User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RE:Rest, my puppet.

Good, my minion, make a straw man argument against me. >:) Happily controlling you,Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A very sad thank you

Thank you for your vote in my recent RFA. At 43/43/14, I decided it was best to withdraw. I will wait until another time for an RFA. Thanks again, ILovePlankton 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys vs. Chuck Norris

L.O.L. Thanks for the laugh! For some reason I didn't think of that explanation for Cyde's change of heart... the imminent threat of a roundhouse kick can do wonders for an "attitude adjustment"... hahaha --FairNBalanced 08:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You there?

Two items in your inbox: Youssef Khattab, and that RfA you started, Yanksox usurped it, but I asked him nicely to step aside and let the nom proceed with you as the nominator. What is your timeframe on that? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just wandered over here by accident (seriously) and I am sorry that I did that. I actually feel pretty awful about it. Yanksox 21:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm relieved (sinc?). Your nomination prelude is just nothing short of amazing. It's really awesome to see someone write so well for Wikipedia, considering other people (i.e. me) don't do as well as they can/should/would do. Thanks! Yanksox 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Please take out "As a law student, Alexander has an understanding of the intricacies of fair use and copyright law, and one can expect he would involve himself in copyvio deletions." b/c it's simply not true. And I must ask you, with your tendency for pervasive verbosity, how's your record in RfA nominations? Ha! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I inserted answers. As soon as you rmv that sentence, we're good to go. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, and thanks a lot. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope that you will consider supporting me if I have another RfA. Thank you for your support. --digital_me^(t/c) 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My WP:AN/I request earlier today

Joe, thank you for your responses to my post on WP:AN/I:

• WP:AN/I#Sockpuppetry/Libelous links from User:167.191.250.81
• User talk:A. B.#WP:AN/I

I stand corrected and I will drop this matter. Thanks for taking the time to look into this and explain it.--A. B. 23:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong...sorry...reverting myself

No appology necessary. You were trying to help me.

Good luck on your bid for adminship. I hope you will be a better and more honorable admin than some others I've crossed swords with recently.

Jason Palpatine 06:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

File:Motherussia.jpg

Hello Jahiegel, and thank you for your support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!!

Thanks so much, dawg! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Joe

Dear Joe, hey dude, I can't thank you enough for your support during my recent request for adminship. Means so much coming from a veteran like you. And thanks for garnering so many Sens sympathy votes!! Listen, if I'm doing anything as an admin that you think could be better, just leave me a message. Take care man -- Samir धर्म 08:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "congratulatory" message

Popped six bottles of Champagne!

LOL! That was good... As to NSLE, all I had to say was, no investigation was needed - that guy was always on top of the RfA's, opposing boldly in the face of lots of per-nom supports. As to POV, I have already started taking over the world. See WP:ORBCW, 'nuff said. Dude, once again: thank you. You rule. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hganesan (yes, again)

After a succession of blocks by numerous admins over the last month, User:Hganesan has returned yet again to Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant. I don't want to waste a bunch of time edit warring with him again, so I'm instead going to try a new tactic. I'd like to get as many NBA editors as possible together on this, so that we can make a single unified push to the appropriate admins. I am at a loss for other tactics we can use to avoid his continued attempts to push his agenda and his unwillingness to compromise. Please contact me at User talk:Simishag if you're interested in helping out. Thanks. Simishag 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on my page. You are quite right, and I am embarassed that I let my temper get the best of me when making those edits. Where do we go from here on addressing the larger issue of User:Hganesan? I have been involved on pretty much all of these issues, and although I've had help each time, I'm now at the point where I don't think I can be effective alone in limiting the damage that's done. Simishag 03:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup

Very entertaining. Didn't see the US game, I saw Australia 3 Japan 1 though.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Al Khattab

[1] - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationality & Football

I always assumed you were German; looking at your user page I realise you're American. Well...don't I feel silly. As for the football - I wish I had bet on TT for that game (it wasn't that I didn't believe in them, it's just that I don't really bet). I still figure we can beat Paraguay, so I'm counting on England to score a lot of goals on Sweden...but if they couldn't score on us until the 83rd minute I don't have much hope for them beating Sweden by any margin (if at all). OTOH - we're there. We're finally at the World Cup. The draw with Sweden felt as sweet as any win. Guettarda 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW - the pictures are of El_C's cats. Can't have one in real life right now, unfortunately (maybe next year). Guettarda 06:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I need an advocate and help with mediation.

