User talk:Deathphoenix/Archive5

This is an archive of previous discussions. If you wish to leave me a message, you can do so on my main talk page.

Harry's classmate's job

Nice to see someone is checking, easy to make mistakes with this lot. However, this one seems correct. Towards the bottom of the interview,

Anyway, it’s very exciting. We just love Harry Potter. We’re curious ---- well first of all we can’t wait for Books 4, 5, 6 and 7. But after that, we’re curious as to whether Harry is going to have a life after Hogwarts, or if maybe, Harry might be a Hogwarts teacher. JKR: Well, because all your kids said ‘hello’ so nicely in the background there, I am going to give you information I haven’t given anyone else and I will tell you that one of the characters, one of Harry’s classmates, though it’s not Harry himself, does end up a teacher at Hogwarts. But, it is not, maybe the one you think, hint, hint, hint. Yeah, one of them does end up staying at Hogwarts, but

So I take it that means it's not Hermione, but that would be speculation. Sandpiper 14:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the AfD on the Prior Speculation of HBP

Regarding this AfD, I'd like to know why you closed the debate with the result 'Not delete'. There were more votes for 'Delete', than there were for 'Keep'; also, the reason given for 'Delete' were more significant than the ones given for 'Keep'. As for 'Merge', the users weren't clear as to whether they wanted the article to remain, and have a redirect to the HBP article, or if they wanted the article to be deleted after some important points had been merged. Could you please clarify? Thanks. --Bluerain 10:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you can reply on this page if you want. I have it watchlisted. --Bluerain 10:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't counting 'Merge' as a 'Not-delete' vote; my thinking was that a Merge vote would count as neutral, and in that case, whether the article is to be kept as a redirect, or deleted outright after a few relevant points are merged, would have to be discussed outside of the AfD. Either case, isn't a merged article deleted in the end anyway? Also, the reasons given for keeping the article were really dumb IMO, and so I thought that would also count, seeing as its not just a vote-counting process. Anyway, this article has to go; can I propose it for deletion again? --Bluerain 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to 'discount' the Keep votes altogether. What I meant was that if there was a 50-50, say, (and I was counting the Keep and Merge votes as separate, giving 'Delete' a slightly higher number), then you could have gone with the Delete side, cuz the strength of the arguments was better imo. Anywyay, I can't claim to understand the 'procedure' completely, and I'm still unclear on how articles are to be 'merged' (under the GFDL), so it makes no sense for me to ask for a Deletion review. Though can you tell me how long you usually wait before renominating an AfD? Or maybe you can do this article, if you want to. --Bluerain 13:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This reply's kinda late, but anyway thanx..I'll ask you for doubts when I have some. One that I have right now though - what does a 'merge' vote account to? Is it about merging the entire article, or about some specific content? Also, why don't you nominate that Prior Speculation article for deletion? --Bluerain 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI....

When you threw a block on User:142.22.186.13 you also ended up throwing up the shared proxy block on me, I lifted it so I could do a little housekeeping, I hope thats ok w/ you -- Tawker 16:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I was likely at another location when I blocked, it was a tad weird that I ended up wheel warring with myself :o -- Tawker 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jesus On Wheels

His name wasn't block because I think he is Willy on wheels or a vandal, but because It is an inappropriate username per Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames. User:Durin also queried this and I invited him to unblock if he felt that strongly about it, he declined. But I'm quite happy to extend the offer to you, you won't be getting in a war over it. --pgk^(talk) 17:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it'll blow up in your face because he'll do anything wrong, just as I said the name is inappropriate and should be changed. He's more than welcome to edit under a differnt name. --pgk^(talk) 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EWS23's RfA

Hi Deathphoenix! Thank you very much for your support of my request for adminship. It's been good working with you on the Harry Potter WikiProject, and I'm sure there's still plenty of stuff we can do to make it better. Thanks again, and feel free to leave me a message if you ever see something I could be doing better. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/Old

Hi Deathphoenix, thanks for sorting that out for me. I completely forgot about removing the link; I'd forget my own head sometimes :). Rje 19:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double voting

Hi Deathphoenix,

On my talk page, it has been suggested that there's nothing wrong with saying "Keep" more than once. Is that correct? Andjam 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please remove entries from WP:AIV

Hey, thanks for the note! I've been doing what I've seen other admins do: leave a report up temporarily so I or another admin can check back in a few minutes to see if there are any changes. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to spamlink

Ahh, just making sure. Guess I should take a bit more of a look at that kind of stuff. Thanks.Tuvas 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoneTuvas 06:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older version of WP:AIV

Hi Deathphoenix! Just wanted to remind you to make sure you're looking at the newest edit of WP:AIV, or stuff like this can happen [1]. Just thought I'd point it out, no problems. Thanks! E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment.

