User talk:Lexi Marie/Archive2

Protect or Remove

Look Prozac, in the first place I can't have too much respect for a guy who names himself after a psychotropic medication that causes suicide. Second, In posts all over the web the clowns from Bullshido state "two members of Bullshido have reviewed a videotape of an older man in the yard at (address withheld for security purposes) who appears to be the same as the older man in the picture at (link to a website showing a picture of myself and another Sensei). That means these little punks are STALKING my friends, hiding in the bushes like the voyeurs and pedophiles they are, with their little video cameras taking pictures of my friends. Because they also publish the addresses and phone numbers of three other people they THINK are my "secret identities" so their punk ass buddies can look us up and take a poke at us. Now this is the same tactic that got a bunch of people killed when abortion clinic haters published the names and addresses of doctors who were working there. THAT IS A FACT Jack! So don't tell me I've got an attitude and that I am attacking YOU! Take down this entry! I NEVER AUTHORIZED ANY OF YOU CLOWNS TO PUBLISH ANYTHING ABOUT ME OUR USE ANY PICUTRES FROM MY WEBSITE! And, I REFUSE TO LET YOU CONTINUE TO HARASS ME WITH YOUR FEIGNED INNOCENCE while the trolls chuckle merrily at your utter stupidity! Now you can e-mail me privately to discuss this, IF you've got any balls! Or, I can continue to come here and embarass you by demonstrating what a fool you are. I am tired of wasting time with you jerks. Remove this entry. I do not want to be in any way associated with such a bunch of pseudo-intellctual losers!

Ashida Kim dojopress@aol.com

Image watermark questions

Phroziac,
I saw your edit summary on Image:Strength.jpg copyvio mentioned the watermark on the image. I've been looking for precendent with regard to watermark, can you feed me a link? I can't find this discussed. Thanks,
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't very clear before, sorry about that. I'm not interested in this image (which I have now looked at and am... speechless) as I am interested in the watermark. I have an image with an embedded copyright watermark that has listed as its creator a Yahoo! e-mail address. It seemed to me that permission from an anonymous e-mail user is not sufficient to overcome the problem of the embedded copyright. Which is what I was actually asking, sorry. But thanks for the images burnt into my retinas! *_*
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sodje/WP:Vain

If you feel that the Sam Sodje article was vanity, you should have listed it on wp:vfd rather than just redirecting it to Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. KeithD ^(talk) 16:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I redir'd that article through IAR, as I feel it is a better way to remove vanity then VFD. It was suggested on some Wikipedia: talk page about vfd a while back, and I liked the idea and decided to try it on an article or two. I just google'd that and meh, maybe he's borderline notable, so I won't touch it. I usually google first. --Phroziac (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Have copied what you said on my talk page to here, so that the conversation flows better. If you answer here from now on, I'll make sure I watch the page so that I can keep up with what's being said).

I think it's probably better to deal with vanity in the traditional way. As far as I'm aware, extreme vanity (such as "KeithD is the coolest person in the whole world") can be speedy deleted by adding the template {{db|vanity}}. Cases where notability is in question, such as a footballer for a smallish team like Brentford, I'd say are probably better off dealt with by concensus rather than unilateral decision. KeithD ^(talk) 16:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the betterness of the traditional way, but I will argue with myself on if I should use the traditional way or not for a while. I would definitely stop if even one other person told me to though (Partially because i've had other people tell me to keep doing it). By the way, the advantages are that it can be undone within policy if it is really not vanity (aka a screw-up), it gives admins more time to do more important things, and technically it reduces database size. Yes, that is speedyable, and infact, if it's one line of extreme vanity, it is speedyable under "No content". Unfortunately extreme vanity was only recently added to CSD, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sam Toupin. Of course you might have already known that. --Phroziac (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting points there, that I hadn't considered. However, I think the traditional way (although it could be improved in many ways) is probably the best option at the moment, if only for the simple reason that someone using the encyclopaedia who's looking up Brentford F.C. is going to be better served seeing that the link to Sam Sodje doesn't have an article, than by seeing a link to an article on Sam Sodje, but on clicking it finding themselves at WP:VAIN. There may be advantages in the running of Wikipedia for doing it your way, but it seems to me to be a disadvantage in the using of Wikipedia to do it that way. KeithD (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's linked to? *blush* Ok, I'll stop it. --Phroziac (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You just sent me a message telling me to use "english" as this is the english wikipedia. What are you talking about exactly?

