![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thank you for a well-researched and very thorough nomination. That was excellent work. I wish everyone working the RfD page shared your attention-to-detail. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You've made a recent contribution to the article on strategic management, and I've made a proposal to revert that article to a prior version that existed before vandalism in July 2006. Please see Talk: Strategic management#Once_a_great_article. Please add your comments to that talk page if you're concerned about this. Thank you. -- SueHay 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for actually showing an interest in the article, rather than just in deleting the pop-culture "list" page, and thanks for adding the reference. I was the one who left the short summarry in the origianl article when I forked the material off, olong with the VC-25 article. I didn't actually write the summary, just edited it down some. Had I been aware of the stir the simple act of spinning off the notable pop culture list (we really do delete the non-notable items in WP:AIR, contary to the opinions of the supporters of the AFD), I might have reconsidered. I actually thought other parts of Wikipedia abided by the same courtesies we at WP:AIR are expected to follow. How stupid of me. Can you believe I really thought if someone objected to the article, notable listings or not, that they would post a note on the talk page, or at least browse the history to try to contact the editors who created or worked on the list, rather than go straight to the AFD process? And here I thought "Assume Good Faith" applied to everyone! I didn't know people who didn't like so-called cruft lists were exempt from that.
However, you have showed me courtesy, even though you don't support seem to supprot the article, and are making an effort to help the original article. THanks again for showing me not everyone on Wiki is like these guys, that people here can still be courteous to others not in their little circle. - BillCJ 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article survived the AfD - no consensus. Do you have any specifice suggestions for me on where to go from here? I'm not opposed to merging the content back in to the main AF1 article, but I do feel it is too long in its current form. I believe the items there are notable, or at least were considered notable by more than one editor in the past, so I respected that even if I thought the item should not be there personally. If we do leave the itmes where they are, what suggestions do you have for improving it further? Thanks for your time. - BillCJ 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - I am posting another request on my talk page. Please check there also. Thanks. - BillCJ 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Then why are claims from the Taliban etc not represented? I have already given examples of this. Why the double standard? Pubuman 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi please respond here --> Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#Consensus_to_redirect ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ Talk 06:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"The payer must" isn't game guide material. As you have said, the game guide notions have been removed. "The player must" doesn't tell you how to play the game. It isn't really a problem, is it? Bowsy ( review me!) 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you've done on this article. How have your edits improved it? Can we just get rid of the Index Box at the top of the page? I don't even know if that's possible. Is this your final edit to how the actors are arranged? I will have to repair links to Sideshow Cinema actors from other pages and I don't want to have to do this too many times. Dwain 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's Izzy259. The reason I added User talk was because me and Scepia have inserted practical jokes to our user page, and I wanted a better trick hyperlink than Practical joke. So I made that page that only people who fell for the joke would know they were tricked. —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks - fat finger (or thin brain) trouble. Springnuts 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, I just want to pay you a compliment regarding your arguments in and handling of this AFD. I'm probably not going to !vote there because I really don't have a fully formed opinion about it right now. It does seem that at least one person is offended by the very nomination (on second thought I may have misread this user, but still); I hope I can balance that by offering my observation that you've kept everything quite honest and fair. — coel acan — 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. -- Anthony.bradbury 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Abridged talk 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The article isn't even close to complete. I've merely paused in my work on it while I and the rest of the Devil May Cry taskforce raise Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 3 to FA-class. Check back in a month and Kya will probably be hovering near the edges of FA-class as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War-- Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the section of SAT to which the page on Trevor Loflin was merged has been deleted, and for good reason; the information on Trevor Loflin was entirely inappropriate in that article. I have nominated the article on Mr. Loflin for deletion a second time. Based on your participation either in the article on Trevor Loflin or in the previous afd, you may wish to participate in the article's present deletion discussion. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You indicate that you find the possibility of discounting "RFA votes" (RFA is emphatically not a vote, but that's another matter) "dangerously tyrannical." Let me ask a question. Given your comment, we seem to hold similar views on the good qualities necessary for adminship. In fact, it's a safe argument that these views are shared by the vast majority of Wikipedians. I would also note that I did not expressly suggest that "votes" would be discounted, rather, I said that I would "place the burden squarely on people who oppose a candidacy to demonstrate why and in what way it would be a bad thing for someone to have access to the tools." This suggests that I would actually take the time to read the oppose !votes. In a system where "votes are counted" it isn't actually incumbent on the bureaucrat to do so. A counted vote isn't necessarily read. Just some thoughts, and thank you very much for participating. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have asked for peer review of the above article [2] your input will be appreciated RaveenS 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. >Radiant< 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Replaced your prod with speedy. + Hexagon1 ( t) 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
OK listen up I put 1,800 dead because that link that you refered to is more than two years old and the conflict has progresed since then. There are reports that state that up to 720 Yemeni soldiers alone have been killed. At least that many rebels have been if not more. So at least 1,500 should be put there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.171.227 ( talk) 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
No worries; your comment was just fine, and it's not too far from my own feelings on the subject. The remark in my edit summary was intended as a reply to John, and when I got edit conflict-ed, I didn't think to change it before re-posting. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I didn't go through all of his edits..But several edits he made and I noticed were correct and though they were without proper citations, I believed those edits needed to be praised..Esp the one he made at the SL army article,saying Sinhalese were the first Asian people to defeat Portuguese in a battle, which is not only 100% true can be cited very easily..And let me take about figures he added to wikipedia..I am not in position to say all of those numbers are correct but some are certainly do,Such as 1500 LTTE cadres karuna took with him when he left LTTE..This actually came from Karuna's own words and I am sure we can find a reliable source for this..I don't know how many child soldiers LTTE recruited but this also has to be a big number,could be even more than 9000..So instead of reverting his edits, why didn't you ask him to back up his claims ?? May be he could have provided something for us given an opportunity. about this he should be definitely warned,sorry for not seeing it,obviously I can't follow all his edits in Wikipedia..finally, this can be either false or true..If these people had nothing to do with the LTTE , they might not have faced that fatal ending..May be security forces proved they were LTTE members,we never know,so instead of deleting it completely shouldn't we ask him to give citations ?? I mean there are worst articles with worst info, but still don't get deleted..There are blatant hoaxes in Wikipedia but no one even care to touch them..If you consider this, I don't think we can condemn this user for bad editing, at least he has not wasted our time by making blatantly POV articles and stupid(Sorry,there is no other words) templates..for vandalism we should warn him, for adding info without citations he does not deserve any warning..that is my thought on this.. Iwazaki 会話。討論 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I should be WP:BOLD and userfy the MPmg lists, or should I ask some more people? Henchman 2000 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As my rfa is likely to be closed any time now, I figured I'd reply here to avoid edit conflicts and suchlike. I find arbitrary votes like Support, Oppose to be counterproductive to the idea of having a discussion to find consensus. Whenever I read RfAs the tags always give me the impression that the voter's opinion is final and I think all it serves to do is influence other's opinions and put people on one side of the bar or the other. I've always thought that 'consensus' was more of a discussion where people came to a compromise and generally agreed rather than saying "Yep, we have 80% support, that's fine". I know that's harder to do on an RfA where there is no middle ground, i.e. you either promote or you don't, and that opposers are sometimes challenged, but I think that the tags are encouraging a votelike system and assist in making RfA a numbers game.