Took the test, scored neutral. Sandpiper 09:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an eternal fence sitter, always was. Sandpiper

You get used to it Sandpiper

Luna Lovegood Image

Hi again. I found a better image that is actually the chapter picture of chapter 16 in the Order of the Pheonix. You can see it at www.mugglenet.com/.../ chapterpictures-ootp.shtml. The website said that it already got copyright for the pictures, you just have to mention under the website that u got the picture from mugglenet.com. I really don't know how to put the image in the page, so you can do whatever u want with pic. Bye Spottedleaf 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi My computer went funky with the URL so you can try manually typing it in and see if it works. Tell me how it goes.

Request To Review Comment

Deathphoenix, I have added some new information on the DRV discussion for Superhorse. Would you please take a look at it and comment? Thanks! User = meanax

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg

Hello Deathphoenix. Thank you for your strong support and gracious comment at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. Of course, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joey Garcia

Thanks for letting me know. I just spoke to the real Joey Garcia and he told me he wasn't that user and my brother would never call me a vandal. Mike Garcia 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Wilson

I just wanted to say that I think Chloe desrves a page. WWE has got its own page for Chloe. She is actually considered a RAW Superstar. http://www.wwe.com/superstars/raw/chloe/profile/. She is on TV every week and they make a big fuss of her, so wrestling fans do know who she is! On WWE.com she isn't on Torrie Wilson's page, she has her own. Why can't it be the same on Wikipedia. I have been looking for information on Chloe and was going to put it on... now I can't and all my work was for nothing. It won't do any harm Can't you reconsider? Please reply thanks Murph murph 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure maybe I will add the info to her section on Torrie's page. Can I just ask where this discussion went on? It all happened so fast, I would have thought it would have taken longer to get more opinions. Ok well thanks for replying, Murph murph 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for that, although this might sound dumb but what is a smark lol! Murph murph 22:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's interesting, I'd say I'm a snark too lol. Thanks for your help! Murph murph 00:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far Eastern Games Afd

Hello. When searching for orphaned afd's, I noticed you closed the group Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1913 Far Eastern Games as a keep, but only the main article had its afd tag removed and the {{Oldafdfull}} note added on the talk page. I've gone through the other nine and complete the closing (all pointing to the same discussion page), so it should be all done now. Regards, MartinRe 09:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I wouldn't call it a screwup though, just a slight oversight :) Regards, MartinRe 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV Vigilance

Just a thanks for your AIV vigilance. Best, Kukini 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All in a day's work! Kukini 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorox3

I *am* tagging the article, but Motorox3 keeps removing the tags (including the afd tag -- which goes to the already-closed AFD discussion), which I believe is itself vandalism. What can I do here? NawlinWiki 15:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile.

'''*Daniel*''' has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hello, Deathphoenix. I want to smile at you. I remember you so much from HP Wikiproject. '''*Daniel*''' 06:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Deathphoenix/Archive5, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message.

Thanks you for send me message. Much appreciated. I got your message on Tuesday. Ahh, Deathphoenix, you want to know my e-mail adress. I'am so surprised that you have some something to tell me. So, What do you want to tell me about? '''*Daniel*''' 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kukini's RfA

Hello, Deathphoenix/Archive5, and thank you for voting on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! Kukini 05:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Feist articles

Hello,

While searching around the "What links here" list attached to the Raymond E. Feist article looking for other Wikipedias who may be fans, I found you. Currently I am working on expanding the related articles of the Riftwar books, but there is a lot of ground to cover with 20 books to look through. I am hoping to gather other editors who may be willing to spend a little time to help out. There are articles which need expanding and clean-up, and I don't think I can do it alone.

The current articles are (red links to be started): The series articles:

An old AfD

You commented in the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopping encylopedia. I have started an AfD of a related article at wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shopperpedia. Your comments there would be appreciated. Graham talk 10:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for making it possible for my RfB to pass ;). It's a joke, of course. I would have loved to have gotten your support, DP, and I thank you for your congrats message :). Btw, I've been meaning to ask you this: since you last altered your sig, the link to your talk page appears in my computer as an empty square. I know that there should be something there, so I thought I'd let you know that some (myself included) may not be seeing it. Thanks again, Redux 15:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deathphoenix!

Dear Deathphoenix, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it, and I promise not to wear my Sens jersey down Yonge Street anymore (you should hear the comments I get!) Interestingly, I got a police escort to the hospital yesterday to do an emergency procedure (I'm in Thunder Bay filling in some physician shortages). Coolest thing ever. Take care -- Samir धर्म 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter templates

Any objection to merging Template:HP character, Template:HP Character Foreign, and Template:HP Elf Character? Not all attributes are applicable to every character, e.g. house, school, and voice actor, but they needn't show if they're not defined. The biggest differences are that they are formatted as class="infobox", id="toc", and class="toccolours", respectively. The only effect seems to be that the columns in Character Foreign are centered rather than left-justified.
—wwoods 09:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#REDIRECT 23rd century

Sorry, typing it too many times :)

