User talk:Masssiveego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Please insert comments here.

[edit] Orphan images with regards to RfAs

I don't believe a user having orphan images shows misunderstanding with image process. I for one don't check all the images I've uploaded to make sure they're used, and delete them if they're not. I do feel you're being overly harsh, here. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sp?

Hi, I don't know if it's deliberate, but your user page shows "Truely" where it should read "Truly". Sorry, I'm awful with spelling edits :) T. J. Day 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you don't mind me asking

Why are you mass welcoming accounts that don't seem to have any edits at all, it just seems a little odd -- Tawker 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, it looks like a good idea to me, maybe it will spark some more users :) -- Tawker 04:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hour "limit" on RfA questions

Do you keep an eye on the questions to see if they're responded to do you keep an open mind with respect to your vote. 24 hours may not always be reasonable, RfA candidates are allowed to have lives :) -- Tawker 01:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:CCLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:CCLogo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just another RFA thank you note

Dear MEgo, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. For the future, could you rework the questions to make them more relevant? Thanks and please LMK if you need my help. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

[edit] Welcome back

Topic says it all, welcome back, hope your off wiki time was a stress reliever -- Tawker 05:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA Thank You!

Hi,

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. I have always appreciated those with high standards in adminship decision-making, and, honestly, fully expected that I would not be worthy of your support. I can only hope, by using the tools wisely, to gain your confidence over time. As an administrator, I am your servant -- please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any help, or if you see me making a mistake of any kind. I always consider feedback an honor to receive, especially criticism aimed at helping me improve. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highway's RfA

[edit] Ross Jeffries talk page

Hi Massiveego, what you wrote on the Ross Jeffries page was interesting to me as a member of the community. I left in the first paragraph of what you wrote, because it was on topic, but the rest was an extremely long advertisement for Ross that is not an appropriate use of the talk page (that is why it is being deleted). --SecondSight 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Masssiveego, perhaps it was incorrect for me to delete your posting from the talk page. Still, I do hold that what you posted was advertising, because it contained the names of several of Jeffries' products. Wikipedia talk pages are not a place for your, or anyone else's, opinion pieces: see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I won't delete your writing, but perhaps I can persuade you to leave it out as a matter of taste. Surely you don't need such an incredibly long essay (which happens to mention several commercial products) to rebut the claim that Ross Jeffries runs a cult; wouldn't one or two paragraphs suffice (which is the amount I left in)? The person making that claim doesn't sound terribly reasonable anyway, so I don't think there is much danger of lots of people believing him. Such a long essay might actually backfire and make people think that those in the seduction community are fanatical and cultish, which I don't think either of us wants, and which is one reason why I wanted to remove the text. I would suggest that you post opinion pieces on a blog or another website, and link to it from the talk page, rather than posting it directly on the talk page. Thanks for hearing my concerns. --SecondSight 04:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "Everything listed in the talk page is more for expressing question, comments or opinions for discussion as to determine what should be edited into the article, or side notes about the article." Ok, but as I understand the talk page guidelines, discussion is supposed to focus on the editing of the article. Since nobody was actually proposing inserting a word like "cult" into the article, I would say that an extensive essay rebutting that idea seems excessive and unnecessary (although a short rebuttal might be warranted). Sometimes, a long reply to an accusation which isn't worthy of any real attention can actually add the appearance of legitimacy to that accusation. Really, I don't think there's any need to go through product by product; you risk playing into the hands of whoever made that comment by taking it seriously, and it is skating very close to advertising in my book. It seemed that you provided a perfectly good rebuttal to the guy trashing Jeffries in the text that I left in, so the rest really seemed like overkill, and I was worried that it might scare people away from the seduction community. If you really, really, insist on putting your essay on the talk page, rather than on a blog or a web page and link to it from the talk page (which is what I think should be done for any posting of that length, regardless of content), then maybe mediation is a good idea. --SecondSight 07:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Ross Jeffries, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

Some time ago, you and a few other users placed a mediation request for Talk:Ross Jeffries. Some time ago, I offered to mediate in the case. Anyways, I wasn't sure if you hadn't noticed my offer, or if you were still deciding whether to accept or reject me. In any case, watchlisting the page might help expedite matters. Please don't feel rushed to make a decision. Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kiddy grade Peer review

First things first. The Ah! My Goddess page is almost defiantly the BEST anime/manga page on Wikipedia, and through a brief trawl of its history, you appear to be one of the people who made this so. I would be most grateful if you could read the Kiddy Grade article and its subsequent pages a take part in a peer review of the pages? I would be most thankful. The peer review page is here to provide feedback, and if you are not familiar with peer reviews, though as the AMG page was I doubt it, the guidelines are here.

