You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
This is a modified version of {{User talk top}} You can feel free to transclude it yourself. You can find it at User:Ryan Vesey/User talk top template. It supports different background colors and rounded edges. Contact User:Ryan Vesey if you have any questions on parameters.
I am also working on resurrecting the Linux Quality Database which at one time had been hosted by DotSrc.org. I expect to have the site posted at its new domain within the hour, with the old server performing an HTTP Permanent Redirect to the new server with a day or two.
There's a part of me that worries about the notability of that page, but it is hard to tell until I actually know what will be on it. Everything on Wikipedia is released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License so you could copy as long as you left a note in the edit summary about where it was from and it would be good to use {{copied}} on both pages. It might be less of a hassle to just re-write everything. RyanVeseyReview me!15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, and {{copied}} isn't actually necessary when there is a direct copy. Since it isn't a direct copy, I'd say it is okay, except you should make sure you provide a link to the original article in the edit summary. The base edit summary given at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is copied content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution. I'd suggest modifying that slightly to something like based on content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution. You should probably make a dummy edit so the first article is attributed. RyanVeseyReview me!15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a non-free image. Non-free images need a fair use rationale and can only be used in the article space. We can't include copyrighted material in subpages, talkpages, project pages, etc. In this case, the copyright is owned by Major League Baseball, and possibly Fox. When the page gets moved, the image can be retored and a fair use rationale can be added to the image. It should be almost identical to the one currently at File:Galarraga-Donald play 2010-06-02(small).gif. RyanVeseyReview me!16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend,user:Nentu is not my account.actually it was created by one of my friend.I will request him to delete the account if possible.Hope you will understand and please reply . Anurag Chakraborty 02:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfA, credit where credit is due
Hello again, Ryan. I've been with the project (on and off) for about 9 years and I've watched hundreds of RfAs. Your RfA was, without a doubt, one of the most difficult I have ever seen. You handled yourself very well, with dignity and respect throughout the whole ordeal and is another reason that I have so much respect for you. You certainly have what it takes to be a great admin. I also see that your RfA has had more people !vote than any other RfA since Drmies in May 2011 (more than a year), so you've certainly made a name for yourself. I'm not sure how your RfA will close since it's in the discretionary zone, so I'll wish you the best of luck.
But I really came back to thank you for being a part of the project and for trying to improve it for all of our editors. People often forget that we are volunteers and that an RfA is a way of saying that a user will help with extra tasks above and beyond what they're already doing. I think it's admirable of you to volunteer to help with the admin tasks and I think your support with the adminstrative areas would be a great benefit to the project.
Anyhoo, I just wanted to thank you for your generous support of this project we call Wikipedia. All the best to you, my friend. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disheartened, you received an awful lot of support. Keep doing what you're doing, take into account what the opposers sid (though I disagree with most!) and come back in a couple of months. GiantSnowman11:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both the above. Let me say that although I'm sure you feel disappointed (you shouldn't, Adminship is no big deal), how you handle this disappointment will probably have the greatest effect on your next RFA. For example, if you were to retire, scream, or yell then it's guaranteed your next RFA will fail. If you were to create a subpage and list point-by-point the concerns raised and look at them regularly, and ensure you're correcting them, it would show the maturity and self-reflection that would likely lead to a successful RFA. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought there was even the chance that he'd DIVA, I wouldn't have nominated him. Perhaps I have more trust in Ryan because I've seen so much improvement, and the potential for more, but I haven't seen a single thing which made that trust falter. Ryan, you handled the whole week exceptionally. Keep doing what you're doing, I'm sure you'll succeed next time. WormTT(talk) 11:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm with you there Worm ... I don't believe he'll DIVA, but just saying that sometimes when people are upset, they go against everything we think we know ... just putting the "warning" out there :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, thanks for the comments. I have no intention of screaming, crying, yelling, leaving the project, etc. I was happy to receive the support I did receive and will try to improve on the opposes. I am a bit tuckered out as a result of the RfA, so I'll probably stay away from the "admin areas" for a week or two and focus on some content work. I've got a ton of articles to create and I need to get back to improving Jim Shoulders. Sadly, I didn't know about him before interest spiked. I'll be doing some copyright work with Moonriddengirl as well. RyanVeseyReview me!11:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw the close and of course I'm disappointed. I must say this, Ryan, you are indeed a man of high moral character and you command the respect of a large percentage of well repspected editors here. That speaks volumes about you and the type of generous person you are. We are indeed lucky to have you as a volunteer on this project and I'm very grateful for your contributions to making this a better place. Thank you very much. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ryan. I'm sorry to inform you that I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful. I encourage you to take heart from the large volume of support which was expressed. If you maintain activity and address the opposers' criticisms where possible, I'm confident you'll pass a future RfA. Please feel free to ask me any questions. Best wishes, —Anonymous DissidentTalk11:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree with a comment below and agree with the above; whilst I supported and hoped you'd pass, a reading of the opposes, some guarded supports and the neutral commentary made this very, very borderline. Anonymous made the right call here, sadly. I'm also confident a future RFA will go just fine - maybe at the start of next year? Very best wishes and happy editing. Pedro : Chat 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry it was to User:cyberpower678's comment which was just below this thread at the time of posting - sorry if it seemed otherwise. Your comment was at 16:51 mine was at at 13:18 - how could they be confused?? Pedro : Chat 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No probs - I think Cyberpower has probably qualified his response to be fair; AD made a tough but fair call and whilst he should (and is) be open to challenge in this case there was no mistake. Pedro : Chat 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That bureaucrat made a mistake. You should've been promoted to admin. I know you feel disappointed so let me try and help that with this cheeseburger. I'm sorry you didn't pass. —cyberpowerChatOffline12:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that although I disagree with the close please do not take it seriously where I said the crat closed improperly. As a WikiFriend, you will always have my support.—cyberpowerChatOnline14:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precious
