Archives

Talk archives for 2006 and 2007

January 2008

Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator

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 bibliomaniac 1 5 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Issuing Warnings

Many Thanks

Many thanks for canceling the deletion of my article and for sending me advise on how to edit Wikipedia! Chimchar monferno (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 09:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Warnings

Hello! Sorry to bother, but I wanted to get your opinion on Warnings.

Specifically, would it make sense for me to issue a Level 1 Warning relating to inappropriate humor against an editor who made a small but sarcastic crack designed to belittle a comment I made in a WQA resolution conversation – a conversation where that editor was supposed to be offering unbiased moderation.

The mediation thread is here: [1].

I initiated the complaint against someone that I believed was a potential troll.  This person acknowledged having no knowledge of the subject prior to his posting, to which I commented that I only edit articles where I have a knowledge of the article’s subject.

The mediating editor then went to the page in question, fixed a tiny typo, but added a sarcastic comment that was designed (I believe) to ridicule my comment about subject knowledge. It is the top edit on this page: [2].

Unless I am mistaken, this is inappropriate humor designed solely to belittle my opinion -- especially when this editor is supposed to be unbiased and acting in good faith. What I wanted to know is (1) am I justified in issuing a Level 1 warning based on this, and (2) can I issue the warning directly or does a third party who is not involved in this dispute have to come in and do that?

I need to point out this editor issued a Level 1 warning against me at the conclusion of the mediation, but only issued a very soft message of caution against the person I saw as a perceived troll. I disputed the action, claiming the editor was not acting in good faith and showed very clear bias. The editor later acknowledged his decision was incorrect on his User page, but immediately removed that text from display when I called it to his attention.

In the scheme of things, it is incredibly small pickings. Still, I was interested in getting feedback on how to proceed.

Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't do well with this sort of thing. I would advice posting this to WP:AN/I. The folks there are much better at this sort of thing than I will ever be. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. But in your opinion, should I just let this issue die or does it make sense to voice my unhappiness over this matter on that board? Be honest, I am open to your advice. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Edit

Mike, Thanks for the welcome, and especially the links. As you must know, this site is very convoluted, and takes alot of research in order to navigate. Hopefully some day the developers will put some code together so that it is more intuitive. I am researching how signatures are done, without luck. There must be a simple was to setup the long text strings that many such as you use, any hints?TomPhan (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you, I will try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPhan (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive reserve

You posted a request (more than a year ago) for a photo on the cognitive reserve page. This is pretty much an abstract concept. Did you have a particular idea for a photo? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:89.216.188.69

Seeing as you've dismissed my report, saying that the user has been inactive for three hours, well he's back now and I can't follow him around, reverting his edits. The user has a long history of vandalizing footballers' infoboxes. Please block him now, although I believe you should have done that straight away. I've also checked his activity on the Serbian wikipedia and it doesn't seem to be any better. Cheers. BanRay 19:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user is an established vandal, and what is worst, he seems to hit wikipedia where it hurts, since such vandalism is usually overlooked. In fact I think I'm the only one who cleans up his mess. You decided to remove my report, fair enough, but what we have here now is a vandal who has been around for some four months doing the same sort of vandalism day after day and yet he gets away with it because no one can nab him right there. He'll be back tomorrow and I'll revert him, no problem really, takes a few minutes with twinkle, and then the day after tomorrow, maybe that's the way it should be, I don't know. Sure you can't check AIV 24/7, but neither can I follow the guy around. The block log comes in handy in such cases. I'd be glad to report him while he's still active, but that's quite unlikely, as I've already said, I've got some other stuff to do apart from wikipedia, and, unfortunately or maybe fortunately, I can't sit here all day waiting for him to edit/vandalize a page. Cheers. BanRay 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the last edit wasn't legitimate either, the stats are all incorrect, thanks for the useful link, cheers. BanRay 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for taking time out of your busy-ness to support my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:07, 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.

Musical glasses

Sorry, that was a little confusing. I did not want to have it deleted. I wanted to add the "hangon" response, and it looked to me as if your edits did not effectively remove the speedy tag.

Perhaps this was because you had a stray ] in your redirect, or because all the text still followed the redirect line, and the software was confused.

Or perhaps I was just too hasty ...

But just to clear things up, we were both trying to achieve the same thing: Keep the article as a redirect.

Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Glasses

Thanks for the re-direct. Also, please rememeber to sign your comments. Undeath (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those tildes can suck. I would also like to ask a question. I am going to be re-nominated in about two months for Adminship and I was wondering if you could look at what I've done thus far and if you have any suggestions of what to start doing/stop doing etc... Thanks. Undeath (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you spam

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Dlohcierekim, 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 DAVIES ^talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

29 years.

Age is a great teacher. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR KIND WORDS. ALL OF THE OTHER PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE SO RUDE TO ME, SO, ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU.Igotnukes (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS AN ADMIN WHO IS ABUSES HIS PRIVILEGES. MY FRIEND PUT SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT VANDALISM ON AN ARTICLE AND SHE BLOCKED HIM FROM EDITING. WHAT CAN HE DO ABOUT IT?Igotnukes (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DSRL????

What was wrong with my article?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applemac20 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i think others will agree with me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applemac20 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

RE: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of them did belong and followed the Guidelines, Example: the Arab-Speaking countries ,Tunisia does belongs to this list and the link does add information the current article the site is Arab-Christian site. So would you kindly tell what was wrong? or at least prove before Judge?

So a Arab information christian site has nothing to do to with Arab christian articles?

Just look in the links of the Tunisian Articles and they add as much information as link I donated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammedz1 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what are We Wikipedia or Encarta?

Is this the free Encyclopedia by everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammedz1 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judge? What's a judge got to do with it? You put the same link in several articles that doesn't add anything to the articles. Please read WP:EL. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. If you think they belong there, seek consensus on the talk page of each article or set up an RfC to gain consensus that way. Or seek some input at WP:AN. Or if you think there is useful information on the site, quote it and use it for a reference. Cheers, Dloh cierekim Deleted? 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for a possible copyvio image

Hello, I've been asked by an editor to review his contribs, and I'm not sure what template to use for an image that may be a copyvio. Also, is it appropriate to consider an image a possible copyvio just because it's of high quality, or do you need to have found it on the web first? For instance, Image:Uniplex PSA.jpg. Thanks. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Oops. rather, which is the correct user notification tag to place on the creator's page. Thaks Dloh cierekim Deleted? 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High-resolution images are less likely to be copyright violations because re-users often re-use the lower quality copies, not needing the high resolution. As far as Image:Uniplex Landrover.jpg and Image:Uniplex PSA.jpg, I would assume good faith that they were taken by the uploader. If you still have doubts, I suggest that you ask the uploader to clarify.

Even if an image is found on another web site without attribution to Wikipedia, it is hard to tell whether or not that web site is violating copyright or whether the person who uploaded the image to Wikipedia is violating copyright.

Use {{pui}} for possibly unfree images. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White people

I don't know of any story. It just seems an anoyed anon user with some sort fo agenda regarding Argentina. The Ogre (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White People

The user Dúnadan has removed my entire paragraph of text and replaced it with his, with no reason whatsoever. If you follow his edits, you can clearly see that he has an agenda, as he has been reverting and removing sections from articles concerning Argentine demographics all across the wiki.

I consider my original text was apropiate for the article, yet the one posted by the Dúnadan is a clear copy-paste of what he typed into Demographics of Argentina. In both articles, Dúnadan has reintroduced the controversial UBA study that says 56% of Argentines have amerindian descent. This study has been proven wrong by many others, such as [3], as well as arguments explaining that the supposed "amerindian" markers analized are also present in Spanish and Galician populations, of which Argentina has plenty of descendants.

As a result, the UBA study was considered too controversial, and a consensus was reached to keep it out of the Demographics of Argentina article. Yet this user has been adding it again, and even worse, HAS REWRITTEN MY COUNTRIBUTION WITH NO REASON WHATSOEVER, as he basically posted the same information with a different rewording.

I've made more than 500 contributions to the Wiki, with a dynamic IP, but it's pretty sad to see that so many editors are willing to side against an anonymous editor simply because he's anonymous. I guess I'll have to create a nickname for myself, even though that undermines the purpose of the Wiki itself.

