This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks also for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

you should fix the license for this image: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that it was without a license when I first updated the image (previously uploaded by another user), but due to my inexperience in the field I was unaware of how to alter it. In any case the point is now moot. The image has been replaced by one with a clear GNU documentation. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm, youre right, odd edit. I meant it possibly when i took Lebanon off from the lead, because those protests are wholly different issues. (more internal politics there)Lihaas (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I deleted 2010-2011 Arab world protests to help you make way for your move WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Master&Expert (Talk) 20:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I saw your recent post in the AfD for Friday. I'm trying to get opinions for what to do with the page for the record label. It appears that the original page was Ark Music Factory, which was deleted. Then it was recreated with all three letters of Ark being capitalized and that is how it stands today. If this subject is to stay notable, should we recreate the original page and move content over to there? Or is that just creating a notability debate nightmare? Illinois2011 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I never replied before, I haven't been very active on Wikipedia in several months. To answer your old question, it only depends on what the official name of the company is. Do they capitalize it or not? Whatever they do is what we will do. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• And to you as well, thanks! I appreciate the inebriation consideration. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 07:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Kurtis/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 06:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 06:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

Thanks for pointing it out! Slight amendment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha no worries! Just for the record, the only real reason I'm neutral is because I just haven't really seen all that much of you. I remember reading something you said that I disagreed with some time in the past, but I can't recall exactly what it is. Good luck to you on your ArbCom candidacy — I don't think I would mind if you became an arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Look, I don't mean to sound like I'm advertising, but my ongoing editor review summarizes the issue pretty well:

Wikipedia:Editor review/Master&Expert (2)

Basically, I don't feel like I'm useful on Wikipedia. I don't have the patience or tenacity to stick with editing one article, nor am I particularly entertained by vandalfighting. I'm interested in policy discussions, the deletion process, and dispute resolution. Is that unacceptable in a Wikipedian? Do I need to change my editing patterns entirely if I want to remain welcome on Wikipedia? Master&Expert (Talk) 17:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Why change? Do whatever seems to be useful to Wikipedia, we need all sorts of contributors. We don't all have to be article writers (it would bore me rigid...) - I would suggest you fit nicely into the category Wikielf.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Get some content creation in, fight the odd vandal here and there, do a bit of new page or new edit patrolling, and go on being involved with the discussion side. Sooner or later you'll be invited to a week of hell and be given a mop... Otherwise, stay as you are. You are very welcome as it is from the look of your talk page. Don't forget that a big film isn't just the producer, the director and a lot of stars (many of whom would be totally lost if they tried to handle amateur dramatics...). There's all the team making sure that the stars have taken their watches off and put their wigs on, and those others doing the accounting, cutting, editing, working out how to build things, building things, putting things back together for the fourth time, brewing up, blowing things up and so on. Same here. Wikipedia resembles an iceberg in that one hell of a lot of it is outside the view of the public (but as with an iceberg, they can dive in and look at it...). If no-one's shouting at you more than once a month (I don't mean offenders), you're doing something worth doing. Peridon (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I'm not really even sure if I'd want to be an admin. Really, all I'd care to do is participate in the deletion process (closing AfDs, clearing the CSD backlog, etc). It's nice to know that people don't devalue WikiElves such as myself. I should note though, I have been offered nominations for adminship in the past by two established users. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I mainly work in CSD and similar areas, with a bit or banging heads together that I call dispute resolution (sometimes being very rude to both sides so that there's at least one thing they agree about...). I get guilty feelings that I should be doing more in the discussion areas. Them I read through AN/I or something and get back to what I know. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I guess that makes us opposites. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 16:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a jack of all trades, master of none here on wikipedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Same with me, except for the fact that I am a Master and an Expert. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 17:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I appended an additional comment on your editor review. It is very rare for me to say this to other editors, but looking at your contribs and some of the policy questions you are probably thinking in your mind, this is probably the answer : If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate to pester you again, but you mentioned on ITN that in principle you'd support regularly updating ITN with from significant stories? I'm sorry if that comes across as a misinterpretation on my part, and I hope you don't feel as though I'm making baseless assumptions, but that's the impression I had gotten when I read your response at ITN. By the way, just to be clear, I personally consider 41 deaths to be a significant news story despite not being a record in itself. Being new to ITN, I was not aware that major events are not covered unless there is some sort of special significance to the story. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That is my opinion. But note that I am not really active on ITN right now. And major stories are covered on ITN, but the bar seems to be extraordinarily high when the event is part of an ongoing process, such as the Syrian rebellion. Thue | talk 13:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that 41 deaths in a single day was still a pretty major news subject, even if it isn't a record for the uprising or anything. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at Fetchcomms's talk page.
Message added 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Kurtis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Hi. I'm glad you found my assessment useful. On another point, see: User talk:Snottywong#AfD counter - if you ever consider being an admin or being active in meta areas, you may wish to consider using a signature that accurately reflects your registered name. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh... actually wasn't aware of that. I might try to fix it later, though it might just be one of the drawbacks to having an ampersand in my username. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11)) to your friends' talk pages.