promising attitude
Thank you for - in the middle of your RfA - addressing people and concerns in a personal manner, to quote you: "... never figured out how to say your name" (29 June)", "I don't think a 2 week block prevents future incivility any more than a 2 day block would." (3 July) , "Do you think we should revive the project?" (6 July) ! Keep reviving the project as an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the more epic RFAs I've ever seen; too bad it wasn't quite enough. On the other hand, it's pretty clear you'll be a shoe-in next time you run as long as you stay your current course. Take care. —Torchiesttalkedits14:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I want to say that I feel very strongly that you can hold your head high. Whatever you do, please don't feel discouraged. You showed dignity, selflessness, and integrity throughout the process. I'm really impressed with you, and I have no doubt at all that you can continue to be an excellent contributor to Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really thought it was going to be successful all the way to the end, and I'm sorry it didn't go your way - but 117 !votes in support was pretty good going. I'm still convinced you're easily suited to wielding the mop right now, but in another few months time I'm sure you'll get greater support - I look forward to your next run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an opposer, I feel the need to encourage you to try again down the road. Three months might be too short, and a year might be too long. My best wishes to you always, and as I said, thanks for your work on this vast and endlessly interesting project. Jusdafax22:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from a direct comment on the process itself, but you handled it with grace and dignity, and you're to be commended. I doubt I'll ever put myself through it, but I will support you again next time. All the best... VertiumWhen all is saidand done20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been really busy writing an op-ed for the Signpost, contributing to a new COI essay, looking at duplicating the AfC process for request edits (though that may be beyond my technical abilities) and having some pretty lengthy conversations with users interested in the subject of COI, where I feel we're all learning from each other and finding good compromises.
At the end of the day though, the COI guideline is the front and center quarterback and the RfC was unproductive. I actually thought the guideline was fine, until I started hearing all the questions from PR people and realized just how confusing it is. I thought I would poke around and see what the chances are of us organizing a posse to go through it line-by-line and just improve/clarify (not drastically change, but just improve). I'd be happy to help out as a sort of representative of the dark side. Am I just shooting for the moon here in thinking we can organize and mobilize? ;-) User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan Vesey, I'd say many editors say I am a representative of the dark side as well. In any case, I'd be glad to help. I haven't really done so much with the COI essay as I would have liked, but I have made a couple changes. Primarily, Category:Requested edits is now in {{dashboard}} and {{admin-dashboard}}. I hope that this will help clear the backlog. The one problem with it, is that most of the edits are very complex and require a lot of analysis so editors tend to avoid it. In addition, there are a lot where it appears like a discussion was occurring and just stopped. It's much easier to be the first responder than to pick up where other editors left off in my opinion. RyanVeseyReview me!21:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the request edits tend to spawn long, exhaustive conversations and feedback loops. Some feel that a paid editor shows up and volunteers end up writing the article for them. Also, some that need to be rejected never actually get cleared out of the queue. Some requests are dumb, but that's ok. Half the point is to prevent poor edits from COIs and the other half is to accept good ones. I also find that it's difficult to swoop in on a subject you know nothing about and pass judgement on the article. I've found my best collaborations are with editors who are heavy contributors to the article and have subject-matter expertise. They're also quick to point out if something is missing, are more interested in contributing, etc.
One solution to this is asking that editors ask at least two editors that have contributed to the article, before submitting a request edit for major content contributions. Once they do submit a request edit, an AfC like process will create a streamlined process to submit feedback that shifts the burden to the submitter to read relevant policies and guidelines and improve their submission, while creating a concise paper trail. Instead of these long conversations, we can type "d" "adv" and give them instructions.
We can make it work, but we just need a lot more elbow grease in establishing the process in a way that puts the burden on the submitter instead of the reviewer. RE the COI guideline, I'll see if I can round up a posse if other editors that frequent the COI guideline Talk page are interested and maybe we can at least get the ball rolling. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. When reviewing semi-protected edit requests, there are a series of decline templates at {{ESp}}. If those could be written up for requested COI edits, it would make the reviewers job easier. I also feel that many COI edits don't state exactly what they want changed. Instead, it might say, this article should talk about the merger between company A and company B. I suppose {{ESp|?}} could be used, but I feel like it would be better to have COI specific ones. It might also be useful to word {{Request edit}} like {{Edit semi-protected}} to make sure they are aware. I'll probably be bold later tonight and modify the wording. RyanVeseyReview me!23:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yah. I actually used some of the ESP templates in some of the early request edits, but I guess it didn't take off. I like the AfC model more, because it also provides the COI with the info they need to improve their request, but either would be an improvement. I have to learn how to figure out all the templates and such. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done
.gif){kind=link}