It says at the top of the page that your rationale is more important than your vote, and yet we bold our votes and sometimes people just write that and nothing else! Or they simply write 'per x'... that's not a discussion, which is what I'd like RfA to be. That's just my take on it anyway. It might not be very coherent, I am writing this very late at night :) User:Veesicle 02:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the diff of my statement about the cricket articles : [3]. Go to the very bottom of the changes. It says "this is why I didn't speedy them. Thanks! -- TeckWiz Parlate Contribs @(Lets go Yankees!) 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you should put the region(s) somewhere on top on country sorting pages. Also, I believe you should enable more than one region. Greece, Turkey, Armenia should be grouped together (TAG team :) ), also Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran (and possibly Turkey) should be grouped together (AIA(T) Team), something like that. deniz T C 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you should endorse the last 2 views you made. Someone else endorsing them first would make it look like they wrote the views. Of course it doesn't matter much and there could be clarification, but with the already complicated process it'd be a lot easier if you just endorsed them first yourself. – Pomte 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd be a strong candidate at WP:RFA, and I think your involvement with deletion discussions would be enhanced if you had the tools. Would you like me to nominate you? YechielMan 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Falcon, In your comments at the TfD you mentioned a willingness to keep the template if it would not be used until consensus on the content is reached. I would be willing to support this. My point of pushing the template so hard was to force a discussion, which has occured. Would you be willing to support keeping the template? Would you be willing to help keep the discussion on the text alive? -- Kevin Murray 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Black Falcon, thank you for supporting
my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to
Her Majesty the Queen.
Vivat Regina!
—Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
I just reverted your change to WP:N nutshell Please read and talk about changes at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Ready_to_post_to_Article before making changes. Thanks :) Jeepday 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me, I just hadn't set my bot to orphan them all yet. I'm about halfway done, but I have to go out now. If I don't remember in a few days to finish it off, poke me again. Thanks again. ^ demon [omg plz] 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on the new spin-off (sorry ;o)) versions. I suppose the best thing to do is let all the articles go through the Proposed Deletion process first, and then go for AfD if needed. I did go as far as checking if the programme was some sort of Youtube spoof of Coronation Street, which is about the only way I could think that these programmes could exist, but I couldn't find anything. Cheers. Flowerpotman talk- wot I've done 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have managed to get the LMPmgs userfyed here if you would like to help in making them acceptable for the encyclopedia again. 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Diez2 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the abuse of process thing. I still don't get this whole "directory" thing. It's explained badly, and every time I have asked no one seems to be able to give an adequate explanation for what it is. That criterion has been cited without reason to justify a lot of deletions, and I'm not happy with it. Thanks for clarifying your position though - I thought you were just applying the US decision to these pages, which is obviously not what you are doing. So sorry for any misunderstandings on my part. JRG 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that's the kind of support comment we need more of. – Riana ऋ 08:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, thanks for participating in my successful RfA; sorry if it caused you some stress, from the heated responses of my defenders. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. -- ragesoss 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Since you contributed to the article's first deletion nomination discussion, I thought you might want to contribute to its second nomination. Thanks. - Eep² 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I have gone ahead reverted the move to projectify this list. Regards, Ganeshk ( talk) 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You created the article List of Cities on the Great Lakes a few days ago with the edit summary "listifying category" ... that article is most redundant to Great Lakes#Important cities along the lakes. I was going to propose its deletion, but decided not to as the lists aren't entirely identical. In your opinion, is it worth merging the two? -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Good evening ( GMT time); thanks for your comments in my RfA - that overview of exactly where those XfD templates are to be placed is extremely helpful, and if I ever forget again, I'll be sure to check back to your comment!
Cheers,
Anthony
22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Experiments are "legal" as long as they do not disrupt wikipedia. Disrupting pages (including pages on experiments) does constitute disrupting wikipedia, as does edit warring.
Well, now you know, so as long as you don't actually go edit-war with me on Wikipedia:Proposed adminship, things will be fine.
When you're busy discussing on the talk page, don't also edit war on the associated page, else nothing is won. (except you irritate a lot of people).
Finally note that you only need consensus of the community to do stuff that actually puts a load on the community. Experiments don't do that, and can't have consensus anyway, per definition. That's why they're experiments. You do the experiments, see what works, then get consensus to apply what works.
Though in the case of RFA reform, due to there being a dug-in RFA community, we might end up having to ask Jimbo to step in and enforce changes. So well, in part, what happens is entirely up to you. <very evil grin>
-- Kim Bruning 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your sharp eye in catching the copyvio on Kevin Downey, Jr.. [4] While, yes, it was indeed a copyright violation, the article didn't need to be speedily deleted; all I had to do was revert back to the last edit before the copyvio was introduced. [5]
As this is something that any editor, not just an admin, can do, I thought I'd drop you a line so that future copyvios could avoid the perpetually backlogged CAT:CSD; that makes our jobs that much easier. Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Shame you didn't drop me a note, but mass afd nominations will not work. What we need to do is to prodd and afd them one by one, unfortunatly. I suggest prods, then afds. Let's not be too ambitious, if we prod/afd dozens this will steer somebody into defending them. Let's take a few per week, starting with prods, then afd if it is removed, one per day is good. After 2-3 weeks we should have all of them deleted, than we can start a mass afd again showing case by case they are junk... PS. I'd support also wikiprojectfying them, but in the mainspace they are junk making new editors waste time on updating them. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Barnstar | |
For your merits in Sri Lanka reconciliation
[6]
[7]
[8], the
WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific barnstar, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks.
To keep a cool head in one of the world's hottest conflicts deserves our highest respect! -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
Thank you, Black Falcon, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· -- Selket Talk 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Black Falcon, we made Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance our new Chemistry COTM. Thanks for updating the entry. I know you didn't vote, but if you're interested in helping, please pitch in. Thanks, Walkerma 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I started a page about a place in Greece called the Prefecture of Fokida. Would you mind editing the page or cleaning it up? Here's the link the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefecture_of_Fokida Thanks! Neptunekh 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind merging the article that started? I don't do how do that. Neptunekh 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you proposed various projects for deletion. I would like to ask you to consider marking the ones that would be viable valid projects (if they had a few members) as inactive, so they can be easily revived if someone is interested. It saves several people work and it's a lot easier to get done. Of course, too narrow projects or ones with a bad aims are still prime candidates for deletion. - Mgm| (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your nomination. I'm not sure if you also want to delete the monthly archives you linked and you haven't explained how debates can be navigated when these daily logs are deleted. - Mgm| (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For remarkable dedication and ingenuity in the performance of "wiki-gnome" tasks, and his many contributions to the smooth maintenance of the project, Black Falcon is awarded this Working Man's Barnstar! Xoloz 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
I'd be happy to nominate you for adminship at any time; assuming your remarkable record has already secured several offers of nomination, know that you can count on my strong support!
As an aside, and I'm sure you heard this before, I had guessed that your username was a humorous reference to Falcon (comics). Did you really only have the bird in mind when you registered the name? :) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Black Falcon. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. I would especially like to thank you for striking one of your reasons when you saw you were wrong. Some opposers never reply and refuse to change a part they know is wrong.--TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs @(Let's go Yankees!) 16:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I must correct something I wrote in a recent discussion.
