Hi Andre,

Some things really shouldn't be argued on substantive grounds. Deleting "votes" on subjective, even apparently good, subjective grounds is forbidden, and it certainly is not within the province of RfA participants. Sometime a firm no with minimum embellishment is the right answer for a 'crat to give. Cheers! Cecropia 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with your point, but I don't feel you should be arguing settled policy as bureaucrat. If you want to justify it outside of that role, that's your choice. -- Cecropia 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please let me know if you need me to join the "Talk" about these Wikipedia articles. I have communicated my concerns to you and to the Administrators' Bulletin Board of Wikipedia. I would be happy to address the anonymous poster of the links to my website directly. Do you know if this individual is willing to engage in a honest dialog?

I recommend this person read the explanation of "gay-friendly" parishes and colleges on my web site - www.cclonline.org. Here it is: "The Catholic parishes, retreat centers and educational institutions shown are those we are aware of that are not actively homophobic, have compassionate and listening ministries, and welcome all to be one in the Spirit."

This has nothing to do with pedophile priests, "gay" pastors, or the "church sanctioned homosexual underground" this person seems so eager to prove. We are not and never have been in any formal or informal contact with anyone in the Archdiocese of Miami.

This individual is using information from my site in a way that is very dishonest and devious. In their attempt to prove their dubious points they seem quite willing to hurt many innocent people.

They are entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. The information in Wikipedia should be based on facts, not conjucture, or used to market political agendas and organizations.

AnnPavlosky

I don't believe it's canvassing to bring this up, as you mentioned something before, and I need a second person to sign off on it. I've reopened it: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong. I've also not been able to complete it as fully as I would like; any input would be appreciated. The Evil Spartan 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply

thank you for changing my username(:

They're awesome. Can I steal your idea? The Welcomer 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I had an account a while ago, but decided to make this one and do mostly welcomes. Not sure how it'll go yet. — The Welcomer • ( talk) • 03:35, August 1, 2007 ( UTC)

EDIT: I think a welcome-type bot is against policy – [1] — The Welcomer • ( talk) • 04:03, August 1, 2007 ( UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your great work flagging bots :) It's always great to approve a bot then see it flagged in less than an hour, rather than the old day or six. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Anytime. And I just noticed your barnstars page after leaving this, so feel free to remove and/or place there if you want. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Thanks for your message. :) I would definitely be interested in a nomination for adminship. :) But I have two questions for you.

First, may I ask what your reasoning is for nominating me, especially if you're choosing me over anyone else who's been involved in CVGProj?

Second, given that I recently had a major dispute with JAF1970 and that I feel I didn't handle it the best way possible, do you think this is a good time to go forward with a nomination?

I am interested in helping out as a WP administrator, and I believe I could be a fair and responsible admin. I'm not entirely sure how much time I'd be able to devote to it, though. Still, thank you for thinking of me. :) — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I have reverted your additions, as they caused large parserfunctions to show in the text. I'll fix the BRFA template, then redo. Sorry about that! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Ahh ok, thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh hey, since you're apparently familiar with template code, could you take a look at User:KieferSkunk/furvg and tell me how to fix the fact that parsercode is showing up in the output when I use {{ subst}} with this template? Is there a way to fix that? — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 16:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Turns out User:Patrick helped me out and showed me the correct code to add, as well as how to modify the template call. It's working perfectly now. :) Thanks for looking into it. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I see we were thinking the same thing! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Not as problematic as one article anywhere that size. I must unfortunatelty dash to work now, I'll be back online as soon as I can. (The workplace's having a very slow day.) I hope that I can remain polite and reasonable and that we can resolve this amiably. -- Kizor 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Remain or become. :P -- Kizor 05:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, what's up with the deletion of this template? It was used on several articles, and you seem to have deleted it without any discussion whatsoever. It's one thing to be bold and merge articles without discussion; if people disagree, they can revert and you can talk it out. Deleting a template used on several articles, though, should at least involve some discussion before you invoke IAR... as it is now, your merges have been reverted and you've left several articles with ugly red links where their templates used to be. Restore the template for now, please? -- Aquillion 05:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Aquillion 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm more than aware of the page you point out, and as one of the editors on the WP:WA project who knows all the parties concerned and know of the circumstances in which the claimed evidence may depending on how it is viewed may suggest otherwise. I think the key issue here is that no oversight has been conducted here by Mackessen by referring the issue to another Checkuser for their action, not withstanding that a checkuser case was not opened by him. This is not withstanding that the developing consensus on AN does not support the view. Additionally, the claim that Rebecca has made the allegation is simply a patent misrepresentation of what she has said ( diff). I would kindly appreciate you restoring the alledged portion of your comments on the RFC if only to show an assumption of good faith, particularly since the allegations at this stage are not proven, otherwise it runs the risk of being seen by outside observers as an attempt to stack the vote. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Andrew Thank you very much for taking the time to approve my username change request, but is there anything you can do to eliminate the original, now blanked user page here? The whole reason why I changed my username was to hide my edit content from others that found out I was the holder of that username. Now that the original user page redirects to my new Username, it partially defeats the purpose of my username change ;_; Is there anything you can do to help me with this issue? 0reteki 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much! You are much more friendly that some other admins I have met on wikipedia. (incivility removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0reteki ( talk • contribs) 05:19, August 3, 2007 (UTC)\

Are you kidding? Take your threats and shove em. Hexrei 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

So... that'll be AN/I, then, or should we wait for a bit to see if he either carries on as he has or cools down? -- Kizor 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Star Control? DIDN'T YOU MEAN TO ASK ME ABOUT FLOWERS?
Never mind. You are, of course, correct. I've been busy with my unaccustomed-to day job, a mother about to come home from Japan, and a fierce aversion reaction for doing what I'm supposed to be doing (which sucks) - but I'm just making excuses here. Although the prospect of having to out-talk a frickin' mediator doesn't excite me, I'll have to give this a higher priority. Tomorrow. Right now I will collapse after another message or two. -- Kizor 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Andre, for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. And thanks for taking my rather snippy post so well last week. Cheers, and keep up the good work. ElinorD (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for changing my username. And may I add that that was remarkably fast - only 3mins! Chris.B 20:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Are you an administrator who handles user name changes? If so, I have a question for you. Please let me know. Thanks. You can reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 22:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

Thanks for the prompt reply. Before I submit a User Name Change request, I want to know if what I am seeking is even possible under Wikipedia rules / policies / etc. My present user name is "JosephASpadaro" (all letters compressed with no spaces and no punctuation). Is it possible or not possible to change to "Joseph A. Spadaro" -- that is, with blank spaces and punctuation/period included ... If this is not possible, then I will not submit a request. If it is possible, I will consider doing so -- but have not made up my mind. My question at this point is simply, do the conventions of naming users on Wikipedia allow for "Joseph A. Spadaro" ...? Thanks. Please reply at my User Page. ( JosephASpadaro 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

OK - great - thanks. ( JosephASpadaro 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

That was fast. Thank you for your assistance. ( Joseph A. Spadaro 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

Hey, maybe we should just tag it as {{ guideline}} and see if anyone objects? -- Deskana (banana) 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your edits Hispanic Americans in World War II looks much better now thanks to you . Tony the Marine 22:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply