User talk:Curtis23/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Sure. We could abide by Wikipedia policy and mention the second attendance figure in the article, or someone can come up with a manner of dispute resolution. Your view is the one that goes against policy. You do the work to try to prove your point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't come close to proving anything other than your own lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking about. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a lot of potential for expansion in those articles, so redirecting them is cutting off potential for future growth. If you see my response on the WT:PW page, you'll see that McCready has at least 5 quality sources available, Kimura has held several titles that could be discussed, The One and the Only should have plot information added, etc. Nothing should ever be redirected just because of its current state. Merging may be appropriate in some cases, like the Fire Pro Wrestling articles, but just redirecting removes information and hurts the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your RFA

Can I suggest you withdraw your RFA as your previous RFA, 10 days ago, was closed per WP:NOTNOW. Starting another RFA so soon will seriously damage your chances of becoming an admin. May I suggest, once you withdraw this RFA, you wait for another user to nominate you in the future, and don't self-nominate again? Thanks GTD 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to your current RFA, not last week's one. GTD 22:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your 2nd RFA

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 897 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

I would recommend you waiting at least a couple months before coming back to RFA this close to two unsuccessful candidacies. Take some time to gain seasoning in various areas of the project, and vary your experience in different topics and processes. If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Curtis, I note your comments regarding the closure of your WP:RfA. I am not certain that a non-admin should have added a WP:NOTNOW template, but I AM quite sure that it was the right decision. You need about 2,500 more edits, scattered over admin-related areas, before you have any realistic chance of succeeding. Serious advice - if you insist on over-frequent nominations it will take you a lot longer to get the tools. Trust me. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My personal admin qualifications

I hade been a user here for a year less one day when I got the tools. At that time I had made a little under 6,000 edits; I had failed one RfA a few months before. I had only one nominator; my RfA passed with 108 support, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. This information is available about all admins in the subpages from WP:ADMIN. The best of luck in the future, but please get your timing right. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My friend that is my whole point. You have only a small number of edits, and therefore only a few people are aware of you. Keep editing; take part not only in articlespace but also in talkspace and in admin-related pages such as WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:AfD, WP:RfA and so forth, and other editors will become aware of you. You cannot do it without spending some time and effort. Incidentally, I believe that the highest ever level of support was about 250, albeit with a fair nuner of opposes. Essentially just get in there, keep editing, spend some time in various aspects of the project and you will get there. I am almost immediately going on a three-month wiki-break, but would be happy to adopt and guide you, if you wish, when I get back on-line (mid-April). You could do worse than going to WP:ADOPT in the interim. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Curtis, I just want to add that if you want to be an admin (according to the relevant page) you also have to spread yourself around more - edit outside of pro wrestling completely. And you also have to avoid getting a rep for incivility. When you are reviewed for admin status, your efforts to get Zack Ryder his own page will come under the microscope and it will go against you. You must be calm and not fly off the handle as you have been prone to do. Just putting that out there for you to think about. Okay? !! Justa Punk !! 07:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 (2nd nomination)

2 problems: the first is that you never put the AFD template on the page (I just did that for you, although I shouldn't have had to because this is Step 1 at WP:AFD), the second is that you never notified the creator of the article (this is not required, but is common courtesy). TJ Spyke 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 11:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Your Willingness to Adopt

It's always good when an editor is willing to adopt another editor, however I'm not certain you are ready to adopt someone yet. I know you mean well and want to help, but it's an easy way to get in over your head. I've seen a handful of reasonable editors offer themselves as adopters in an attempt to help other editors. Suffice to say they ended up taking extended wiki-breaks. HAZardousMATTtoxic 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When Warning...

When warning someone, please be certain what you are warning them for. User: had not edited Wrestlemania 23 as of January 2nd, and a week later you left this warning on 208's talkpage. 208 had not edited that article since that time under either the *.110 or *.57 IP he/she has admitted to using. In fact, since that time the editor has been discussing the issue on the WT:PW talkpage. This particular warning seemed unnecessary. HAZardousMATTtoxic 21:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP thread at WT:PW

Leave it closed, I have no doubt that 208 will continue to keep making edits, but he made the edit at the WM23 talk page, so if you want to reply do it there, don't copy-and-paste his comment to keep fanning the flames. The section at WT:PW is closed, all concerned editors will have WM23 watchlisted and they will see the talk page edits. Do not drag it back to the project talk page, copying comments made by others to keep an already mammoth thread (which will take up the entire of archive 75) could be seen as an act of incivility. I don't agree with 208 but harass him on one talk page, not on two. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not helping things. If IP 208 has a problem then they would have posted at WT:PW, it's not as if they don't know where it is. They didn't, they trolled at the WM23 talk page. By copying someone else's comment and pasting to another talk page you are merely asking for trouble. Leave the WT:PW section closed, if 208 has a problem (or try to open it back up), then they can be directed to the WM23 talk page. You have nothing else to add, other than "look at this flaming remark made by someone else, who wants to fan these flames". Your opposition to the footnote is know, I suggest that you watchlist WM23 and leave the WT:WP page alone. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Do not archive the Talk Page at Wrestlemania 23. We don't know if 208 has accepted matters or not so it must wait - and the discussion must stay there as well for future reference. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant Degarmo

You remind me of the character Lieutenant Degarmo in the Raymond Chandler novel the lady in the lake. What Marlow said to Degarmo was as apt for you as it was for the good Lieutenant. This conversation is now at an end, goodbye. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not provoke editors

Comments such as this are not productive. Let the topic drop and leave 208 alone. Do not provoke him. It makes you come off as combative which could cause problems down the road. HAZardousMATTtoxic 20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

[[1]]please dont post comments like this it gets us no were and only gives the IP more reasons to cause problems else were down the road.--Steam Iron 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 17:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 15:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 12:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 13:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)