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciudad Real Torre Solar you said:
I am shocked by the claim that "non-English language news stories" cannot make something notable! Are news reports written by Spaniards or Latin Americans somehow inferior to reports written by Anglophones? I realise this racist/nationalist sentiment is not what Chriswaterguy intended, but there's really no reason why a source in one language is inherently inferior to a source in another.
![]() ![]() |
Thank you Black Falcon, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
Oh Oh! I thought I'd answered already... where did that go? If I recall correctly, I thought that if everything else is already archived and linked from elsewhere, then this transclusion page can go. No need to go through MFD either. Just delete! :-) -- Kim Bruning 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon, sorry I couldn't contribute further to the discussion on the article, but I've been kind of swamped with finals and papers the last few days. I'll be back when they're all done and hopefully we can improve the article further then. Cheers! -- snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I responded to your comments at my RfA. I don't expect you to change your mind about me, I just want to fully explain my actions. Have a nice day. David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am very gratified that so many people have understood the work I've been trying to do, and so so much confidence in me. I'm particularly grateful for your help during the discussion, and I'd be delighted to join with Xoloz . Considering the other one also, this seems like a good time. DGG 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Based on your previous participation in an AFD on the same article, you might find this new AFD of interest. -- Gene_poole 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at what is going on at Help:Creating policy. Two editors are trying to eliminate this. Radiant is trying to demote it to a help page. I don't fully support the content, but without some guideline on creating guidelines, it will be a free-for-all. -- Kevin Murray 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi sorry, what was the problem with the changes I made here? 82.153.72.102 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol, ok check this...
http://www.ipu.org/hr-e/179/Sri49.htm... and the page. Better?
82.153.72.102
18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what happened to the citation / source for Fr. Mary Bastian??? Thanks.
lol.. wow its been a long day of editing, im done for the day, please contact me if anything was wrong. thanks
got myself an account :) Thusiyan 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, completely understand where you are coming from with the whole Tamilnet issue. Will be taking that into account in future edits. Yeah with the whole "vandalism" issue, I admit it was a bit of childishness on my part. Just I guess, I got a little frustrated when I added perfectly cited sources, from neutral RS and it got deleted, under the label of "vandalism". But I'll be more careful with the term from now on. Thanks! Thusiyan 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried using Firefox (the web browser)? It has spell checker feature. It checks for spelling as u type, as in MS Word. This feature is very useful when editing wikipedia. Just thought you might want to know.. :-) ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ Peace Talks 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If you'd rather just make a list of all the pages to be deleted, it would make this process faster. I don't see any need in you marking every page with a tag and a paragraph. Just make a list or show me where the links are and I'll take care of all of them. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. I hope that, whatever your personal crisis/emergency is, it resolves itself quickly and well. Please feel free to drop my a note any time if there is anything I can do for you. Pastordavid 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine, but you are absolutely right there is no point doing it until you're back. At that time you might want to take a look at the progress of the controversy over Qian Zhijun, which definitely affect IAR & will still be actively in process when you return, in the form of a arbitration request on Badlydrawnjeff. DGG 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what I am doing. I strated to put lsd on the wikipedia and now I am all fdsl up. Woul you hel me I thk it neds to go to a hosptal-- 207.193.115.183 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll delete them in a second, don't worry. I was just curious if you'd looked at any of the other titles here (special:prefixindex with wikiportal) or came upon the titles in some other way? I figured I'd clean up some of them now that I know of them, but if you've already checked some of them before and found that they're actually used as redirects or something, I wouldn't bother. Thanks. - Bobet 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at some of those, and I guess most of them could be deleted (the ones that were moved a while ago and have no incoming links). However, some of them don't look that simple, since at least one had been cut and paste moved before and so you'd have to be careful about those too (or you could just ignore them if you didn't feel like it was worth the effort). But if you feel like doing the legwork, I'd be happy to delete the useless ones. - Bobet 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Black Falcon. I just wanted to drop by to thank you for supporting my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I hope to live up to your expectations. Oh, and feel completely free to shout at me if I ever screw things up =) I wish you a beautiful day! Yours sincerely,
PeaceNT
12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! — Ocatecir Talk 18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I drew on the profile of Ryuchi Matsuda on pages 61–62 of Kennedy & Guo. JFD 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me some advice?
You see, approximately two months ago, I put in an RFA, viewable
here. It was unsuccessful. Now, I've gained much more experience, and I was thinking or putting in a second RFA. Do you think I should? If you could, please leave your answer on my
talk page. Thanks! -
Billy227,
review my account!!
talk
contribs
sndbx
usbx
20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi mate
re your message to me, I don't think I did do anything wrong in Elysium did I? I just cleaned up a few duplicate references (from memory, Streetcar Named Desire was mentioned three or four times!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.111.27 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, May 28, 2007.
No worries! You were very polite about it anyway. Chris —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Black Falcon! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You may want to see recent developments at New Utopia and Talk:New Utopia. -- Iamunknown 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Twice before I have looked on your talk page and noticed some editors offering to put you up for adminship, and I've also noticed you've declined both times. Consider this round three. I would like to be a co-nominator (one of, probably, several) for an adminship request for you. Are you ready? Mango juice talk 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the Wikify Progress Template. Flubeca (t) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I support you for becoming an administrator even though I don't know that much about you I will support you in anyway I can. I am not able to state my reason for supporting you where I should which is that you have "Awesome skills" ND at this whole wikipedia thing. So I am just telling you to keep up the good work and that you would make a great administrator. R d the savior 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I support you also -- E-abulous 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)E-abulous
hi blak. tuk me u wil tu find xis.
re: yor emal respons.
100% ugen. menz yr prite smort.
enewa, il get of xu grips ubowt xu wike editorel polisez & stik tq mi man kunsrnz wix xu kwolite uv xu speling reform artikl.
frum just a kwik revyq uv it, its definitle biast ugenst reform. i dont no if it wuz orijinule ritn xis wa or if its bin modifid tq xis stat, but exr wa, it kud hordle do u betr job uv trning pepl uwa frum xe ideu wixowt being blatantle antireform.
iv bin triing tq get sumwun at xe ALC tq rit u replasmint ortikl, but xa sem tq hav folin intq u stat uv apuxe on xu subjekt. id do it miself, but Bobet wil probuble revrt enexing frum me.
hirz wut maks me bulev xat xu speling reform / inglis speling reform ortiklz hav bin intensunule slantid ugenst xe ideu uv reform: (frum an emal sent tq xe ALC)
>Its my opinion that the Spelling Reform & English Spelling Reform articles are inteneded to discourage interest in the subject. It seems they were written, or at least modified, by somebody who is against the whole idea.
Generally, the articles are very tedious. Maybe this is an indirect result of the Wiki style and the fact that the whole subject of spelling is not exactly buxom babes on flying motorcycles, but it certainly will not keep your average grammer school student interested in persuing it after his report is turned in. Wether it is intentionally boring or not, the result is the same.
In the English section of the main Reform article, you will see that the 2nd half of it is clearly discouraging and concludes with a sentence & link refering to a parody of reform.