Yes, I am redirecting the lot, I'll meet you in the middle. Not merging, as any important (ie, not about Star Trek or Halo) info is already in the century's article. Proto||type 14:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, done. Note I haven't bothered putting an 'old AFD' notice on the redirected pages; I don't think it's necessary. Proto||type 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to rollback myself on 2525 though ... got carried away :) Proto||type 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we agreed :)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Violent_crime_and_suicide_at_Ivy_League_universities

Who's closure should stay- I got there first on the AFD page, you got there first on the delete button? Free to remove either of our closures as you feel is more appropriate, but shouldn't have both there... Petros471 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, scratch that, I was slower on both counts... Petros471 15:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:D Well if anyone does dispute it, at least we can share the blame! Petros471 15:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Btw, is there any easier way of finding the ones that aren't closed, other than scrolling slowly? Petros471 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, and you're not the first one to ask, believe me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like {{oldafdfull}} needs streamlining as well... Anyway you're quicker than me! Petros471 16:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

true torah Jews

Hi, it’s me Bloger from the “true torah Jews”.

Still remember me? I told you I‘d present some material from the official satmar newspaper about the organization and thus proof its authenticity. Well it took longer then I anticipated and it was harder as well, nevertheless, I got something already.

It’s an article that was printed in the satmar - Zalman Teitelbaum faction - newspaper Der Yid at the time of the Israeli election’s when the group TTJ under its Yiddish and Hebrew name “Natrina”(I’m awaiting) published a pamphlet with the teachings of the satmar (rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of blessed memory) against participating in the election’s.

I have the original article in a “Tif” format written in Yiddish and I also went thru the hardship of having it translated in English so that the Non-Yiddish reading editors should be able to take part.

Bloger 03:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll want you to present it given you probably have more experience.

I can e-mail the stuff to you.

Bloger 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you put it is not a difference as long as it’s assessable to the editors.

However, I do have a problem because I realized that I have never authenticated my e-mail and cannot send e-mail as a result. Any solution?

Bloger 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded it

Bloger 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi what do you understand till now, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability?

Bloger 20:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that, the question is did i advance on verifiability?

Bloger 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered a high Alexa Rank? BTW, I tremendously appreciate your help!!!

Bloger 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you see my question? In addition, how do you check google hits? And how about google ranking is that something to take into account?

Bloger 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TTJ has a rank of 5 is that saying something?

Bloger 18:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but only yesterday did I make my main push I hope the editors read it.

BTW how do I make sure that the editors who have already given there opinion reread what I wrote?

In addition, the latest editor recommends deletion while he obviously didn’t read the entire subject, given that he clams that there is no now stuff to overturn the deletion, while I did post a new article. The most he can say is that it’s not enough in his opinion, but to say that there is nothing new shows he didn’t really honestly review the subject how can I avoid this?

Bloger 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They took the entire thing out after 5 days I didn’t even have time to ask Geogre to look at my defense (and almost all the endorse deletion votes were based on him) do I have a right to cry?

No really, don’t you get 7 days?

Bloger 23:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Objective validity of astrology article

I was surprised to see such a brief justification for your decision to delete the Objective validity of astrology article ("What it boils down to is that the arguments for deletion (most of which are valid policy-type of arguments) definitely outweigh the arguments for keep"). I would like to see a bit of elaboration on why 14 months of effort by dozens of editors had to be wasted by a single keystroke. Please post your reply on the Talk:Astrology page. Aquirata 10:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did right, the whole page was a pain, Wikipedia is better for the deletion even though I voted keep. Doovinator 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh No (rapper)

Apart from the creator's 'Keep' there is only one other Keep vote. It seems that there is a clear weight of argument in favour of 'delete'. I wonder if you would be good enough to revisit the assessment, please? BlueValour 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...

I jumped the gun on Matthew Krissel, I userfyied it. My apologies, can this be corrected? Yanksox ^(talk) 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that, I felt really sick in the stomach when I saw that. So, sorry. Yanksox ^(talk) 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've erased 4 months of experience in one edit, though. Thanks, Yanksox ^(talk) 01:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason I did that was because I thought I was reading a request to userfying. Meh, thanks for keeping an eye on my mess ups. Yanksox ^(talk) 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Deletion Review of Sick Nick Mondo

Good evening. I think there was some confusion on the timing of the deletion discussion and article creation(s) in this case. Could I ask you to return to the discussion, review the new evidence and see if this changes your conclusion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal dining

Whether this article should be kept or merged is a debate that can be done outside of AfD. Buh? There were 10 Deletes, 4 Merges, and 5 Keeps -- and of those Keeps, only one was by someone other than the article creator or obvious sockpuppet/IP. This isn't even close to "No consensus". --Calton | Talk 05:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just found the result baffling, is all. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on Enemy at the Gates

I wanted to revert the edits of the ip 70.48.13.64 but my internet keeps crashing so the page can never complete, so please revert his edits because he deleted so much (200.11.136.219 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re: UCIP on Deletion review

Hi Deathphoenix, just dropping by to thank you for the notification. Cheers, Sango 123 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinston Indians Players

Just to clarify the AfD title, there was never an AfD for Kinston Indians. There was an AfD for several individual pages on players from that team. The editor who nominated them labeled the AfD article page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians, but the team page was never nominated. Fan1967 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished AfD?

