User talk:JoanneB/Archive2005/December

204.169.146.197

204.169.146.197 is at it again after coming off a block and receiving numerous previosu warnings. Can you block for a longer period than before? Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm afraid our opinions regarding blocks and warnings differ. I don't think there's anything wrong with longer blocks, if nescessary, but I don't think one was warranted in this case. IP's can be used by different people, especially if there's more than a week between a block and the next case of vandalism. Of course there's a possibility that it's one and the same person, and I've given him a warning. If he continues to vandalise, he can count on a block, of course... (by the way, although I don't mind checking out IPs like this and blocking them, you might have better luck on WP:AIV, since these days I don't have a lot of access to a computer every day. --Joann e B 18:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing

I have no clue why I ended up here in this page ... but now that I am ... I find you saying this a bit interesting: "Welcome to my talk page! If you leave a message, I'll usually answer your comment here, to keep conversations together. If I leave you a message, feel free to answer it on your own page, I'll watch!" I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I notice most people do not do that. They just reply to each other in the other's respective page. This makes it easier for them to know when they got a reply and read it. Of course, it makes it more difficult for 3rd parties to follow what they are saying. But is the discussion page's intention to facilitate discussion betweeen those involved in the exchange (2 people at most) or to showcase to the rest what people discuss? I do not know. But ... it would be easier if we all did the same. BTW, I notice other people (a minority) doing like you do. Initially I thought they were just plain lazy ... but now I am not sure. It makes sense either way it is done. I am confused. ;-) (now, will I ever find my way back here to read any potential reply from you?) ;-) Anagnorisis 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I must say, I used to think people with a notice like this were lazy too :-) But then there were a few times that the fragments of conversation that were spread over different talk pages drove me crazy, especially if more then 2 people were involved in a discussion. So I decided to make 'the switch' to this. Yes, the most obvious downside of it is that you have to track several talk pages... But I think the advantages outweigh it, although I never mind if people prefer to receive replies on their own page. Regards, --Joann e B 18:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I was pleased to receive a message from you. Now that I have your signature in my own page, it will be easier for me to find my way back here. Many thanks for the reply above. Yes, who knows? Maybe some day in the future I may make the same switch. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 19:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Médanos

Saw in your page a request for a Medanos article. I just wrote it. But somehow I suspect this is not what you had in mind. --Anagnorisis 19:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, what you are referring to, those requested pages, are not pages that I'd like to see created myself... It is a template that I just inserted on the page: {{Opentask}}. You might see the template on other user pages too, it looks the same everywhere. Regards, --Joann e B 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's a bit of a large discussion page, so be prepared.) Hope to see you there. -Mys e ku rity ^{(have you seen this?)} 15:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

220.245.178.141

Hi, I am the user who currently has the IP 220.245.178.141 , and I have no idea whats going on. I was browsing wikipedia today, and saw "You have new messages.". I had never seen that message before, so I clicked 'new messages', and it took me to my IP's discussion page. On that page were various claims that I had vandalized pages I had never ever been to, 1 about a person I have never heard of, and demands that I "Knock the personal attacks on Lupo off". I don't even know who Lupo is! I then checked out those articles I supposedly vandalized, and checked the history pages, and what it said I had done, I would never have done, and nobody on my home network would have done it either.

I really dont know whats going on. Do IP's get recycled, meaning it could have gone to anyone else in Australia, at any time? If so, its likely the person who had it last did all that. I am sorry about all this rubbish coming from my IP, but it wasn't me.

If you could help me understand whats going on, that would be great. (note that I came to you because you were the last one to say I (or my IP) had done something bad).

EDIT: I just read that this leaves a name and timestamp, so i have added it. 220.245.178.136 12:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well, if you look at that timestamp, you see that you now have a different IP ... yes, it is very well possible that IP's are 'recycled' (for many internet service providers it works that way) and it is very likely that you had nothing to do with all of the above. If, in the future, you want to prevent seeing messages that are not meant for you, consider creating an account (it's free and you don't have to provide any personal information). If, for some reason, you don't want to, just ignore the messages that you think have nothing to do with your contributions. Thanks! --Joann e B 12:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Me again - I registered an account to stop being blamed for this stuff. Thanks for your help. tpg1989 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racial profiling

Why did you revert my changes? Are you an Administrator? Did I violate a rule? Elabro 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am an administrator, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I did. Your edit summary did not explain why you deleted such a large part of the article, and as you deleted the lead as well as the categories, interwikilinks and external links (in fact, you deleted everything but a certain section), I decided to revert. You didn't really violate any rules, perhaps you just made a mistake? --Joann e B 15:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to edit a section, and somehow only that section became the new entire contents of the article. I have apologized at talk:racial profiling. Thanks for catching my error! :-) Elabro 16:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Management

I did the same thing - but in reverse! - here.

