User talk:Andrevan
 | This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrevan. |
 | |
| Andre🚐's Talk ☎️ Page Archive 📇 Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 |
|
|
☕ Threads archived by ClueBot III after 72h ☕ | |
Contentious topics awareness
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
 | Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him! |
 | This is my talk page. You can start a new thread by clicking here. |
Happy New Year, Andrevan!
Andrevan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy new era
Happy New Year, Andrevan
Chris Troutman (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2023. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2023 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2023 go well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
Lessons for future
Regarding this edit: I imagine you hope that regardless of the outcome of the request for administrative privileges, the candidate may learn from the raised concerns? The conditional in your statement makes it seem otherwise. isaacl (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Er, yes, that's fair. I can clarify. Andre🚐 22:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hopefully that suitably clarifies [1] Andre🚐 22:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have to say this, and for Isaacl's benefit, that I'm surprised that you, as a once respected veteran Wikipedian, Bureaucrat, and prolific content creator 'par excellence' do not understand the differences between policies, guidelines, essays, and so called rules made up on the fly, and then voting 'as per' without doing your own research and checking the veracity of laundry lists of others who are determined to destroy an RfA because of the non existent rules some users perceive as policies - a logical fallacy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- My comment was strictly regarding clarity of the message, and shouldn't be construed as support for the message. Please don't feel a need to provide comments for my benefit. isaacl (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I do understand the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays. I was under the impression that there was indeed a rule about contesting drafts, but apparently I was mistaken. There are many minutiae about Wikipedia and drafts did not exist at all when I was mostly active as an admin from 2004-2011 or so. In my view there should be a rule that a contested draft should not be re-draftified, similar to PRODs. I think enough reasonable concerns were raised in this RFA by other still-respected admins that I am not alone on this. The RFA may still yet succeed, but I do not think you should assume that legitimate concerns are "determined to destroy" the RFA either way. Andre🚐 04:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- What may be 'in your view' is not a reason to oppose an RfA so vehemently on a rule that does not exist even if you believe it should. RfA is not the venue to create new polices for the benefit of the voters and giving them right. If you want to establish such a view, what we do nowadays on Wikipedia is to hold a site-wide RfA and let the community decide, but bear in mind that there are 750 New Page Reviewers who will vote for what they know best from their vast anecdotal experience. The reviewers handle literally hundreds of thousands of new pages and they know best how to proceed in all situations - especially the edge cases, and it is the rare edge cases that some voters have deliberately singled out to destroy the good faith of a user who has done more to modernise NPP than I did 11 years ago. Hence any concerns voiced about non observance of rules that do not and never existed are certainly not legitimate.
- I'm not Wikilawyering, but am sure that you as a user with once the highest rank as a former Bureaucrat will understand that. It's just rather shameful that an RfA can be torpedoed on 'as per' the one vote that got it it all completely wrong (and incidentally I do have the proof). If it goes to a 'crat chat, let's hope that today's bureaucrats are up to date and get it right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)