Hey Tigershark, I noticed you deleted "Learncasting" per this AfD, but you didn't close it or delete the other nominated article, "Podagogy". Maybe you were interrupted? Anyways, I closed the AfD and deleted "Podagogy". --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda think that's right... the comments in the learncasting afd did state 'delete both' or 'delete per nom'. I'm not sure that it needed extending for podagogy, so it's being deleted is the right thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Proto (talk • contribs) .

Hi Guys. Yeah, a bit of a mistake with not closing the Learncasting debate - I definitely started doing it, but must just have previewed it, got distracted and then not saved it. This was probably because I was creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podagogy at the same time, which I did because I wasn't 100% sure that all of the original editors had commented on both articles. That is also why I didn't delete the Podagogy article. I was probably erring too much on the side of caution, and I have no concerns about the fact that it has been deleted. Deathphoenix - As you deleted Podagogy, would you mind if I left the closing of the Podagogy AfD to you (just for consistency)? Cheers TigerShark 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good

thankyou funky monkey doesnt know anything

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.210.97 (talk • contribs) .

Lol

Honestly, I don't look at the block log when its a vandal only account, I just hit block. With vandalbots and the likes around its just a lot easier and quicker :) -- Tawker 17:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple punch

That was cool!--Dakota ~ 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple+1 [2]and they didn't even spell it right.--Dakota ~ 17:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah! :)--Dakota ~ 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.212.210.97

The reason I made the incorrect revert is that he has vandalised 3 times in as many minutes prior to the last edit he made. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work...

Don't worry, it'll be backlogged again in about... 17 seconds or so. Er... enjoy the sofa till then though! --W.marsh 20:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing to do some more, got distracted by an email and a couple of orange bars then came back to AFD to see they were all done! Good work! Petros471 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay on deletion review

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented. Cheers TigerShark 08:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that. It is a good job that somebody is taking the trouble to do it! Cheers TigerShark

Please advise regarding Zero

I posted the same message several days ago on AV and AN/i, nothing was done. I got blocked because I corrected it. The RFC I filed on the subject got deleted, I restore it, again this character deletes. What do you suggest I do. Again I posted on AV and AN/I.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, several days ago nobody intervened, if nobody does something against vandalizing a RFC, how can such a RFC that states the wronmg things be fair? Is altering a RFC not vandalism?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is going on here [3], as well as AN/I AN/A and any other place this user attempts to post so I cannot defend myself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please don't bring your dispute over to my talk page. I am only marginally looking at your conversations, and I might make sure neither of you delete the sections containing your disputes, but that's it. I won't be taking any action in support of, or against, any of you two. Please just continue your dispute in WP:AN, WP:ANI, and wherever else you are carrying out your dispute, but please don't continue it in my talk page. Thanks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Zer0faults uses the same tactics of spreading his debate to other users' talk pages I note your comment at the arbitration case. Añoranza 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for giving a temp block to that IP vandal. Sorry my link on the report was wrong, somebody had removed the invisible instructions from the help section. I have now replaced them. Thanks, Abcdefghijklm 17:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding New Jersey cemetery deletions

The issue is closed, however I wanted to point out to you that several of my Revolutionary War ancestors are buried in a couple of those cemeteries, and it took me years to nail down exactly which ones, as that info was critical to my Sons of the American Revolution applications. There are individual geneologists who have been gathering the names from headstones which I would have contacted and encouraged to add their lists of names to these articles. (I was not aware of these articles until I saw them on AfD, and as there is no central clearing house for such info, these lists would have been a great tool to others attempting to document their SAR and DAR applications.) But as I said, the point is now moot, unfortunately.Crockspot 15:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please re:controversial afd closure