If someone were to click on the little link at the top of this section to get to the English Spelling Reform article, they will find only more discouragement:
Take a quick look at the WARNING boxes & notes in the English article. You will notice that the 1st 2 sentences have accuracy problem notes thrown in on very trivial issues, starting the reader off with a skeptical atttitude. The Reform Campaigns section has 3 big warning boxes in it. In contrast, the Obstacles and Criticisms sections, even tho the material is unsourced, has only the single [citation needed] which I added. The issues raised in these 2 sections are easily dismissed, yet you will find any refutations posted will be deleted within a few days.
The Spelling Reform Campaigns section gives only links to some proposals with practically nothing about them, but finds the space to include a Successes in spelling complication subsection! Following it with a list of 11 'successfully' simplified words is not likely to give anybody an idea that there is any life in the subject. And in case anybody might get their hopes up, the failed Tribune campaign concludes the article and is prefaced with 2 WARNING boxes.
To put some final nails in the coffin lid, the External Links section at the bottom includes at least 3 'humorous' webpages that basicly deride the idea of reform. At this point, I am suprised that my addition of a link to the Children of the Code site was not deleted.
Its seems to me that the average person reading these articles will be left with the impression that the subject is nothing more than a dusty old joke.<
i se xat evrexing els on xis tok paj iz sort nots. so im xinking xis iz xu rong plas for xis. if so, just delet it & send me an emal.( neglektid tu sin & dat xat. it wuz rle xis morning)
& latr xu sam da aftr sum slep: DU! on me! wi dont i post xat in xu tok paj uv xu reform artikl? DU! JO 753 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
xanks, blak. il do xat. JO 753 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Just letting you know, I reverted your Redirection of Human Rights in Islam (book). What you did was actually delete the page. The page was up for discussion for merging, but you didn't merge, you deleted and then redirected the user to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thank you. Fanra 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
While you can feel free to do whatever you feel is best for Wikipedia (within the rules, which you were), I thought I would mention to you something I discovered that you might not have seen. Once I read this, I became much less strict on my requirements that articles here be necessary ones. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance Once I read that, I stopped worrying about performance or storage space for Wikipedia. :)
Thank you for your help in teaching me about merges. Fanra 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intention to offend anyone. It is hard to see people you know personally and have labored hard with to accomplish something so extraordinary as building a new nation from the sea floor up being slandered by people who will not even take the time to make a phone call or check references. You might notice that most of the information is very old that is being sited in the article. You might also notice that the New Utopia project is still going strong and have not been removed or had any complaints filed against them or had any further issue with the government in the last 8 years.
The site has been up all this time and the effort has been ongoing. Lazarus is from a different time. At 75 years old he was simply not aware of the tightening of the rules by the SEC and did not intend to do anyone harm. He simply wanted to build his country on an area that I have seen for myself and it is perfect for building on. No one has a stronger claim than Lazarus on the area of the territorial claim than he does.
Since his first attempt to obtain the financing for this project failed in 2000 after the SEC problem thousands of man hours have been invested in the project. A survey was conducted by the Principality on the area costing over $27,000 and hundreds of volunteer hours of post processing to obtain detailed maps of the region. [9]
A development plan was prepared by Noel Berge the new Minister of State Development Plan 5MB PDF Mr. Berge formerly worked for the World Bank on projects for the PC computerization of several emerging nations in Africa. He has invested countless hours of work since this initial plan was put together.
Shay Lotan the London Barrister put together a very convincing legal opinion letter which is available upon request but not for internet publication.
Most of this can be discussed in the public until the project is further along.
When you see the work and personal funds that a lot of hard working honest people have put into this project you get very passionate about the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"please assume good faith" as was stated in my remarks on the discussion page good faith can not be clearly established. The entire article is slanted to the negative this bias quite obvious. If it is not deliberately injurious but still slanted and negative how is that objective? I must just be missing something. The edits seem purposely injuriously to the subjects of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You have stated that you edited the page to mirror the SEC citation but if you read my further statement on the discussion page you will see that your edit is not in line with the truth of the matter. It is a mistaken conclusion that there is any scam involved nor ant fraudulent enterprise as you have stated in the article.
My reasoning is very clear in the discussion page and I would like you to address it as it is undeniable logic based and the legal opinion. I studies for the bar quite some years ago but I still have a very good understanding of law. When you read the example citation of the SEC ruling against the Banc of America when they violate the same rule stated in the enjoining statement against Lazarus you will see the difference in language.
I might also add that the far more serious statement against BAC when they clearly violated the same security rule did not indicate that were a fraudulent enterprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yes no problem, will include it over the next couple of days, once SB has caught up with its backlog. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53 1 June 2007 (GMT)
—Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to remove even the subpages with essays that have some usefulcontent on them? Not an issue, just checking. DGG 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you have proposed the Cathay Camera Club article for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. I would have thought that being the leading English-speaking photographic society in Hong Kong for the past 25 years was notable; you apparently don't. How big or long-established would the club have to be to achieve notability in your eyes? There are other entries on photographic societies that you have not marked, e.g. Toronto Camera Club, Bangladesh Photographic Society, The Camera Club of New York, and RA Photo Club - what makes them more notable? Rodparkes 08:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm still thinking about what you have said. I do think there might still be hope for light-weight reviews, but I'm not sure. Well, first, by using a more modest term than "stable" to the public, like "lacking blatant vandalism" but not so negative, and second, perhaps some simple process would be in order, at least for the very first review, e.g. requiring at least three independent reviews, and so on. In any case, what I really wanted to say (and that's why I'm posting here and not on the talk page) is that I found your argumentation extremely lucid and convincing. I will need to think about this whole thing before I comment again. Really, after many people opposing without fully explaining themselves, your comments were highly refreshing. I hope you will continue to discuss that proposal, and that I will meet you on some article in the future ;) Best wishes, Merzul 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy tag from WP:UR because the redirect was valid, and I didn't understand why the request for deletion was being made. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Albeit mildly pre-emptive. Have fun! -- Steve (Stephen) talk 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant what I said at your RFA - I consider you to be the best kind of Wikipedian. I'm relieved to see that the community agrees.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay!! Let's wheel war sometime! ·· coel acan 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And I won't deny a hint of cynicism, so I'll just hope that it's both.
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
You don't need to thank me; you deserve the tools and you need them to be more efficient on Wikipedia. You had overwhelming support, and I wish you good luck! Sr 13 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
BF, congratulations on your well supported RfA. I was pretty tied up the last week and didn't notice your nomination, or you would have had my support, not that you needed it. Good luck! -- Kevin Murray 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful nomination. I have no doubts that your sysopping will be a boon to the project :)
As for my less than successful run, thank you for your words of support. It is heartening to know that people see and respect one's contributions. While it's disappointing that people are willing to oppose someone based only on a userbox while having no substantial gripes with their contributions, I respect that everyone is entitled to an opinion and a voice. I may give it another shot in a while, and hopefully they'd be more keen to judge based on my work between now and then. Again, thanks for the comment and good luck with the admin duties! Arkyan • (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thanks for you kind words. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Cheers! hmwith [?] 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're very welcome! -- Merovingian ( T, C, E) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thank you for a well-researched and very thorough nomination. That was excellent work. I wish everyone working the RfD page shared your attention-to-detail. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You've made a recent contribution to the article on strategic management, and I've made a proposal to revert that article to a prior version that existed before vandalism in July 2006. Please see Talk: Strategic management#Once_a_great_article. Please add your comments to that talk page if you're concerned about this. Thank you. -- SueHay 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for actually showing an interest in the article, rather than just in deleting the pop-culture "list" page, and thanks for adding the reference. I was the one who left the short summarry in the origianl article when I forked the material off, olong with the VC-25 article. I didn't actually write the summary, just edited it down some. Had I been aware of the stir the simple act of spinning off the notable pop culture list (we really do delete the non-notable items in WP:AIR, contary to the opinions of the supporters of the AFD), I might have reconsidered. I actually thought other parts of Wikipedia abided by the same courtesies we at WP:AIR are expected to follow. How stupid of me. Can you believe I really thought if someone objected to the article, notable listings or not, that they would post a note on the talk page, or at least browse the history to try to contact the editors who created or worked on the list, rather than go straight to the AFD process? And here I thought "Assume Good Faith" applied to everyone! I didn't know people who didn't like so-called cruft lists were exempt from that.