Leather carving

For creating the work and taking the photograph, you do have copyright on it yourself. The impact of using a pattern means that it may be a derivative work of the pattern, so that in theory Tandy may have some sort of claim to copyright as well. But the thing is, Tandy intended for you to create derivative works, because that's the whole point of providing a pattern. Under the circumstances, I don't think there's much they could prevent you from doing with it, and I'm fine with the situation as is. If push came to shove, we could raise a fair use defense, but I think the problem is more hypothetical than real. --Michael Snow 17:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sandbot script

Please send me an email regarding the script. I will need to know what wiki you plan to use it on. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Ibne Hasan

Hi, I found a few probable refs in Google Cache under "Maulana Ibne Hasan". He may be notable in a field that just doesn't ovelap much with the Internet! Dlyons493 15:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article still seems to be there at "Maulana Ibne Hasan Nonaharvi". I'm guessing a bit - my Urdu is on the same level as my other Indian lanuages i.e. totally non-existent. But I think he probably is quite well known, just not in the West. Dlyons493 18:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Wiki

We gotta find a way to get your wiki a bit more attention. It seems like only you and one other user are making any contributions. Acetic Acid 07:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

1K

Hallelujah! Have some cake! Acetic Acid 23:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies for the way I spoke to you on IRC

Dear Phroziac, I just wanted to say I'm sorry for the way I spoke to you on IRC just now; it is the early morning here in the UK (5:29 AM) and I tend to lose my temper entirely over tiny matters when I haven't slept due to my insomnia. I was really nasty to you, Phroziac, and I really regret having done so as I know you were merely trying to be helpful; I am truly sorry, and I shall endeavour to avoid it happening again. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull 04:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's says in tutorial not to create vanity page, but??

But is a User page about your interests and pursuits relative to building areas in Wikipedia appropriate, like yours? Or does this come after contributing for a while? (off to read the links you sent me) Aasgaard Aasgaard 00:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Millennial Wikipedians

Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars

Since you had an opinion about the cast list, you might want to add your voice to another discussion about including the opening crawl in the article. User:Adamwankenobi insists on it, so it's come to a pseudo-vote discussion at Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Coffee 03:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft Bot

Please make certain your bot is part of Category:Wikipedia bots. You may apply for your bot status now, if you have not done so. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Toby.png

I really must object to your application of this tag:

This is a image with an unknown source. Any assumptions about the copyright status or license of this image is opinion or speculation. Use of this image in articles should be avoided if an alternative is available with more clear copyright status.

If you continue to maintain that you applied it in good faith, I shall -- with no little reluctance -- withdraw my complaint. But as matters stand, it merely appears to me to be a hostile act, totally out of keeping with the desired character of an admin.

I direct your attention -- and that of any other reader -- to Image talk:Toby.png. — Xiong 熊 talk * 04:56, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Featured Article Drive: Meeting (3rd September 2005)

This is a reminder that there will be a meeting of the Featured Article Drive team this evening at 20:00 GMT in our IRC channel on Freenode.

If you are unable to make the meeting, please let me know, and I will ensure that a link to the log is sent to you afterwards

With thanks, Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship

Hi, Phroziac. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please consider reading all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. Though everything you do, excluding image deletions and page history merges, is reversible, you should nevertheless be very careful with your sysop capabilities. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Regards — Dan | Talk 18:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on being promoted to adminship! Cool beans! — JIP | Talk 19:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popups JS on wikicites

Hi, thanks for your email about this. I've made some changes to the dev version of my script, User:Lupin/popupsdev.js, which I believe makes it work with wikicities wikis (and maybe several other English language wikis). Please could you test it out and report any problems? You can install it by adding

