User talk:John Cline

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of March 2011. It is better to remain silent, or as has been said; It will be used against you :) I've enjoyed the Wikipedia journey. Many kind words, and introspect, indicate an error by placing this as a past tense observation. There is undoubtedly more to come. This abrupt change, reflects circumstance with equally abrupt manifestation. The abundance of wiki-love, shown to me, satisfies that I did hold a few correct assumptions. I do ask; "Please look after projects, where I have formerly obligated service, to ensure uncompromising continuity; My impact will be reduced, and also my participation. My regards for Wikipedia have not reduced, Instead they increase perpetually. I will check in often, anticipating the cheer I will surely acquire. These will display discrete intentions in their manner. I have reached the extent of my vocabulary. In every manner where prose have gone forth; I hope they mature to some consequence, befitting their intent. I may add a thing here, in another consideration. But for now, I am spent! An unintended thing is quite different than a disregarded thing, I clearly felt most was disregard, even craft! In trying to describe a glimpse of infinity, my psyche was vulnerable. Some saw the vulnerability as an invitation to exploit, for value of entertainment. The by product of such callous regard should not be a surprise to any reasonable mind. So my house, which is my account; My76Strat, is left in disarray; This properly depicts an effect of instantaneous vanishing. I had heard of this; I did not understand! Enlightenment comes at cost, and I have rendered the accounts payable. I have earned the right to say "this is unacceptable"!! I do have one piece of advice; Fix the RfA process. The willingness to exact such a high cost, Is an egregious example of poor leadership, planing, implementation, and every other reasonable thing. That is not a universal indictment, as some of the very best I've known, contribute there regularly. If not for them, I swear, death was potential. If it simply functioned in accordance with policy, as the encyclopedia, It could never relate to that level of stress. I may have encountered some by my own imagination; But I do advise, there is a liability there, waiting for opportunity. The unstructured employ of the program will not speak well if ever drawn to render. I knew mine was a once in a lifetime journey. I gave my best, and fullest measure, to ensure no regrets for having tried. Some proper things were recorded; So it might be observed, and show practices, contrary to Wikipedia itself. An astute observation will see the forming of words for attack, and then their use; And other techniques; To verbally beat you to literary death for nonacceptance. I trust In my faith; And know the last memories, will show my fullest, most upright stature. This is how I prefer being remembered. I may be an IP one day editing. If ever, someone was to say "you did a thing which reminds me of Strat", It would be a deep form of respect; Simply for having been remembered. And there are some I will never! forget. If my memory should cease, by dementia, there are parts of our interaction which identified directly to my soul! I will have association to these, beyond even the known things. I am proud, having left record of my hand, across Wikipedia. Wishing the very best possible, even imaginable, continence, and peace abundant! My76Strat (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Understandable, but... ...please, take time out, and then re-think. At the very least, talk to me about this. You know where I am. Yes, RfA is shit. Yes, some things about Wikipedia are awful. But you can help make them better. You already have. Have a week or whatever. But never say "never". I have expended a lot of time trying to help you. That was alturistic; I did it because I thought it'd make Wikipedia better. It did, a little bit, because you did some good things. But now...if you quit...it is all a bit wasted. That makes me very sad. So if you think I've been helpful to you, even a bit - at least, talk to me about this.  Chzz  ►  03:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Chzz, Of course I will talk to you, now is not preferred. Only God could separate that possibility. I did want to state: "I have read the above message", which was the first rendition, I have been festoon about my literary conscious with attack, to inform me how terrible, my writing was said to be: even to the extent incomprehensible. Upon my read however, I feel it seems reasonably well written. I believe I can communicate, and I hope it touches some, because there are wrought emotions. Now either that is true or I have lost more than I know. I swear a 9th grader aught to be able to read it. Much respect. My76Strat (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Mhm. As long as you are "OK", that's all that matters. It's only a fucking wiki. Speak soon. Get the kettle on.  Chzz  ►  04:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Damn it, NO! I was really hoping that you'd stay. God knows I tried to encourage you to do so, but I guess no words could repair the damage. It always comes to this. What the fuck is wrong with people?! Why don't they realize that there are real, feeling humans behind these account names?! I've seen this time and again, and I'm sick of it. The comments that drive people like you to this don't all come from trolls, they come from established and respected editors, even sysops. In fact, a Wikimedia staff member even joined in with personal attacks. What an utter disgrace. I was offered an RfA nomination myself. After your RfA, I turned it down, but after this...I may need to reconsider my own involvement here entirely. I beg you to reconsider retiring for nothing but the sake of Wikipedia. If you don't, you have my best regards. I'm sorry it came to this. Swarm X 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Fixed the above for you, because I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Did you not call the user a "joke"? Strat specifically cited your comment as one of the causes of their distress. You don't have to apologize, redact, or show any remorse whatsoever. But don't insult the candidate and myself by pretending it didn't happen. Swarm X 08:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC) No, I did not call the user a joke. I said that by continuing to use excessive amounts of verbiage despite being asked not to, he was presenting himself as a "joke candidacy" rather than a legitimate candidate. It's actually quite clear if you read what I wrote clearly. That's twice you've jumped to conclusions here. Just sayin... ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I would like to extend my perspective for consideration. The design of your comment reflects its intent. I could parse to the Nth degree and still achieve the same reality. I must say: "If it is your intention to suggest your wholesome intent was simply missed; That is! an insult". Your comment was well framed for effect, and the result is shown. For you to insist an absence of nefarious intent, reduces your own credibility. If you find reason to acknowledge there was some negative design, not only do you increase your own value, but also set in place the instruments for constructive improvement, which includes the value of your contributions. An interesting aside can glean by observing the comment I posted just prior to yours. I stated that attacks drew the most of my ire, in particular when honor and integrity had been besmirched. I believed the beguiling effect of guise had served its purpose. For everything written by me, where the intent was obscure; I do not think my reply left ambiguity. The words were chosen and delivered concise. At least to your concern, that I could not deliver a short message, they should now be at rest. I do not imply it was proper. But it did serve the end I had in mind; Which was to say "Cut the crap". Interesting as well is this observation: Professional tone, constructive intentions, tact, respect, and truth dominated the discussion from there. Gather from these what you may; But please consider how fullish it appears for you to imply your wholesome intentions! My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Let me redact the statement I posted here originally and replace it with a request that we not continue this any more. I don't want this bickering with you over who said what. I'm sorry I brought you into my statement in the first place, and I would have stricken it now hadn't you already. I just really tried to encourage Strat not to retire. When I saw that they did, I was utterly disgusted with everyone who contributed to it. This isn't going to solve anything. I just ask that you choose your wording a little more carefully in future RfAs. They may have unintended consequences. Swarm X 11:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I would be careful not to redact a thing which merely needs clarification. When a thing observed is not the thing as designed, Discussion and clarification are the means, and they intuitively need the foundation of trustworthy assumptions. I do not accept the "I didn't say that, I said this" defense. Especially when this or that has no proper place! Additionally, If administrative qualities are not visible in their presentation, how does that serve to reinforce what is proper. If I was to believe fair and proper treatment was extended to me, then I would think emulating the examples would be appreciated by everyone. Thankfully, my own knowledge is sufficient to know if I emulated some of what I had observed, the result would not be for a mutual betterment. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Poll Those who know me, know I hate polls. Those who know me also know, I like to keep things nice and simple. Therefore, in addition to any comments anyone may wish to post in specific sections; --- We, the undersigned, think that My76Strat is an asset to Wikipedia, and should reconsider retirement Answer:By the consensus undersigned, I am humbly moved to acknowledge reason, reconsider my haste, and give assurance, that I will be seen as apart of this beloved community. Being seen within, is a proud association, I am humbled by the statements included below. Some of my haste was induced at concerns I had overindulged. Having medical confirmation that my symptoms are temporary was a relief equivalent to the regret generated at speculating the more devastating alternative. I do think anyone caring enough to consider the possibilities would by large margin agree, The loss of a good faith contributor, to death or disgust, is a possibility, better mitigated, than minimized. How could it even be an option? My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Voice your opinion on this editor (49/0/0) Support  Chzz  ►  05:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Chzz, you did a very nice thing here, I saw it yesterday, to be honest I did not expect to see this much involvement, when I returned home. I already had some cake when my doctor made reasonable claims, I was happy to eat the cake when I got home and this message certainly iced it well. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support There's still plenty of good work that needs doing. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I'll enjoy doing my part. I'll enjoy even more whenever I am able to learn something from a person on this list. There is a particularly large volume of knowledge, within these ranks, for sure!. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support D: Noes.  IShadowed  ✰  05:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC) \o/ My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Strat, you should know how I feel already, we've talked several times and, as always, I'm 110% in support of you and your return to Wikipedia. Swarm X 06:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I do know this, and I have seen. In like manner if ever you are in need, you will not have to ask for my support, I will already be involved, before even you knew it was needed. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Don't let that one time dictate your future! There is still plenty to do and many people to impact and we will surely have a hole in our lives if you don't come back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC) It sure wouldn't make much sense for everyone to have an extra hole for no good reason. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support I've never interacted with you personally, but from what I've seen, you do great things for this wiki. It would be a loss to everyone to see you go; please reconsider. Perhaps a break is all that's needed - I know the feeling. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC) A large measure of value achieves upon the observance of charity where charity had not been anticipated. This selfless act deserves recognition, encouragement, and unambiguous appreciation! My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Wikipedia needs you! — Oli OR Pyfan! 06:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) That is a fine sentiment and well received. Of course we all know Wikipedia doesn't exactly need me, (I mean when my time comes, I can decease in the knowledgeable expectation that Wikipedia will continue) but what Wikipedia does need!, and rightfully should endeavor, is to remain true to herself. When a perversion is allowed to exist, the only possible gain, is the net loss it would engender. Currently RfA is not true to Wikipedia tenets, which results are measured in surpluses of rotten fruit. Because some of the transgression seems a design of intent, intentions themselves should be reevaluated. I hope; "destroy their sense of self worth" is not an established objective. And there are other things accomplishing by misapplied craft as well. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Come back and swear off ever running for admin again because you wouldn't enjoy the job. We don't call it a mop for nothing. I have great respect for those tireless admins who hold the place together, but they would be dead without the rest of us. There are plenty of non-admins with 100K edits. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for drawing upon things I had considered. This true sentiment can enhance by considering: I did request the mop, I can accept not achieving SYSOP (though I would surly appreciate a fair consideration) What I stand against, is an improper notion; If you don't get the mop, you will answer to the mob handle, as in a pummeling. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Wikipedia needs you, don't let that week of unfortunate events torture you. You're a good Wikipedian. --123Hedgehog456 : Create an account! 07:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) You brought support to my RfA at a time when it was desperately needed, Thankfully it greatly helped me not have to shift to desperation mode. Interestingly enough, for those who may think they were observing desperation mode; There was always an agenda within reach. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) SupportYou are a part of the community and we value your presence. The Interior (Talk) 08:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I value it as a privilege, that this community has accepted, me as a member. I am especially proud to say directly in the presence of Mr. Wales hand. Thank you for daring to debate possibilities. To even dream such a thing speaks volumes to your innovative gift of reason. From your imagination you have seen it manifest. How would you like to describe that journey, in 50 words or less? And then to find some human person, had grown fond enough to love the thing; The tangible evidence, of the formulation and discussion of a vision. Similar principles applied can always accomplish great things. I think it is fair that you couldn't imagine anything like what we actually have. As a plan in action, evolving to serve its own best end, attributes the interim product we now see. I feel certain, the future anticipates more evolution and with excitment, I look forward. In humble observation, I confess; I consider that I owe a debt of gratitude. There is no better way to pay on that principle, than to participate. Please accept that every attempt a contributing is also an attempt to show thanks for the things you have done to make this a reality. I can not express the measure of respect I have for a big thinker who happens to be a big achiever. You are of certainty such a man. For you to find reason, to place things here, by your hand, even while having many other obligations; Sir, I well understand the significance! Although I am bankrupt to return favor, you found charity to do this thing. It is very humbling, while also producing a strenuous credential which I will hold in the highest regard. I would love to see other purposes, served by an amass of information I do have, applied to learning and doing better. I once stated: I will provide a fair answer if asked. I mentioned a debriefing process. Consider how much could glean if the very end, (say the last day) included for closure, a survey with particular questions. It is a significant opportunity to get good feedback from the one who went through! It also provides the benefit of knowing each side has an opportunity to flag some issue of mention, with full knowledge it will get the consideration of a read from a contingent with oversight. In the military we were calling them AAR which is an after action review. To not harvest this information is truly a wasted resource. The notion of a debrief has longstanding value, and I assure you it is worth considering, actually implementing, right away. For sure to start fixing some broken things about RfA would be an honored purpose to have served. I will never forget this surprise, in rather a time of need. Thank you Sir. