User talk:Giggy: Difference between revisions
RFB thanks |
|||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
==My RFB== |
==My RFB== |
||
Thank you for your comments in [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight|my RFB]]. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|RFA Standards]], I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for your comments in [[Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Useight|my RFB]]. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my [[User:Useight/RFA Standards|RFA Standards]], I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. [[User:Useight|Useight]] ([[User talk:Useight|talk]]) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I look forward to your trying again in the future. Best of luck then. If/when you make changes to your RfA criteria, please leave me a note (seriously!), I'm interested to see what changes you make (and needless to say it'll be taken into account next time around! ;). Have a good one, ''[[user:giggy|giggy]]'' <sub>([[user talk:giggy|:O]])</sub> 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:01, 13 June 2008
| Welcome to Wikipedia. Make it better; do a GA review. () |
Brisbane meetup invitation
|
Brisbane Meetup
|
 | |
Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!
Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
ID RfC volunteers
Hi, Giggy. Thanks for signing my talk page. I may not have time to contribute much in the next few days, so please feel free to start in on things if you're so inclined. Gnixon (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'll wait and observe from the sidelines a bit first. giggy (:O) 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Just a heads up that I've started the discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. giggy (:O) 08:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
GAN Process Request
I have just started reviewing my first Good Article Nominee - Columbus Blue Jackets. You were listed on the list of mentors, and I have read your guide, so I was wondering if you would mind looking over my review (when its complete) and giving my advice, or a slap upside the head if that's what is needed. Leafschik1967 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- HI, good to hear from you! I'd be all to happy to take a look when your review is done. giggy (:O) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You're banned (in NZ) ;)
Good job you changed your name [1] --Stephen 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- My new name isn't much cleaner! giggy (:O) 01:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- An outrageous, uncalled-for, idiotic, gay vagina. I learn something every day. --Stephen 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I could have you blocked for that blatant personal attack! :O giggy (:O) 02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Which part is the attack? Risker (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- The bit about learning something every day, clearly. giggy (:O) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Which part is the attack? Risker (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I could have you blocked for that blatant personal attack! :O giggy (:O) 02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- An outrageous, uncalled-for, idiotic, gay vagina. I learn something every day. --Stephen 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
My RFB
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I look forward to your trying again in the future. Best of luck then. If/when you make changes to your RfA criteria, please leave me a note (seriously!), I'm interested to see what changes you make (and needless to say it'll be taken into account next time around! ;). Have a good one, giggy (:O) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)