Hi M&E, enjoy the holiday season ϢereSpielChequers 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WSC, and to you as well, Merry Christmas! :) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

You are very welcome - glad my comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/2011 Syrian uprising/archive1 were helpful. I made one more comment there (avoid needless repetition). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it. Thanks for the advice. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 10:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 17 January 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

I was going thru the talk page of Nearly Headless Nick when I cam across your original intention of making a parody of the SOPA page. I'd really love to see it. Cheers, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, it never materialized. It probably wouldn't have been that funny anyways. :/ Master&Expert (Talk) 18:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sad. I was really hoping you'd bring it out. : ) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

Wo,easy on the edit summary. Just IP vandalism, ive warned him and am requesting page protesctLihaas (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, OK, I'll tone it down. I was only joking, after all. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

--Master&Expert (Talk) 23:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)== Hah, same ==

I saw your comment here. I had pretty much the exact same reaction. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I imagine many people have had the same... misconception, so to speak. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Kurtis, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You never became an admin? You should. We need many more good admins.PumpkinSky talk 02:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahaha thanks! I appreciate your sentiments. Unfortunately I've been somewhat inactive for the past several months (kind of sporadic, on-and-off sort of thing). I've been offered nominations in the past as far back as 2009, but I wasn't 100% sure whether or not I'd want to submit an RfA back then. Now, I'm mulling it over. RfA's pretty intimidating, but that's never really stopped me from doing things before (well... OK yes it has, but not on here at least). ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 04:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Woah! I didn't know you were Rlevse! =O Master&Expert (Talk) 04:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Now get more active and file an RFA.PumpkinSky talk 15:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do, assuming of course I'm not too busy in meat space with post-secondary and such. =D Master&Expert (Talk) 17:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw you ask if those were appropriate additions, and as long as these aren't some kind of outing and they have previously admitted to that being their former account, than everything should be fine. I was the one who started the table formatting for the page and I had just checked the former admins user pages to see if they linked their old account to a new one. I obviously don't keep track of who is who as well as you. :P — Moe ε 18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't really follow things all that closely anymore. I used to be quite obsessed with Wikipedia's power structure and political aspects; I also have a keen memory, meaning I recall several confessions on behalf of certain users who have made their previous identities known. I guess it's just for the sake of referencing and identification (so long as it is not outing, as you've said). Master&Expert (Talk) 04:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Master&Expert,

I just wanted to make sure ok with me quoting you on my userpage. It is a very true quote. =)

Let me know,

Gold Standard 07:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure! You go right ahead. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 10:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Gold Standard 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

SarahStierch (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you! I appreciate your swift and friendly response. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
Message added 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Likewise, thanks! =) Master&Expert (Talk) 00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi O0fishguy0o (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for the cookie! =) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

I moved to Support. Good luck! Electric Catfish 01:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