In this case, I thought a section of text smacked of professional, non-encyclopedic writing and googled it. It contained many word-for-word copies from the Mind Tools website, so I deleted it. Was that okay? Elabro 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was very okay, good catch! You are right, a copyvio indeed (and also, since Wikipedia does not aim to be an instruction manual, part of the content and the tone of voice would have been wrong anyway). What would be helpful though, just as a tip, is naming the source in the edit summary that you provide. A template that I use in cases like this, is {{subst:nothanks|PAGENAME}} where you replace PAGENAME with the name of the article from which you deleted the text. Again, as I said on that other talk page, it looks like your doing a good job! --Joann e B 16:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

WikiThanks

Thanks for all your recent support, mainly over IRC, in assisting me in blocking troublesome users, and assisting with my monobook style. Ian13 19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page! Mushroom 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page!!! --A dam1213 Talk + 05:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

65.124.167.98

Hi Joanne. Just so you know, Journalist and I also blocked this anon at exactly the same time as you, so he's only blocked for 24 hours. [1] Cheers, [[Sam Korn]] 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I guess that stuff happens all the time. The vandal got lucky this time :-)(my reasoning was that he started a day after the previous block, but 24 hours is fine with me, too) --Joann e B 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My user page thanks you

WikiThanks

Thanks for reverting my user page... and within 2 minutes of the vandalism, too! Amazing :) -Lanoitarus 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, of course! The speed is mostly thanks to CDVF and CoolCat's IRC bot, I think it would take much longer to notice it without those... --Joann e B 19:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me to move an article??

I'm the anonymous user that cut and paste the article from "Sheffer stroke" to "Logical nand" before. I have posted the request in the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves

I have done the steps that I need to do, could you help me by giving some suggestions and ... (by moving the article)?? My intention of cutting and pasting the article is only to help wikipedia to improve the content... but no others...

It looks like a there's quite a bit of discussion about his, and I'm not going to intervene: I have no knowledge of the topic, and others on that talk page do. If there's a consensus to move, and no one in the discussion is an admin, feel free to contact me again, but until then there's not much for me to help you with. --Joann e B 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

persistent vandalism

Hi,

I was following up on vandalism to the article on Mecca and have discovered that somebody using IP 213.249.155.237 has been a very persistent vandal. Since you have been involved as an administrator, would you please follow up on this account? Checking the contributions it seems that only one person uses 213.249.155.237 and that person does nothing constructive. Thanks. P0M 23:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on him, but it looks like there's several people on that IP, and long blocks of shared IPs are usually a bad idea. Also, I don't always have a lot of computer access these days, so you might want to list guys like this on WP:AIV, there's usually a rather quick respons to that. Regards, --Joann e B 19:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24.72.1.18

Feel free to block, I test4ed him and he doesn't care.Gator (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks anyway.Gator (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't have a lot of computer access today. By the way, WP:AIV or the IRC vandalism channel might work quicker in cases like this. Regards, --Joann e B 19:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block-conflict query

We both blocked the Hannukah vandal at the same time - but yours was 24 hours and mine was 3. Should I unblock and then reblock for 24? BD2412 T 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's fine, I think. We can always reblock him if necessary! This kind of thing happens a lot, not much you can do about it I guess :-) --Joann e B 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - looking down the block log, I kinda got that sense. Thanks! BD2412 T 19:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anything can be done about it, but it's usually not a big problem. By the way, congratulations on the adminship! --Joann e B 19:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it's a whole new world to me! (well, pretty new to you to, if I recall correctly) BD2412 T 19:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost three weeks now: still new, I'm still learning every day! --Joann e B 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence

File:Mandan hunter with buffalo skull.JPG

You have been presented with the Buffalo Skull of Diligence for reverting vandalism on Mandan while it was on the Mainpage, December 9, 2005. Thank you for your watchfulness and diligence!

