User talk:WatchingYouLikeAHawk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nominating candidates for deletion

If you're going to propose deleting Republican and Democratic nominees (they're not just "candidates"; they won primaries), you might want to narrow your proposals down to those expected to LOSE. For example, Gus Bilirakis is now the favorite (see United States House elections, 2006#Florida), which means that if he wins in November, he is AUTOMATICALLY NOTABLE (as a U.S. Representative). I don't think too many people will see the point of deleting an article for a month, then going through the process of creating it again. John Broughton | Talk 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Following AfD procedure

Please do the following in any future nominations for deletion - include in the edit summary the phrase nominated for deletion: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]], per Template:AfD in 3 steps. This alerts other editors who may only be looking at a page history that you've done more just edit the article. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 23:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello WatchingYouLikeAHawk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Muchas gracias

Hey WatchingYouLikeAHawk, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA's

Hi, would you mind terribly making constructive comments on RfA rather than heckling? "I pity you," might be construed as a bit incivil. Thanks.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You may also wish to change your RfA standards, by the way. Something like 95% of all current administrators have fewer than 5,000 mainspace edits, so I'd question the validity of such a metric. You should especially pay attention to the comments raised [RfA], by the way. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 11:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, your standards indicate you might be unfamiliar with the RfA process considering very few people attain such a high edit count. Wikipediarules2221 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your comment. I changed my sample nonsense page, so you can re-evaluate my request if you like. Biruitorul 04:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the ringing endorsement. Biruitorul 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

I just was looking around in WP:RFA and came across one of your votes and I clicked on your user page.

I saw you put this message on your user page: My decision on requiring 5,000 mainspace edits stands. We need quality in adminship, not quantity. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pester you about your own guidelines, which you are entitled to have, but 5,000 mainspace edits doesn't mean an editor makes quality contributions. It just seems a bit contrasting to me, since if a person is a quality contributor, they would tend to have smaller, but more beneficial edits, in regards to a person with 5,000+ mainspace edits such as myself, who has many small edits, but not as many big contributions (mind you, I have been working on the mainspace quite frequently since I slowed down with the admin chores). I just wanted to point that out, and see what you think. Also, what's up with the WikiWatch? Have some admins done stuff to you or something? Anyway, respond back on my talk page. Nishkid64 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've left a response on your talk page on November 30 that can be referenced by other people potentially reading this talk page in the distant future. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My decision on requiring 5,000 mainspace edits stands. We need quality in adminship, not quantity. How do numbers trump quality? Yanksox 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimers

Hey. Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. Also, both your edits on suicide methods broke the image link for Image:Suicide rates by methods, aged 15-19 (1992-2001).gif. Thanks, Prolog 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservapedia

New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated.JoshuaZ 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

I appreciate your additions to the talk:Evolution page, and think that your concerns are legitimate. I do think that the Intelligent Design objects are also scientifically credible. It would be good to know some of the flaws that make up the Fact of Evolution.

Wyatt 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)