User talk:Buggie111/Archive 34

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.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
446		2014 New England Patriots season (talk)						Add sources
67		5th Cavalry Regiment (talk)						Add sources
140		Battle of Port Arthur (talk)						Add sources
39		Loyalism (talk)						Add sources
870		War Thunder (talk)						Add sources
10		Duke of Lothier (talk)						Add sources
14		Steven Chorney (talk)						Cleanup
9		HMS New Zealand (1904) (talk)						Cleanup
66		Shinobido: Way of the Ninja (talk)						Cleanup
139		Imperial Russian Navy (talk)						Expand
8		Béni Egressy (talk)						Expand
1,704		Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (talk)						Expand
30		Michele Reagan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
140		2012–13 NFL playoffs (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
202		Super Bowl XVIII (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
21		The St. Petersburg Times (talk)						Merge
133		69th Infantry Regiment (New York) (talk)						Merge
2,010		Hypothalamus (talk)						Merge
101		Buddy Ryan (talk)						Wikify
2		Dave Elder (talk)						Wikify
14		Sikkim Expedition (talk)						Wikify
97		Hum Tum Dushman Dushman (talk)						Orphan
1		Roman Kunyev (talk)						Orphan
16		Comparisons between the National Football League and NCAA football (talk)						Orphan
11		Kaleb Ramsey (talk)						Stub
4		Bob Burns (Arizona politician) (talk)						Stub
34		Zach Moore (talk)						Stub
10		Brendan Daly (American football) (talk)						Stub
6		Joe Hart (politician) (talk)						Stub
3		Semenivka Raion, Poltava Oblast (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created the second nomination, you can view and accept it here. I wish you luck on your candidacy, regardless of how it turns out.

On an unrelated note, as fair warning here I made the mistake of editing under the influence of my emotions at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-11/In focus, and while I believe that my second attempt at trying to say what I wanted to say fared better than the first the whole thing seems to have developed into a nuclear incident. Accordingly, I wanted to apologize in advance in the event that any of the fallout from my comments blows your direction, and it was not my intention to involve your rfa in my editorial error. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for the nom. Buggie111 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Buggie! Wish you had talked to a few other people before going to RfA; they would have told you that 50 edits in the last year isn't enough, and it's good to avoid running too many times. :-/ That said, I'm glad to see you around again, and let me know in the future if you're more active and want another nomination. I've nominated a decent amount of people, like Little Mountain 5, and know what it's like. (if you go with Tom again, no worries—I'll vote support in any case). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, ed. Yeah, I probably should have gone for a second/xth opinion before looking over the offer. Alas, what's done is done. Buggie111 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries—given your contributions and (lack of a) block log, I think you'll be okay. If you're coming back to active editing, we'll be happy to have you. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Buggie! Just glanced at the RfA template and saw your name as the most recent RfA! Sorry I wasn't able to throw my support in regardless, but don't let the result get you down. I looked over the RfA and was actually pretty pleased with what I saw. The opposers were still pretty positive about you as an editor and focused almost exclusively on your lack of current activity (one editor made an inappropriate personal shot but didn't substantiate it with anything). This is pretty much just a standard RfA issue that most people consider, including myself. It's next to impossible to pass an RfA if you're not currently active. You handled it well and I'm happy to see that. I think that if you returned to active, competent editing for a few months and gave it another go, you'd have a strong shot. Consider giving it another go down the line. People generally seem to think you're a reasonable candidate. Also, take a look at my RfA criteria, particularly #3. They're very reasonable to meet but they're still generally based on minimum community standards for successful candidates, so feel free to take a look. Good to see you putting yourself out there though! Hope you'll do so again in the future! Swarm... ^—X— 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Swarm. While some of the comments sounded a hair belittling , I was happy it wasn't like my last RfA....that was interesting. I'd like to stay active with the project, and if stuff doens't magically fall apart I'll be sure to confer about a third run sometime down the line. Buggie111 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Buggie111, I was referring to the line "It is extremely rare to become an Admin within less than six consecutive months of activity." at WP:RFAADVICE. I also think the advice, "Simply being a Wikipedian for a long time may not count for much". You've clearly done some good work in some of that time, but relying on that as the basis of your nomination may have been inadvisable since what you had done in a lot of the time recently was be inactive. That's all I was trying to point out. I was hoping you had done the reading into the process, and therefore given the community that you had also done the reading into what is involved in becoming an administrator. See you at the next RFA and I truly do wish you the best of luck. Mkdw^talk 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I always interpreted that as a one-time thing, editors who never got in a solid six months and demonstrated a deeper level of focus on the project might not be best admin stock. Well, I see your reasoning, no issue with it. I read into it in December of 2011, when I first ran, and I thought this time maturity and a better knowledge of policy would push me through. Buggie111 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Hello! Your submission of USS Marcellus (1879) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel as though I owe you an apology for the RFA. I was expecting opposition, but the whole process has apparently reached a point wherein I don't even have place in the process. I am done with rfa, apparently I do not belong there any more than I belong at signpost. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Tom, it's nothing. But thank you. Buggie111 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider Tom. Who else will there be to argue with Tony1? Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye's right. I'm a pro at grammar and capitalization arguing, and most likely will fail my senior paper because of this. Buggie111 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of USS Marcellus (1879) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel as though I owe you an apology for the RFA. I was expecting opposition, but the whole process has apparently reached a point wherein I don't even have place in the process. I am done with rfa, apparently I do not belong there any more than I belong at signpost. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Tom, it's nothing. But thank you. Buggie111 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider Tom. Who else will there be to argue with Tony1? Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye's right. I'm a pro at grammar and capitalization arguing, and most likely will fail my senior paper because of this. Buggie111 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to change cite formats, see WP:CITEVAR. Besides I hate anything that's going to make me type more as the sfn and harv formats would.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I saw sfn pushed at Sevastopol and other review pages so I thought it was the norm. Buggie111 (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I