However, you have showed me courtesy, even though you don't support seem to supprot the article, and are making an effort to help the original article. THanks again for showing me not everyone on Wiki is like these guys, that people here can still be courteous to others not in their little circle. - BillCJ 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article survived the AfD - no consensus. Do you have any specifice suggestions for me on where to go from here? I'm not opposed to merging the content back in to the main AF1 article, but I do feel it is too long in its current form. I believe the items there are notable, or at least were considered notable by more than one editor in the past, so I respected that even if I thought the item should not be there personally. If we do leave the itmes where they are, what suggestions do you have for improving it further? Thanks for your time. - BillCJ 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - I am posting another request on my talk page. Please check there also. Thanks. - BillCJ 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Then why are claims from the Taliban etc not represented? I have already given examples of this. Why the double standard? Pubuman 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi please respond here --> Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#Consensus_to_redirect ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ Talk 06:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"The payer must" isn't game guide material. As you have said, the game guide notions have been removed. "The player must" doesn't tell you how to play the game. It isn't really a problem, is it? Bowsy ( review me!) 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you've done on this article. How have your edits improved it? Can we just get rid of the Index Box at the top of the page? I don't even know if that's possible. Is this your final edit to how the actors are arranged? I will have to repair links to Sideshow Cinema actors from other pages and I don't want to have to do this too many times. Dwain 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it's Izzy259. The reason I added User talk was because me and Scepia have inserted practical jokes to our user page, and I wanted a better trick hyperlink than Practical joke. So I made that page that only people who fell for the joke would know they were tricked. —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks - fat finger (or thin brain) trouble. Springnuts 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, I just want to pay you a compliment regarding your arguments in and handling of this AFD. I'm probably not going to !vote there because I really don't have a fully formed opinion about it right now. It does seem that at least one person is offended by the very nomination (on second thought I may have misread this user, but still); I hope I can balance that by offering my observation that you've kept everything quite honest and fair. — coel acan — 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. -- Anthony.bradbury 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Abridged talk 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The article isn't even close to complete. I've merely paused in my work on it while I and the rest of the Devil May Cry taskforce raise Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 3 to FA-class. Check back in a month and Kya will probably be hovering near the edges of FA-class as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I could use some help here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War-- Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the section of SAT to which the page on Trevor Loflin was merged has been deleted, and for good reason; the information on Trevor Loflin was entirely inappropriate in that article. I have nominated the article on Mr. Loflin for deletion a second time. Based on your participation either in the article on Trevor Loflin or in the previous afd, you may wish to participate in the article's present deletion discussion. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You indicate that you find the possibility of discounting "RFA votes" (RFA is emphatically not a vote, but that's another matter) "dangerously tyrannical." Let me ask a question. Given your comment, we seem to hold similar views on the good qualities necessary for adminship. In fact, it's a safe argument that these views are shared by the vast majority of Wikipedians. I would also note that I did not expressly suggest that "votes" would be discounted, rather, I said that I would "place the burden squarely on people who oppose a candidacy to demonstrate why and in what way it would be a bad thing for someone to have access to the tools." This suggests that I would actually take the time to read the oppose !votes. In a system where "votes are counted" it isn't actually incumbent on the bureaucrat to do so. A counted vote isn't necessarily read. Just some thoughts, and thank you very much for participating. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have asked for peer review of the above article [2] your input will be appreciated RaveenS 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly. >Radiant< 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Replaced your prod with speedy. + Hexagon1 ( t) 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
OK listen up I put 1,800 dead because that link that you refered to is more than two years old and the conflict has progresed since then. There are reports that state that up to 720 Yemeni soldiers alone have been killed. At least that many rebels have been if not more. So at least 1,500 should be put there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.171.227 ( talk) 23:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
No worries; your comment was just fine, and it's not too far from my own feelings on the subject. The remark in my edit summary was intended as a reply to John, and when I got edit conflict-ed, I didn't think to change it before re-posting. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I didn't go through all of his edits..But several edits he made and I noticed were correct and though they were without proper citations, I believed those edits needed to be praised..Esp the one he made at the SL army article,saying Sinhalese were the first Asian people to defeat Portuguese in a battle, which is not only 100% true can be cited very easily..And let me take about figures he added to wikipedia..I am not in position to say all of those numbers are correct but some are certainly do,Such as 1500 LTTE cadres karuna took with him when he left LTTE..This actually came from Karuna's own words and I am sure we can find a reliable source for this..I don't know how many child soldiers LTTE recruited but this also has to be a big number,could be even more than 9000..So instead of reverting his edits, why didn't you ask him to back up his claims ?? May be he could have provided something for us given an opportunity. about this he should be definitely warned,sorry for not seeing it,obviously I can't follow all his edits in Wikipedia..finally, this can be either false or true..If these people had nothing to do with the LTTE , they might not have faced that fatal ending..May be security forces proved they were LTTE members,we never know,so instead of deleting it completely shouldn't we ask him to give citations ?? I mean there are worst articles with worst info, but still don't get deleted..There are blatant hoaxes in Wikipedia but no one even care to touch them..If you consider this, I don't think we can condemn this user for bad editing, at least he has not wasted our time by making blatantly POV articles and stupid(Sorry,there is no other words) templates..for vandalism we should warn him, for adding info without citations he does not deserve any warning..that is my thought on this.. Iwazaki 会話。討論 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I should be WP:BOLD and userfy the MPmg lists, or should I ask some more people? Henchman 2000 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As my rfa is likely to be closed any time now, I figured I'd reply here to avoid edit conflicts and suchlike. I find arbitrary votes like Support, Oppose to be counterproductive to the idea of having a discussion to find consensus. Whenever I read RfAs the tags always give me the impression that the voter's opinion is final and I think all it serves to do is influence other's opinions and put people on one side of the bar or the other. I've always thought that 'consensus' was more of a discussion where people came to a compromise and generally agreed rather than saying "Yep, we have 80% support, that's fine". I know that's harder to do on an RfA where there is no middle ground, i.e. you either promote or you don't, and that opposers are sometimes challenged, but I think that the tags are encouraging a votelike system and assist in making RfA a numbers game.