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popupsdev.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

to your wikicities user JS files (one for each wiki, unfortunately). If it seems relatively bug-free then I'll migrate this to User:Lupin/popups.js. L upin 19:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you're an admin, you may also be interested in the popupAdminLinks option for the script - see Wikipedia:Tools#Navigation_popups. L upin 20:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Don't forget to substitute templates with section headers (such as {{Welcome2}} and {{Idw}}) when you use them on talk pages: it reduces server load, and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Phroziac ^(talk) 19:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that from now on. Adam ^Rock 19:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Crusty Ass's block

Hi, I've noticed that you blocked both my username and my ip address. Since I cannot do anything now I changed my name from Crusty_Ass to Crusty007. Please unblock the ip address at 132.229.122.135. BTW, the name is not unacceptable, but that's just my opinion (I got it 6+years ago because I like my food well-done, ie: crusty). (preceding unsigned comment by 132.229.122.134 17:46, September 6, 2005)

I unblocked your IP, i *thought* i unblocked it before you left the message though. I still consider the username unacceptable, sorry. I also asked a few others, and they agreed. But, your new one is ok. --Phroziac ^(talk) 22:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

AfD

Hi there. I was wondering how you arrived at consensus to redirect in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisdom of the Body. It looks like a fairly strong delete debate, no? -Splash 01:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do not think there was consensus to redirect. There are 3 redirect votes and every other vote is to delete. Were you discounting several votes, or did you find some of the arguments weak? If you personally thought it should be redirected, you could always have joined the debate — closing it should only really be done by following the debate whether you agree with it or not. -Splash 02:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and seeing as I'm here anyway. You asked if Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Groups who hate extraterrestrials was nonsense. Well, I thought about that, but decided that no, it wasn't Wikipedia:Patent nonsense because it was certainly not just random characters and was entirely understandable. Only if it is completely meaningless or irredambly confused is it patent nonsense. -Splash 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POTW

Please briefly state on my user page why you have locked a page which contains lies and slander against my person by a bully who's wikipedia use consists of nothing but abuse? Leonig Mig 17:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, if the RFC concludes that this user systematically stalks any user who contradicts him and engages in at least 3 edit wars per week (which is true) what are you going to do? Ban him? He can get a new IP address and carry on. What good is all that effort. All I want to do is edit the damn wikipedia. I don't have time to "collect diffs" about someone who I wouldn't even spit on if I met in real life and who has caused me more stress than I can even beleive myself. Leonig Mig 19:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. there is already an RFC in preparation. User:G-Man/POTW RFC Leonig Mig 19:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The next step will be an RFA, however I shall give him the oppotunity to "relax". If he manages to let me carry on editing without feeling the need to intervene I shall let things pass. My regards, I've found your intervention here very "professional", if that makes any sense on the wikipedia. Capable perhaps. Leonig Mig 22:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fabartus bug in popups script

Thanks a lot for finding and reporting that bug. It crashed for me too, and I think I've fixed it in the latest versions of popups.js and popupsdev.js. It appears that complex regexes can confuse firefox :-( L upin 03:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

photo usage

Thanks for the notice about the recent photo I uploaded. As soon as the upload completed, I made changes to what is more appropriate. I've received proper permission from the copyright holder and used a proper tag now. Sidp

WWF

Thanks for locking it, Phroziac. It was getting impossible to rv to the right version. Sorry I rv you, btw— that version contained too much vandalism.—encephalon έγκέφαλος 18:32:09, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Jennifer Mayerle

Oops. Sorry I made you do extra work. Psy guy ^(talk) 03:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adamesque

I thought you'd want to see it. R e dwolf24 (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am done....

