[[User:Denbot|Denbot]] ([[User talk:Denbot|talk]]) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Denbot|Denbot]] ([[User talk:Denbot|talk]]) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
== RfA thankspam==
Thanks for the message. I'd point out one of the disadvantages of using a bot is that you missed the words 'Please note: RfA thankspam and mass-mailed messages are not appreciated. ' written clearly at the top of my page. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorje Shugden. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
His recent changes make things worse - between copyvio and plagiarism I'm wondering if we should strip out any possible copyvio and fully protect the article, what do you think? Oh, and we need some editors to nominate for Admin, it seems. :-) dougweller (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to cook dinner right now, will get back to the article after that. Quiet New Year's Eve for me, a nice meal and some tv with my wife. dougweller (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith is now up. This is not a "live" RFA; I have not transcluded it to WP:RFA and will not do so until you indicate that you want to (usually done when you've finished answering the questions). Doug, if you want to add a co-nom please go ahead; it's fine to do so procedurally. And Judith - thank you for changing your mind. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. All that you mentioned sounds pretty good. Oh, I don't know, it might be a good idea to vaguely mention something like possible WP:SANCTION enforcement further down the line - your brain is too good to waste on boring old AFD closures - but what the heck. No one ever actually does what they say they'll do at RFA: you can't know what chores will or won't take your fancy until you actually have the buttons. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, shall I send it live? Though you might like to have a look at the line near the top starting "Candidate, please...". Moreschi (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee thanks, dougweller, for getting me all excited at the opportunity to voice support for an editor whose voice of reason I respect and admire. Seriously - take this live soon (well, as soon as you are ready). Good luck! - Eldereft (cont.) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judith, any idea what Moshe is talking about? If not, I'll point out his apparent crassness at WP:BN so they can factor his vote accordingly. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant
The crux of the joke was that it was somewhat ambiguous. When first read it sounds vaguely sexual but this is not quite clear. In short, it was pure genius :) . It was really just a spur of the moment joke, sorry if it caused offense. I'm actually a pretty friendly person and tend to joke around too much.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dorje Shugden
Thanks for your comment and forwarding it to the WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism, this help is much appreciated. What do you think about the blog inclusions? There is so much spin that I would prefer only to use neutral academic sources. --Kt66 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be also interested to know what your opinion is with respect to the links. They seem to be unbalanced on the number and list some anonymous site while no rather neutral source. I added three links to scholarly papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden&oldid=264738389 what do you think about this inclusion? As WP:link states:
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
I just closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Although you had considerable support, the opposition was sufficient enough not to be ignored. Consensus was not reached. Your supporters championed your article writing abilities, noticeboard contributions and positive consensus-building activities. You were often described as trustworthy. I imagine if you address the concerns of the opposition (policy knowledge and admin-related experience) you will fair better next time.
You are a valued member of this community, and I hope you continue to work hard on the Wikipedia project. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page or via email. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commiserations. You really should have been promoted. This is yet more evidence that the RfA process is badly broken and the main reason is the existence of a self-selected group of "RfA regulars" who only want admins in their own image, i.e. unimaginative pedants. Anyway, it's more Wikipedia's loss than yours. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, when people aren't promoted after a bruising RFA like that one, all they want to do is get away for a while, without being pressured to explain what it all means, declare pro-RFA or anti-RFA loyalties, etc. Your concern is entirely valid, Folantin, and it's worth discussing at WT:RFA, but let's just give her a pat on the back and a shoulder to cry on and leave her in peace for a bit, shall we? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do things your way and I'll do things my way. I'm not pressuring anybody to explain anything. I merely vented my frustration with an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I avoided expressing this frustration earlier, on the actual RfA, for fear of upsetting the outcome further. If you want to argue with me, do it on my talk page. --Folantin (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I fucked this one up badly. I had no idea the collective vanity of the RFA crowd was so massive they would vote down the nominee of anyone who tried to deflate the bastards a little. I fucked up here, but those clueless bastards have fucked up more. We need admins like a fish needs water ATM, and they shot down a wonderful candidate for petty and dumb reasons.
Still, it was desperately close. Come May and we'll have another go, eh? I did something very similar and second time around I walked it. Might need someone else to nominate, though...Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Itsmejudith, I hope you aren't too dismayed by the outcome. As Kingturtle says, I think you'll be successful if you want to try another RfA, and I hope you will. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see this fail but I take comfort in the fact that although it appears I inadvertently managed to get you extra "oppose" votes, Moreschi fucked up way more than I did. :-) Bad outcome but for anyone screaming here "RfA is broken", I'd like to note that a) the b'crat deserves a part of the blame and b) failing good candidates will happen no matter how RfA is structured. Although it's frustrating for the candidate (I should know) we shouldn't be obsessed by the occasional false negative. The real sign that RfA is broken is that we almost gave a mop to this charming man (and I'll bravely resist the temptation to comment on who supported who...) Oh and I suppose I now have one more "shared page" with Itsmejudith and Moreschi. Both of you should come and have a beer at my place, like you do every Sunday night... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All things considered I don't think you should be too bothered, although the bad faith accusations of canvassing may leave a nasty taste in your mouth for a while. A lot of good people expressed considerable confidence in you, and I have no doubt that a 2nd RfA will succeed, especially if you do go down the adoption road. No doubt at all. Email me sometime why don't you? dougweller (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for you (with verbosity and sloppy phrasing that made me cringe when I read it the following morning) because I thought you were ... well, you know, I said and I'm not going to bore you a second time around. But what I didn't know then was that you also have fine taste in ale. As it's pretty cheap hereabouts, I'm going through a Chimay white label phase right now, but Leffe, yes, Orval, yes.... (burp) -- Hoary (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic this should come just after I supported you in your RfAd, but I think your nomination of this article failed to consider the alternatives to deletion in WP:Deletion policy. DGG (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will send it to all talk pages linked from the RfA (unfortunately, that can cause occasional problems - mine went to Jimbo when he didn't contribute - but they're relatively minor). I'll send it out now. DendodgeTalkContribs22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thankspam
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
Thanks for the message. I'd point out one of the disadvantages of using a bot is that you missed the words 'Please note: RfA thankspam and mass-mailed messages are not appreciated. ' written clearly at the top of my page. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