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support - RfA is a horrible and broken process, don't let it get you down. And it does seem that the main things you learned during it are valuable and will help you a lot in the future. Be more careful with tagging, and be less verbose, and I'm sure in a few months time you'll pass with flying colors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Arbitration is Borked, too. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I will always be endeared to the implications of the comment. They are profound! To see repairs are needed, is a useful step. It is more useful given with an eye to repairs and maintenance. I have heard of some broken amenities, I have not seen the attempts at repair. For sure, under Gods will, when these conversations are under discussion, I am obliged, willingly, and happily, to append prose for consideration. I am quite likely to initiate (by proposal) some of this very discussion. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I don't know, that Jimbo bloke nuking my comments [1]!! :). Of course, I fully support this poll. Pedro :  Chat  Yes Sir, I do. I also look forward to parsing parts of your query to reach the benefits of a thoughtful response, opposed to the uselessness of defensive innuendo. When you ask if anyone else was offended by an observation you had. The response implies it was your error in observing. No Sir, it was not your error. It was a keen observation, and increased your value in perception. I understand why you felt disgust when even your observation was minimized opposed to addressed. The lack of consideration you described seems to extend in both directions. So must there now be praise for the same conduct which served to destroy. I remember some relevant things, I am willing to share some, offering an additional perspective, That of the one smitten! My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Removing other's comments is entirely inacceptable. Lets block "that Jimbo bloke"!!! And who gave him admin rights without an RfA? /me wonders...... ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Support - Polls are stupid. Retirement is stupid. You obviously don't want to leave, so don't. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC) SwatJester, while it's pretty clear to me that your intent is positive here -- do you think throwing words like "stupid" around is the best way to reach somebody who just came through a harrowing RfA experience? -Pete (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC) While it may not be best method, it does indicate the response was more likely a character attribution reflected in writing, opposed to callous craft by design. Sure, it's all trash, but one is less offensive than the other. Of certainty, had I known this contributor was helpless by his own nature, I would have reduced accordingly, the sting in my reply. That I now know, assures! When I do observe it, if again, I will use tact and policy to append under; An admonishment. (just as has been reminded here by Peteforsyth), Some of this I could have expected on by behalf, and would have served greatly the mutual goal. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support We've lost more than enough community members though RfA. Failing at RfA does not mean you are not trusted, nor that you are doing anything particularly wrong. As Jimbo said above, don't let it get you down. If real life has changed to prevent you working on wikipedia, then go, focus on the real world. If this is due to events of the past week or so on wikipedia, forget it and move on. You are an asset to this community. WormTT · (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC) For me, I have missed the last three days of work for unknown conditions that served handicap to my abilities. The additional pressure of not knowing and speculating builds quickly, and a quick conclusion would be that was way too heavy a burden for one thing, I did approached wrong. That is I took it on as extremely important. But then again it is. Because it might be important to the guy on the other end. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support I hope that retirement is just a break. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I hope other things you hope for in life see complete fulfillment. In this example the thing for which you extend hope, will be granted. Consider this exactly as a break, and a reflection of a break (a broken man). In itself serving to heal and lay course, back to the place I desire to be. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support. By getting a comment here by Jimbo about the process, your unusual RfA has actually done a greater service to the community than you can imagine. It's important that you keep editing. Kudpung (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I thank you for that, I did acknowledge a significance, And one thing I did want to bring out was the perspective of someone having been inside, at the bottom, fed contempt, for everything except appropriateness. I want to know who decides that some things are appropriate, like perhaps introducing a false accusation, simply to see how it's handled. (if that even goes on IDK) For sure there were elements of mf RfA that didn't belong in the RfA, and they remain. As well as the negative innuendo that survived the retraction. (Oh that's right, there never was a retraction) Without sounding arrogant, I know! by my potential, current level of participation, and knowledge, coupled with the fact that I have the best intentions and regard for Wikipedia, I would have been the kind of putty the more experienced group could molded into an asset. The mechanism in place missed something and rejecting what had been offered. Why must such rejection manifest in a particular manner that is also insulting, and degrading? The latter elements must become a banished practice. There is no good that can come from it. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) An undeniable asset to Wikipedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Yes Sir, one of very many, and equally deserving of mutual respect. That some disregard tact, serves at nullification of their own counsel on how to improve by its use. Or to incorporate ambiguity into your counsel on improving clarification. So many questions were framed poorly enough to generate these feelings of hypocrisy. The easiest way to not address points I had asked was to hide it as criticism. Just like the point of the Ejaculation comment was answered by wondering if I was some kind of teen in puberty, Instead of addressing the point of the comment. My RfA closed with more or less a consensus that User:Ejaculation would be fine for a username. So a clear example to expand was twisted to question my maturity. That is simply wrong. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Keep - why say in ten words, what one could say in eighty! "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way" - Mark Twain. "I didn't write this just to get it to FA, you know" - Karl Marx. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) That is great literary insight, But regard is due even the one who can not spell it twice. Then we really are showing tolerance. I did mention tolerance in my introduction. I thought I would receive it in small measure. In case my tormentor had a different POV than my example demonstrated. My POV favors longer more thoughtful replies. I hope if ever I felt compelled to beating some candidate to doing it my way, someone would jump in and say wait a minute. That ain't right! My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support. I accept you for who you are, excess verbiage and all. ;) -- œ™ 09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) The sentiments within your reply are greatly appreciated. I have to admit seeing you suggesting support followed by a comment "Great nom statement" gave me much encouragement, maybe too much. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) meatball:GoodBye. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Exonerated, resurrected whole. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Please do not prove the critics right! Bejinhan talks 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) The last thing I would want, is to add weight to an opposing argument, The second to the last thing I would not want, is to work myself up to a stroke defending my side of the discussion. I am simply too passionate for the truth to give assent to untruth. I need to learn better ways, or leave it to the others. Hopefully some medication will effectively mitigate my tendency to request clarification or rebut. To me for example when Fastley accused that all my wiki worth was questioned by a decision, (even though I didn't make such a decision) he also used as example to show my incompetence, a CSD example that If I had tagged would surely be in my face as an example for bad tagging. That kind of trickery does not serve me well, because I am inclined to see both questions answered. First I did not do it, so that is appropriate, and second, if I had it wouldn't mean what he implied it would mean. For the most part, I feel certain no one even looked. or at an explanation on one CSD that looked particularly bad against me, and the closest to a retraction was a false conclusion allowed to stand. Some of these notes are added to keep my own perspective fresh, and serve notice on some perspectives I will be looking to advance. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) 100% support, per Jimbo.  -- Lear's Fool 11:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I will give 100% back for the investment of your confidence. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support, per all the great comments above, critics are silly, and there are always millions of other things to do here that are, if anything, relaxing. For example, the loads of routine maintenance at Category:Wikipedia backlog can be mindnumbingly uncontroversial, Sadads (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I agree and do participate in some mundane for the solace. But I love the birth of knowledge! A well regulated discussion is undoubtedly going to have moments that satisfy that joy. When I participate, it is not to blow my horn or hear my self, but I do enjoy offering consideration, I also challenge you to find someone more likely to accept an opposing position if valid information enters me with the power of knowledge. I do not respond well to the ignore him maybe he'll go away response. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support, of course. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Non-verbose Support, as per all those nice things said above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Non-verbose support is easily accepted whole. So therefor: Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support. Strat, be good to yourself ... feel free to hang out with Wikipedians you like and take it easy. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Good advice, and I will be asking some opinions of many new users who have identified as like minded, And these will be wholesome association. I would like to wonder why no person ever criticized my punctuation? I think in some of harder to read examples were plagued with long runs and misidentified pauses, yet alone accents. I believe improving some of that would help too. But my single focused criticism was on how to shorten, instead of how to improve at writing in depth. I'll find someone to help this also. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Don't leave! RfA's are known to be brutal; that's no reason to leave. Comments tell more about the commenter than the commented . Don't beat yourself up over them. Please stay. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Yes you are correct, and you deserve an Ali when your sovereignty is attacked. I shall serve in this capacity, and at times you will see me at a place I wouldn't have been, except perhaps I've observed the attack. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) I supported your RFA, and I still think you should stay! Even Jimbo agrees that the RFA was ridiculous...opposing because the candidate isn't concise! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that. It was a forethought, and there are some who know I expressed concern. Even the guidelines, when length is mentioned advise a candidate not to be overly concise. I did know of your support! I want you to know, it carried me! And that there were times, I required to be carried. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support You are still a valuable contributor whether or not you pass an RfA and whether or not you are verbose, heh. You don't need to be an admin to prove your worth, and that's the truth. It's just a whole lot more work :P --Obsidi♠nSoul 13:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I agree and have held this with equal regard. To expand the theme, even if you observe qualities which prevent your ability to support, there is no need, or perceived benefit in character assassination. I'd like to see some strong policy against such practice, because it serves the larger purpose, aside from being the plainly decent thing to do. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support I wasn't even aware of your RFA until after it had been closed (shows you how involved I am with that part of the project). To me retiring because of a RFA or other drama is not prudent, remember the reason why you are here in the first place: To build the largest free content encyclopedia in the history of the world. It's easy to let drama get in the way of that, but keep in mind that Wikipedia will be around for years to come (hopefully). It is something that should far outlast all of us writing here on this page today. --nn123645 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Absolutely. Not to minimize the additional benefit of the extra special indications of your writing here. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support. You've been a great asset to the Ambassador program, not to mention the Wikipedia community more broadly, and it would be an enormous shame to lose you from the community.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I do appreciate that. In the hall of ironies it is a surrealistic example that I answered a call for help in the Wikipedia-classroom, which became impetus to derail my RfA. And that a professor who I had assisted, felt he owed me an apology for having asked for help. I have difficulty simply letting this kind of injustice stand. To my best effort, I did get mention of these things into the record, even though never a response. What ever actions this professor observed, making him feel that he owed me an apology, should be universally agreed as unacceptable. To me I can accept failing a criteria, but when actions are so humiliating that someone feels ashamed for asking a question, because the empathize for what they characterize as "public humiliation". It makes me want to find the problem and fix it. And If there was reason, I think that man is due an apology! The absolute closest thing to an apology to me was "it wasn't personal". That came after the RfA closed. During the RfA what was to pass as healing communication was less sincere, and quite frankly, enough insult related to that incident than I was prepared to endure. My response is known, The only thing that is not know are the dozen or so requisite steps which led to it. At least in context is is easier to evaluate. I was held to answer without the benefit of context. And I had seen the RfA derailed by then anyway. My best possible outcome would be answers, clarifications, and concerns, I could have added, and the strong editors who entered with support for me in the face of the pressure to oppose. I did see some of that! My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support - Jesus H. Christ, you were one of the good ones... don't leave :/ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) You beseeched well, and reference a fine co-sponsor whom I do respect. For sure you have added weight to your request. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support - please don't leave, you've done great work here and I'd like it to continue!   — Jeff G.  ツ 15:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I did have revealed to me that leaving Wikipedia, and leaving the realm of the living, will simultaneously occur. Yes I hope to be here quite a while longer. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Don't leave. It's not worth it. --Bsadowski1 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) You have helped me too many times for your words to not carry weight. They have their effect, and it will happen. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support - Take some time off if you need to, but don't leave entirely. We need great editors like you here. Avicennasis @ 16:22, 12 Adar II 5771 / 18 March 2011 (UTC) Honestly I had wanted to use the semi-retired template. And that will be one corrected thing as well. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support - no idea what's gone on, but we can't lose you.  狐 FOX  16:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) The reason this story needs known is for the manner of mutual betterment it can provide all parties, including an observer. It did not expect to provide good example to this regard, but it is what it is. And any intuitive observer must already know they will be called to address discrepancies from one to another. The absolute, most difficult moment for me, was to see the example used to destroy me, relegated to insignificant within another RfA. And to see players who just 3 or 4 days prior intimating to me their inability to accommodate some valid objection, find it rather easy to accommodate. That double standard knocked the wind out of me and literally blew my mind. I had wanted to be seen regular within the ranks, and this hypocrisy really shattered what I had left. In truth, if that is considered acceptable, It would be extremely hard to participate. And If my views are to be so significantly disregarded, Retirement becomes a better option. But improved circumstances, and the tremendous effect of these respondents is sufficient to move me, especially when we agree in the first place. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Without one doubt whatsoever. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC) There is strong redemption in your words. You have been shown every reason imaginable to have at least one doubt, yet you acknowledge these doubts did not materialize. What a testimony to the folly of their attempt. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Please, recondsider. We're losing too many good, dedicated editors these days. :( Acather96 (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Maybe we need a retention project, it is unacceptable to treat an asset as I have been treated. An asset deserves an advocate, against harmful measures, especially when that harm divides an equal share to Wikipedia itself. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Mostly per User:Ragesoss. I've really enjoyed seeing your contributions to the development of the Ambassador program -- and hate to see anybody take the unpleasantness that comes along with nearly ever RfA too much to heart. I found it difficult, for some reason, to pay too attention to the positive comments in my own RfA; I urge you to consider how much support there is, both here and in the RfA, for you to remain active! -Pete (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC) It doesn't take strenuous appeal in drawing me to the side of a discussion where I agree, If I disagree the strength of your argument must be that it is the correct information or view. In this case, you achieve success in both regards. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Super Support Mhm. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 19:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Suppport Well obviously. —GFOLEY FOUR— 19:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) When I supported you for your RfA, I meant what I had written, and it was for you. It occurred to me I deserved a similar benefit, if a fair mind considered me. It motivated me, and, well you see what happened. I was glad to see you succeeded. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Adminship is no big deal and you'd use it well. Basket of Puppies 21:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I fully agree, and respect is not a one way street, and as a admin candidate I deserve seeing in action demonstrations of proper treatment, especially if the are interacted with me. This is an area that needs improved, unless there is a hidden criteria. If there is manipulated criteria in action, you need to debrief the candidate on the way out. I had said some circumstances were written so poetically for the situation, I apprehended that someone was playing me like the guitar I said I was. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support. Take some time off an come back. Adminship is just a pain the butt job and there are zillions of other (and many better) ways of contributing to the Wikipedia, and "excellent editor" is really the highest position we have here. Herostratus (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC) You are correct, and I hope some of you will help when discussions form, because it is the better answer that I am looking for. In my RfA I had the additional bias of liking the candidate. The record will always reflect when an objection is fair and clear, the reply is in kind. I didn't do well dealing with the loaded question, And there were many. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support - Take a break clear your thoughts, then come back and continue, there is so much more. - Mlpearc powwow 22:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Yes Sir, that is exactly correct, and I don't intend to loose tool access from inactivity, so at minimum you can count on that. I have made official mention of ACC and its leadership. This was to illustrate a good example. That is you, and it is not something made up, to sound good. Just a little truth the the recorded words say, Thank you for giving the example, that gave me good cause to make mention. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support You are a great editor. I will miss your blue and red signature around UAA if you decide that moving on is your best decision --Guerillero | My Talk 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I appreciate your comments, I would not consider my self great, I would like to as good as I can be, and I am always trying to learn. If it is a sign of a great editor to work in concert with others, I do consider it a attribute of mine, and have numerous examples of such interactions, with demonstrable effect. Including communication. In every example, my only possible criticism would be they tend to be as through as I can devise, which also is generally long. I would have gained if a person considered my perspective in writing. It stead of trying to force their POV on me. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Don't let an RfA dishearten you, yes RfA is shite and broken but don't let it get to you. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 12:50pm • 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I missed my chance to not let it bother me. I will not miss the healing effect of the things said here. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Strong support Always helpful, never bite-y, kind to noobs. Shearonink (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I do appreciate that affirmation of truth you have reported, after having observed. I do remember many interactions, And I also remember saying you have made yourself an asset to this community. worth to restate again. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support I voted oppose in you RFA, but you're obviously a net positive to Wikipedia. The title of this poll (Voice your opinion on this editor) and the addition of a support/oppose tally disturbs me. --Banana (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I think it is an innocent under consideration that never had intentions aside the positive imagined. I know I have stated repeatedly, and there is record of times when I have, I respect opposing views. I wish more would ask their curious question or state there valid observations. There is much credit in the intentions of the sentiment from this document, that it might spawn a discussion of valuable knowledge serves all interest. and increases its value. Frankly when I saw Mr. Wales had set a time to be heard, the entire hearing increased its own magnitude. But I agree to a sense it is not as necessary as removing obstacles. I do not object that you opposed my RfA. And I am glad you considered to come here and say what you have said. There are bits and pieces in the replies, but you have to be curious. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support - I have encountered My76Strat on previous occasions, mainly under my old (and very first registered) username. I've had no problems with them, they've been polite, courteous and thoroughly helpful. Retirement for this user would be a net loss to the project as a whole. BarkingFish 14:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC) That is an uplifting testament. It is always humbling when a person makes such a comment. Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Support Come back and be an admin or a decent contributor. Please don't leave. Adminship really isn't honorable or a pleasant job and RFA is a notoriously horrible place and an excuse for personal attacks on the work and behaviour of others. ou obviously care about wikipedia as an encyclopedia so come back now. The weight of the comments on your talk page here is unusual, you rarely get so many people turning out when somebody retires, that should mean something that you are valued. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Coming back - great I'm really pleased to hear you are not leaving us forever, but just taking a break [2]. That's great news. Take as much time as you like; and forget all about Wikipedia for a while. Come back refreshed. I look forward to seeing you again. Best,  Chzz  ►  07:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I agree. I've seen multiple editors leave forever after an RfA, so when I saw that black banner I feared the worst. I'm immensely relieved that we won't be losing you. I wish you a nice break and I look forward to seeing you back up to full speed in the future. Best regards, Swarm X 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Yay - glad to see you haven't deserted us ^_^. When I first saw this page two days ago, my stomach got a sinking feeling... I also wish you a pleasant, stress-free break and look forward to seeing you around again when you're ready to return! Airplaneman ✈ 04:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Professor Obar Concerns Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full: Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Related question: I noticed that you are in semi-retirement. With that, will you be contining the Ambassador program or do you need someone to take over your mentees? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the professor can learn to create Watchlists and/or use lists so he can use tools like Special:RecentChangesLinked with. He should also be made aware that this is completely volunteer based. On a separate matter, Sage has been notified that My76Strat has left. I'm not sure what has been done to alleviate the concerns with the ambassador program. Killiondude (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Forgive my saying, Neutralhomer, but it seems like the Professor is under the misapprehension that, when a person moves a page, the history is lost - which of course it is not. Anyone - mentor, student, or uninvolved party - might move a page. If a page is on Wikipedia, it is open to editing (and that includes moves). I think this highlights a specific concern about the programme - the concept of article ownership. Why would someone moving a page create a problem with "data [..] associated with online mentors" (or, indeed, anyone else who might move the page)? To be perfectly frank, this sounds like a problem with this "grading system", and not a problem caused by valid use of move.  Chzz  ►  06:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I would hope that is reflected in my manner. Without looking I feel the students I have worked with did do these things themselves. I will carry forward with this concern in mind, and try to improve the overall approach. If I may, I fell the interference the professor has expressed will appear exasperated when articles are in article space. Of course there is now way to prevent other parties from editing a live article. If this will affect his perception of evaluation, it should be anticipated as a likely concern to mitigate now. My76Strat (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) In regards to your second inquire, I did ask for others to back me up against my obligations. I will be assisting at some level. I don't think it will be the intensity of my former zeal, and I don't want an area undeserved. The program is important to me! I endeavor to become capable again, to resume full participation. I am currently not function at the level these users deserve. All help is appreciated. My76Strat (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC) OK, no worries 76. If another user could co-mentor 76's group, please let me know ASAP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)