Thank you!!!

--Crampy20 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. Viridae^Talk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA opposing

Just wondering why you oppose nearly every users RfA? Is there any particular reason why?--Andeh 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robdurbar

Do you want to strike your vote as well, the two opposes both struck their votes and you opposed per above.... shall we take it that your objections are being sent to /dev/null/ too? -- Tawker 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, The point being, both of those reasons were proven incorrect and stricken from the record, it really is a tad hard to oppose on them if they don't exist. If you want to oppose go ahead, but the "per above" line just looks a little funny and likely won't be taken seriously by the closing crat if there is nothing above :o -- Tawker 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more blunt, the first oppose was unfounded and came from a permanently blocked user. The second oppose was also found to be basically incorrect and was withdrawn by the opposer. Neither claim has merit. JoshuaZ 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignore the harassment. Users like... well I guess I cant say their names, but the you-know-whos never correctly cite policy when they try to intimidate good users, like yourself, into leaving. Keep fighting the good fight, Tchadienne 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GHe's RfA

Hi Masssiveego! Thank you for taking part in my RfA! Ultimately, it ended with a final result of (62/23/7), and with only 73% support, no consensus was achieved. Nevertheless, I will look into the others' comments and improve from there.  G.He 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renata3's RfA vote

Hi, could you please expand on your reason to oppose this candidates RfA?--Andeh 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Same with Alphachimp's RfA.--Andeh 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of which policy?--Andeh 08:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hey Massive, just a quick note to let you know I withdrew my RfA at 13/11/10. I hope I meet your criteria by the next time I pop up on RfA. Cheers :) --james^(talk) 11:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter

[edit] Disruption

"Voting" oppose on every RFA without any sort of meaningful reason is becoming disruptive. Quit it and find something better to do, please. --Cyde Weys 00:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Cyde. At least explain your criteria, please, as your current comments give no information to the candidates on how to improve or what to work towards, which is the most important thing for failing RFA's - improvement. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 00:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I have been annoyed and responded sarcastically to your voting in Alphachimp's RfA, I don't think it's disruptive, per se. However, I would have to agree Masssiveego, that it would be helpful if you could put your reasoning on the page itself and not just in the edit summary, so that people don't have to go to the history to determine your reasons. Even if we don't agree with you, it's helpful to be able to quickly determine why you are opposing.--Kchase T 04:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, RFA isn't technically a vote. We are allowed to ask the reasons for any statement, either for or oppose, that someone says in an RFA, and if there is a user who is consistently refusing to explain himself there may be consequences. "Per above" isn't good enough, by the way. --Cyde Weys 04:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the consequences ought to be that his comments are ignored or held at a lesser value because he refuses to explain them. Blocking for this seems a bit excessive. syphonbyte _(t|c) 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the crats already do this. In any event, this really isn't our concern unless it becomes far more disruptive than it is. JoshuaZ 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree more with Joshua than Clyde(it seems that's the consensus), but I'd also like to say that it would only help you out if you had a link to what your criteria actually are. Attic Owl 00:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi, I noticed that you have opposed my RfA on the grounds of "Fails my criteria". Could you please elaborate, so that I know where I need to improve? Thanks Martinp23 09:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I am starting to get annoyed by your repeated admin oppose "Fails my criteria". I know you have been told several times to please elaborate and I am asking you nicely to do so. Actions like these disrupt the progress of Wikipedia and you need to stop or start giving reasons why you feel a user is unfit for adminship. Thank you for your time and feel free to contact me if there are further questions. --WillMak050389 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I, and many others, find it disruptive, and though you do have the right to vote your way, I believe users will not accept your vote as genuine due to its lack of reasoning. Please at least add a link to your criteria when voting. Thank you. --WillMak050389 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for considering adding a link, there are users that do put "fails my criteria" (or something similiar) with a link, and these votes are considered fair reasoning. Thanks again. --WillMak050389 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposing RFA's

