User talk:GoldenRing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:43, 8 April 2017

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 01:49, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah ha! We have you now, minion of Sauron!

So, you boldly admit you are an 'engineer' in a somewhat 'controversial' field of endeavor... and your username is 'GoldenRing'....

Talk about WP:COI violations -- I know who you are.

One ring to rule them all,
One ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.

You are the blacksmith producing more Rings Of Power! All your edits on wikipedia clearly are pushing this evil POV! You must be stopped! Elbereth!

(please note this *entire* post is in jest. I do not really believe you are a minion of The Great Red Eye. You just commented on WP:COI over in one of the threads about paid-advocacy, and mentioned usernames as an indicator, and, well, see above. If you have not read the books, or at least seen the movie, none of the above may make any sense whatsoever... if so please disregard. Thank you for your time :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, we must not have you now, then, dern it. Go on about your wiki-business, minion of sauron, we may have you yet. Wait, which part exactly was wrong? Oh, nevermind. :-) Anyways, I appreciate you taking my odd sense of humour in stride, and more importantly, for your sensible position on WP:COI. See you around; thanks for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, since when did any minion of Sauron know so much about rugby union... ? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Martinevans123, everyone, even the balrogs, need to put their feet up with a beer every now and then. GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even Brian is ... here!! Martinevans123 (talk)

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#LA Clippers owner banned for life

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#LA Clippers owner banned for life. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

ITN

Hi, thanks for paying attention.

I wanted to explain that I try to avoid chiming in with everyone else. If there are twelve supports and I support I won't comment. When I do comment, I like to make people think, rather than just going with the current. And you also need to look at context. On the Bob Hoskins nomination, one the opposes had been on the basis that he was being posted, while more worthy nominations were being kept off. I could have gotten in an argument with that editor. I thought pointing out the absurdity in another way would be less confrontational and more effective, at least for those not on autopilot. Same thing with the Tornado Outbreak nom. As usual, we got a bunch of "the usual suspects" complaining about American bias and how this happens all the time. Rather than saying, "You, MistookEditor" are mistaken", I thought a little irony would lighten the situation.

I prefer Cash's theorem to Poe's law.

μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone (2nd nomination). Thanks. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Your ITN proposal

Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a rational argument

A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Nothing I've said is remotely a personal attack. On Wikipedia we are free to critique contributions rather than contributors. Arguments could be "not rational" because they are based on wrong facts, they are conclusory or they involve logical fallacies. There's no reason to mince words when explaining why an argument is defective. For instance "This is not ITN/R" is not a rational argument, because we don't require ITN items to be listed on ITNR. "This is something of only lilliputian interest, and a purely parochial matter" is conclusory and contradicts the obvious fact that the election is making headlines around the world. "POTUS may not be the only office that matters, but we generally only post the result of an election that determines who occupies the highest seat in the government" is a reasonable oppose. We can look at more, but I think three examples suffice for the moment. At the time I posted there were 12 supports and 7 opposes, so even if you want to accord full weight to all the votes, when in fact about half of them were irrational, it's still within admin discretion to post the item. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that. Engaging with arguments as you've done above is not a personal attack; dismissing all the opposing opinion as not rational is at best a base insult. To take issue with point in particular, "This is not ITN/R" is a perfectly rational argument when the nominator has tagged the item ITN/R and the editor is explaining why they've removed that tag.

But my concern is not whether the item should have been posted; I supported the nomination. My concern is that ITN is already a pretty toxic place to operate. You've exercised 'admin discretion' to find consensus where there is plainly deep division. You've posted a US-centric item very quickly where there is already a fairly strong feeling that US-centric items get an easy ride. You've labelled the numerous opposes as 'not rational'. Do you think that's helped make ITN a less toxic place to operate, or more toxic? I know what I think. GoldenRing (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now closed, so I think we should move on. Please see some of the other comments on my own talk page. I don't want to bore you by repeating them here. Thank you for taking an interest in this and for your suggestions. Of course I will try to learn something from the experience. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITN credit

On 18 November 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2014 G-20 Brisbane summit, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More stubs are there

Here are the templates: Template:Constituencies of Balochistan Assembly, Template:Constituencies of Sindh Assembly, Template:Constituencies of Punjab Assembly. THere are the stubs created by the same user. You may consider nominating them for deletion too, or associating them with the current AfD. Fai zan 06:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration amendment request archived

Hi GoldenRing, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived to the GamerGate case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Hi GoldenRing,

I know that you have been around for a long time. I saw that you were undoing a lot of vandalism edits and warning users manually; have you tried WP:TWINKLE? It is a very convenient tool, allowing you to undo all of a user's edits in an article with one click and easily add a warning template to user talk pages. Tony Z. Tan · talk 18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three 6 Mafia

I made changes to the Three 6 Mafia page because it's a new group. Dj Paul himself even said it's a new group. Another thing is why would Juicy J be a past member of a brand in which he owns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetaylor (talk • contribs)