Please take a look on this info I gave you. The genetic study has no bearing whatsoever in the article, unless you also want to include genetic studies on Canada, the USA, Brazil, or Australia, which also show similar levels of admixture. Regards,

--200.117.168.68 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply Dloh cierekim Deleted? 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlohcierekim. I will like to point out just a couple of points concerning 200.117's claims:

The "UBA" study, is a study conducted by the Genetics Department of the University of Buenos Aires, whose findings have been corroborated by numerous studies; these findings were also accepted by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of Argentina.[4], [5]. This study has not been challenged by the Academic community, so there is no "Academic" controversy. The only controversy is that of some Wikipedian users (like the above) who happen to dislike or disagree with the results. I have invited some of them (I have never met 200.117) to provide equally reliable sources to prove that the UBA study has been "proven wrong" other than their own opinions (the link he provides is broken, and other links provided in the past related to discussion amongst geneticists of general genetic tests not on Argentina's particular case). One user actually provided the link to the Ministry of Education which ends up with the following words:

""The information herein summarized is based on scientific observations that allow [us] to redefine the belief in the purported European origin of all the inhabitants of the Argentine territory. According to our results, and many others, generated by different research groups in our country, we can confirm a substantial genetic contribution of the original peoples of the Americas into the current constitution of the Argentine population. Researches of this kind tend to contribute to the characterization of our country's identity in a respectful and anti-discriminatory way" (end of quote). [6]

A similar discussion took place at the Spanish Wikipedia with the involvement of several users. (Part of the systemic bias at the English Wikipedia is that there are just a few Argentine users not precisely representative of the entire population). There, the users agreed that the studies were valid, and therefore the information was not only kept at es:Argentina, but a new comprehensive and very informative article was created concerning the Argentine genetic composition es:Composición étnica de Argentina.

I will also like to point out that I did not delete his "source". In fact, his source (which happens to be the CIA Factbook) is included in the first sentence of my edits. I simply expanded and complemented the information presented.

I will copy this paragraph to Talk:White American and Talk:Demographics of Argentina and will welcome your opinion on the matter. I would be happy to respond any questions and participate in the debate as long as the results and consensus actually complies with Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.

--the Dúnadan 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I am aware of the Dispute Resolution venue, even though, in my past experience, it has been of very little help. Honestly, I don't think this issue merits Dispute Resolution. When an edit is comprehensive and fully reliable, and the other is POV and not referenced, I think that the latter clearly violates Wikipedia's three core principles.

--the Dúnadan 01:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've adopted a username and will try to follow your advice. Regards,

--Dharma for one (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dlohcierekim i have been looking forward the article white people and this particular user the Dúnadan who has been editing all the articles with the UBA study made surprisingly in all white and demographics articles about Argentina I personally think we should report it as vandalism because he cannot just appear and erase all our contributions just because he wants to put a racist study against Argentina and all ending up in a great discution because that's what he has created..well I wait your opinion

Fercho85 02:32 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply.

Sorry but I am kind of new here what do you think we should do?

Fercho85 02:41 09 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seresin

Dloh, you've been completely civil in our disagreement on the issue. And Seresin, i've never really interacted with, but I know if he'd ever posted like others have, we'd have seen a lot of diffs. I really have nothing against the nom, and certainly nothing against those who've voted to support. With RfA we're called to look at what's on the table and support or oppose. That's all I was trying to do. I was troubled by a couple things on the record, and then was moved to oppose by Dorfrottel. I never typed the first post with the intention to start a fight.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA/MBisanz

Hi. In the context of RfA, nom generally refers to the nominator, as opposed to referring to the nominee, which I believe was what you were referring to in your oppose comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MBisanz. Do you mind changing instances of it, to avoid confusion, to either "candidate" or the candidate's username? Cheers, Spebi 06:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and could you respond here, please? :) Spebi 06:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. Almost years of RfA's, and I always thought "nom" referred to the person nominated. People even complain of the nom's sig. Will do.(Clarified on RfA, too) Thanks and happy editing. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 21:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies

I suspect that this question has come to mind because of a recent post I made in WP:RfA. The point that I was trying to make, subtly, was that - at least to my knowledge - there is no situation in wikipedia where proxies can be enabled, and indeed, precious few situations where voting takes place (if we stipulate that AfD and RfA are not votes). My intention was to see how the applicant responded. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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!☺} 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin deleted one of my articles because I had no sources. How can I have a source if there are none in existence?Igotnukes (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Hey, just a quick note - Now that you've switched a few times, are you neutral or in opposition? Tangobot seems to think you're both. Just a quick note. FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure myself. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 05:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Thanks for your multiple words of advice at my RfA; regardless of the outcome, I do appreciate them. As far as the anonymous accusation goes, I really don't know what I can say there beyond what I've already said. I've never been accused of anything like this on WP, and I'm unsure whether I should be trying to defend myself there or if I just need to let it play out? Snocrates 08:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC) My reply. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsy. Hey, who woulda guessed... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be, at this point, to ten-foot-pole the whole thing, just watchlist and update the tally now and then. No blocks, no unblocks, no withdrawing the RfA, no canvassing the current ever dwindling supply of supporters. Just watching. At least until we hear from User:Snocrates. He was left an open ended message that he hasn't replied to yet. If his location that he professes to is correct, (who knows), I believe it might be the wee hours of the morning right now seeing as he hasn't edited in over 12 hours. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was in the oppose section, (moved from neutral based on Djsasso's civilty concerns) before the checkuser results came in. I would stand by my !vote regardless of the "explanation" regarding socking. Actually, if I recall correctly you moved to oppose based on RP's diffs, also pre-CU. So, no worries there. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and there it is. Closed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Reopened. And so it begins...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen...

