be honored of your support once and if someone nominated me. But I will await Dweller's judgement first in any case because I value his opinion very much. Btw, ich freue mich, dass du denkst, meine Englischkenntnisse seien bemerkenswert, vor allem, wenn man bedenkt, dass ich über das Internet gelernt habe (and yes, I usually write such long sentences. One of my friends recently complained about that again, saying that she is not able to grasp them at 1am ;-) SoWhy 10:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)