I think I am done with Al-Ahbash. McKhan

Joolz's RFA

Hey Phroziac, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :D -- Joolz 11:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. I thought we resolved that AfD very well — new admins have got much more upset with me than you did when I first challenged a V/AfD closure of theirs. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 00:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nationmaster.com/

Anyone please give me an answer to this: What is the relation between Wikipedia and http://www.nationmaster.com/ ? Profero 18:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I have deleted an input by user:Phroziac about deletion of (my?) input instead of just asking: Which input do you mean should be deleted? (What a mess! Please forgive a newcomer.) Profero 09:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I just tried to say that I had deleted something you wrote under this heading, and I didn't mean to. Thats all. Over and out ! Profero 00:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AckbarAward

Phroziac has been awarded the AckbarAward for stating the blleding obvious! Congratulations!

Admiral Phroziac has been awarded the AckbarAward for stating the bleeding obvious!
<karynn> fuddlemark: she's 53 cards short of a deck. <Phroziac> aren't there 52 in a deck?

Thanks. lol. --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:58, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) I'll be expecting my cabal toaster at your earliest convenience. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:09, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

See Topic and Image for message. Acetic '^Acid 04:09, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Bmicomp's RfA

Well, my RfA has not quite completed yet, but either way, I'd like to thank you for your vote and your support, regardless of the outcome. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington

Phroziac?!!! I think you are being mistaken. 13 votes for delete against 7 to keep! Please recheck the Afd! Cheers -- Svest 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Whew, that was a close one. 13/20 is clearly 65% percent, just below that magic (and unpolicy) 2/3rds. How would you feel about simply un-closing the AfD? I'm sure there exists at least one cowboy admin around. Fell free to tell me to get bent, by the way! ^_^
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it bad for that article to exist? --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for responding. I'll watch this page to centralise discussion.

I'd like to avoid any precedent that implies that things be kept simply to avoid the appearance of censorship. This could be a book could be about bunnies and sunshine, I'd have voted the same.
It's retention is tantamount to advertising for a completely non-notable book. If it had been about bunnies and sunshine, it would have been shown the door post-haste.

Does that make sense? I'm in a bit of a jumble right now...
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense to me. And it's obvious to me that I can't have both sides like my action either. :) I don't buy into the whole notability thing, as long as it is verifiable, and not a permanent stub. That article meets both of those. Of course, I did not vote in the vfd, so this isn't about my opinion. As for un-closing the AFD, I doubt it would get sufficient activity to gain any consensus, most AFDs don't move much after the first few days. If someone else wants to do it, that doesn't bother me, though I would rather them not. I don't think it's advertising to have an NPOV article about a book, but I did not check the article for POV, and if it's POV, then that's not really a reason for deletion either, just a reason to make it better. --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. ^_^ (I'd never vote to delete something for POV, by the way.) Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Ed Poor has been closed without action after Ed resigned his bureaucrat status.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

Just curious: What do you always mean by "Extreme lesbian [insert other word here such as eggplant] support"? Is this some cabal joke I'm not aware of (since you're part of it now, right)? Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't be too stressed out. From the looks of your stress-o-meter, trolls/vandals/squalkers have worked you up. WikiBreaks work wonders! If you need anything that I can lend, just ask. Regards, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well that's interesting enough. Glad to hear that you're not totally burned out, and prepared to pull a TBSDY. Ha! Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Barnstars

I have a special place for barn stars. --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm yah ok. --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closing AfD debates

Hi Phroziac,

I wanted to start a discussion with you on the topic of one admin over-riding another's closing of an AfD debate. Specifically, I was somewhat startled to find that you had redecided Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter trolling by striking out my words and replacing them with a new conclusion. I admit that my judgment is not perfect, and that this debate could very well have been decided the other way. However, I would have preferred we dealt with it in a more collegial manner. I think Redwolf had the right idea in bringing to my attention on my talk page that he disagreed with my actions. That discussion would have most likely led, in a day or two's time, to the deletion of the page, with no strained relations. As it was, I felt a little disrespected by your actions. If I were one of the more hot-headed admins (they exist, but I like to think I deal with conflicts a little more coolly) it could have led to a deletion war and all sorts of battles, which would not have been good for the project. Sometimes, even if it takes time, dealing with people on a human level is the best way to get the job done.

