User talk:Ajraddatz

Hello, and welcome to my talk page!

Leave a message if you need anything. I'll be glad to help you if I can.

ACC #67247

Hi there - can I ask you to confirm why ACC Request #67247 was closed as 'too similar', I don't quite follow the comments you left. Mato (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Very similar username to another account which was created on a different wiki one month ago. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I might be misreading the text but I don't think it states anywhere that global usernames must be older than six months? Only that there must be no global contribs within the last six months and that the local account must be older than six months. Mato (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

From the page;

If the similar account has zero edits on the English Wikipedia:
The account must have fewer than about fifteen edits globally, none of which were within the last 6 months.
Be older than 6 months.

Nowhere does it talk about "local", maybe you should re-read the guidelines. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to me that each bullet point refers to the account on the English Wikipedia unless otherwise stated. It is clearer in the section above (where it says "If the account has any edits" etc.) the second bullet point states:

"Account has fewer than about fifteen global edits...none of which were within the last year"

which clearly refers to global edits, as stated. However the third bullet point states:

"Last edit was made over one year ago"

which clearly refers to edits on the English Wikipedia, as there would be no point in specifying a time scale twice.

It would therefore seem to me that when the guide says:

"If the similar account has zero edits on the English Wikipedia"

it is referring only to the account on the English Wikipedia because this is the "similar account" - we wouldn't decline a request if there was a similar name on a foreign wiki but no similar name on enwiki. It is this (enwiki) similar account that we are concerned with (though as the first bullet point in this section states, global checks should also be run). I therefore think that the guide doesn't imply that an account with a similar name on a foreign wiki must be older than six months. That's my two cents anyway - I might be interpreting it wrong. Mato (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a policy, not poetry. People tend to be pretty forward when making policies, and as such if the policy says what it does, instead of assuming it means something more complicated than what it says just assume that it can be taken at face value. Can you please drop this, rather than continuing to harass me on my talk page for no reason? You deferred my request to users stating that you "don't follow the comments", and then have left me three messages on my talk page over the interpritation of the policy - give it up. If the policy needs rewording start a discussion on some public and appropriate place. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I came here only because it seemed to me that you misunderstood the guide. Clearly confronting you about my concerns was not the right thing to do - I can only apologise and won't post here again. Mato (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Good afternnoon

Just noticed that you actually voted "Against" In my Admiship request (my second), I understand this was probably a mistake, but all the same. You may want to be more careful in future! :P Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)