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thnaks for your support.

Hi Jahiegel,

Well, I realize you mostly objected to anyone tampering with your user page. I understand. Anyway, I thank you for unreverting his revert.

HappyCamper said he was just trying to help me. But then when I asked him for help he said he couldn't help me because it would displease others. His response to me made no sense. He said there was considerable displeasure on his talk page at his attempt to help me out. When I went to his talk page I noticed there was considerable displeasure, but not with his attempt to help me out, but his attempt to delete all my requests for help.

This is the email he sent me:

Dear Michael,

I wish I could help you out, but it seems on my talk page, there was quite a bit of displeasure with my attempt to help you out. Unfortunately, I will have to address those concerns elsewhere before I will be of any help at all. At the moment, my administrative duties would be tied up, and probably will not be as free to help you out as I am normally able to do.

I would suggest that you contact "Gareth Huges" - his userpage is at User:Garzo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garzo -- he has mediated a dispute in the past involving the Afshar Experiment, and I believe the outcome was amicable to everyone involved. I will send him a note via e-mail that I recommended you to seek him - he may be available to help you out in a capacity that would be much better than what I could offer at the moment. I wish this were not the case, but unfortunately there are other priorities I need to attend to at the moment.

I hope you understand, and accpet my sincerest apologies. Today, I genuinely felt I could lend a helping hand, but circumstances seem to be in deference to this. Regards, -HC

When I went to Gareth Huges page, I found out he is a priest. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics leaves no room for God, and little room for free-will. It is very similar to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal. Given this, I wonder if Gareth will be neutral.

Anyway, I've tried to edit Gareth Huges' talk page all night but Lucky has me blocked from editing that page. When I go to Lucky's page, it is blank and says he is no longer active at Wikipedia, that everyone should leave his page blank. This is the message I get:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Lucky 6.9 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Mds92". The reason given for Mds92's block is: "User flamed my e-mail with attacks over a lousy 24-hour block.". Your IP address is 205.188.116.8.

I am not Mds92. And so it goes . . .

Michael D. Wolok 08:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I generally agree with your points. (I presume you meant "user acts without disruptive purpose but with disruptive results".) My main concern is the classification of "good faith edits" as "disruptive", when in most edit wars both sides would apply that argument. Lack of response to discussion and lack of civility are a separate issue, but it is not then the edits themselves that are the problem. The article which started this has hardly any discussion Talk:Clockwise_and_counterclockwise on either side. Tyrenius 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say

Many thanks for the Barnstar! My first one, too. I just might have to put it on my userpage. And it's always a vindication to encounter another liberal libertarian (liberaltarian?) minarchist. Incidentally, I notice you support Democrats. I back DSA, despite their paternalism. As you can tell, I'm more of a Proudhon than a Rand, and I don't consider capitalism integral to a free market. I must take this moment to ask you what you think of the Libertarian Party and its platform (this is a question I pose to every libertarian). Thanks again for the recognition! Bhumiya (said/done) 23:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response—very interesting, and somewhat along the lines of my own practical political views, though I would never equate the DLC with libertarianism, and I fail to see what is actually wrong with being a "progressive", provided that one not be a coercive progressive. Frankly, I find terms like "liberals" and "progressives" very uninformative. Hilary Clinton, who is in my opinion a moralistic, bigoted fogey, interested in censoring this and banning that, is nevertheless perpetually described as an "ultra-liberal". As an institution, the Democratic Party has always struck me as being an opportunistic conglomoration of special interests with no set ideology, and therefore no basis for trust. It can be anything, and often is. Yet it happens to be the saner of two insanities at this moment. You're right about the LP, though. They have essentially alienated themselves from the great majority of the population unnecessarily, largely by obsessively pursuing irrelevant and divisive pipe dreams with no appeal for most of the voting public. I personally see no continuity between American Libertarianism, which is essentially a macho version of what the rest of the world calls liberalism, and the syndical libertarianism of Proudhon, which was emphatically non-capitalistic. This ultra-capitalism has always put me off the LP. I am chiefly opposed to oppressive politics, not socialism, which is a vague concept with many forms, some of which may be functional (and maybe not, one can't say). Centralized power is my major bogeyman. As I see it, capitalism is really something more than a free market, which I support. Capitalists, at least those I have spoken with, make certain assumptions about a free market—assumptions that require the continuous intervention of the state. They have ideas about property that would seem to require a preexisting collectivist state which can parcel things out. I think capitalist's (and many socialist's, for instance Marxist's) views on the nature of labor are utterly wrong: it seems to me there are some kinds of labor that cannot be compensated in the usual fashion, and thus cannot be called labor, for instance the work of artists, musicians, and inventors. So that's why I'm not a capitalist; at any rate, that's why I'm a contrarian. But I'm rambling, and not being entirely lucid, so I'll stop. Incidentally, don't worry about eating up space on my talk page. I archive it after a while. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting! Hello Jahiegel/Archive 4, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What's doing?

