User talk:Giangian15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please Leave a comment at the end of the page and sign!!
Thanks
--Giangian15 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Your RfA
Hi Giangian15, may I suggest you withdraw your RfA. Given your current edit history and some problems with images, I fear there is very little chance that your request will be supported now. In general successful RfAs don't pass unless editors have at least 2000 edits over several months. For some more tips, you might find User:Gwernol/AdminTips useful. Please don't be disheartened. With a little more work, you may be successful on a second attempt. Best, Gwernol 23:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your request for adminship
Hello Giangian15, I have closed your request for adminship in accordance with your wish to withdraw. I kindly suggest you build up your skills in the next few months, follow your opposition's advice, get familar with the policies and guidelines, and try again when you feel ready. Good luck. Acalamari 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikProject Malta
Hi, sadly, WP Malta is largely inactive, for now. If you would like to see the Maltese articles become better, I advise that you attempt improvement on your own. However, a post on the WP Malta talk page may just come to fruition, and I personally would be quite happy to help out with these Malta-related articles. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving
For future reference, your archiving efforts like those at Talk:Maltese language were a bit improper. Marking some old discussions with the label asking editors not to modify the section is fine (maybe a little overzealous), but then you also did it for a one-day old discussion. That is way to quick to end a discussion. You also chose to create an archive and move just the recent conversations that you'd cordoned without moving all the older ones. I've added the older conversations as well. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can see that you're fairly new here. I can also see that English is not your native language, so I'll try to be clear. The reasoning for closing the discussion was that only one person was in opposition in a poll. Wikipedia is based on cooperation, discussion, and agreement and not by voting. The user in opposition wasn't given a chance to respond to the later rebuttals to their argument. It's one thing to edit an article with this kind of agreement, it's another thing to quickly archive the discussion without giving opposition a chance to respond. This sort of behavior is not "justified" and doesn't facilitate participation in talk page discussions.
- I also don't see how you can argue that years-old discussions aren't concluded. After a certain period of time, it becomes apparent that a discussion has died. Archiving then becomes appropriate (though not necessary). If users would like to address an archived discussion, they may do so by creating a new section in the talk page.
- The next time you have an edit conflict, you should be able to scroll down to the second edit box and copy your text. While it might be frustrating to lose your edits in the confusion around an edit conflict, it's most certainly not something that you can blame on other editors. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll just say a few things and then I'll be done because I don't see this discussion going anywhere good.
- Firstly, I based my belief on your status as a non-native speaker of English on your grammar. You said things like "Every discussion that i archived were concluded" but perhaps native speakers can write like this.
- Secondly, the policy of WP:BITE is for dealing with new users who may not know Wikipedia policies. If users demonstrate awareness of policies, then the period of "no biting" so to speak, is over (though the period of civility is never over). In other words, if you are able to cite WP:BITE, it doesn't apply to you.
- Thirdly, you would do well to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the first line of which reads that the "primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." What you are referring to is the practice in AFD of shorthand. In such cases, an overwhelming majority, consensus is obvious, but in cases where it's close there is no consensus (see here and here for AFD discussions with no consensus).
- Lastly, I suggest you not cordon off discussions anymore. If I catch you doing it again, I will undo it. Good day. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
At Talk:Maltese language; your oppinion would be welcomed :) MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