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadrunner records message boards as delete, and not too surprisingly this has caused a fuss with the board members on Talk:Roadrunner Records Message Board whom obviously don't like the result (I clearly, and in my opinion rightly, gave less weight to their arguments, especially as they were not quoting any relevant policy). First off do you think this was the correct closure (you have far more experience in AFD than I do), second what do you think the best thing is to do next (whatever way you answer first question)? Cheers, Petros471 12:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petros471. First of all, thanks for your vote of confidence. :-) Now, on a strict vote count, I see seven deletes from Wikipedians in good standing. I count 11 keeps, all from very new users who have very few (or no) edits beyond those related to the article in qustion. I only see one non-delete vote that's valid, and that's for a merge, by Jumbo Snails, who is fairly new, but who I don't consider to be a "bad faith" voter. So, if you count those who are Wikipedians in good standing, I count seven deletes and one merge & redirect. Seems a pretty cut-and-dried case of a Delete, discounting invalid votes from new users and sockpuppets. Now, I suggest that you tell these guys about WP:DRV if they still dispute your vote closure, but honestly, this was a very obvious case of sockpuppetry. AfD is not about counting votes as they appear, and perhaps these guys need to be informed of that, and if they still want to bring up a DRV, they are welcome to, but I'm sure the deletion review will end with an endorsement of your AfD closure. Keep up the good work, and take a look here (the second Law). --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've already pointed them to deletion review, no takers so far. I later gave a fuller explanation of the closure (one IP at least did seem to think it was more than just a vote, but then that IP decided to vandalise my userpage...) on Talk:Roadrunner Records Message Board. Oh, and 1 in 10? Surely it's more like 1 in 2? Petros471 08:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha... some days I get no complaints, some days it feels like I get complaints for half of my closures. I think 1 in 10's a good average. :-) Oh, BTW, I'm going to wait a short period of time, but Talk:Roadrunner Records Message Board should be speedy-deleted as a talk page for a non-existent article (with its capitalisation) or deleted article (if you ignore its capitalisation). I'll encourage those folks to move their conversation to Talk:Road Runner Records. --Deathphoenix ʕ 10:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be nice when I get one of those 'no complaints' days! The comforting thing is thought that complains have been pretty evenly split between 'you should have deleted' and 'you should have kept' so I think I'm doing a reasonable job of not being an extreme deletionst or inclusionist ;) Petros471 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be Bold, etc. redirects

Hi, Because you were among the majority who favored the implementation of the redirects, you might wish to examine and comment on the actions today, as my closure has been de facto mass reverted by several admins (without real explanation of any kind), possibly cooperating by means of IRC. I am dedicated, but not insane, and will only go so far in trying to hold the line against those who have less respect for consensus. I think I'll probably be wiki-breaking soon -- such rashness is disheartening. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Without real explanation of any kind"? That's disingenuous and you know it. I gave you plenty of explanation on my talk page and there's even more explanation on ANI. Just because you disagree with policy and disagree with it doesn't mean that no explanations were given. --Cyde↔Weys 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyde, You reverted first and talked later, didn't you? That motivated my message, and my frustration. I do appreciate that you're talking now, but I stand by my characterization of prior events. Xoloz 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that

I feel a little like I stepped into the twilight zone, actually. I have no stock in the redirects one way or the other - it is simply depressing to have my energy drained by these folks. One must wonder, instead of preaching the sanctity of policy (as if they had a monopoly over it), why they just didn't file an RfC on the question? Sigh. Oh well -- I'm not about to loose composure, don't worry! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros471 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Petros471 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review an deletion made contrary to consensus

Please review the deletion of Names of European cities in different languages, and the related articles Names of Asian cities in different languages and Names of African cities in different languages. These were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of European cities in different languages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Asian cities in different languages, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of African cities in different languages.

The vote was: Keep: Future Perfect at Sunrise Interlingua Trialsanderrors Atillios Carlossuarez46 (me) Kierant Adam78 Khoikhoi Goldom Pasquale Eivind F Øyangen Fastifex Aguerriero Slowmover Lambiam Irpen Olessi Travelbird Nightstallion Agathoclea Folks at 137 Lethe Qviri Riadlem Peteris Cedrins Reimelt Nick C

Delete: Motor Theoldanarchist Mangojuice Dawson Isotope23 WicketheWok Centrx Angus McLellan Masterhatch Tychocat

That is: 27-10 to keep. While I know that it’s not a strict vote-counting exercise, the usual rule of thumb is not to delete unless there is a strong consensus expressed to do so – i.e., give the benefit of the doubt toward keeping. Here, process was thwarted.

The administrator closing the AfD acted contrary to the consensus expressed at the AfD by making his/her own judgment that the content was not encyclopedic. The whole issue of alternate placenames is very much encyclopedic and has been the subject on ongoing debate among Wikipedians, for example at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and the various disputes about whether to use “Danzig” or “Gdansk” for that city near the Baltic, etc.. Also, similar articles remain extant in several other Interwiki’s (since the article is deleted, the interwiki links are gone too, otherwise I could cite which), so they appear encyclopedic to people who speak other languages. Please restore the articles. Carlossuarez46 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply

I have left him/her a message, but the deletion was so out of the ordinary that I don't expect that he/she will reverse himself/herself. I made a number of edits to improve the page given the (obvious) assumption that given the consensus direction that the article would be kept. Apparently, I learned a lesson: don't assume that one's improvements to an article will be kept regardless of a nearly 3-1 opinion that the article should be kept. You are listed as an article undeletion guru, so I although admins don't like to undo other admin's actions, I was hoping that you would be BOLD and restore the articles. I ask again, please to do so. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up