It says at the top of the page that your rationale is more important than your vote, and yet we bold our votes and sometimes people just write that and nothing else! Or they simply write 'per x'... that's not a discussion, which is what I'd like RfA to be. That's just my take on it anyway. It might not be very coherent, I am writing this very late at night :) User:Veesicle 02:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the diff of my statement about the cricket articles : [3]. Go to the very bottom of the changes. It says "this is why I didn't speedy them. Thanks! -- TeckWiz Parlate Contribs @(Lets go Yankees!) 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you should put the region(s) somewhere on top on country sorting pages. Also, I believe you should enable more than one region. Greece, Turkey, Armenia should be grouped together (TAG team :) ), also Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran (and possibly Turkey) should be grouped together (AIA(T) Team), something like that. deniz T C 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you should endorse the last 2 views you made. Someone else endorsing them first would make it look like they wrote the views. Of course it doesn't matter much and there could be clarification, but with the already complicated process it'd be a lot easier if you just endorsed them first yourself. – Pomte 06:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd be a strong candidate at WP:RFA, and I think your involvement with deletion discussions would be enhanced if you had the tools. Would you like me to nominate you? YechielMan 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Falcon, In your comments at the TfD you mentioned a willingness to keep the template if it would not be used until consensus on the content is reached. I would be willing to support this. My point of pushing the template so hard was to force a discussion, which has occured. Would you be willing to support keeping the template? Would you be willing to help keep the discussion on the text alive? -- Kevin Murray 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Black Falcon, thank you for supporting
my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to
Her Majesty the Queen.
Vivat Regina!
—Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
I just reverted your change to WP:N nutshell Please read and talk about changes at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Ready_to_post_to_Article before making changes. Thanks :) Jeepday 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me, I just hadn't set my bot to orphan them all yet. I'm about halfway done, but I have to go out now. If I don't remember in a few days to finish it off, poke me again. Thanks again. ^ demon [omg plz] 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on the new spin-off (sorry ;o)) versions. I suppose the best thing to do is let all the articles go through the Proposed Deletion process first, and then go for AfD if needed. I did go as far as checking if the programme was some sort of Youtube spoof of Coronation Street, which is about the only way I could think that these programmes could exist, but I couldn't find anything. Cheers. Flowerpotman talk- wot I've done 00:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have managed to get the LMPmgs userfyed here if you would like to help in making them acceptable for the encyclopedia again. 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Diez2 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the abuse of process thing. I still don't get this whole "directory" thing. It's explained badly, and every time I have asked no one seems to be able to give an adequate explanation for what it is. That criterion has been cited without reason to justify a lot of deletions, and I'm not happy with it. Thanks for clarifying your position though - I thought you were just applying the US decision to these pages, which is obviously not what you are doing. So sorry for any misunderstandings on my part. JRG 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Now that's the kind of support comment we need more of. – Riana ऋ 08:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, thanks for participating in my successful RfA; sorry if it caused you some stress, from the heated responses of my defenders. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. -- ragesoss 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Since you contributed to the article's first deletion nomination discussion, I thought you might want to contribute to its second nomination. Thanks. - Eep² 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I have gone ahead reverted the move to projectify this list. Regards, Ganeshk ( talk) 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You created the article List of Cities on the Great Lakes a few days ago with the edit summary "listifying category" ... that article is most redundant to Great Lakes#Important cities along the lakes. I was going to propose its deletion, but decided not to as the lists aren't entirely identical. In your opinion, is it worth merging the two? -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Good evening ( GMT time); thanks for your comments in my RfA - that overview of exactly where those XfD templates are to be placed is extremely helpful, and if I ever forget again, I'll be sure to check back to your comment!
Cheers,
Anthony
22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Experiments are "legal" as long as they do not disrupt wikipedia. Disrupting pages (including pages on experiments) does constitute disrupting wikipedia, as does edit warring.
Well, now you know, so as long as you don't actually go edit-war with me on Wikipedia:Proposed adminship, things will be fine.
When you're busy discussing on the talk page, don't also edit war on the associated page, else nothing is won. (except you irritate a lot of people).
Finally note that you only need consensus of the community to do stuff that actually puts a load on the community. Experiments don't do that, and can't have consensus anyway, per definition. That's why they're experiments. You do the experiments, see what works, then get consensus to apply what works.
Though in the case of RFA reform, due to there being a dug-in RFA community, we might end up having to ask Jimbo to step in and enforce changes. So well, in part, what happens is entirely up to you. <very evil grin>
-- Kim Bruning 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your sharp eye in catching the copyvio on Kevin Downey, Jr.. [4] While, yes, it was indeed a copyright violation, the article didn't need to be speedily deleted; all I had to do was revert back to the last edit before the copyvio was introduced. [5]
As this is something that any editor, not just an admin, can do, I thought I'd drop you a line so that future copyvios could avoid the perpetually backlogged CAT:CSD; that makes our jobs that much easier. Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Shame you didn't drop me a note, but mass afd nominations will not work. What we need to do is to prodd and afd them one by one, unfortunatly. I suggest prods, then afds. Let's not be too ambitious, if we prod/afd dozens this will steer somebody into defending them. Let's take a few per week, starting with prods, then afd if it is removed, one per day is good. After 2-3 weeks we should have all of them deleted, than we can start a mass afd again showing case by case they are junk... PS. I'd support also wikiprojectfying them, but in the mainspace they are junk making new editors waste time on updating them. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
|
The Sri Lanka Reconciliation Barnstar | |
For your merits in Sri Lanka reconciliation
[6]
[7]
[8], the
WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation herewith presents you this Sri Lanka specific barnstar, which is the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks.
To keep a cool head in one of the world's hottest conflicts deserves our highest respect! -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
Thank you, Black Falcon, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· -- Selket Talk 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
Hi Black Falcon, we made Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance our new Chemistry COTM. Thanks for updating the entry. I know you didn't vote, but if you're interested in helping, please pitch in. Thanks, Walkerma 06:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I started a page about a place in Greece called the Prefecture of Fokida. Would you mind editing the page or cleaning it up? Here's the link the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefecture_of_Fokida Thanks! Neptunekh 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind merging the article that started? I don't do how do that. Neptunekh 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you proposed various projects for deletion. I would like to ask you to consider marking the ones that would be viable valid projects (if they had a few members) as inactive, so they can be easily revived if someone is interested. It saves several people work and it's a lot easier to get done. Of course, too narrow projects or ones with a bad aims are still prime candidates for deletion. - Mgm| (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your nomination. I'm not sure if you also want to delete the monthly archives you linked and you haven't explained how debates can be navigated when these daily logs are deleted. - Mgm| (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
For remarkable dedication and ingenuity in the performance of "wiki-gnome" tasks, and his many contributions to the smooth maintenance of the project, Black Falcon is awarded this Working Man's Barnstar! Xoloz 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
I'd be happy to nominate you for adminship at any time; assuming your remarkable record has already secured several offers of nomination, know that you can count on my strong support!
As an aside, and I'm sure you heard this before, I had guessed that your username was a humorous reference to Falcon (comics). Did you really only have the bird in mind when you registered the name? :) Best wishes, Xoloz 15:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Black Falcon. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. I would especially like to thank you for striking one of your reasons when you saw you were wrong. Some opposers never reply and refuse to change a part they know is wrong.--TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs @(Let's go Yankees!) 16:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I must correct something I wrote in a recent discussion.
