Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Faulknerck2

+Administrator
well I would like to take my roll as an admin to contribute well on Wikibooks rather than on current status ,cause I believe I can actively participate in most of times and help to get rid unnecessary posts,prevent vandalism,make better posts as much as I can. if any of authorities bureaucrat can grant me the administrative permission I could happily accept that. And Thanks. Faulknerck2 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose. Faulknerck2 has just begun contributing to the project and may not yet understand the project well enough to use the tools appropriately. Thenub314 (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose - Faulknerck is yet to be an active member of the Wikibooks community. I doubt if he is familiar with Wikibooks traditions and policies. If you want to revert vandalism quickly, you can always use rollback. If you want to upload, you can use uploader. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Faulknerck2 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2.noway do you think only veteran people can do better ,of course I maybe a newbie :) but I got have some experience about Wikipedia,Wikibooks it doesn't matter the time I have joined with the Wikibooks ,the important thing is what can you do really and how much can you really participate. infact there are no special requirements to be an admin if you know the rules and regulations that's what it needs right.? there is no point to keep thousand of inactive people only enough have 1 active member. I intend to post better articles about what I know later ,and I saw most of times I should wait till someone accept my post that's so disturbing but if I can be an admin I can freely post what I want without waiting. now look at Obama, he was a newbie to the president post but not for the politics right.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2 (discuss • contribs)


 * Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does articles. Wikibooks does not. Experience at Wikipedia has limited transference value to Wikibooks, and could even be said to make adjusting to Wikibooks harder. --dark lama  14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Faulknerck2 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2.I didn't mean entirely about Wikipedia you just quoted a part of the paragraph and oppose to the entire one how pity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2 (discuss • contribs)


 * I'm actually quite surprised that, being a Wikipedian, you are still applying for adminship here. If you applied for adminship in WP with the experience you have here now, a bureaucrat will close it per w:WP:NOTNOW. However, we do not have this process here. Also, I think you should check your grammar and spelling before you hit the save button, as that makes your comments more readable. I also took the liberty of striking through your support as that's the second one. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:X mark.svg|15px| ]] Not done. In my role as a bureaucrat, I could not in good conscience grant this. Please continue to contribute to Wikibooks and Wikipedia (you have under 50 edits at each). – Adrignola talk 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Faulknerck2 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2.Can you show me one Grammar mistake that I have made.
 * In your first sentence: "well I would like to take my roll as an admin to contribute well on Wikibooks rather than on current status ,cause I believe I can actively participate in most of times and help to get rid unnecessary posts,prevent vandalism,make better posts as much as I can." Item: capital letter in the first word of the sentence. Item: the word "roll" is misused. You are not looking for a small, round piece of bread, you are looking for a role. Questionable: "on Wikibooks" rather than "to Wikibooks". Item: "rather than on current status": on is not the correct preposition here, and you do not identify what "current status" refers to, you would best express this as "rather than with my current status". Item: "cause" misused word. Item: "in most of times" awkward and incorrect construction. Item: "get rid unnecessary posts" missing "of". Item: "make better posts as much as I can": extremely awkward construction.
 * If this seems overly harsh, I apologize, but you did ask. Chazz (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

u just a _____ and a ______ (now put what you want.!).!Faulknerck2 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2
 * No, son, I'm an active and expert contributor who does not have admin access. I also happen to know how to spell, know English grammar, and understand Wikibooks etiquette. Plus, I don't use ad hominem attacks. Chazz (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And what's more, there is no verb in your sentence Faulknerck2. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 02:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know etiquette well but I hate trolls cause I have been trolled lot in even Yahoo Answer and deleted couple of accounts.!
 * Calling someone a "____" and a "_____" simply because he disagrees with you, I'm afraid, is an "ad hominem" attack, attacking the person rather than the topic. It is an indication that the responder has no real response, and so resorts to attacking the individual, because he cannot answer the actual topic. Dropping to an ad hominem attack is a very large breach of etiquette in any mannered community, such as Wikibooks. It may be different in other parts of the Web; I don't know, I got tired of that sort of behaviour a decade ago and have since stayed away from places where it is likely to occur. Chazz (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a "____" and a "_____" simply because he disagrees with you, I'm afraid, is an "ad hominem" attack, attacking the person rather than the topic. It is an indication that the responder has no real response, and so resorts to attacking the individual, because he cannot answer the actual topic. Dropping to an ad hominem attack is a very large breach of etiquette in any mannered community, such as Wikibooks. It may be different in other parts of the Web; I don't know, I got tired of that sort of behaviour a decade ago and have since stayed away from places where it is likely to occur. Chazz (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Faulknerck2 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2.I've mentioned about Wikipedia to show how I actively participate to the Wikimedia projects that's not mean entirely about Wikipedia. if you don't know about my contribution to wikibooks just look at what I have already done so you can find out how followed the rules and regulation when I post them.
 * You definitely do not need the admin tools to contribute on wikibooks. Most active, expert contributors don't have Admin status. Arlen22 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not quite true... half thte 'active and expert' contributors are admins, as shown by Special:ListAdmins. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 08:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then half. The point being that you don't have to be an admin to be an expert. Arlen22 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

+Editor
I wondering then at least I can get the editor post so I don't want to wait till someone accept my post. this time I hope I can see a silver line within dark clouds if actually there are dark clouds :) lolZ unless definitely directly I can see the sun. Faulknerck2 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2

Now where are those people.?? Faulknerck2 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Faulknerck2