Hi Deathphoenix, it is really good to hear from you. Thanks for letting me know about that deletion review. I did check it out, it seems that there was not much question about that one. I closed a lot of AfD's that day and I notice you did also. Surprisingly few have generated comments this time. I ended up missing one and listing the page as done prematurely - I'll have try to be more careful about that. Thanks for all your hard work closing out AfD's. It can be a thankless task, for sure. I've been doing a lot of article work, but now I can feel my personal pendulum swinging back towards more admin work, so I may see you more frequently. Take care, Johntex\^talk 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny. How did we manage to both close the same AFD? twice? I would have thought one of us would get an edit conflict that would prevent this from happening. Something about the order we are applying the templates maybe? Have you seen this other times? Johntex\^talk 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion Request

Dear Deathphoenix...several users and I have been in charge of an article called Kai Wong and we have spent many days and hours on it. We have complied with Wikipedia rules but this page has frequently been vandalized by other Administrators who are racist or worse still deleted. These deletions have been carried out without any discussion and I fear fascism of information. As none of us are Administrators, we are unable to undelete this page. Could you kindly do this? Muchas gracias, thank you very much and have a nice day.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) .

I appreciate your request, but it looks like this article was deleted according to process. If you wish to bring this up for deletion review, I will be happy to undelete the history while the review takes its course. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Belgrade

Hi. In regards to your closing of the debate on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyatt_Regency_Belgrade. First I would like to respectfully point out that you closed the debate about 30 seconds after my last edit in which I believe I was making an important point about the keep votes. Of course, I understand the need to get AfD's over with at some point but there has been in the last few weeks an effort by some Wikipedians to restore some kind of standards into the hotel articles, in particular to avoid spam. If this is to progress, I feel that we need to let people weigh in on some specific examples so that future debates can rely on solid precedents.

I am also in disagreement with your evaluation that the result is "keep and cleanup" which I'm afraid does not really reflect the discussion since 5 users recommended keep while 7 recommended delete (yes, I know this is not a vote) and since the deletion votes were supported by clear references to guidelines such as WP:CORP while a couple of keep votes were supported by reference to an anti-Belgrade conspiracy theory and an incorrect reference to WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for the swift reply. You seem to have taken offense to the above message so let me again say that I understand the need for administrators to do this, that I hold no grudge whatsoever and that I most certainly do not want to make a big fuss about this and go to a lengthy, unnecessary formal AfD revision procedure. Nevertheless, the message you left on my talk page leads me to think that we are not talking about the same AfD debate. One voter did indeed change his vote from delete to keep in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/InterContinental_Belgrade debate. I know because I'm the one who did that. No such thing happened in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hyatt_Regency_Belgrade and I am just politely asking that you reconsider closing the debate right now, not because I want to wait for the outcome that I want but because I believe that it would be useful for the community at large to let this particular debate develop some more. Thank you.Pascal.Tesson 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extra explanations. While I regret that the AfD is closed, I understand why you consider that reasonnable. Thanks also for keeping an open mind and at least tagging it as no consensus. Also, a word of apology: by some inadvertent problem caused by a faulty connection I deleted (for about a minute or two) a considerable part of your talk page! Which explains why I have 8 edits in the last two minutes... Should be all good now. Pascal.Tesson 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Deathphoenix/Archive5, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. The first vote can carry a lot of weight in RfA (sort of like Iowa or New Hampshire) so I especially appreciate your words of support. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec sport pro-wrestling

Hi. Once again Chad Bryant is inserting false information into the entry that had already been determined to be non-neutral, speculative, unverifiable, and unwarrented not only by consensus, but also by serveral admins. I do not have time to do a RfC, please advise. TruthCrusader 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion

Hi Deathphoenix, thanks for undeletion of the BJAODN article. I havent used WP:DRV much but it's good. Also, do you know of any WikiProjects relating to Los Angeles. If you know reply on my talk page! --Sunholm(talk) 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:CAT:CSD

No problem. Just glad I didn't delete it as CSD U1 without trying to find the tag. :o) Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1971 cars with specifications

Please don't remove the list entirely. There is currently no article that gives a single list of all AMC cars just from the year 1971, and no page that gives all specifications side by side for comparison. I don't think there is an AMX/3 page at all. --matador300 10:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigga Know Technology

Thanks for letting me know about the deletion review. I've posted my comments there. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

Hi, just saw this on your contribs. 00:45, 30 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 23 (Relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G Ram Kumar) 00:44, 30 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G Ram Kumar (Relisting debate) However, it was not actually relisted on 30 June - So I'd be striking out your comment or editing on it suitably to relist it with today's date. --Gurubrahma 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia awards committee

Check out my comments here, Wikipedia awards committee. Thanks! --evrik 17:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Robert Bonchune page

