User talk:Cyclonenim
Awards · Sandbox · Email Me · Guestbook · Admin coaching · Vandalism levels · Random Article · Main Page
|
2008: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec |
Thank you
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |  |
MCOTW
JFW | T@lk 11:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 5 | 31 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
WHY MAN
Please, you must believe in the brilliance, why do you think that you cannot find him on google, because Nilliam, while in university, donated 40,000,000 dollars to them to remain anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klasyays (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
RfA
The encounters I've had with you since then have been uniformly positive, and assuming nothing awful comes up I'd be happy to support a future RfA. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
RFA 3
Thanks for your note. I'll be glad to. It might tale a while. Busy with work. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: RFA 3
Hi, Cyclonenim. Funny you should bring that up, as I was going to ask you if you would like to run again. I've been following your contributions for a while, and I'd be happy to nominate you, assuming you don't already have a nom set up. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good (and thanks for the speedy response!) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello CN, thanks for the note. I confess that I have not followed your edits since your last RfA as Julian has, so I'd encourage you to ease the efforts for those you have solicited advice from by telling us what you've been up to since your last RfA and how you've improved. Are you active at XFD? A quick review of your wannabekate shows no edits to UAA or RFPP, and only a handful to the drama boards, so you may get a couple off-the-bat opposes for low participation in "admin areas." Have you brought any more articles to GA/FA? Things like that would help us most. GlassCobra 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with GlassCobra, that would me help a lot. However, in a quick review, everything looks good, and you'll most likely have my support when you run again. :) LittleMountain5 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. You've definitely become active in more areas, and in admin areas. Some people will probably give you some static over some of your AFD work--some of your AFDs having been kept, some of your !votes going the opposite of the final result, that sort of thing. But that's all interpretative and subjective, and the role of admins (to me) is different by far as closing participants in xfd, since our role is to interpret the consensus against policy, not actually decide the fate of articles themselves--we decide the fate of the discussion. If we screw it up once or three times, which is inevitable over time, that's what WP:DRV is, to catch the occasional fumble. That all comes with practice, in any event. I wouldn't oppose based on that, and barring any hidden land mine turning up in your contributions (which I doubt) I'd support. rootology (C)(T) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I too was just starting to look you over... per your request from a few weeks ago where you indicated an interest to run in February/March. Everything looks fine per my cursory review, the thing I think you need to do is A) think about who you want to nominate you. IMHO, 2 nominators is the ideal number, but 3 is acceptable. More than 3 it starts to generate animosity. It looks as if you have two admin coaches (Lankiveil and Malinaccier). Generally, it is expected that the coach/es provide the nomination because they in theory should know you the best. If they aren't or you don't want them, then you need to be prepared to explain why? Eg did they retire? If you admin coach says you aren't ready or you go behind their backs, the odds are that you won't pass an RfA. One thing that bothered me is that I can't find any of your past RfA's yet it appears that you've had two? When I click on the links where I expect hem to be, I get nothing.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 18:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm seeing the two previous at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim 2. Useight (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Kia ora Cyclonenim. It's flattering to be asked my opinion given some of the others posting here. My comment last time was about the lack of consensus building on talk pages. After spending an hour or so looking through your contributions, I think, as far as it goes, my remarks are still fair comment. Most of your talk contributions seem to be tidying up. Still, when you do make a substantial contribution, it's invariably relevant and polite and helpful. I think you're likely to be an excellent admin, if you keep in mind that persuasion and communication are often your best "tools". Assuming something unexpected doesn't come up in the RfA, I'd be happy to add my support. With kind regards, Dean B (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cyclonenim, I agree with you that (you) "try (your) best to put forward valid points and help to constructively achieve this project's goals" which is what I say above, if in different words. My point is this - the basis of the project is consensus building. That's done through mediation and being prepared to argue and debate your views. I'm not seeing many attempts by you to mediate between those of differing viewpoints, or enter into debate to persuade others of your views. Rather you tend to post your view and leave it at that. That helps, but my ideal potential admin would be someone with demonstrated experience of working hard on talk pages to build a consensus. But please don't take this as strong criticism, it's not. Some people are more "doers" than "talkers" and I repeat, I look forward to giving you my support. Best, Dean B (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Great to hear you're considering going up to the RfA stage. I've seen you around a lot, and I've had a classic "why isn't he an admin?" impression. You know you'll have my support. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I recommend an ER? --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I already have one open from my last RfA. See Wikipedia:Editor review/Cyclonenim. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Advice for Cyclonemin's coaches
DO NOT let anything in the above discussion sway your thoughts, if you think Cyclone is ready to run (and ready to be an admin) then and only then should you nominate him. If you don't think that, for whatever reason, do not bow to peer pressure. That was my mistake... In theory, you guys should know him better than us, and should be in a better place to judge his strengths/weaknesses.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no intention of running that soon anyway, this is a preliminary outlook until both my nominators have expressed their desire to nominate me. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Archive the old one? --Dweller (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've archived the previous one, and a new request can be found here. Thanks :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- NP, I just wanted to stress to your coaches how important it is for THEM to feel comfortable with the nomination, and not to see the above as pressure to do something they are not comfortable with.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see, and I entirely agree :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Archive the old one? --Dweller (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering..
..You wouldn't be interested in this would you? Ironholds (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks for the speedy response. Poke me when you get your RfA up, I want to get in an early support :). Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Canvassing concerns? What canvassing concerns? I can state quite truthfully that you never pointed me towards an existing page dealing with your RfA or at any point suggested such a page would exist :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- While I'm not saying I wouldn't like any social talk at any point I'm sure the next contact we have is "omfgz support! On my "Someday-an-admin" list." Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Canvassing concerns? What canvassing concerns? I can state quite truthfully that you never pointed me towards an existing page dealing with your RfA or at any point suggested such a page would exist :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
review
Sorry for the wait. I have placed a reviewhere. Dlohcierekim 01:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really have much to say, only that you have really improved since your last RfA. Unless you do anything to really fuck things up between now and your RfA, I would foresee a support from me. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)