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciudad Real Torre Solar you said:
I am shocked by the claim that "non-English language news stories" cannot make something notable! Are news reports written by Spaniards or Latin Americans somehow inferior to reports written by Anglophones? I realise this racist/nationalist sentiment is not what Chriswaterguy intended, but there's really no reason why a source in one language is inherently inferior to a source in another.
![]() ![]() |
Thank you Black Falcon, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGi Д nts! ☺ ☻ 22:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
Oh Oh! I thought I'd answered already... where did that go? If I recall correctly, I thought that if everything else is already archived and linked from elsewhere, then this transclusion page can go. No need to go through MFD either. Just delete! :-) -- Kim Bruning 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Black Falcon, sorry I couldn't contribute further to the discussion on the article, but I've been kind of swamped with finals and papers the last few days. I'll be back when they're all done and hopefully we can improve the article further then. Cheers! -- snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I responded to your comments at my RfA. I don't expect you to change your mind about me, I just want to fully explain my actions. Have a nice day. David Fuchs( talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am very gratified that so many people have understood the work I've been trying to do, and so so much confidence in me. I'm particularly grateful for your help during the discussion, and I'd be delighted to join with Xoloz . Considering the other one also, this seems like a good time. DGG 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Based on your previous participation in an AFD on the same article, you might find this new AFD of interest. -- Gene_poole 10:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at what is going on at Help:Creating policy. Two editors are trying to eliminate this. Radiant is trying to demote it to a help page. I don't fully support the content, but without some guideline on creating guidelines, it will be a free-for-all. -- Kevin Murray 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi sorry, what was the problem with the changes I made here? 82.153.72.102 18:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol, ok check this...
http://www.ipu.org/hr-e/179/Sri49.htm... and the page. Better?
82.153.72.102
18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what happened to the citation / source for Fr. Mary Bastian??? Thanks.
lol.. wow its been a long day of editing, im done for the day, please contact me if anything was wrong. thanks
got myself an account :) Thusiyan 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, completely understand where you are coming from with the whole Tamilnet issue. Will be taking that into account in future edits. Yeah with the whole "vandalism" issue, I admit it was a bit of childishness on my part. Just I guess, I got a little frustrated when I added perfectly cited sources, from neutral RS and it got deleted, under the label of "vandalism". But I'll be more careful with the term from now on. Thanks! Thusiyan 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried using Firefox (the web browser)? It has spell checker feature. It checks for spelling as u type, as in MS Word. This feature is very useful when editing wikipedia. Just thought you might want to know.. :-) ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ Peace Talks 06:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If you'd rather just make a list of all the pages to be deleted, it would make this process faster. I don't see any need in you marking every page with a tag and a paragraph. Just make a list or show me where the links are and I'll take care of all of them. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 20:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Black Falcon, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. I hope that, whatever your personal crisis/emergency is, it resolves itself quickly and well. Please feel free to drop my a note any time if there is anything I can do for you. Pastordavid 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine, but you are absolutely right there is no point doing it until you're back. At that time you might want to take a look at the progress of the controversy over Qian Zhijun, which definitely affect IAR & will still be actively in process when you return, in the form of a arbitration request on Badlydrawnjeff. DGG 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what I am doing. I strated to put lsd on the wikipedia and now I am all fdsl up. Woul you hel me I thk it neds to go to a hosptal-- 207.193.115.183 16:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll delete them in a second, don't worry. I was just curious if you'd looked at any of the other titles here (special:prefixindex with wikiportal) or came upon the titles in some other way? I figured I'd clean up some of them now that I know of them, but if you've already checked some of them before and found that they're actually used as redirects or something, I wouldn't bother. Thanks. - Bobet 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at some of those, and I guess most of them could be deleted (the ones that were moved a while ago and have no incoming links). However, some of them don't look that simple, since at least one had been cut and paste moved before and so you'd have to be careful about those too (or you could just ignore them if you didn't feel like it was worth the effort). But if you feel like doing the legwork, I'd be happy to delete the useless ones. - Bobet 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Black Falcon. I just wanted to drop by to thank you for supporting my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I hope to live up to your expectations. Oh, and feel completely free to shout at me if I ever screw things up =) I wish you a beautiful day! Yours sincerely,
PeaceNT
12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! — Ocatecir Talk 18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I drew on the profile of Ryuchi Matsuda on pages 61–62 of Kennedy & Guo. JFD 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me some advice?
You see, approximately two months ago, I put in an RFA, viewable
here. It was unsuccessful. Now, I've gained much more experience, and I was thinking or putting in a second RFA. Do you think I should? If you could, please leave your answer on my
talk page. Thanks! -
Billy227,
review my account!!
talk
contribs
sndbx
usbx
20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi mate
re your message to me, I don't think I did do anything wrong in Elysium did I? I just cleaned up a few duplicate references (from memory, Streetcar Named Desire was mentioned three or four times!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.30.111.27 ( talk • contribs) 19:50, May 28, 2007.
No worries! You were very polite about it anyway. Chris —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Black Falcon! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You may want to see recent developments at New Utopia and Talk:New Utopia. -- Iamunknown 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Twice before I have looked on your talk page and noticed some editors offering to put you up for adminship, and I've also noticed you've declined both times. Consider this round three. I would like to be a co-nominator (one of, probably, several) for an adminship request for you. Are you ready? Mango juice talk 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the Wikify Progress Template. Flubeca (t) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I support you for becoming an administrator even though I don't know that much about you I will support you in anyway I can. I am not able to state my reason for supporting you where I should which is that you have "Awesome skills" ND at this whole wikipedia thing. So I am just telling you to keep up the good work and that you would make a great administrator. R d the savior 02:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I support you also -- E-abulous 13:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)E-abulous
hi blak. tuk me u wil tu find xis.
re: yor emal respons.
100% ugen. menz yr prite smort.
enewa, il get of xu grips ubowt xu wike editorel polisez & stik tq mi man kunsrnz wix xu kwolite uv xu speling reform artikl.
frum just a kwik revyq uv it, its definitle biast ugenst reform. i dont no if it wuz orijinule ritn xis wa or if its bin modifid tq xis stat, but exr wa, it kud hordle do u betr job uv trning pepl uwa frum xe ideu wixowt being blatantle antireform.
iv bin triing tq get sumwun at xe ALC tq rit u replasmint ortikl, but xa sem tq hav folin intq u stat uv apuxe on xu subjekt. id do it miself, but Bobet wil probuble revrt enexing frum me.
hirz wut maks me bulev xat xu speling reform / inglis speling reform ortiklz hav bin intensunule slantid ugenst xe ideu uv reform: (frum an emal sent tq xe ALC)
>Its my opinion that the Spelling Reform & English Spelling Reform articles are inteneded to discourage interest in the subject. It seems they were written, or at least modified, by somebody who is against the whole idea.
Generally, the articles are very tedious. Maybe this is an indirect result of the Wiki style and the fact that the whole subject of spelling is not exactly buxom babes on flying motorcycles, but it certainly will not keep your average grammer school student interested in persuing it after his report is turned in. Wether it is intentionally boring or not, the result is the same.
In the English section of the main Reform article, you will see that the 2nd half of it is clearly discouraging and concludes with a sentence & link refering to a parody of reform.