HOO YAH, it's about time you filed an RFA!!!PumpkinSky talk 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have finally taken the plunge. We'll see how it all turns out. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 01:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it reminds me of my first try. Although I took more of a beating for also being himan enough to use the word "shit". The number of people who went neutral is a strong indication that the community values you as an editor but just wants to see a bit more of you and maybe some improvements in certain areas before they will support. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. =)

Yeah, I sort of figured as much. I submitted the RfA with the expectation that it probably wouldn't succeed, unless of course the editors participating have seen me around and had no inclination towards the notion that I would abuse (or misuse) the admin toolset. In any event, it's actually not been anywhere near as brutal as I had thought it would be, which is a relief. Besides, adminship has always been genuinely "no big deal" through my eyes — it's not the "be all, end all" of my Wikipedia experience. I might get into writing articles in the near future, which has oftentimes been a struggle for me because I don't know where to begin. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox, all the neutrals (including myself) indicate that many people are wanting you to be an admin as soon as you shore up a few minor (but important) basics. If you are serious and want some help filling in a few gaps for a run in 6 months, I will be happy to help you as I think you are the type of person we want as admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, except... I do not know the way. ;) Master&Expert (Talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what friends are for. It starts with article content creating and editing, with consistent numbers of edits. If you want some guidance along the way, you just have to ask, and after the foundation is built, I would happy to nom you and so would others. I'm sure there are several there at RfA willing to help as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for reconsidering the withdrawal your RFA! Keep up the good work! -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah, it's actually been a really pleasant experience for me. Even the oppose votes are empowering and have reassured me that I am a valued contributor here. It's a great feeling. I suspect I'll probably become more active in the months to come, and not just for the fact that I'd like to be an admin — there's a lot to like about the Wikipedia community. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Most importantly, your RfA has been free of the traditional trolling and disingenuous voting, and demonstrates that the process itself is not broken, as many claim, but that the candidates who should pass usually do, and those who are not quite ready for the bit usually don't. RfA seems to have cleaned itself up recently, and as a result we are seeing more candidates who at least may stand a chance of passing. I would like to see you run again in about 6 months, and in the meantime, I hope you will continue to take an interest in the process, vote on it, and help keep it the way it should be. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master&Expert.
Message added 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 22:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, that is amusing. I'm pretty sure that is a page that he is already monitoring ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, I'm somewhat confused as to how that edit (which was made by JamesBWatson) can be used as justification for an oppose at my RfA. Would you mind giving a more detailed explanation? I'd greatly appreciate it, thanks. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've modified the explanation. I've also changed the diff.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 23:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed. I still don't understand what you mean. The explanation I gave was in response to a concern raised by JamesBWatson, who interpreted one of the questions posted on my RfA differently than I had. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not like the example:Let's say you are engaged in an edit war with an IP.---Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 23:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It was JamesBWatson who initially asserted that interpretation of Q6 (see oppose #12). Master&Expert (Talk) 23:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master&Expert.
Message added 05:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks, TBrandley 05:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've answered your question, thanks for taking an interest in my RfA. I appreciate your concern. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 05:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 17:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi M&E. Sorry for taking so long to reply (I'm sure you appreciate the importance of my current priorities!) Anyway, the essence of my oppose was that you had said in your nomination that you wanted to get involved in admin work after finding anti-vandalism boring; the truth is that a lot of admin work is very dull. It would just be good to see you get some experience in admin areas without being an admin first (perhaps clerking was not the best choice of words, but getting involved in AfDs, new page patrolling, anti-vandalism, dispute resolution, content creation, or whatever it is that you enjoy and think you would enjoy as an admin). I wouldn't recommend doing anything just for the sake of a future RfA, but find things that you enjoy and see where you can help out. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's fine! Thank you so much for your response. =)