Alright so what's the big deal with Editor? All I want is post without someone else's permission.!! and a way to secure my posts.
 * You actually don't need it, it is just a progress blocker that we are trying to eliminate. You can post without someone else's permission, just like on Wikipedia. Voting on Bug 24304 will help get rid of this quicker. Arlen22 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose given Faulknerck2's comments above under his admin request, and his unwarranted attack on me for answering his question, I have to wonder about the value of his contributions. [Edit: I'm not suggesting, or don't mean to suggest, that he cannot contribute anything valuable; I'm certain he can. But the postings above, where he would be expected to show the high quality of his work in order to bolster support for his election to admin or editor, lead me to believe that a cleanup pass over his work before promoting it to "featured" or "good" quality would be required. 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)] Chazz (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Just not ready yet. Thenub314 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose - let's wait till the reconfiguration is over. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 02:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. I see only two things changing:  new users simply won't be fussed about not having the bit yet; and the autopromotion criteria will be just a smidgen lighter.  --Pi zero (talk)
 * That is the point, he won't need it then, nor does he now. Arlen22 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose User isn't ready yet. --Pi zero (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

how do you know I am not ready yet.?? Faulknerck2 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)faulknerck2

ah I see lot of troll :D lolZ. !18:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks is the home of textbooks. Textbooks, at least English textbooks, are necessarily to be written in good English. You are more likely to get support when you exhibit the ability to write properly-spelled, properly-punctuated grammatical English. You are also more likely to receive support when you follow good etiquette in your postings: not attacking people, for instance, not accusing people of being "troll" or "fag" simply because they disagree with you, signing your posts... I could go on, but I don't see the point. Chazz (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

+Uploader
I want to upload files to Wikibooks for creating cover pages to my books published on soon so at least this time please don't troll on me just give me that.! and I am not wiling to use files uploaded by another person cause I want to make unique covers with my skills.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faulknerck2 (discuss • contribs)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Faulknerck2, do understand that you are extremely lucky for the patience admins have demonstrated, extreme patience on the envelop pushing activity you have decided to pursue. I'm the most blocked Wikibookian on the project, so trust me when I say that you are exceeding what even I see as tolerable disruption and behavior, especially since it is all unnecessary and pointless I attribute it not to bad intentions, since we have been able to collaborate but to lack of experience and a misconception that Wikibooks is like other Wikimedia projects. I hope you take this as a friendly warning to realize that things can be done in another way and you should stay within conventions.
 * Regarding the uploader flag, for the task you are proposing you don't need it. Commons can take your creative work and you can use it here. If you have any issue ask me and I'll gladly help you out. --Panic (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * that's called creativity .! simple HTML cover pages are crap

and what does mean "most blocked user".?? ah.! I got it.!! probably you have been trolled right.? hm.. if you support me I will make a cover page for your C++ Book.! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faulknerck2 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Faulknerck2, it is against Wikibooks law to upload anything except fare use images, which is why there is a uploader group in the first place. If you want to upload anything, go to the commons, that is standard procedure. As for Panic's blocks, they were for allegedly discouraging new users. Let's have no more of this "trolling" talk. Arlen22 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User has no need for the bit. Files can be uploaded to Commons and used here, just as the user apparently uploaded File:Vy-canis-majoris.jpg to Commons and used it on Wikipedia.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ah nice trolling .! probably Googling My User Name :)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose IMO, someone without the editor bit doesn't need the uploader bit either. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are looking to be part of an extra special elite group of people, I hereby make you part of our Counter Vandalism Unit. You are now permitted to add User CVU2-en to your userpage.  No need to be an admin, editor, or uploader at that point, as it's even better! – Adrignola talk 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that Adrignola here is only being humorous. The CVU is not a special elite group of people, only a group of people fighting vandalism. Sorry for being the spoilsports but you just don't get to be an elite by joining the CVU. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a minute, now. Being on the CVU is AS important as being an admin and allows the admins to do admin stuff instead of other stuff like watching for vandalism. Besides, Adrignola is an admin, and if he says that the CVU is a special elite group of people, he is probably right since the CVU lightens his load. Arlen22 (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want a list of roles in order of importance, go to my user page. Arlen22 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. CVU is a WikiProject, which means there is nothing specifically different whether you joing CVU or not. Even if you don't join CVU you can still revert vandalism; even if an admin doesn't join CVU that doesn't stop him from blocking vandals. CVU is never a 'special elite group of people' because anyone who wants to clean up Wikibooks vandalism can join the CVU. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I dissent. If you counter, or take care of, vandalism regularly, you are on the Counter Vandalism Unit. Arlen22 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some quotes:
 * A WikiProject is a metadata page that serves as a reference point for those who wish to be involved in a specific project to create a set of highly-related books.
 * Joining the WB-CVU doesn't get you any special rights or privileges... However, you will be helping to protect a great project, and you will be building a strong community atmosphere—that's reward enough. After all, admins would have more work if it weren't for you, then they couldn't take care of "admin stuff".
 * You don't need to do anything, but all help is always appreciated.
 * CVU is a WikiProject; whether you join or not is your own decision, and whether you do anything related after you join is also your own decision. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Kayau you seem to have missed the point of what Adrignola was attempting to convey to Faulknerck2. Put Adrignola post into context with the actions and requests of the user. CVU can be argued from different points of views, the core issue is that it is a declaration of intention, it relates well with the barnstar discussion, it has been argued that some user may require that type of recognition or feeling to be in a particular and special job, in fact the text at CVU could be more expressive, since any user belonging or not to the group, if performing the actions that relates to that group, will indeed have a leg up on community recognition for work done. It is not a requirement but serves as a demonstration of participation in the improvement of the project what Arlen22 refers as a 'special elite group of people', you just have to understand it in this specific context.
 * Special, because they are actively working on a task. Elite group, because they demonstrate an understanding of the project as to perform the function. Some people may not need the special label other may require it, no real problem in that. --Panic (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)