@Tetaylor: A very brief search indicates it's not a new group - the group's own website [1] indicates they've been together since at least 1997. It's unreferenced, but our article on Juicy J says he was part of the group from 1991 to 2009, making him now a former member. At any rate, blanking big sections of the article, removing the infobox etc doesn't really help. GoldenRing (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetaylor: What would be really ~~sueful~~ useful is if you could provide some sources that support the changes you're making. The whole article is currently badly under-sourced. My quick search around indicates that you are probably right about Juicy J being a member still, but I can't find anything that would meet the requirements of wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. GoldenRing (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Three 6 has existed since 1991 but Da Mafia 6ix has existed since 2013. THREE 6 MAFIA is signed to Sony and that's the reason they formed a new group minus Juicy J. DJ himself even said it a new group and not Three 6 Mafia. If Juicy J is a past member then why a user upload a picture of him(Juicy J) in which DJ Paul himself is not seen? Users are blending two separate groups into one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetaylor (talk • contribs)

Is there a way that we can create a Da Mafia 6ix page or would everything have to be mentioned on the Three 6 Mafia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetaylor (talk • contribs) 15:20, April 15, 2015‎ (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

thinking of cultural context
Thank you for service on multiple Wikipedias with the Wiki Recent Change Patrol tool, for copy-editing and involvement in the news and deletions, for quality improvements based on "local knowledge", for thinking of cultural context, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1276 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WRCP down?

Is WRCP down? I can't seem to get it to do anything (in either Firefox or Safari)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Thanks for the note. Now fixed. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked and disgusted

I'm utterly shocked and disgusted by your misleading and in some cases factually wrong rant about me at ANI. Why should an editor be given free rein to include disputed material not just without consensus, but against it? Your take on this matter is astounding. AusLondonder (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: Calm down. It's at ANI, let's leave it there. GoldenRing (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry GoldenRing

hey Dude im really sorry i didnt bothered to read how to edit wiki properly and started edditing im really very sorry for this and thank you for telling me how to send messages. :) Brahm gian (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brahm gian: No worries. I hope you have a productive wiki career. GoldenRing (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Is shifting the topic. The problem itself, is on the validity on YouTube urls to be added to the articles of songs by artists, and if they violate the rules or not in Wikipedia.

Now about the «null editions», no user has asked me "to stop several times", is only a dynamic IP which has touched me the subject. Or is maybe you are behind those IPs.? --186.84.46.227 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@186.84.46.227: If you think you've got evidence that I'm socking, SPI is thataway. Without evidence, that's a personal attack. I suggest you reconsider it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up some confusion

You appear to have attributed my statement about being bedridden from surgery to User:Boing! said Zebedee, who is now confused as to where your statement concerning them is coming from. I'm replying here because I fear if I post in my Arbcom section that neither of you may see it; it's a rather awkward format for responding to others. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I will apologize profusely in the appropriate forum. GoldenRing (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't believe any profusion is necessary. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profusion entirely unnecessary, indeed ;-) M. A. Bruhn, you have my best wishes for a speedy recovery. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Glad we've got that sorted out. But reading back through all this again, I'm still staggered that this has ended up where it has. You "unblocked with a suitable block log reason when a consensus was developing that a block was excessive" but then thought maybe a trip to arbcom for a quick de-sysopping was a good next step? How is that de-escalating from a block? GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood the sequence of events. My ArbCom report was not the next step in the sequence, but came after further escalation by the other party. Anyway, I'm not going to discuss it in multiple forums - the ArbCom case page is the appropriate venue for your comments if you think my action in requesting a case was unwarranted (though the overwhelming consensus from Arbs to accept the case would suggest they feel otherwise). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, aware there's other stuff in the middle there. But bear in mind that those same arbs recently found that an admin edit warring an ANI about himself closed was not worthy of more than admonishment; in my view, Michael Hardy had reasonable grounds for complaint and was told that the other editor was doing him a favour. I'd have opened a second section, too. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"[H]auled in front of arbcom to have his mop snapped in half..." Wanted to let you know I was thinking of this phrase a lot at work yesterday. Well put! 71.36.112.176 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Michael Hardy is reminded that:
1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GoldenRing. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GoldenRing. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tesni Job

Just so you know, I've tweaked the CSD tag to a G3. It was Welsh vandalism, and the fact that said person was said to be a descendant of John Cadbury speaks volumes. The Welsh translates to "but you came second in that, yes?" and "OK, yes". So, yes, I've tagged it as vandalism. Have a good day, Patient Zero^talk 13:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Patient Zero: No problem. Looks like someone's done the job now anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello GoldenRing. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149 KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81: Thanks for the reminder of the policy detail. However, in this case, don't G1, G3 and probably G10 also apply (assuming that you're referring to Caleb Walker? GoldenRing (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they still needed to be deleted immediately. It's probably an test. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81: Hence the tagging of Pirateperfection, five minutes after it was created? GoldenRing (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus strictly applies to A1 and A3 only and I think your incorrect about it. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81: Well, I guess I thought that with a page that had already been speedied three times, twice in the last two weeks, such niceties were probably not necessary, especially where other CSD criteria equally applied. With that history, it seems unlikely to be just a test - especially since one of the previous deletions was under G5. Still, thanks for the reminder. GoldenRing (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome!

