Hello, leave me a message! :)
"Okay, to be honest with you, I am not N00b, but have been on and off when it comes to editing WP, so I do not need you to start listing policies and stuff, I know what I am doing!!" — Not to assume bad faith, but you are aware that an account that arrives at RfA in their seventh edit doesn't look too good. Maybe some more in-depth explanation on your userpage would help alleviate concerns. Have you been / are you solely an IP editor? Or do you have other registered accounts? User: Dorftrottel 15:28, February 11, 200 8
You will be blocked if you continue your disruption, if you continue to add baseless opposes to current RFAs. Regards, Rudget . 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Rudget, he's said that he was a dynamic IP editor; even if we wanted to, we probably couldn't track down his history. However, it seems he left you a hint above. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that we stop threatening this user. He's entitled to his standards; if he holds the bar high, I will assume, in good faith, that it is because he only wants the best users to serve as admins for the project. Glass Cobra 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed the debate here and would like to say that I feel that you are 100% correct and have done nothing that has violated WP so far. However, for your own sanity (and others who are not familiar with your situation) perhaps you could put a small statement in your userpage stating something like, "Hello, I am an established IP user and have recently decided to open an account. I am not interested in making userpages, only in making beneficial edits." You have every right to vote on any RfA, AfD, or anything else in WP. But, being an established user yourself, I'm sure you can understand how others could misinterpret this account as a sockpuppet or a Single Purpose Account. But that is all just my opinion. If I can be of any help let me know. Cheers!-- Sallicio 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A man of honour,
You voted Weak oppose for the
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kim Dent-Brown. However, you had indicated:
The RfA is scheduled to end 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC), around six and one half hours from now. Currently the tally is (66/1/0) with your vote as the only one in opposition. You might wish to check this RfA page in the next six hours to verify the tally and change your vote as you deem appropriate.
Sincerely and kind regards,
--
Dan Dassow (
talk) 17:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, A man of honour, thanks for voting in
my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the
flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators
Auawise and
that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, ![]() |
While we might have our differences, thanks for voting. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
|
As noted in the box above - thanks particularly for your contribution. Opposes and neutrals often seem to generate more discussion than any number of supports, and so it proved in this case! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello A man of honour.. I saw your comment at the WikiProject's page, are you interested in joining the project and helping us out? Cheers! Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may have mistakenly voted twice in Seicer's RfA as per these two edits [1] & [2]. The second has already been indented so it won't be counted, but you may want to take a look and strike the second one as I'm sure it was done inadvertently. Ronnotel ( talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
..should be paid attention to. Articles such as Dulaim are being frequently vandalised by him. After being blocked, his sockpuppet is resuming the same editing pattern. I see that you have been helping in reverting him and that is really admirable. Cheers mate! Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, leave me a message! :)
"Okay, to be honest with you, I am not N00b, but have been on and off when it comes to editing WP, so I do not need you to start listing policies and stuff, I know what I am doing!!" — Not to assume bad faith, but you are aware that an account that arrives at RfA in their seventh edit doesn't look too good. Maybe some more in-depth explanation on your userpage would help alleviate concerns. Have you been / are you solely an IP editor? Or do you have other registered accounts? User: Dorftrottel 15:28, February 11, 200 8
You will be blocked if you continue your disruption, if you continue to add baseless opposes to current RFAs. Regards, Rudget . 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Rudget, he's said that he was a dynamic IP editor; even if we wanted to, we probably couldn't track down his history. However, it seems he left you a hint above. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that we stop threatening this user. He's entitled to his standards; if he holds the bar high, I will assume, in good faith, that it is because he only wants the best users to serve as admins for the project. Glass Cobra 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I've noticed the debate here and would like to say that I feel that you are 100% correct and have done nothing that has violated WP so far. However, for your own sanity (and others who are not familiar with your situation) perhaps you could put a small statement in your userpage stating something like, "Hello, I am an established IP user and have recently decided to open an account. I am not interested in making userpages, only in making beneficial edits." You have every right to vote on any RfA, AfD, or anything else in WP. But, being an established user yourself, I'm sure you can understand how others could misinterpret this account as a sockpuppet or a Single Purpose Account. But that is all just my opinion. If I can be of any help let me know. Cheers!-- Sallicio 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A man of honour,
You voted Weak oppose for the
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kim Dent-Brown. However, you had indicated:
The RfA is scheduled to end 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC), around six and one half hours from now. Currently the tally is (66/1/0) with your vote as the only one in opposition. You might wish to check this RfA page in the next six hours to verify the tally and change your vote as you deem appropriate.
Sincerely and kind regards,
--
Dan Dassow (
talk) 17:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, A man of honour, thanks for voting in
my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the
flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators
Auawise and
that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, ![]() |
While we might have our differences, thanks for voting. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 23:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
|
As noted in the box above - thanks particularly for your contribution. Opposes and neutrals often seem to generate more discussion than any number of supports, and so it proved in this case! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello A man of honour.. I saw your comment at the WikiProject's page, are you interested in joining the project and helping us out? Cheers! Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you may have mistakenly voted twice in Seicer's RfA as per these two edits [1] & [2]. The second has already been indented so it won't be counted, but you may want to take a look and strike the second one as I'm sure it was done inadvertently. Ronnotel ( talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
..should be paid attention to. Articles such as Dulaim are being frequently vandalised by him. After being blocked, his sockpuppet is resuming the same editing pattern. I see that you have been helping in reverting him and that is really admirable. Cheers mate! Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)