Haven't heard in a while. Wanna come join the awful edit war at Yousef al-Khattab? lol... - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Jahiegel, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My (Mtz206) RfA

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Demiurge

The above referenced individual has been deleting all my edits today. A few minutes ago he or she sent me a message saying I am a "suspected sockpuppet". I don't understand this exactly and what do I need to do to clear this up?

This person has been deleting all my edits. Am I going to have to redo them? Or is he or she going to have to fix up their mess?

Please help.

Thanks!!

216.194.3.138 09:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

My answer to your question in a nutshell: No, to my knowledge my name hasn't been disruptive; I've never had a problem regarding it. To be extremely honest, I don't care at all for about the objections concerning my username. I think there's no problem with it, even after reading WP:U. — getcrunk what?! 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

College Football

" Hello! "

Thank you for contributions. I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join and help us edit Wikipedia’s college football articles. If you have any questions just ask at the College football WikiProject. Also here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also remember to use the edit summary when you contribute.

Again, Thank you for your help!

A belated thank you

Hi there:

I've been off Wikipedia for about a week, due to illness and work (and procrastinating on writing thank yous ;-) ), but I did want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I was amazed at how quickly you responded—my RfA hadn't been up for more than ten minutes before you responded.

Once again, thank you. — DLJessup (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

An award...kind of...

For reviving and fixing things most people regard as dead, I give you a picture of a film adaption of Frankenstein. Congrats! ...I think.... Yanksox 04:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA time!!

- CrazyRougeian talk/email 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jahiegel. Do you mind waiting an hour or so, so that I can add a co-nom? Blnguyen | rant-line 03:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's sad to see that you feel that your days are numbered. If it is because of real-life pressures, I wish you all the best. Of course, you can always accept and if you are forced to leave by outside powers, then that is no disgrace.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What now??? Pleas email me. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 04:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know about Stephen Holland. I wrote that article. Which tells me, I could do with some help on swimming articles.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck

So, apparently he insists on deleted (and ignoring) all warnings & discussion. See my latest attempt "break through" in this removal [2]. Any thoughts on what to try next? I'm at a loss. --mtz206 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Awards, etc.

Joe, I'm honored and overwhealmed by your message, and I will be as brief as I can with each point since I can't really muster up the approate words worthy of your viewing. :)

1) Franky was more of a joke, and I tried to find an image I could use, but didn't see free use. Duh!

2) Wow, I'm kind of stunned. You can e-mail, btw, if I can help with anything.

3) You deserved praise for that, it was a piece of art.

4) Ah, the question that no comment could be incomplete without. For sake of clarity, I am a Red Sox fan, from Beantown. The username must of sounded great to me a while ago, and I just subconciously entered it when I made my profile.

Joe, if you need anything feel free to contact me. Yanksox 02:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Held in abeyance. You got it. Your lifestyle is not healthy. Neither is mine. See you on the other side. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 10:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Joe

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I have been incredibly busy. I think that the issues boil down to the following:

1. Fair use is frowned upon by Wikipedia, though the project recognises that at times it is necessary.
2. Fair use does not apply throughout the world. It is not a legal concept in Australia, where I live. If a Wikimedia Chapter is ever setup here, we would most likely not be able to republish work that is licensed as fair use. We could publish work that is published under fair dealing provisions, but most fair use images would not fall under that category.
3. Regrettably, fair use is a most vague legal concept. However, while there really isn't much Wikipedia can do about the conflicting opinions that are coming from the U.S. legal system, it is far better to restrict use of fair use to a very small subset of images because it is not clear that we would be able to claim fair use for a great deal of the images that have been uploaded to our project.
4. Fair use images have sometimes been used in place of free or GFDL images. This is something we should discourage.
5. Those who upload images to Wikipedia should at least display a modicum of understanding of fair use law, of which we have a quite excellent article at fair use.
6. I have not much to say about the policy of only allowing fair use in the main namespace. I never discussed the policy, and I haven't thought it through that much.

