User talk:GiantSnowman

help

i have a question... i entered in a bunch of stats and put the links where i got them but can't figure out how to make them show up like the 1 & 2 in a reference list at the bottom rather than throughout the page? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnaleabrown (talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

i need help with a page i created for ian howfield. i entered in a bunch of stats and can't figure out how to get the urls to show up in a reference list at the bottom rather than throughout the page... thanks!!!

Shawnaleabrown (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I haz a question...why are you an idiot XD

Hello, GiantSnowman. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AfDs, Erpert and ANI

I'm wondering it would be best to quickly remove the ANI discussion since I already reverted the AfDs... to lessen the potential for drama... Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed your new comment. Fair enough; we can see if others think more should be done. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I see that you are assuming good faith now per this, and that's fine, but I feel I still need to clarify something. It appears the reason that thread was started at all is because you think I closed the second AfD and then alerted people to the first one due to it being "mine". That was definitely not the case; as I stated, it was because both AfDs concerned articles by the same editor with the exact same problems. And very rarely have I defected one AfD to another simply because I started one of them; see here, for example (and not one user complained about that). But I'm willing to let it go if you are. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fons Pelser

May I ask why you undone my extensions to the Fon Pelser page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbl1998 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

What's wrong with all my edits?

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yusef Ahmed Ali

Hi, I moved back the page to Yusef Ahmed, I almost understand Arabic and Qatari commentators always call him Yusef Ahmed, he wrote Y. Ahmed on his shirt, and official Asian Cup website call him Yousef Ahmed, the arabic name isn't similar to western names, Ali isn't his surname, it's just the last part of his long name. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bri(d)gend

I deleted the cat, but was slightly surprised that you aren't an admin and couldn't do it yourself. Ever thought about running for adminship? You're a veteran who knows the place inside out, with a bajillion edits and articles created. You're one of the most active WPF people when it comes to AfD, so you're well versed on the project side of things. I'd be more than happy to nominate you. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman. Good luck! Oldelpaso (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Its usually the nominee that adds it to WP:RFA rather than the nominator, so add it there whenever you're ready. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate explains it pretty exhaustively. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GiantSnowman. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
Message added 09:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfA toolbox

You need to opt-in so that we can see your detailed editing stats here. Create the page User:GiantSnowman/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello, GiantSnowman (by the way, I love your user name). RfA can be a very cruel and unpleasant experience, as I know from having gone through it myself. Even civil, reasonable "oppose" comments can feel like personal attacks, and for this reason I am sorry to have contributed to the opposition to your RfA. However, I was 100% sincere when I wrote that I think you are a very good contributor, but your talents are better suited to writing than to administering. I am different: the amount of new content I have written is tiny compared to your contributions, and I feel I am less useful as a writer than you are, but I hope that my admin contributions make up to some extent for my limitations in that area. (That is not to say that I am in any way ashamed of my writing contributions, only that there are much less of them than in your case.) Administration is not in any sense "better" than writing content: it is just a different contribution. Maybe you will make a good admin one day when you have learnt a bit more about the relevant issues, but even if you never become an admin your contributions are of just as much value as those of many people who do become admins. One other point: even though I am one of those who have opposed, I would like to remind you that there are substantially more "supports" than "opposes", so clearly there is a good deal of appreciation of your work. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the message, it's much appreciated. I'll admit I have been disheartened by the opposition comments, which to seen to concentrate on just one or two (admittedly poor) answers to questions, and which ignore both my positive contributions to Wikipedia, as well as my responses to said questions. However, I am well aware that becoming an admin is a serious business, and regardless of the outcome of the RfA will definitely spend much more time learning about the relevant issues. And as you have said, there are currently more "supports" than "opposes", so other editors are able to see my net positive. Thanks again for your message and your RfA comments. Warm regards, GiantSnowman 11:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed with how few of the opposes are actually based on anything in your contrib history. Its a fair while since I've nominated anyone for RFA, and I can say without doubt that in the intervening time it has become far harder to pass. Between 2006 and 2009 I nominated seven people. Six of them passed without a single oppose. Seven if you count my own RFA on top. One failed, but it was their second RFA, which tend to be a bit different (that person became an admin following a third RFA a few months later). I can say with confidence that you are in the same bracket of trustworthiness and ability as any of those others I nominated. If you had been nominated in that environment, you'd have breezed through. If the RFA crowd have hardened their attitudes over time, then frankly it is their loss, and the project's. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• It seems your RFA is going to snow; you only have 61% supports, and given that you already have 25 opposes, you need an additional 29 supports to even have a chance of succeeding the RFA. HeyMid (contribs) 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA (2)

Negotiating the questions at RfA is like negotiating a minefield! I just dropped by to wish you good luck with your RfA. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst there are some valid opposes, your RFA has been hit by a load of blind knee-jerk editors berating you for your honest and cautious reponse to Fastily's loaded and dreadfully couched question; people whose lack of clue is disturbing IMHO. Hold your head high. Pedro :  Chat  22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Evans

I don't think any type of "consensus" was reached at WP:CAT. I know it was listed for a fairly long time, but, as I showed you, it is the long term consensus not to include a category and its sub-category.--TM 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, 2-1 is not consensus. I had already stated my opposition to you prior to the discussion. I don't think that the UC Irvine alumni page can seriously be considered a "non-diffusing category" and as such should not be included when a subcategory is also included per WP:DUPCAT.--TM 14:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to ask some admins with more experience with categories to intervene because it is incorrect to include both.--TM 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you never once made a policy-based argument for inclusion.--TM 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)