I've seen you oppose many RFA's, and I guess you've been asked several times, but here's a new one: Let's say *I* want to become an admin, I am certain you will oppose me as you have opposed many much stronger users than I. How would I go about achieving your criteria? (The subtext is the question: is your criteria attainable?) Themindset 05:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is an intimidating list. I really do appreciate you taking the time to explain all that to me. Themindset 06:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zsinj 2

Per your request at the above-linked RfA, I've moved the discussion regarding your repeated oppose votes to the discussion page, here. Please consider replying there. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also responded to your concerns at that discussion page and I invite you to read them. Thanks! --Zsinj^Talk 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello! Hope you are feeling great. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to explain the reasons for your vote in my RfA. Your comments would be a great help to me with regards to becoming a better editor on this project. Moreover, I personally admire your strength of character in dealing with users who are against you. Lastly, I would like to know if you are an admin on this project. Thank You! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your votes on Rfa's

My personal opinion is that your purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia...maybe even for the sake of WP:POINT. I see this as harassment...what say you on the matter?--MONGO 10:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For instance, on the Rfa for Stevietheman, your edit summary states "3r oppose", I assume for a 3RR violation, but that block was from a year and a half ago!--MONGO 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO I ask for the higher standard, it's fails to be a clean record. A legitimate reason to fail any candiate. Boothy443 was found not to have been a disruption for his voting style by arbitration committee. People should never be afraid to vote on Wikipedia that their opinions would be see as "wp:point" or a disruption. If they have a legitmate reason, or no reason at at all, all can vote as they please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masssiveego (talk • contribs).

I got news for you masssiveego, you're unqualified to do much of anything except be disruptive and your ongoing nonsense about your rights are simply an effort to continue this disruption. You don't know how to format, you rarely actully provide accurate diffs which demostate much of anything to substantiate your vote and in keeping with your abusive choice of username you are simply nothing more than disruptive much of the time. When you do actually justify your opposes, you sometimes simply copy and paste conversations from the users talk page...so what. You obviously have zero real understanding of what adminship is and I'll take this time to inform you that you need to start working on something other than harassing the Rfa process. It also needs to be noted that Booty443 did a lot more than just vote on Rfa's, which seems to be where you spend most of your time. I also hope you realize that in the majority of situations, the crats simply ignore such trollery, so you're wasting your time which might be better used actually helping fix articles.--MONGO 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I will second MONGO on this: I see little, if anything, constructive coming out of your votes, and your repeated opposition to new candidates without proper explanation leads me to believe that you're deliberately disrupting the RfA process. Please stop. Consider explaining your votes in detail, providing links to the URLs to specific diffs that you believe illustrate your point, and suggesting briefly how the candidate needs to improve. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There have been detailed explaination when time allows, and when requests were made from the canidate. RandyWang is exactly what I do not want to see in any admin canidate, tempermental, barely does any research, and way too judgemental. Not voting makes it easy to stick in unqualifed Admin.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masssiveego (talk • contribs).

Yes, please refrain from continuing. Your votes are becoming more and more disruptive. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, disruption cannot be applied to an RFA vote if all the rules are followed. --Masssiveego 18:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(go here from you village pump question). Ok so my tuppence worth. Assuming you are not making a WP:POINT in your votes and that they are in good faith then I think there are still issues to address in tyour voting. For example opposing someone for a 3rr block a year ago is fine (in a way I agree with that) however you should at least try and explain your self in your vote - that way at least it makes your vote seem substantial. After all it isn't actually a vote but a method of consensus. Theoretically a person with hundreds of oppose that were not explained or founded and with a handfull of well thought out and comprehensive support votes could be promoted. It is not the sheer numvber of votes that counts. As a result insubtantiated and short oppose votes really count for nothing anyway.

Secondly I would say you ahve not explained your criteria well on that page you link to. Especially as one of the items is must have a good graps of english (or something to that effect) despite the fact that most of your criteria list makes no grammatical sense! Also I thing you are setting standards very high (of course this is my opinion and so you are well entitled to your own judgements) especially things like 30 edits a day and 3 FA's. If your asking for that I would say that 50+% of our current admins wouldnt meet your criteria - even some of our best!! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(I also got here from village pump) I have tracked this discussion thread but have not been monitoring RFA votes recently so I am commenting based on the discussion not based on the actual RFA votes.