However, as stated before, I don't believe that any of these issues are strictly relevant to the amendment I have proposed. I think that the issues you raise are more relevant to the main Wikipedia:Fair use policy page, though I believe the majority of editors would probably disagree with you, regardless of how well you argued your case (regrettable).

Thanks for your message anyway :-) I have to say that I haven't had to read such reasoned argument in a while, and it took me a while to understand what you were trying to say, though this was entirely my issue and in no way a poor reflection on yourself. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

AMA Roll Call

There is currently an AMA Roll Call going on. Please visit the page and sign your name to indicate whether or not you're still active. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

re WP:NOT EVIL

Hunh, Well, good on FloNIght. I certainly wasn't aware of any of that.

The case of WP:SNOW is interesting. That's an essay also, (one which the authors of were too chicken to even open to discussion as a proposed guideline), but which is very frequently cited as a basis for actions. That annoys me no end, but it also makes a handy-dandy precedent for using WP:NE in the same way -- using as a citation for action with no community adoption needed. Thank you, WP:SNOW people!

I downgraded it to an essay because someone put a big red X on it, which I think is pretty clearly not justified by the facts on the ground. The fact of the matter is, as I see it, the core arguments for the article haven't been refuted, and can't be, under the moral structure by which most editors actually operate. Things like this are not decided by voting numbers but by, among other things, the preponderance of argument.

On the other hand, I couldn't put into force as an actuall adopted guideline, as I'd be shouted down by hoi polloi.

I realize that you are an exception to this, as you have a reasonably rigrous and cohesive philosophy which is... unusual. Not representitive of the average editor, I would say. So if it was just you and me in some Titan-like struggle for the soul of Wikipedia, that might be different. However, most editors are... how to put this... well, I can't think of a way to put it that wouldn't sound pejorative to me, if not to you maybe. Most editors are... let's say weak in the sense that they are bound by chains of their own making when addressing issues of harm to others... I haven't read Nietchze but maybe he would say something like that... By the way, did you see WP:BG&E? Also WP:EVIL, although that's pretty lame, actually.

Anyway, I'd re-mentioned it at the RfC place, didn't get any bites... So I guess it'll have to stay as it is... although it's not entirely up to me, as I don't WP:OWN it, but there are others who would defend its current status. Herostratus 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:)

Wow, Joe, that was a great post. Well, the Sox manage to break the heart quite easily, second half collapse is on course. :P About team Italia, well, I supported them over France as well. Sorry... I'm more confused by FIFA's new rankings, but that's another story. Barnstars= eh. I view barnstars and other little goodies like that, as something that's like a pat on the back and recognition. It's good, but the amount of barnstars don't make a Wikipedian great. It's the effort and dilligence. Which, you have. :) Forgive this strange post, I'm just very tired after seeing the New England Revolution get whooped 4-1. I hope everything is going well in the RL for you, and I know you're incredible here on Wiki. Yanksox 04:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! =)

Yup - it's perfectly all right to link Omar Bradley. I made my user page when I first started and had no idea what I was doing and have since forgotten the quote (I don't look at my userpage often - only when it's vandalized). =) Thanks a bunch! I second Nick's tired comment... I got home from the game late and didn't get a chance to thank you before dropping into bed. =) Srose (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WC

You wrote to Yanksox: "...Srose's being a U2 fan (and having supported Italy over France in the WC) cuts the other way..."

You know, in Russia, in English class, they always taught us to refer to the toilet as "the WC" for "water-closet" :) :) This takes on a whole new meaning. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA/Yanksox

It will go live this weekend. You expressed interest in a co-nom. The draft nom is here: User:Crzrussian/Sandbox. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the congrats, I appreciate it. You don't need to worry about my use of the tools. I will only be going into contentious issues if need be, and I don't think that will be often. My first objective is to help with the backlog at WP:RM, and we will see how things go from there. Thanks again. --liquidGhoul 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for what you wrote on Brandy Alexandre. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My name

Surprisingly, since the person in question doesn't strike me as being that bright, he's actually not that far off in his guess about my username. He just picked the wrong sport. Fan-1967 04:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)