User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/005

Archive	Archives 001 • 002 • 003 • 004 • 005 • 006 • 007 • 008 • 009

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My E-mail.

Thanks, I've replied back. Acalamari 16:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination.

{{helpme}}! — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha! GDonato (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tor proxies and your RfA

If you want to give a good argument for why Tor proxies are good in general, go ahead. You may well convince some people. Personally, I didn't know much about them or think much of them one way or the other, before your RfA. I suspect the same is true of lots of people.

If you want to explain why you personally need them, or use them, that's great, that's what the question was about. But if you keep avoiding the question and instead try to turn this into an attack on Jayjg, you will turn a lot of people against you.

Think of how Acalamari nominated you. "CharlotteWebb is very civil, and she is also a very calm user, not one to get upset easily or anything like that." Keeping your cool is an important part of being an admin, which is why Acalamari emphasized it so much. You're not doing that.

Think of what you, yourself wrote: "Yes, but first, can explain why you have invaded my privacy twice, first by obtaining this information, and again by publicly revealing it?" That could have been phrased a lot better, but in any case, Jayjg has now explained. Your turn. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see, but as it turns out there is more to this story, see below. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Selective release of incidental checkuser discovery of Tor usage

Hello, I thought this was an interesting topic, so I entered a discussion here [1] Uncle uncle uncle 00:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Incidental" information is not anybody's business, and I do hope nobody takes seriously any suggestion to reveal it by default. Checkuser is not for fishing. If something is snagged by accident, please see catch and release. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On your RFA, I assumed that you would have no problem soft-blocking TOR nodes (thus enforcing policy). If I am wrong, please indicate that somewhere, and I shall strike my comments. Gracenotes^T § 18:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Life can be one compromise after another. If that is the best way to control the amount of abuse while still allowing good-faith users to edit, I would not object to it, so yes, you are correct. If there are other alternatives, they should also be considered. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A word of thanks

Another industrious checkuser has taken it upon himself to identify and block every IP address I have used in the last three months. I know this because I have read the block logs and noticed that several of the IPs blocked as part of this spree have (oh, shit!) nothing to do with the Tor network. For obvious reasons it would be foolish of me to say which is which, though I don't doubt everything about me will be revealed soon enough. It's so refreshing to know that my privacy is in such safe, competent hands!

This looks and smells like an unannounced de facto ban from the English Wikipedia (one having nothing to do with my behavior). Because of the heightened level of surveillance I'm under, any further edits I make from this account will only have a denial-of-service effect on myself and any other legitimate users of the Tor network. So, all I can say is I hope to meet you all again in the future when I feel safer.

If anybody's wondering, no, I'm not in China. I don't speak Chinese, though I do have some Asian-American ancestry. I've never set foot in China. I see no point in lying about this, but as far as I'm concerned, the thought that a potential stalker might embark on a wild goose chase through the PRC amuses me to no end.

I would like to thank everyone who voiced their support for me, especially those who did so even amid the fear, uncertainty, and doubt raised by the opposers.

I'd like to express specific gratitude to the supporters whom I admire the most for their tireless contributions to Wikipedia and their firmer grasp of our project's basic goals (to build a vast, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not to play politics in a virtual fish tank), those who less frequently bother to even participate in RFAs, those from whom I least expected to hear a vote of confidence, those who may be controversial in their own right, those willing to risk their own credibility in an effort to salvage mine, those whose sentiments most closely mirror my own:

• Everyking (awesome editor, I don't care what anybody says)
• Rory096 (I'll miss you, a lot)
• Carnildo (always looking at the big picture)
• BigDT (it means a lot coming from you too)
• rspeer (comparing me to Zoe, what? I wish I was that good!)

I don't have any hope that it will pass but I see no reason to close it early, considering the gravity of the underlying issues. Thank you and may God bless all. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on this. Could you say more about why you wer using Tor, and whether or not you were aware of the policy against using it? Thanks, William Pietri 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte, several of us are looking into this business of all of your IP addresses being blocked indiscriminately. Could you possibly let me know who blocked your IPs (use my e-mail if you wish to remain anonymous) and we'll get to the bottom of this - hopefully by unblocking the non-Tor IPs. -- ChrisO 22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[2] Notification of request for arbitration

I have initiated a request for arbitration here. Your input is appreciated. Kamryn Matika 19:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean the input she would already have given had she not just been BANNED BY A CHECKUSER? – Gurch 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up

I think the RfA has a chance of passing. And while I don't agree with anonymity by administrators, if it does pass you could work toward allowing anonymity in some circumstances. As far as explaining the use of proxies, I think the people who are demanding it don't understand that the explanation itself might be to revealing - you might say something to that effect. Anyway, good luck. Fourdee 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Don't give up"? Did you even READ what she wrote above? A checkuser has BANNED her from the project without discussion. She can't edit from home at all; I assume she found a public computer to make the above edit – Gurch 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Can you edit at all now? Voice-of-All 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking

I did some follow up on your statement above that someone went on a spree and blocked all of your IPs, even non-Tor ones. (Note - this required me to run a checkuser on you) Long story short - you are right that someone did indeed go on a spree. I think, though, given the sheer number of IPs you've used (over 400) the non-TOR ones were accidental. If you email me a list of Non-TOR Ips you've used (go to my userpage and click email-this-user), I'll see to it that they are unblocked (and if you don't want me to do it myself, I can privately ask another admin to do it quietly). Raul654 19:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already chosen to create a new username, after wasting a year of my life on this one. Of course I do realize that anyone with unrestricted use of checkuser will be able to find me if they fish long and hard enough for it. I'll just have to deal with it when the time comes. — CharlotteWebb 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't ban Gurch. — CharlotteWebb 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course when they block your new account, they'll have to defend themselves for doing inappropriate checkusers and fishing for someone's new account, when they've openly said they'll be using it. :) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, maybe some b'crat will go crazy, say the WP:NOP is a bad policy, take all the oppose votes concerning open proxies out of how they'll decide everything, the vote will be 80/0/0, and they'll promote you :). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to voting a year from now in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WilburThePig. Let's hope we've all learned something by then. YechielMan 08:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to but in there, and I don't want to interrupt, but the above comment had me in stitches. Good one YechielMan. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 19:44, 21 June 2007 UTC)

I also quite agree with YechielMan - I hope we can all learn something from this. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 19:47, 21 June 2007 UTC)

Charlotte, pardon me for asking, but why aren't you defending your proxy usage? It would appear that you could overcome the hurdle of the TOR issue if you just explained your issue, either to the RfA group or someone higher up (so they can let folk know if your reasoning was sound)? I think that the fact that you have not stood up for yourself is allowing an impression to grow that your lack of response suggests a guilt that may be unfair to apply. And now, you are suggesting that you are simply going to abandon this ID in favor of another attempt in a year or so for another spot at admin. I don't know you, but that says to me that either your reasons are compelling enough to let someone higher up the food chain know what they are (so they can help you), or you are indeed guilty of the sorts of things that others who use TOR are wont to do. It looks like you are running away, and that's why people currently are opposing your RfA for the most part (most of the rest being concerned overyour flagrant violation of the rule in the first place).

I would really like to understand, Charlotte. Help me to understand. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

R--can you explain how the checkusering of CharlotteWeb was not inappropriate?

According to meta:

"The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)."

If Jayig noticed a problem a while ago, he should have raised it then. Instead, he noticed and did nothing until the Rfa--call that applying pressue, call that political control, call it what you want, but Jayig either did think that damage was being done and failed to act, or he didn't think that damage was being done and abused the checkuser tool.

In addition, he released the information publically. Why and how is this ok? Miss Mondegreen talk  08:39, June 21 2007 (UTC)

After all the abuse you've suffered, why create a new account and suffer more? Why not just leave Wikipedia for good? --59.189.58.87 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words above. If your mind isn't made up and you'd like some advice from someone who has also been targeted, mine is that you take Raul's offer and keep this account. There's no sense in starting over, especially when you would not necessarily be exempt from being targeted under the new account. Your RfA did reasonably well and you have a strong chance of passing a new one in a few months, particularly if you give up proxy usage or offer a good explanation for it (perhaps you've done that already and I didn't notice it). Everyking 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

{{further}}

Hey, I've renominated the template for deletion. Let's push this template thru to deletion, and get as many of your like minded friends to vote.[3]199.126.28.20 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about your failed RFA. Good luck! Politics rule 04:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 27	2 July 2007	About the Signpost

IP unwittingly predicts murder of wrestler: "Awful coincidence"	Board election series: Elections open
German chapter relaunches website, arranges government support	WikiWorld comic: "Cashew"
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Can you please explain why you keep removing Quadell's statement? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "vicious personal attack" not a good enough reason for you? If I made similar unfounded accusations about you or anybody else, would I not be blocked for it, regardless of whether I believe half the things I say? Perhaps your friend Quadell was shooting from the hip and hoping that somebody would corroborate his over-the-top rhetoric with actual evidence, but unsurprisingly there was no such result. Maybe he was just trying to impress you at my expense and didn't care about the result, I really don't know or care either. But whatever his motives are, if he still wants to express these views he can request a review of the arbcom decision (which did identify me as a "user in good standing" but failed to accomplish shit else, unless hollow reminders actually count). Failing that he could try expressing his a funny userbox or writing his blog about it elsewhere. Now, can you explain why you keep putting it back? — CharlotteWebb 08:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi there; I noticed that your comment stated "I'm not even comfortable with the user being an Admin. yet". Could you elaborate? I'm always looking to improve, and I'm interested in what made you say that.

Cheers,
Anthøny 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

? ~ Anthøny 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Was this a mistake? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I clicked "save" and then I got the "make a donation" screen, then I clicked "back" and then clicked "save" again because I thought the edit had failed. Apparently I had clicked "edit" before those other comments were made. I think the edit conflict was properly avoided on the first attempt but not on the second one. — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, I thought there must have been something - god damn wikimedia software! Well, good to see you back. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm, I know better. Bless you. — CharlotteWebb 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:-O I was being serious! I hope you decide to stay - we've had our little problems in the past, but I hope we can move on from them now - you do some great work and wikipedia has missed you I'll stop sucking up now! Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one to you. :) Acalamari 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 31	30 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Another experiment and Wikimania
Report on Citizendium	Response: News from Citizendium
User resigns admin status amid allegations of sock puppetry	WikiWorld comic: "Mr. Bean"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 32	6 August 2007	About the Signpost

Committee makes statement on U.S. chapter	About: The Wikipedia Plays
Review: The Wikipedia Plays	WikiWorld comic: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Similpedia, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi there; I noticed that your comment stated "I'm not even comfortable with the user being an Admin. yet". Could you elaborate? I'm always looking to improve, and I'm interested in what made you say that.

Cheers,
Anthøny 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

? ~ Anthøny 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored this, as I assume that you've not noticed it. However, I'm really interested in your point of view, if you have one. Anthøny 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 33	13 August 2007	About the Signpost

CC 3.0 licenses accepted on Commons	Reviewing five software requests
WikiWorld comic: "2000s"	News and notes: Meetup, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 34	20 August 2007	About the Signpost

Bad Jokes, Deletion Nonsense, and an arbitration case	WikiScanner tool creates "minor public relations disasters" for scores of organizations
WikiWorld comic: "Tomcat and Bobcat"	News and notes: Wikimania '08, 200 x 100, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

hi

Were you the same CharlotteWebb that talked to me on irc today? Osias 18:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am she. I thought you said you were going to e-mail me... — CharlotteWebb 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I will. Osias 21:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're back?

That's awesome! Or is it just to leave one comment? Melsaran (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! Is it too much to ask ... umm ... how? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't

Actually, I don't know what you're talking about but it is good to see you back. Does this mean we will be seeing you around again? JoshuaZ 17:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll remember it, after the election ends and everybody reverts to a clearer state of mind. You'll probably figure out the answer to the other question as well. Otherwise I'll have to resort to e-mail. — CharlotteWebb 17:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Back?

Nice to see you back again, even if only for a little while. Acalamari 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Westroads Mall shooting

Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page. There are good reasons for the killer's info box, and you simply wiped it out without discussion. Rklawton (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

welcome back

Hello Charlotte, welcome back! I saw your name pop up on Elonka's RfA (I have it watchlisted but I haven't decided if I will participate). I hope you're well. --Kyoko 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back indeed :) - Alison ^❤ 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wibbles Charlotte! Kwsn (Ni!) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall of Mercury

You are requesting this recall. He's decided to use User:Mercury/Recall as the page for processing the request. I know you made your request for recall on his talk page before this opened up. Could you be so kind as to add there (either by diff to the original request or a current description) your reasons for requesting recall? Thanks. GRBerry 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also note this RFC, which is where Mercury has chosen to continue the recall process. Ral315 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, and your thoughtful questions. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. For now though, especially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions, I am going to take it slowly -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good New Year, --Elonka 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:CatDiffuse

I reverted this, use talk pages. Regards, Mercury at 10:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This one will do nicely. Please explain how Template:CatDiffuse is not a category maintenance template (?). — CharlotteWebb 17:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to re add the cat, but please do not add hidden conversational commentary to wiki code as for the addition of O RLY?. Thats what talkpages are for, regards, Mercury at 23:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not in the mood for your condescension. Go play with someone else. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello CharlotteWebb, I've granted your account rollback rights, as I trust you completely for using it to revert vandalism only. You may want to read Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you don't want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Fixed Grammar

I just noticed it, and thought that what I changed it to was what you intended, so you are most welcome. Dreamy ^§ 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Just to let you know, I've answered your questions in my RfA. Cheers, LAX 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment below your neutral vote on this RfA (in case you are not watchlisting it and care to comment). Cheers, Keeper | 76 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WHAT DID YOU DO THAT FOR?

Please don't do it again, OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.12.146 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Don't say it about Jindal

OK...It's true, but how do I cite an on-air mention? This is a brand-new story going around DC, and I think it's interesting and worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.29.176.65 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You could wait for the transcript to be archived on Limbaugh's site (which might be as soon as 24 hours by the looks of things... shrug), or for a published news article which supports your description of what was said on the show. Until then it will be almost indistinguishable from hearsay. — CharlotteWebb 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA Vote (Seresin)

Hi Charlotte, this was posted right after you edited the Seresin RfA. Just in case you missed it, not sure it will change your view at all. Avruchtalk 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ABCCL deletion

Cases stay on RFAR for 7 days if they are not accepted. While this was about ready for archiving, you just removed it without archiving. The arb clerks normally handle removing and archiving. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)