User talk:Djr xi/RfA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments regarding my RfA, or it's re-run:

Contents 1 RE:My RFA 2 Changed vote 3 Your RFA 4 RfA 5 Your rfa 6 copyrights more 7 Further on RFA.. 8 No longer oppose 9 No problemo! 10 Adminship 11 Last chance! 12 Your RfA 13 Request for adminship 14 Your RfA

[edit] RE:My RFA

Hi! I would like to add some words of encouragement. Presently, I feel that your RFA is not going too well. Remember, it needs at least 75% of the total votes. Anyway, even if it fails, DO NOT lose hope! Learn from the criticisms you receive and take the advise given to you seriously. After about 2 months of solid contributions, reapply again and see how it goes. Even if you fail again the second time, continue to improve on your edits and reapply again after about 3 months. Based on statistics, it is VERY, VERY rare for a candidate to fail 3 RFAs in a row.

As for your present RFA, do not give up. Even if it seems like a lost cause, the advise given by some users (especially those oppose votes) would prove benefical to you. Just do not be disheartened by the results you received. You will DEFINATELY be an admin (or even a beureaucrat) someday. Just keep on working, follow ALL rules and Wikipedia procedures and don't create too much negative comments. Hope I gave you some encouragement! Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed vote

I have changed my vote after receiving your message and finding that you have allowed others to email you. Best wish for your candidancy.--Jusjih 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Hi, thanks for taking the time to reply and ask me about my vote. I meant to say civility issues referenced above, in earlier votes. Still, you're a solid editor and I'd be glad to support in two to three months if this RFA fails. (Of course, provided you keep a cool head ;)) NSLE _(T+C) 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

If you don't get sysopped, I think very soon you or someone else could renominate without opposition, now that you've tried to address the issue the opposing Wikipedians have. Besides, glancing at the timestamps of the votes, people seem to have stopped voting oppose and they're still voting support, so on current trends you'll hopefully go through. --Malthusian (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your rfa

Hi, in my limited interactions with you, I've found you to be a good editor; I'm also impressed by your answers to the questions. I've voted "support" for you and have also mentioned that your rfa is on at WP:INWNB. I've a request to make though - pl. use edit summaries more often; I know that they are 93% in the recent past, but for us RC patrollers, something much closer to 100% is more preferable. TIA, --Gurubrahma 07:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyrights more

Thanks for your answers to my questions on your RFA. They help me much, but still leave me a bit uneasy. I'd like your response to this: a) If we do break the copyright law accidentally, it may be important to show that we do our best to follow it. If asked about this; what could you point to to show that, in general, you try ensure we stay within the spirit of copyright law even if we had somehow failed to exactly follow the letter. b) if a new article contained only copyrighted material from an identified source, why would you not delete it? Mozzerati 12:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Answers:

a) Depending on the situation, the justification for violation varies. For example, the use of a copyrighted, non-fair use image has to be deleted, even if it was uploaded assuming good faith. However, WP:COPY clearly lays out Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights and their possible infringement, the most important quote being "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". This once again links back to what I said previously regarding the evolutionary nature of copyright - although its content is protected, its ideas are still be free to be developed in order to enhance knowledge for all.

b) If a new article contained only copyrighted material, then I would seek to reformulate it as suggested above (from WP:COPY). There is no reason to delete the article outright if you can simply take some time out to read to copyrighted work, re-write it in your own words, and then remove the original. All knowledge grows from this basis, and Wikipedia is no different. Of course, if the content is unique and cannot be altered significantly enough to avoid the problem, then it has to be deleted. However, the latter is extremely rare.

[edit] Further on RFA..

hi agin.. Thanks for your answer again, though it still didn't completely clarify for me what I was trying to ask. In WP:COPY part of the procedure for copyright is specifically handing on to WP:CP. For pages which are, and always have been, plain copyright violations the procedure there is to delete then rewrite. I'm still not sure from your responses whether that is what you mean by rewriting. Is that the procedure you do / would / could in future follow? If the new version of the page is not a "derivative" of the copyright page, then there is no reason to keep it in the history. Why not just delete the old version and keep the rewrite? Mozzerati 13:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise for not making myself clearer, but that is exactly what I would do. If the copied text is small I would do it myself and make a note on the article's talk page, but if it is a significant violation then I would take the issue to WP:CP. I completely agree - there is no reason to keep the copyrighted work in the history if a new, reformulated version exists. I was not aware of the procedure of deleting first, then re-writing, but as this is the case then I see no reason to do otherwise. DJR (Talk) 13:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No longer oppose

Thanks for removing the attack. You could possibly add something like, "Person B is someone I didn't like." Or something like that. Oh well. Good luck. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problemo!

My pleasure, dear Deano :) I'm sure you'll make a great admin, and I sincerely appreciate your response. Please, let me know if you ever need my help, albeit I don't have plans to go to your beautiful city in the near future ;) Kisses, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Djr_xi,

Thanks for your message - and for the compliments. Respect? LOL, this one's surprising - I would have thought that I'd achieved a 'pain in the ass' status by now for my months of fighting over seemingly minor details incomprehensible to most. But thanks.

As for the adminship vote: My regrets, but I don't think it would be a good idea for me to partake in that. I have seen a few of your contributions, and some are brilliant, but I have never looked at anything of your 'admin qualities' - meaning your interaction with others. It would take some time for me to absorb enough to come to a decision - and I take things like this pretty seriously. It's in occasions like this that I regret the most not having more time to interact with the Wiki community on a more personal level.

I wish you a load of luck all the same,

THEPROMENADER 23:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last chance!

Hey Djr, I've seen your work on Wiki and you deserve to be an admin. But due to the contraversial userbox issue, many people are opposing. For the sake of being nominated, I think that maybe you should remove them, then put them back once you are a well established admin or when the userbox debate has taken some progress. Cheers and best of luck for ya RFA! DaGizza^{Chat ©} 07:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Because of irregularities I have restarted your candidacy without prejudice from the beginning. Please be prepared to respond to issues that may be brought up on the WP:RFA page. Cheers, Cecropia 08:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for adminship

Heya, I was going to leave a long message with lots of userboxes in it, in honour of your user page (I like to be creative from time to time), but then I realised it was late, and I'm just too lazy to figure the darn things out anyhow, so I'll stick to plain english. ;-)

I left a weak opposition on your request for adminship, because I think you haven't quite clued in to the actual cool stuff that's going on here. Originally everyone joining came from free content^(*) projects and such, so it was all kinda "duh, same old, but kinda different". Now we're getting folks from all over, and no one ever really took the time to explain all this stuff :-)

Drop me a line on my talk page, send me an email per wikipedia email, or contact me on irc. I like irc.

irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia

^(*)(That's free as in speech, not as in beer. In my daily life I get paid, thank you very much.)

read you soon, Kim Bruning 22:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Your adminship nomination didn't achieve consensus. Please look at the reasons voters opposed your nomination and this will be a big aid to succeeding in the future. Many initially failed nominees have gone on to be admins later. Cheers, Cecropia 03:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)