User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2019/April
 | 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. |
vyfyyy
Adminship
I've been going over the first three years of entries at WP:ORCP to see if there's anyone interested in RfA that got left out. I think there's only a handful of hopefuls that haven't already had a successful nomination, and you're one of them. The mix of content / AIV / bot work is a good mix of skills for the old mop and bucket, and under normal circumstances, I'd expect a good pass. The elephant in the room is, of course, your block log - one of them was acknowledged as a mistake, the other (which I placed) is ancient history, water under the bridge, rookie mistake that has been learned from etc etc. I'm not sure how I can deal with that, other than hope it's not an issue for other people either. Any thoughts from you (or your talk page stalkers) would be welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I can't say that I haven't thought of the concept of going through RfA once. If I do it, I'd rather it be a 1-and-done, but at least in my opinion there's quite a few reasons to oppose, such as my recent activity, the whole mess with the unblock in July, and that I haven't contributed heavily to any FA. From what I've seen the whole process and questions are pretty difficult. There's currently two articles waiting a for a GA review and a bot task I'm currently working on. Once those are done, I'll shoot you an email about my thoughts of doing/not doing an RfA. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I could always try an olympics GA review if you'd like, though I suspect Courcelles would be a more experienced editor to give it a go. FAs are not mandatory for RfA; they can't be as I've never had a successful one yet, though I do have 130+ GAs as a consolation. Following that, yeah shoot me an email and I'll do a thorough appraisal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics
The article Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics
The article Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
5 times bigger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AMOS_Professional_Screenshot.png#filehistory a smaller picture gets bigger? -- Polluks ★ 12:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