Thanks for your work reverting the vandals on Mandan while it was on the mainpage yesterday! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vandals

Hello, JoanneB. Thanks for your help with the blocking. Things seem to be working okay now. -- PFHLai 10:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does, there was some error, but luckily one of the devs was able to fix it... --Joann e B 10:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Renwick Brevoort

Wow, you're fast! Thanks for moving the page. I was busy looking up how to do that and by the time I was through, voila! --Worldofdew 14:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well I was on new page patrol, and when a page looks like it's worth keeping, I move it if nescessary. You're welcome! --Joann e B 14:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User warning template

Hey JoanneB, I'm glad that you're helping me in reverting vandals and warning them, but was it necessary to remove my warning of User:82.44.181.44 and add your own? If he vandalised again, please add another warning or report him to WP:AIV. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 19:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that wasn't nescessary... and I wouldn't. If you check the edit history, can you see that we edited in the same minute. I don't know what happened exactly, but somehow the wiki is behaving differently regarding edit conflicts (see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)). Before, if two people tried to edit at the same time, you'd see a warning, but somehow today I've seen examples of merging edits. I don't know what happened here, but I know for sure that I'd never remove someone else's warning. Regards, --Joann e B 19:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. No problem, I was actually just wondering if that was the case; good to know. Thank you for your help with WP:AIV (I didn't know you were an admin) and sorry about not signing; I didn't copy the template in full. Have a nice day! — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 19:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi JoanneB/Archive2005/December: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005. Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December.

You've received this spam because you signed up for it here. To stop the spam, pop over and remove yourself and you'll never hear from Esperanza again!

➨ ❝R e DVERS❞ 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

</nowiki>

Barnstar

For stellar recent changes patrolling Dan100 (Talk) 08:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job!

A month was what I would have done (and hopefully can in one week if my RFA passes). Good job!Gator (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A thank you from Ann

Hi, Joanne. I owe you two thank yous – one for your vote of support on my RfA, and the other for the help you gave in finding material for the article on ergative verbs. I must apologize for the delay in thanking you for your vote of support, as I've now been an admin for several weeks. I started thanking people, then got very busy with college work when I had got about half way through. I finished the other people yesterday, but left you out, as I didn't want to thank you until I had actually done a little bit of work on the ergative verbs. (I felt a bit embarrassed that I hadn't done anything about that article since you had so helpfully found the extra information.) Anyway, I'm now an admin, and I've touched up the ergative verbs, so it's time to say, heel erg bedankt! AnnH ^(talk) 23:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ann, congratulations on becoming an admin!! I'm sure you'll do well. And good job on the ergative verbs article! However, there's still something about those verbs that confuses me. This confusion wasn't exactly cured by the fact that the online version of the famous Dutch "Van Dale" dictionary gives a complete opposite definition of it compared to the paper version of the same dictionary... Anyway, I guess it's just a complex topic! (And don't feel embaressed about it, I know exactly how stuff like this goes, no problem!) --Joann e B 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

Hi

How are you coping without the IRC room? I must say I feel like I've lost a leg... Alf ^melmac 14:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I've found a way to join it anyway :-) I didn't manage to do so using Chatzilla, since that one keeps going back to irc.freenode.net, but chat.freenode.net works! So I'm using Opera until things get back to normal again, or until I figure out how to reconfigure Chatzilla... Hope you'll manage to do the same, your presence will be appreciated! (and we rather have you walking around with two legs, instead of one ;-)) --Joann e B 14:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That got me into irc://chat.freenode.net/ ok, how do I get to join wherever you guys are (remembering I am shockingly thick with techinical stuff most/sometimes)

No problem! Now type "/join #wikipedia-en-vandalism" (without the quotation marks) and we'll welcome you with open arms :-) --Joann e B 14:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

JoanneB,

The fetal tissue image isn't the original...so I will revert your changes. If you don't believe me you can check the edit history. Thanks, Chooserr 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know it wasn't the original! I thought I reverted to the right version, but if I didn't: sorry! --Joann e B 17:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm pretty sure I reverted to the actual barnstar. My version and yours are identical, as far as I can tell, maybe your cache was playing tricks with you! --Joann e B 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 day ban! What the.