If you listen carefully, my sides are splitting <moved comment from user to talk> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash6660 (talk • contribs) Dloh cierekim Deleted? 09:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's RfA

I tried to fix the numbering in the oppose section. However, I can't tell whether you still an oppose or not. Can you please have a look and adjust if necessary? At the moment, your oppose has been struck. Ronnotel (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??

You OK there, Mike? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Nevermind I get it now. Hilarious. I'm probably the only one that caught that. Hilarious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

zOMG. The RfA is "the decision-making experiment". Zounds and Zikes. We are but mere rats in the maze, being fed drops of poison whilst having "new and improved" shampoos tested on our unwitting furs... I knew I shoulda taken the blue pill. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One word: Too late. User:Dorftrottel 21:44, February 12, 2008

Re:Mail

Thanks, your advice will be heeded. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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) 18:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:128.243.253.111

Man, you're a more generous soul than I! --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And salt was indeed applied - after the 9th deletion, by my inexpert reading of the logs. An admin, User:Riana unsalted it in order that User:PeteU could create the article about the actor. No problem with the strikeout. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Michael Willis is in play ... --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen toknow, what are the rules about restoring comments that have been deleted from talk pages? --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chi squared

I'm not really deep into statistics yet, so I might give you a somewhat shaky definition. Say you have randomly generated numbers r_1,r_2\ldots r_n. If their arithmetical average is 0 and they have a range of [-1,1], then $a_{1}^{2}+a_{2}^{2}+a_{3}^{2}+\ldots +a_{n}^{2}$ is chi-squared. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A smile in return!

Acalamari has given you a tree! Trees spread WikiLove by making pages prettier and by cleaning the air around them. Well, at least the real one's do. They also cause a lovely orange banner to form on the top of your screen. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! -- Acalamari 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Callum cowan

Could you give me a list of the User IDs which have created Callum cowan and Callum Cowan? The page keeps getting recreated and I have a suspicion that the User doing it is using different User names each time so as to avoid racking up multiple vandalism warnings. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No, I think it's just vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. Michael Willis

(Warning: Inclusionist) Notable. Appeared in a few episodes of notable shows. Deletion isn't fun. Glad you like the subpage :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. I've no idea exactly what's going in there, but I left a minor naming conventions related comment, as I think I might know how that works :) Hope it helps. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limericks

Thank you. I would offer you a limerick in return, but I'm terrible at remembering them. The only bit I remember of my favourite limerick is the last two lines :

T'was not the Almighty that crept up her nightie,

T'was Roger, the lodger, the sod!

Feel free to make up the preceding three lines! _GB^T/C 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's RfA

.:

Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla!

:.

File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg	Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.	NY St. Rt. 14. Dloh cierekim Thank you for casting the 14th vote in support.

"The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

Doczilla _RAWR! 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home Page

Talk Page

Joke Alert

Presents

RFA

If you are interested, I have responded to the question concerning my UAA reports. Icestorm815 • Talk 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Card

My RFA →→→

Dear Dlohcierekim, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (29/5/5).

I cannot thank you enough for you're support on my RFA. And now that I am a sysop, I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — Chetblong^{T C} 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nousernamesleft

Hi, Dlohcierekim, thanks for voting in my RfA, which passed with 47 supports (I hoped for a perfect square, but two away is close enough!), 3 opposes (the first odd prime), and 0 neutrals. I'm glad the community has decided to trust me with the mop and bucket (the flamethrower isn't supported). Of course, special thanks goes to my nominators Auawise and that one guy who buried stuff (not that the thanks I give to the you isn't special!). If you ever need a hand with something, or just want to say hello, ~~tough~~ feel free to drop a line! Best wishes, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't even vaguely resemble a mop, but I couldn't find a picture of one.