Hello, I had recently updated the Robert Bonchune page due to the deletion reasons. They said that it needed more and was poorly written. No one even looked at the updated page that took me thirty mins. to write. No one even attempted to help my page out. That was pethetic. I want to see more improvements on this site including improving those problems that I just stated. --Jonathan Watson 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Jonathan Watson[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping me so much

I am deeply sorry for the sins I have commited here. I hope my reëntry here will be sincerely welcomed. ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Ok. TruthCrusader 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are online I have an unrelated question. Moe Epsilon uses the name The King of Kings, which is a specific term for Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church. For some reason when he signs his posts it registers King of Kings and NOT Moe Epsilon. Now, I know there is a Wiki policy regarding potentially offensive names, and to be honest as a Catholic I do find it offensive, not to mention it seems ludicrous that his User name is different from his signing name. TruthCrusader 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of Kings is not a religious reference (in my sig). — The King of Kings 21:10 July 07 '06

It doesn't matter. i could have a sig like "Mohammed-mania" and I may not mean anything by it, but the sig itself would still be considered in violation of Wiki policy. TruthCrusader 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with religion whatsoever, it has to with the song King of Kings (song). — The King of Kings 21:16 July 07 '06

Its cool Moe, I just dont want it on my user page thats all. Oh and DeathPhoenix, my "friend" is now purposely pushing my buttons by posting to my user page as "Alpha and Omega", which is what God refers to himself as in the Catholic Bible. I don't want this to turn into another revert situation on MY talk page and I feel I have every right to delete his comments as they are nothing but troll bait (and considering he has a long long history of doing it to his own page.). TruthCrusader 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not capitalize "Himself" when referring to God, which offends me as a Christian. - Chadbryant 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rec.sport.pro-wrestling

- Please justify the removal of relevant information from this article. Regardless of how much they might embarass someone like User:TruthCrusader (a former RSPW troll now causing trouble here), facts are facts. - Chadbryant 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "consensus" regarding the article is from User:TruthCrusader and several of the 160+ "Dick Witham" socks that were created by TC's parter in trolling over the course of the last 18 months. Both of these individuals are documented "trolls" of the group, and only have a presence here to perpetuate "feuds" that they started on the group many years ago. - Chadbryant 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do some research - the only "consensus" is from the users named above. Given that User:TruthCrusader is now in the midst of using his status as a cafeteria Catholic to take offense at another Wiki editor's signature (which is based on a Motörhead song, not a religious reference]], it should be obvious that this is being perpetuated by a small vocal minority that wishes to squelch and censor input that they disagree with. - Chadbryant 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "past consensus" being acted upon is a complete and total invention of User:TruthCrusader and the now-departed "Dick Witham" troll. There is nothing more to it than that. - Chadbryant 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick pointer on how to submit an article for RFC (and what category it would be listed under) would be appreciated. - Chadbryant 21:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long do we have to wait? Nothing is happening on the Rfc and despite several requests, Chad is unable to provide any sources to back the info he wants in, up. TruthCrusader 05:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template (it puts a star on the article's mainpage, and as you voted in the original deletion review debate i thought it might interest you that there is now yet another one). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out relists?

I saw this message- when I've relisted I've removed it from the old log page and copied it on the new. Should I be commenting it out instead of removing it completely? Petros471 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship:

You recently protected[4] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger

Thanks for resolving the Argo Tea AfD debate. I am glad AfD decisions are made so quickly. Is there a policy on the merge to suggestions? I am wondering what kind of time frame is anticipated for the following consideration: Talk:Trump Tower.

Nabatiyeh attack on house on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nabatiyeh attack on house. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. --Banzoo 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cyanide and happiness (webcomic) on deletion review

I thought I wanted to thank you for taking the time to notify me related DRVs. That was very much appreciated. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 08:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty May Ellis

Hi, FWIW, I don't think you did anything particularly wrong - I can see a lot of sense in your argument that it was a very confusing discussion to relist. And there was a clear majority (one I personally disagreed with, but hey that's democracy for you). Don't take it to heart :-) Dlyons493 Talk 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there was no reason for anyone to attack your skills as an admin. This was a tough decision and most non-consensus deletes are kept by default. Thank you for spending time to examine, and then re-examine the case. --Andrew c 17:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for deleting this argument. The consensus was keep as you stated. Then the next day you delete. Can you explain this? Wjhonson 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That* her biography relies on unverifiable sources is a few person's *opinions*, it is not a fact. I posted the completely verifiable sources into the article. I also posted a disclaimer specifically mentioning exactly what was going on. This was *deleted* by one of the attackers who know nothing whatsoever about the local history of Snohomish County. This woman appears in no less that 35 newspaper articles. So now what? Wjhonson 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ISBN number for public documents like census, and civil war pension applications, and BLM grants and so forth. You took the opinion that the sources were unverifiable from persons who had no idea what they were talking about. I gave specific linked citations to some of the sources that were online. Every single source I used is verifiable, the opinions of three attackers doesn't change that. Wjhonson 19:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out, that you claim you're trying to be neutral. Yet it is you who is going around deleting all these *sourced* statements. Wikisource has agreed to allow sources like diaries of persons of historical note. They believe Kitty *is* of historical note. There is no reason whatsoever that a statement in an allowed diary on a sister project should be removed in the first place. Your deletions were excessive. That doesn't seem neutral at all.