If someone were to click on the little link at the top of this section to get to the English Spelling Reform article, they will find only more discouragement:
Take a quick look at the WARNING boxes & notes in the English article. You will notice that the 1st 2 sentences have accuracy problem notes thrown in on very trivial issues, starting the reader off with a skeptical atttitude. The Reform Campaigns section has 3 big warning boxes in it. In contrast, the Obstacles and Criticisms sections, even tho the material is unsourced, has only the single [citation needed] which I added. The issues raised in these 2 sections are easily dismissed, yet you will find any refutations posted will be deleted within a few days.
The Spelling Reform Campaigns section gives only links to some proposals with practically nothing about them, but finds the space to include a Successes in spelling complication subsection! Following it with a list of 11 'successfully' simplified words is not likely to give anybody an idea that there is any life in the subject. And in case anybody might get their hopes up, the failed Tribune campaign concludes the article and is prefaced with 2 WARNING boxes.
To put some final nails in the coffin lid, the External Links section at the bottom includes at least 3 'humorous' webpages that basicly deride the idea of reform. At this point, I am suprised that my addition of a link to the Children of the Code site was not deleted.
Its seems to me that the average person reading these articles will be left with the impression that the subject is nothing more than a dusty old joke.<
i se xat evrexing els on xis tok paj iz sort nots. so im xinking xis iz xu rong plas for xis. if so, just delet it & send me an emal.( neglektid tu sin & dat xat. it wuz rle xis morning)
& latr xu sam da aftr sum slep: DU! on me! wi dont i post xat in xu tok paj uv xu reform artikl? DU! JO 753 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
xanks, blak. il do xat. JO 753 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Just letting you know, I reverted your Redirection of Human Rights in Islam (book). What you did was actually delete the page. The page was up for discussion for merging, but you didn't merge, you deleted and then redirected the user to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thank you. Fanra 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
While you can feel free to do whatever you feel is best for Wikipedia (within the rules, which you were), I thought I would mention to you something I discovered that you might not have seen. Once I read this, I became much less strict on my requirements that articles here be necessary ones. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance Once I read that, I stopped worrying about performance or storage space for Wikipedia. :)
Thank you for your help in teaching me about merges. Fanra 03:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It was not my intention to offend anyone. It is hard to see people you know personally and have labored hard with to accomplish something so extraordinary as building a new nation from the sea floor up being slandered by people who will not even take the time to make a phone call or check references. You might notice that most of the information is very old that is being sited in the article. You might also notice that the New Utopia project is still going strong and have not been removed or had any complaints filed against them or had any further issue with the government in the last 8 years.
The site has been up all this time and the effort has been ongoing. Lazarus is from a different time. At 75 years old he was simply not aware of the tightening of the rules by the SEC and did not intend to do anyone harm. He simply wanted to build his country on an area that I have seen for myself and it is perfect for building on. No one has a stronger claim than Lazarus on the area of the territorial claim than he does.
Since his first attempt to obtain the financing for this project failed in 2000 after the SEC problem thousands of man hours have been invested in the project. A survey was conducted by the Principality on the area costing over $27,000 and hundreds of volunteer hours of post processing to obtain detailed maps of the region. [9]
A development plan was prepared by Noel Berge the new Minister of State Development Plan 5MB PDF Mr. Berge formerly worked for the World Bank on projects for the PC computerization of several emerging nations in Africa. He has invested countless hours of work since this initial plan was put together.
Shay Lotan the London Barrister put together a very convincing legal opinion letter which is available upon request but not for internet publication.
Most of this can be discussed in the public until the project is further along.
When you see the work and personal funds that a lot of hard working honest people have put into this project you get very passionate about the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"please assume good faith" as was stated in my remarks on the discussion page good faith can not be clearly established. The entire article is slanted to the negative this bias quite obvious. If it is not deliberately injurious but still slanted and negative how is that objective? I must just be missing something. The edits seem purposely injuriously to the subjects of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You have stated that you edited the page to mirror the SEC citation but if you read my further statement on the discussion page you will see that your edit is not in line with the truth of the matter. It is a mistaken conclusion that there is any scam involved nor ant fraudulent enterprise as you have stated in the article.
My reasoning is very clear in the discussion page and I would like you to address it as it is undeniable logic based and the legal opinion. I studies for the bar quite some years ago but I still have a very good understanding of law. When you read the example citation of the SEC ruling against the Banc of America when they violate the same rule stated in the enjoining statement against Lazarus you will see the difference in language.
I might also add that the far more serious statement against BAC when they clearly violated the same security rule did not indicate that were a fraudulent enterprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexentity ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yes no problem, will include it over the next couple of days, once SB has caught up with its backlog. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53 1 June 2007 (GMT)
—Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to remove even the subpages with essays that have some usefulcontent on them? Not an issue, just checking. DGG 21:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I see you have proposed the Cathay Camera Club article for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. I would have thought that being the leading English-speaking photographic society in Hong Kong for the past 25 years was notable; you apparently don't. How big or long-established would the club have to be to achieve notability in your eyes? There are other entries on photographic societies that you have not marked, e.g. Toronto Camera Club, Bangladesh Photographic Society, The Camera Club of New York, and RA Photo Club - what makes them more notable? Rodparkes 08:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. Yechiel Man 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm still thinking about what you have said. I do think there might still be hope for light-weight reviews, but I'm not sure. Well, first, by using a more modest term than "stable" to the public, like "lacking blatant vandalism" but not so negative, and second, perhaps some simple process would be in order, at least for the very first review, e.g. requiring at least three independent reviews, and so on. In any case, what I really wanted to say (and that's why I'm posting here and not on the talk page) is that I found your argumentation extremely lucid and convincing. I will need to think about this whole thing before I comment again. Really, after many people opposing without fully explaining themselves, your comments were highly refreshing. I hope you will continue to discuss that proposal, and that I will meet you on some article in the future ;) Best wishes, Merzul 22:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy tag from WP:UR because the redirect was valid, and I didn't understand why the request for deletion was being made. Cheers. -- MZMcBride 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Albeit mildly pre-emptive. Have fun! -- Steve (Stephen) talk 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant what I said at your RFA - I consider you to be the best kind of Wikipedian. I'm relieved to see that the community agrees.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 03:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay!! Let's wheel war sometime! ·· coel acan 06:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And I won't deny a hint of cynicism, so I'll just hope that it's both.
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
You don't need to thank me; you deserve the tools and you need them to be more efficient on Wikipedia. You had overwhelming support, and I wish you good luck! Sr 13 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
BF, congratulations on your well supported RfA. I was pretty tied up the last week and didn't notice your nomination, or you would have had my support, not that you needed it. Good luck! -- Kevin Murray 14:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful nomination. I have no doubts that your sysopping will be a boon to the project :)
As for my less than successful run, thank you for your words of support. It is heartening to know that people see and respect one's contributions. While it's disappointing that people are willing to oppose someone based only on a userbox while having no substantial gripes with their contributions, I respect that everyone is entitled to an opinion and a voice. I may give it another shot in a while, and hopefully they'd be more keen to judge based on my work between now and then. Again, thanks for the comment and good luck with the admin duties! Arkyan • (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thanks for you kind words. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Cheers! hmwith [?] 15:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, and you're very welcome! -- Merovingian ( T, C, E) 20:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)