1. Simple oppose votes should not be considered disruptive although it would be courteous to explain why and a good explanation would further the discussion.
2. I think your standards for Adminship are too high but that's your prerogative. I do think every vote you make should link to your criteria so that others can decide for themselves how much weight to give to your vote. I suspect that your vote would count for little if you simply said "fails my criteria". Your vote might count for more depending on what specific criterion had triggered the oppose vote.

--Richard 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your comments on my rfA, in the end I did manage to become an admin. I would be interested in knowing what your reaons for opposition were? Thanks/wangi 00:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feature article review

Feature article review is a process in which we review and assess existing featured articles. The intent is to uphold and maintain the quality of feature article. Therefore I removed your three recent nominations. If you wish for a review please go to Peer review. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your concerns

I have added a reply to your comments here. Thank you for pointing out your concerns and reasons for opposing my RfA. This would only motivate me to improve my edits on Wikipedia. Best of luck for the future! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, can you explain something about your RFA criteria?

Some time ago, someone asked you what your criteria for RFA approval were and you provided them. There was one sentence that was unclear to me. Here it is:

"If I find too many templates placed without enough of an explanation or difficulty tracing the conversation of the template it is an automatic failure."

I don't quite understand what you mean by "templates". I use Wikiproject templates all the time to indicate that an article is within the scope of a Wikiproject but I don't think that's the kind of template you're talking about.

I don't often use {{merge}} or {{requested move}} templates mostly because I'm lazy and let someone else do the work unless I feel more strongly about it than anybody else.

I also use {{fact}} templates all the time but I think those are fairly self-explanatory.

I'm sure there are all sorts of {{POV}} and {{totally disputed}} type templates that I could use but frankly I just prefer to fix the content than slap on a template.

Are these the kind of templates you're talking about? Are you saying you will fail people who slap on {{totally disputed}} type templates without explaining what is disputed?

I think I would pass on this criterion because I am very conservative in my use of those kinds of template.

Can you confirm that I am interpreting your criterion correctly?

--Richard 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You've been blocked for your anrics on your RfA, which are clearly an attempt to draw fire from RfA participants. I did the same to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Mad Bomber. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you avoid personal attacks against Blnguyen or any other users. If you would like suggestions about your editing, try Editor Review. An RfA is not the appropriate place to solicit such opinions, particularly given your history of RfA contributions. alphaChimp ^laudare 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Smart move - Glen 06:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For the stuff Glen pointed out, I've lengthened the block by another day. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The situation here is not the same as The Mad Bomber - I saw the entire series of edits you made, and the subsequent reaction to them as they happened. In my mind, the series of rationales given for blocking The Mad Bomber do not apply here.

Having said that, Massiveego, it would be reasonable to say that over time, a certain level of animosity has built up between you, and those who frequent the RfA related pages. I am also certain that you are aware that this is not the first time in Wikipedia's history that this has happened.

In some sense, the block is not impartial - but it is also something that is arguably reasonable to do. There has been consistently a volume of edits generated in response to your editing behaviour, and generally speaking, I would say that the sentiment is that it does not necessarily contribute healthily to the project.

Some of your concerns (I suspect) are beyond the capabilities of the Wiki to solve, but this in and of itself, should not be a reason for you not to raise them. I do not like to see it when the Wiki appears hostile, but a more constructive interpretation of what has happened today is that the community simply requires a different method of delivery for your concerns and criticisms. Perhaps a bit euphemistic, but I think you are apt to agree. Some of the feedback I have seen of your behaviour on the Wiki I find a bit condescending, and I might carefully go as far as suggesting that it exacerbates the situation somewhat.

I'm well aware that unblocking you is controversial - but at the moment, this is what I feel more comfortable with. I think this is also a minority opinion as well, but one that is worth considering. Whether Wikipedia has a systemic problem with "abusive" administrators is besides the point - this is an opinion that is expressed with increasing frequency in this project, and in some sense, it is necessary to demonstrate that even in situations such as this, administrators can still act with, say, a certain level of professionalism that for example, you might expect from a project such as this.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no rush to block - any administrator can easily waltz in and reapply a block. They might have access to information or insight that I don't have, and I will give deference to that. However, in my mind, such a block would not be effective - it would simply defer solving certain problems into the future, and I think that is not what we would like to do here. I would like to add that if you'd like a sounding board, I'd be glad to be of service.