About this deletion review you're talking about. I went to bed last night with KEEP I wake up and everything is deleted. So I was given a chance to present my information ? Doesn't seem like it. Wjhonson 19:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You revert my changes, when I've pointed out that this article is factual, biographic, and of a person of note in several local communities, in five states. That level of notability is enough to make the cut here. If you want to claim that you are remaining neutral there's no reason to get involved in reverting my edits. The community consensus was kept. The deletion review was not. One doesn't necessary trump the other. Wjhonson 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for staying neutral. Wjhonson 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wjohnson

I just loaded up VandalProof and plan on mass reverting all additions of the deleted article's link to any other pages. Thanks. --Zsinj^Talk 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I will simply revert them all back again. So have fun! Wjhonson 19:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty May Ellis DRV

I think the DRV should either be closed or the edit history of the article should be restored until it is properly closed. Also please note my comments at the DRV. I had no intention to question your efforts on this, I just diagreed with the outcome. ~ trialsanderrors 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trialsanderrors,

I have decided to no longer look at that DRV. It was causing me undue amounts of stress, and I don't need that. You can do whatever you want with the article, its AfD, and its DRV. I'm washing my hands of it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked that the history be restored already. But so far I don't see it. Wjhonson 18:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to see this causing you so much stress. I've also been rather stressed recently about certain things, so I'm trying out a 'process break'. I haven't looked enough at the above case to be sure, but a quick glance looks like you did nothing wrong. Always when closing the 'close call' AFDs there's going to be a fuss, and I think you do a pretty good job of it (otherwise I wouldn't keep coming to you for AFD help!) Hope to see you back there when we've both had a break from it for a while :) Petros471 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling

I know you've been helping with content on the above. I've been contacted over user disputes and have left this warning on the article talk page, as well as the talk pages of the 4 named editors. I suggest we enforce this fairly rigorously to restore an appropriate level of conduct. Naturally I would welcome any observations you have to make. Tyrenius 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a similar warning on the Michael Jackson talk page. In both cases it has cooled things down considerably. I'd be appreciative for a watchful eye over that article as well. I think if we make sure policy is sensibly adhered to, it will make life a lot happier for all the editors, apart from unreformable abusers of course. I want to make a template that incorporates that generic user page warning. Otherwise the admin tends to get bogged down in the middle of it all. Let's keep liaising anyway. Tyrenius 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be even nicer when it's in a red box! The MJ page is running quite nicely at the moment. Just the odd note of help or caution so the editors don't think they've been forgotten. And the beauty of it is that anyone who gets grief has a hotline to an admin who's prepared to act on it. Feel free to add your name under the warnings as someone else who can also be contacted, if you wish. Tyrenius 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have another Chad-like situation on the entry. User:JB196 continues to delete information without discussing his changes on the talk page first. He is refusing to abide by a consensus. TruthCrusader 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal

I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?

For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.

I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.

Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: Jeff, I was confused at the outset in that I wasn't aware of the "role account" policy and then after becoming aware I was frustrated that I had made so many edits which could mislead someone to the conclusion that my account was a role account. I'm sorry that in my zeal to understand your actions that I posed the possibility that you were acting at someone else's behest. I have no evidence of that and it was improper of me to even mention that such a bizarre conspiracy was possible. I find myself guilty of "blaming the messenger" and posting an inappropriate comment about your motivation.

As for my account, I want to state that it is not a role account and I apologize for leaving the impression that it is one. "hydnjo" is the signature that I commonly use for much of my correspondence and thought it to be appropriate when I first started my WP account. The portmanteau is an acknowledgment of our shared existence and not an indication that Heidi and I share in editing at WP.

I thank you for your courtesy in informing me at the outset of the discussion at WP:AN and for your compliments about my contributions. The comments in my response were made in the shadow of my own frustration with my having left a trail of edits that could easily be construed as having come from either Heidi or myself. I sincerely apologize to you for making any suggestion as to your motivation in bringing up a legitimate policy question. You have a genuine concern for the orderly behavior of our editors and I thank you for initiating this discussion and providing me the opportunity to explain the nature of my account. --hydnjo talk 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eskyworld Article Retrival

On your main userpage it says that you can retrieve articles that have been deleated. If you could could you please retrieve the Eskyworld Article for me. Thanks. theflea912@gmail.com --Theflea912 21:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Zeese

The AfD decision to redirect Kevin Zeese has just been overturned by an editor. Is this in order? Should the previous verions be deleted to prevent this happening? BlueValour 16:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chadbryant encore une fois

FYI [5] Tyrenius 14:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]