And thanks for the email advice you gave me as well, which will be heeded! Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RMCN1611

Thanks for your contribution to this, with the prod tag for the user page. I know Wikipedia isn't this individual's webhost for notes to his fellow employees, but I can't think of a reason to speedy his/her user/user talk page. Would this possibly qualify as non-encyclopedic nonsense, or simply as WP:SNOWBALL? Since s/he seems to have stopped mounting the offending pages, it can't be dealt with by blocking the user... if nothing comes to mind, I've just made a note to look at the user page and talk pages five days from now and get rid of it all. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right, speedy criteria probably don't apply. We'll get it dealt with in five days at the most and, who knows? As you suggest, he could become constructive. (Not holding my breath, but you never know.) Accounting4Taste:talk 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can has thankspam?

Quick, let's delete the front page!

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... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

OhanaUnited's RFA

.:

Thank you!

:.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA.

To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind."

Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Lions...

Tell me the REAL purpose of the Lions Club. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC) :The above user has been blocked for using the term "Jew" in several places as a slur. FYI. No need to respond or fan his Shrine of fire flames. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Unblocked. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo (UNMIK)

I'm trying to achieve consensus within this article to have it merged. Since you participated in the AfD discussion, the consensus of which is disputed, I wondered if you would like to comment on the new discussion I am holding on the article's talk page. I am contacting all editors who participated in the AfD regardless of their vote in the interest of fairness. - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Belcher article

This is not a soap. It is not a personal attack. It is a documentation following days of research on this guys extensive scam. This is the perfect place to spread knowledge about world-wide scams of this sort. This information is further supported by the FDA, the BBB, FBI, and the list goes on.... Thatopshotta (talk)

My reply. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply.Thatopshotta (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply and Concern Thatopshotta (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Thatopshotta (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Last Reply :) Thatopshotta (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jetboi

we were just having fun for a while and were gonna delete it in an hour or two :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linknumbers (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Jungle Prada Site pics!

And if you'd like to jump on my bandwagon, please feel free to check User:Ebyabe/NRHPs in FL pix needed. :) -Ebyabe (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

We must have been typing at the same time - I made essentially the same comment on the ANI thread. Natalie (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks. Dloh cierekim 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)REP[reply]

Dlohcierekim's sock

Hey Dloh, I received a message on my talk page from User talk:Dlohcierekim's sock inquiring about my WP:RfA criteria. Is this an alternate version of you? Your nemesis, your paradox, your alterego perhaps? Just letting you know I responded. : ) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selmedica

Hi there! I am from the Perry Belcher article if you need reminding. I initated the Selmedica article as I said I will. I am hoping for your review, and possibly I can update as the need fits if needed. I am asking this to you, and DGG, so that I can possibly fix or update it as necessary, at least to warrant a stay, until the article can be edited to fit a more comprehensible english style. All thoughts appreciated. If you can leave a link (like I learned from you on how to do) on my discussion page when you reply :) Thanks. Thatopshotta (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-limiting administrators

I have been working to formalize the concept behind my userbox. When you get a chance, could you please take a look at User:Bovlb/Self-limiting administrators and tell me if you think I'm on the right track? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly Odd Baby

Huh? - Up for deletion? Rudget . 15:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Apologies. Rudget . 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Funny how they manage to dig their own graves. Sure makes wikilife easy, though. Natalie (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little black ant

I followed the source link and found it to be verifiable. Turns out it's a species of ant, Monomorium minimum. Cheers, and happy editing! Dloh cierekim 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I agree with Kim's advice above. You might want to read through a little more looking for the sense of the article. Not all editors produce good work on their first edit. This was clearly not nonsense. It even has a verifiable source link. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one is completely my fault indeed. I wanted to tag this one for wikifying and references, yet it seems i mixed up two firefox tabs. Guess i tagged some article that was not notable with cleanup tags, and this one with a CSD tag. Simply a mixup. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety's oppose

Maybe I missed a comment, but it looked like the last one was about "back to neutral" and his sig was still struck out from the oppose vote above it. Hopefully he'll notice and fix it if its wrong. Avruch^T 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your RfA

Thanks! Izzy007 Talk 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you, Dlohcierekim, for your support in my RfB. I appreciate your trust. Acalamari 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Willis (American Actor)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Michael Willis (American Actor), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]