The reason I specified reverting vandalism as being boring for me is because it's fast-paced. Oftentimes somebody else already beats me to the chase, and I never get the opportunity to report someone to AIV. It might have something to do with the fact that I don't use anti-vandalism tools such as Huggle or Twinkle, but regardless, it sort of deters me from taking part in it any further. However, with regards to admin tasks being "dull"... that's how I like things. I should have specified this in my nomination statement — I enjoy monotonous, repetitive tasks. Administrative work seems to be exactly that. Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again: adminship is not the "be all, end all" of my Wikipedia experience. I'm one of the select few who continues to regard it as being "no big deal", in terms of supporting people who want the bit, having the bit, and revoking the bit in instances where someone just isn't suited for it. For a long time I wasn't even sure I'd ever want to be an admin because it seemed like a lot of pressure, what with such a high standard to live up to, but then I thought to myself: "So what makes you think you don't live up to that standard already?" And then that jumped to: "You know, I doubt I'd pass RfA if I submitted one today, but at least it'll give me a feel for the process and act as a learning experience. And who knows, maybe people will be familiar enough with me to support anyways!" I'll say this much about RfA — it's a lot friendlier than it used to be. I had developed the impression that it was a vicious, toxic environment where the notion of being nice to others seemed completely lost on some of the participants. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair enough and, with that attitude, I'm sure you'll pass an RfA in the future. I think that you relative lack of experience and a few concerns raised by others gave you a difficult time at this RfA. If you continue the way you are, I'm sure I'ff find myself supporting (or nominating!) you in the future. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominated by a zipper... that'll be the day! =)

By the way, that reminds me... I distinctly remember having supported both your first and second applications. My rationale for the former remains the same — we need more zippers with the sysop bit. Thus far you've done good, as I'd suspected you would all the way back then. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I remember that support from my first (misjudged) RfA - I'd never remembered who had said it, though. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well... now you know. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 12:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your well-versed closing statement at your RFA! I look forward to your 2nd RfA being successful! Electric Catfish 22:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Woah, I definitely wasn't expecting that. =)

Thanks! I really appreciate it. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's honestly the best-versed and most honest statement I've ever seen in an RfA! I'd love to nominate you for your 2nd RFA. That's why so many people supported you: because you're a nice, honest, and down to Earth guy. Best, Electric Catfish 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC).

Thank you! Much obliged. And likewise, you also are a very valued member of our community. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I was just on my way here to give you the very same barnstar. Best of luck with whatever you do next. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

And thank you as well... some guy (if it's appropriate of me to say; that is the essence of your username). I appreciate it. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Dang! I came here with the very same barnstar intention and someone has beaten me to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• And likewise to you, thanks Kudpung. I appreciate it. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 10:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kurtis. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

WilliamH (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, don't be disheartend about the RfA. As many have commented, things should work out better next time around :) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, of course! I'm not the least bit disheartened. It's actually made me feel much better about the community than I did before. Quite rare for me, as I had once been somewhat cynical. But it was nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

And thank you very much for the barnstar. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Congrats on your RfA. While it didn't end up with you having the bit, I think it showed that you are someone that should in the near future, someone willing to admit your shortcomings and someone who can take the positive out of the experience. I look forward to supporting you in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for stopping in. I really appreciate your regards. And thank you very much for your participation at my RfA. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I hope to see you running again sometime in the future. Regards, GiantSnowman 08:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thank you. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 08:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd absolutely echo that. But regardless of if or when you do, please do stick around. I quite like your attitude, and we could use more of that. As to RfA, it took me a practice run too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I probably will run again at some point in early 2013, simply because, as I've said before, I generally enjoy mundane and repetitive tasks. And thank you very much for your participation in my RfA — it's great people are taking an interest in such an important community process. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd ignore Nsk92's oppose entirely. Exactly the sort of toxic, arbitrary rubbish that a competent 'crat would ignore. You were right not to bail out early and it demonstrates that you're capable of taking criticism. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I did leave him a thank you note on his talk page, but he has not responded. I'm not going to pursue the matter any further. He and I can agree to disagree over what RfA should be. As an aside, I had been under the impression that he was an administrator (as I mentioned in my comment over there), which more or less elevated the degree of offense that I took from his remarks (to be 100% honest about how I felt). I must have had him confused with someone else. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I was seriously sorry to have to oppose your RfA, because I feel certain that you have only the best interest og=f the project at heart. My difficulty was that in my view the major part of the admin role is in vandal suppression, either at AIV or at CSD or at UAA or at AfD. Of course there are other functions as well; but your statement that you would find these primary roles boring could not help but suggest, probably erroneously, that you were lacking in dedication in the objective of preservung the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you apply later, which I feel you should, please think carefully as to how you phrase your nomination. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your response.