24 hours? You bloody facist....I just wanted to test image codes.

Back to reading Britannica for me, this whole thing stinks of sticking it to the new guy

Good day! Well.. to start with, I'm not known for 'biting newbies', so if I blocked you, it wasn't because of some kind of 'sticking it to the new guy'. Further, if you have a complaint about my block, you're always free to email me, that's possible while you're blocked too. If you want me to review the block, I'm always willing to do so, or to hand it over to others for a 'second opinion'. However, since you did not leave this message using the same account (since the account you used has no blocks), I have no possibilities to do that now.

If I misinterpreted your actions or intent, I sincerely apologise. I'm not trying to annoy people here, just trying to improve it, and to protect it from what we call 'vandalism'. Apparently, you did not see your action as vandalism, but if I blocked you, I probably did for some reason. I'd appreciate it if you could let me know the IP or the username you were editing from when you were blocked, so I could explain my actions.

One last request: if you leave a message on a talk page, please sign it with '~~~~', so your name and the time of your comment will be included. Anyway, I'm very sorry that our encounter was not what you expected from Wikipedia. I hope you decide to stick around after all! Regards, --Joann e B 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage!

Fir e Fox 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

style="color:green;cursor:crosshair;">e]]Fox 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Bowl- vandal vs. edit war

Joanne, you removed the block request for an anon user with the comment: 68.185.158.145, hasn't edited for a while and it looked more like a content/POV dispute to me. Did you look at his contribs or the article history? I'm not sure what you meant by 'hasn't edited for a while' since the user has made several of the edits in issue over the last 24 hours. I was certainly hesitant to list for fear the issue borders on being a lame edit war but I'm not sure what else can be done with an uncommunicative anon user demonstrating bad faith. 68.185.158.145...

repeatedly deletes a notable interesting fact about the article subject (one team in the rivalry has never won on their home field)
never provides an edit summary
targets this one article (three other articles edited without vandalism ever)
responds to a warning with clear vandalism to another article changing factual information[2]

If it's not vandalism but rather an edit war, the anon is certainly in violation of 3RR. What is the solution to this? Autiger 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the contributions by that user. One thing that made me decide not to block, is that his last edit was just a minute after your warning: it's not sure that he didn't stop after your last warning. In my opinion, but perhaps others disagree, the aim of a block is to prevent further vandalism, and if a vandal has stopped vandalizing, there's (in my opinion) no need to block. Of course, if he vandalises again, he will be blocked. I initially misjudged his edits, that's why I considered it a POV-war: I didn't notice that he inserted misspellings. If you consider it a 3RR violation, you might want to report it on WP:AN/3RR, but I don't see it as a clean cut case of that. I will, however, keep an eye on his contributions and block if he continues. --Joann e B 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing again Joanne; it's a frustrating situation. I had even acquiesced on one change related to the recent series record (almost removed that point entirely). Here's the anon's latest change again [3] (after my revert). Autiger 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yeah, that looks like a 3RR violation (be careful though, that you don't violate the rule yourself, too). Report him on the page I mentioned, I would look into it myself but I don't have any time tonight. --Joann e B 22:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dorsch

This message is regarding the page Tom Dorsch. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. The rules as posted at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion clearly state that you may edit an article while an AFD is pending, but you may not blank it. By deleting all but three meaningless sentences, User:JoanneB has effectively blanked the article. There are good reasons for the Wikipedia Rule. One is that by blanking the article, those who vote on AFD will not know what they are voting for. Indeed, anybody looking at the article as it stands now will not understand why the subject is notable or even why this biography is on Wikipedia.

It is also noteworthy that User:Rook_wave, the person calling for this article to be deleted, is in Germany and JoanneB is in the Netherlands. What would happen is an American user called for the biography of a German football player to be deleted?

