User talk:Sumoeagle179

Archives

2006 – 2007 2008 – ...

Hello Sumoeagle179. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw while browsing userpages that you're a member of the Good Article Wikiproject. If you have a moment (well, more than a moment) would you be able to review the Court of Common Pleas? Thanks :). Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC has been closed. I am notifying you as you were someone who certified the basis for the dispute. You are welcome to read the conclusion at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Requests_for_comment/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Conclusion. Wizardman 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good sound fair call. I see FPAS is whining all over your talk page. He sounds like a spoiled child. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think you can rv changes on the RFAR templates 3 times and then say on each summary "(any arb. who prefers..."? You're not an arb, not even a clerk. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1/ it was an undiscussed bold edit and 2/ I've reverted on the basis that the previous long-standing version was better. If an arb prefers the bold edit, then they rightfully have the authority to restore it rather than let it become a venue for edit-warring between a variety of other uninvolved editors. Clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it on your page. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15Hello!

"Should have at least only voted supports and abstained on the others." Really? You voted an oppose, so isn't that a tad hypocritical? Does he suddenly become less of a person because he runs? Do you really believe that? Do you feel that only you deserve to oppose, and that others don't? I'm rather confused here. Could you explain? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wik.ipedia.Pro:Featured article review/Scouting — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that FLC, like just about everything on Wik.ipedia.Pro, is based on volunteer work. Comments like these ([1], [2]) are not helpful. If you want the process to improve, I suggest two things: Review FLCs yourself, or offer suggestions for improvement on the talk page. Otherwise, please don't waste your time criticizing others' hard work. If you see anything I can improve on my reviews, please feel free to tell me. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any sources that isn't related to the WV press kit, as I can't find no sourcing at all, even from the Baltimore Sun archives which covered the Stallians, that he played in a regular season game in the CFL. Secret ^account 16:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done GA reviews in awhile but I'll keep it in mind. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wik.ipedia.Pro as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sumo, the Macedonia 2 case is rather volatile so please be extremely careful when commenting such asthis. I've warned FPAS also for using that phrase. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~~~~

Glad it worked out for you. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi Sumoeagle179 Could you have a look at my page below please Cottesloe Scout Group, 140th WA Troop It is to do with the History of the group in West Aust. Should it be a sub page of Scouting in Western Australia Awartha24 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! i have forgotten about this wP:GA failed nomination. Am ready to re-submit. is it possible to request for assistance? Thanks. Ate Pinay (talk•email) 23:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wik.ipedia.Pro's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!

You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]