Hello! I was training at the session today where new editors were working on a version of the Hertha Ayrton page - thanks for checking that they were being supported and for being so welcoming, it was a lovely illustration of the wiki-community at work when they got your message! Zeromonk (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Hi GoldenRing. The answer you gave to Q5 in your ongoing RfA has generated an enormous amount of enthusiasm amongst some of the most respected members of the community. I would suggest you expand upon it, as it would make an ideal essay. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Irondome: - Thanks. I will consider it. In some ways, it fits with the sort of thinking at WP:No editor is indispensable. GoldenRing (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irondome is right, very good answer! I wish you the best of luck in your application, you have my support. I like you and think you have the know-how and character that would make a good admin, better than someone coming in with an unnecessarily "big stick" as you said (per your quote - I realize I am taking it partially out of context but do intend it as a compliment on your style). Please note that I am not accusing any admin of anything in that last sentence, just stating the fact that the big stick approach can easily be overused and result in more bad than good in some instances. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: See User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators. As I've said elsewhere, I've struggled a bit to find the right voice and the result is a bit rambly. Comments, criticism and suggestions for a good title are welcome. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read it though and must admit that I liked the content of it a lot. I will see if I can think of a title and will get back to you shortly, how does that sound? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'My Username' section of your user page

I have to say, the section on your user page titled 'My Username' is quite creative and I must admit that I do like it lol. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks. It's actually quite uncomfortable for me - I created my account before my first marriage ended, and the name was a reference to my wedding ring. I've thought seriously about changing it, but decided to make light of it instead. I'm glad you enjoyed it. GoldenRing (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! I can understand why that would be uncomfortable. First off, I am sorry to hear that you marriage ended. Secondly, that is a good approach - to make light of it rather than let it be a grim reminder. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ioan Sterca-Șuluțiu

I've given it a try, though admittedly, there isn't much available. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul: Brilliant, thank you. Given the scarcity of sources, what are your thoughts on the notability of the subject? GoldenRing (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think his military/revolutionary leadership, plus his invention that was immediately useful, plus his membership of a noble family, all taken together, probably put him over the top, albeit barely. As for sources, apparently, he's profiled in the 2012 book Moții și luptele lor la 1848-1849, but I don't have access to it at present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I wanted to let you know that despite the fact that I'm opposing your RfA because you failed certain performative measures, I am generally impressed with your answers to questions, as I gather most editors are. You are certainly clueful and an asset to Wikipedia. I don't know how your RfA will shake out in the end but you certainly have the makings of a good admin and I have hopes that you'll continue to contribute regardless of outcome. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chris. It was good of you to drop by and take the time to make that clear. Lots of small such gestures make Wikipedia a nicer place to be, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo what Chris said; although it would be hard for me to deny that I think your best quality- just right now- is being a guinea pig! No hard feelings ;) — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 04:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: None taken. It's been a pretty surreal ride, really. Barring a last-24-hours pile-on one way or the other, it's looking like it'll be up to the 'crats. GoldenRing (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it'll be a crat decision, yes. I'm hoping they'll support, I think you should have the bit. A positive outcome would also show that the RfA process isn't as broken as we usually think it is. Fingers crossed. Yintan 07:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it would be good if they could overcome their somewhat inherent conservatism. But — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 08:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping for a positive outcome! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add my compliments for the way you handled the RfA process. I supported you early on, and your decorum throughout the process reinforced my decision. I'm reminded of how I've always endeavored to hire people who are careful, thoughtful, and mature in my professional life, even if they lacked ideal levels of experience. Such people can be brought up to speed easily. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding contributions recognition

Outstanding Contributions Recognition

GoldenRing, I've followed your Rfa and subsequently have had a chance to see your contributions across Wikipedia. What I've noticed is a person who is passionately dedicated to Wikipedia and is amongst the most intelligent ones I've come across here. I applaud the absolute honesty you've shown in your Rfa while offering to contribute as an administrator. They may not be necessarily as many as of other prolific editors, but in my opinion, your contributions are exemplary.

And in that spirit, you truly are an outstanding contributor.

Keep up the great work! :)

Lourdes

@@ Line 269: / Line 269: @@
 {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
 |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:National Hero Award.jpg|100px]]
-|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Outstanding Contributions Award'''
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Outstanding Contributions Recognition'''
 |-
 |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | GoldenRing, I've followed your Rfa and subsequently have had a chance to see your contributions across Wikipedia. What I've noticed is a person who is passionately dedicated to Wikipedia and is amongst the most intelligent ones I've come across here. I applaud the absolute honesty you've shown in your Rfa while offering to contribute as an administrator. They may not be necessarily as many as of other prolific editors, but in my opinion, your contributions are exemplary.