I actually had a very similar discussion just recently with ItsZippy, in which I left him this comment on his talk page. It's not so much that reverting vandalism is "boring", but rather it is fast paced work. Me? I like to chug along and do mundane, repetitive tasks — which seems to be the crux of what administrative work is. And don't worry, I think I'll probably be much more cautious with my nomination statement for next time.

Take care. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 09:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I spend much of my time in CSD, and have done so for over five years; I suspect, without definitive data, that I may be the longest-serving admin whose primary activity is here. Yes, it can be tedious, or if you like boring, but is, I hope, enormously useful. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as I like it. Thanks again! Master&Expert (Talk) 10:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I look forward with confidence to your next nomination in 3-4 months (I suggest) from now. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that my first RfA also failed, albeit for different reasons. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, I appreciate it. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you continuing with Wikipedia despite your withdrawal, as it shows a spirit of persistence that is lacking on some of the other candidates who gave up after rfa opposition. I expect that by your next attempt you will be able to succeed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme, much obliged. I've seen RfA at its absolute worst, and it can be pretty nasty. I'm surprised more people didn't have their spirits shattered by that place (circa 2009). Mine was actually quite pleasant and constructive. I've emerged with a much better understanding of copyright policies than I went in with, and that alone, I think, makes the experience worthwhile. But also being able to connect with other members of the community, interacting with them, and learning about their viewpoints and dispositions. I do plan on returning to the venue someday, probably in early 2013. Who knows? But thanks again, and I'm glad to help out wherever I can. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my talk page. Though you didn't get promoted as an admin, you can still continue your great contributions. You will get granted "tools" and "powers" in your second nomination :) Thanks for taking it so well! You deserve one of my homemade brownies, because your such as great editor on Wikipedia. TBrandley 16:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, a brownie!

Thank you very much, TBrandley. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 18:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that your RfA has been closed (little late I guess). It didn't went that smooth which I expected it to go. I thought that I did give out my opinion there but in fact I missed it! Well, if I were to !vote, it would be surely in the support section but rather weak. As many have said here, you second a good chance at your next RfA. Just make sure that it wont be in upcoming 6 months and do at least 8 months of continued editing in the good tune you are in :) Also take some time for contents. Hope to see you around buddy. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the stroopwafels. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 09:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you haven't looked at User talk:Pedro yet, an answer to your question is there. I'm currently the last addition to the Pedro Cabal, a group of admins all nominated at RfA by Pedro, hell bent on using common sense and rational thought at Wikipedia. Dennis :  Brown  17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's quite the answer. I have now learned a great deal more about this site than I'd ever anticipated. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

	sharing
	Thank you for sharing (to quote you): "interpersonal interaction", "through our dealings with one another, we can grow as individuals", "confidence in the Wikipedia community", and for sharing baklava, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (10 February 2009)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I appreciate it. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 10:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kurtis, congratulations to your simple name, I just changed the archive to Ched also. I like getting more personal ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I shall give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you say that in reference to the use of my real-world first name on Wikipedia. The other interpretation of your comment would be quite... awkward, to say the least... ;)

And thanks for the congrats, I feel much more like me with this username. I have every intention of archiving this talk page for the first time in several years, but will do so when I'm feeling better (I've been sick as of late). Kurtis (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

hope you get better soon, and thanks for the benefit, - almost anything seems more personal than Master&Expert. Will you get a Pedro signature now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm perfectly fine with the standard blue link that I've adopted since then. =) Kurtis (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)