Of course, I trust that when you find out you are unblocked, you'd read this message carefully. I cannot be on the Wiki all the time, but I'd like to think that in my absence, a ruckus would not be caused by whatever posts which might be made regarding this incident. We are mature people here, and we need not be told how to be intelligent and forthcoming. I am going to say that I think you know what that means. For my own sake, I'll reserve the trump card of blocking you for "disruption" when I return - but I can tell you that I don't plan on using it liberally. I know that you know better not to put me in a situation to do so, and I know that you are sensitive enough to be aware that a tremendous number of users will be watching the fallout of my unblocking you quite carefully. In fact, as I am writing this, your block length was just extended to 192 hours. You might even remark that it would be rather capricious to overturn 2 (or perhaps 3 considering posts your talk page) opinions on your blocking.

To be honest, I am afraid that my own contribution to this situation might inadvertantly cause ill. However, the times in my Wikipedian career I have done this exceedingly sparingly, and as far as I can tell, more good than evil has resulted from it. So, let's give this opportunity a shot - if you honestly want to go through an RfA, I will volunteer my time to prepare something reasonable for you in the future. If you honestly have something constructive to say, I'd rather that it be heard and addressed properly, rather than rendered part of the litter in the digital ether. Of course, I am aware you also have something unwritten to say - we'll address that too, but first, let me see you're willing to come on board and work constructively first. That way, you can relax, I can relax, and the community at large can relax. We can't do anything useful for Wikipedia if nobody is listening properly. I don't know how others might think, but from my perspective, it would be worthwhile to give this simple thing a chance. --HappyCamper 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reblocked

I have reblocked you for trolling. See WP:AN/I for my rationale. --W.marsh 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I was serious about running in the RFA. I was not trolling or disrupting, I was advised that I should run in the RFA to see how it was like, and I did so. There should have been more questions during the RFA if there was any questions about sincerity. The RFA was not a joke, it was serious. I feel I should have been made an Admin and then would have been the better example.

I felt that there was a possibility for confirmation and this should serve as example for other users to be afraid of self nominations to the RFA, even when there is clearly a poll support for running in the RFA. As I am truely afraid, shocked and dismayed at the admins response. As it seems now there is a new rule, if the admin feel you are faking your RFA, they can block you with zero assumptions of good faith.

19:19, 4 September 2006 User: Nandesuka (Talk | contribs) blocked "Masssiveego (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Reinstating block. We should never encourage this sort of behavior.)

It's obvious being bold and try new things in Wikipedia is severily discouraged. Had I known there would be a block for trying out for the RFA, I would have never attempted it. This is just shocking. It's not about attention getting, as following a process to learn how things work.

To answer Dan: I feel this block is unjustified. Admin quality control is by voting in the RFA. This is clearly another reason why we must select our Admin better to avoid these kinds of problems in the future. --Masssiveego 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your repost of WP:ANI content. alphaChimp^(talk) 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from the rules..

Dealing with misuse of process

"Unlike trolls who vandalize articles, the majority of the damage caused by those misusing process is indirect. Generally it is best to simply state your opposition and leave it at that.

In many cases someone else has already gone through an explanation, and you can simply say you agree. If a nomination or listing is obviously going to fail, "piling on" explanation after explanation or personally attacking the nominator is not going to change anything; the listing or nomination will fail anyway.

If the number of listings starts getting excessive (even if they are on separate pages) then you might want to use the dispute resolution process. Dispute resolution does take a while, though. If the number of nominations/listing is very high the most damage will be done if there is no emergency block put in place. In general, let the process run. "

Given the conversation in the ANI was about me, and I was commmenting and responding to the ANI on this page, quoting it was the reasonable thing to do. --Masssiveego 06:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

[edit] A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input sought

You must have had some run-in with Pmanderson before his last RfA. He's now up again, and I've also been subjected to his rude attacks and wikilawyering, including his recent 3RR. I don't believe he's ready yet, or if he truly has the temperament. Your comments? Skyemoor 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter