My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence01:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps the way forward might be to change the paragraph to read A likely reason for Baldwin asking Churchill to the meeting along with the leaders of the two opposition parties was that at the time Churchill was seen as an alternative political leader. As Lord Beaverbrook wrote "he has emerged as a leader of a big armaments anti-German movement in politics, hostile to the Government".[1]. I think that is probably the reason but I have no source for it Backnumber1662 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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) 04:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thank you very much, DarkFalls, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIEStalk16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.
I'm not sure why you told me to go to ANI, the first thing I saw was a notice board telling me to report vandalism at the page that I reported it on. I'll explain the issue to you, perhaps you can help.
Ned Scott is taking ownership of templates that he created on the grounds that he has every right to make each template a unique color and size. Personally, when viewed on the pages these templates are featured on it detracts from the article, and in some cases is a technical issue of being difficult to read due to poor color choice and cause the template to look bad on lower screen resolutions. This is not the reason I posted his username on Admin intervention, the reason is how uncivil he has been towards me and how poorly he has been going about "fixing" the problems that he sees.
He has been using the undo function on about 30 separate templates reverting back to, in many cases, his last personal edit of that template. The problem with this is that in addition to removing the unsightly styling he also removed code tidying that I performed and worse other user edits that include things like adding and updating links, so on and so forth. I have brought this to his attention I believe three times now, but he continue to, by the definition of the word, knowingly vandalize these pages destroying positive and useful edits made by multiple users.
I invited him to discuss the styling issue he had with other members of video game project and me and kick started the discussion. Responses have mostly been that other felt the same way as me about personal styling on what's suppose to be a standardized way of navigating between pages of a related article. In that same discussion another admin warned Ned about using undo, and Ned's response was that he'd stop. He has not stopped. The most recent act of vandalism marks the fourth time he's done blind mass-undos and despite being told in plain english, continuing to ignore changes made by other users. In a few cases other users were turning his edits around in protest, and he goes and revert their changes as well.
Ned has been wholly uncooperative with me about this, I have attempted to communicate and failed, I have brought him into discussion and failed, I have given his very merciful warnings and failed. Unless someone intervenes and puts a stop to it he will continue to disregard his infractions and fellow Wikipedians. He even pulled his own warning off the intervention page, tell me yes or no if that was acceptable behavior.
It is far beyond a simple disagreement and I regret not putting it on the dispute page earlier, but this immaturity is destructive to this project and needs to stop. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few things wrong in this post. For one, never have I claimed that I created these templates.. I'm not sure why Aeron thinks so. Second, only originally did I completely undo his edits, since I saw his other modifications as minor technical changes. Since then I've made sure that those edits were saved, and made independent edits to add back in custom options that the templates originally had. He's completely wrong about me restoring to a completely older version, even though I've specifically pointed this out to him more than once.
You can see my original comments to him regarding this issue: [2], [3], [4]. If you could please talk some sense into Aeron I would be greatly indebted to you. -- Ned Scott07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Scott's actions may be destructive, it may be ignoring consensus but it is definitely not vandalism. Vandalism is editing the encyclopedia in a deliberate attempt to destroy it, and Ned is not doing that. This is clearly a dispute, so please do not start reverting each other without gaining the consensus of the community. I sugegst you follow the dispute resolution process to settle this matter. — DarkFallstalk08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
!תודה
Thanks for the revert on my userspace! :) Don't these vandals have better things to do than call everyone and everything "gay" or "homo"? That's all I see on vandal patrol: "gay" this, "homo" that. But this is off topic, isn't it? ;-) Tuvok[T@lk/Improve]08:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008
The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I'm just curious why you only blocked this user for 31 hours... Consistent vandalism, zero helpful edits, a direct attack on the user reverting the vandalism (me)... Seems pretty obvious it's a vandalism-only account. --GoodDamon06:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems like a standard username block. It looks like they picked their username by slamming their forehead into the keyboard. Wouldn't an indefinate block for a username violation, coupled with a {{uw-ublock}} template be most appropriate? --Jayron32.talk.contribs06:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true, and I don't see anything here indicating that the new account will stop the vandalism. Good point. But keep an eye out; in two weeks they may be back to vandalise again... Good day anyways. Later. --Jayron32.talk.contribs07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
One of my favorite pictures
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot(talk)18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures.
Can you please not keep tabs on all of the pictures I upload and delete them? They were all under the right licences.
Let me elaborate. If someone post an image from a magazine on flickr and licenses it under a free license, it does not mean it's free. Please refrain from uploading these images, especially ones by "bellydancenavelacade my_group". If you continue to upload copyright violations, whether on Commons or here, you will be blocked. — Dark(talk)05:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr account is not mine intentionally. It is my mothers. But, I will take up your advice and delete the "illegal" images you mentioned, thanks.
No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous.
Thanks Pedro : Chat for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real...
On the Kentwood High School page, you modified the motto to be 'It's great to be alive', erasing the 'It's great to be a Conk'. Can you confirm that the second part of the motto was removed, since that was how it was when I was a student there (1993)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparticus1701 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't really have much of an idea at the time. I always thought conk was slang for "nose", and might have been used as an insult/vandalism. Clearly, looking at the school website, I was wrong. Thanks for the notice. —Dark(talk)05:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