Accordingly, I am reverting the article to the way it was when Rook wave first posted the AFD and I am posting a warning on the user page of JoanneB. Sam Sloan 03:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I might have overstepped a line, maybe I was too bold. However, let me first of all state that this has nothing to do with my nationality. If it had been a German or Dutch football player, I would have done the same thing. I don't know if Tom Dorsch is notable enough for his own article, as I stated in my comment on the AfD. I strongly believe though, that Wikipedia should consist of neutral, objective, referenced and verifiable information and the content that I deleted was none of that. Wikipedia has a lot of different rules, and sometimes those rules interfere with each other: in this case, the policy you stated above about the process of AfDs interfered with policy like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I think those last policies are closest to the Five pillars, and that's why I did what I did. You're probably right that I should not have blanked the article, but I think that the way things will go now, the article will be deleted after the AfD, while if 'my version' had been expanded with some factual, objective information, it would have had a good chance to survive, if Tom Dorsch is as notable as you say he is. --Joann e B 08:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did overstep a line and what you did was more than just "too bold". Blanking the article while AfD was pending was a clear violation of Wikipedia rules and for that reason I am demanding that you be removed as an administrator, especially since you have caused a great controversy. To see what you have done, I suggest that you go to [4] and you will see that there have been thus far 67 postings on that group alone over the controversy you have created and this has caused embarassment and discredit to Wikipedia. Incidently, if you do go to [5] you should know that there are two persons posting fake "Sam Sloan" messages there, and if you read them you will immediately realize that they are fake. By your inappropriate act of blanking an article about a person who is very obviously noteworthy, you have caused a lot of trouble to a lot of people. Sam Sloan 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake Sam, get a grip. Firstly, always assume good faith - and suggesting that an editor is acting on the basis of nationality is not doing that. Secondly, JoanneB did not 'blank' the article. Blanking is removing material without any reason given. The edit summary gave the reason. Improving articles is perfectly permissable during an AfD. You obviously didn't see it as an improvement - fine, you are entitled to revert the changes (as you did) and discuss the issues on the talk page. You are not entitled to harange an editor. Your 'demand' that JoanneB be de-admined will not be taken seriously by anyone here. As for controversy outside wikipedia - who cares? We are more concerned with our reputation for having referenced NPOV articles than with rants posted on google groups. Please calm down. --Doc ^ask? 20:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:67.177.61.135

fyi - immediately after the lift of the 24-hour ban - this user began reverting without comment again - despite significant progress towards a more NPOV version of the paragraph. not sure if you feel that deserves a warning or another ban but thought you'd like to know. Trödeltalk 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to IRC. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the #sandbox. Thank you. // Pathoschild 07:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks for making me smile! --Joann e B 08:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild 08:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RC patrol for a day

Jimmy has got back to me - and he's up for it! Get in touch with me when you're next around and lets work out what we could do for him - perhaps spend some time with us in the IRC channel, and mail him your set up of CDVF to have a go with? Dan100 (Talk) 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I'm not expecting to be online as much over the next few days so...

User:Francs2000/Christmas

-- Francs 2000 09:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article

Hi, My name is Samuel Gordon-Stewart and as you may recall an article about myself, which I didn't know about until a google search today, was recently deleted. Whilst I am glad that it was deleted, as most of the other stuff on the web about me is completely false, I would be curious to see what it said. Would you be able to email the deleted article to me?

Thanks, and Merry Christmas,

Smoothwallsamuel 13:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mauled in motion

hi, you removed my nn-club speedy tag from the above article (and some others too) claiming its not speedy criteria. can you tell me why? wikipedia policy CSD A7 clearly states it is. also, i think there is no reason why a speedy tag cant be placed even if it is already on afd. thanks. Zzzzz 16:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I was away for Christmas. I reread the policy just now, you are right. I had not noticed that the policy had changed on December 20. Before that, clubs were not speediable, only persons. When I stated that the article was on AfD already anyway, I did not mean that those tags can't be applied at the same time. I just meant that it the article would be gone in a week anyway, otherwise I would have AfD'd it myself. Hope this clarified things, let me know if it didn't! Regards, --Joann e B 14:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

my disambig popups!

They've stopped working! FireFox said he's had the same thing happen to him, and thought maybe you could help. :-( I can't disambiguate anymore! *sob* Search 4 Lancer 11:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza elections

Thanks for voting for me in the Esperanza elections. I've been appointed to the Advisory Committee, thanks to your show of confidence in me. I'll do my best to make you proud, but please feel free to ask me for help at any time or to give me tips as to what you would like to do. Thanks for being an active member of Esperanza! I'll see you around. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]