Let me know what you think, moink 18:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. I feel better now. I haven't commented on the new proposal yet... but having some sort of a review process for those rare contested AfDs seems like a good idea. But I'm hoping that even then it will be used only after making an attempt to have a discussion with the admin whose judgment is being questioned. It's just part of Wikipedia:Assume good faith to at least make an attempt at understanding where that person is coming from. moink 21:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For reverting the vandalism to my user page. It's much appreciated! FCYTravis 01:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

I saw your comment here in the RfA page:

"Oppose - I wasn't sure if I should just not vote on this, since I don't know him, or oppose this, until i saw this: User talk:Ral315#your_edit_in_the_wiki_paper. I just don't like that attitude where age should be used like that. --Phroziac (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)"

I then went to that link, and read it:

It appears from the reading of the dialogue that GordonWattsDotCom, did not know that Ral315 was the editor of the signpost paper, and was upset that what appeared to be a drive-by random editor came in and reverted an edit, without first checking with either the paper's 2 editors -or the guy who posted it. It appears from the reading of the conversation, that GordonWattsDotCom was not saying the 15-year olds "where age is concerned" are stupid, but simply that he did not think that some random editor to disrespectfully change his edit without checking with the people who were in charge, and the fact he was 15-years old, added to GordonWattsDotCom's concern.

Since you don't know GordonWattsDotCom, and since you too would be upset if some young kid just randomly vandalized your page, I don't see why you get down on GW.com here. His remark about the age was merely meant to show that he didn't like it when people refused to respect their elders.

When Mr. Watts eventually found out that Ral315 was the editor, he apologized, but Ral315 should have told him that he was the editor to begin with. Watts has made numerous positive contributions, and came to Wikipedia to help other people fix errors and complete their articles. He doesn't get paid for this. How would you have reacted if some young kid did something like vandalism and did not explain or justify himself?

Since you say you don't know Watts, how can you make a decision on one small incident? See User:Raul654/Raul's_laws, where Mark says: "when opposing someone, generally they oppose on the basis of one or a small number of incidents which exposed that nominees's judgement as questionable."

Furthermore, even assuming you are right about Watts here, you are wrong on principal: The criteria for admin is merely that the editor be in good standing. I can verify that Watts has never been disciplined, and the only "block" was to block his old user name when he changed to a new, less self-promoting, user name:

From the RfA:

Comments regarding my "lack of experience": I admit that I don't have as many edits as some "veterans, but this is not big deal: Admins says, in salient part: "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community...."This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales."--GordonWattsDotCom 23:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the user who had the GordonWattsDotCom screen name, but it has been changed, thus I am the applicant against whom you voted; I carefully read every single comment on the RfA page, those for and especially those against: I have NEVER asked anyone to change his or her vote before, merely accepting their vote and explaining my reasoning, but I am going to make an exception here: I think you don't have a clear understanding of that one single incident -nor the RfA policy, and instead making a big deal about something that gives me only a few extra powers. Since I have not ever been disciplined, blocked etc., even when walking into the midst of many edit wars on many "difficult" controversial pages, I think I have proven my trust and responsibility.

Since you admit you don't know me, never met me, and really don't know anything at all about me except a wrong interpretation of one single incident, I ask you to simply re-read the entire page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts and, unless I have mis-stated the facts and policy here, change your vote. I could be wrong, but I ask that you simply consider my simple arguments of fact and policy here and at the RfA page first.

Thank you for your time.

--GordonWatts 04:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Simpson Back on the candidates list.

This is the second attempt to get Ashlee on the Feature Article! Come on, Ashlee Fans!! SHOW YOUR SUPPORT!!! IT DESERVES TO BE THERE!!!! SHE IS THE BIG THING RIGHT NOW WITH HER NEW SONG "BOYFRIEND"!!!!!

heh heh (anon ip restored Ashlee Simpson article to FAC but then was reverted by an admin). Well, we did get some interesting opposition on the article's FAC I must say. The objections on the Ashlee Simpson article were valid though. The album.... well.... that's another story I guess :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popups CSS

Hi, I've added a few CSS class names to the popups in the development version. You asked about transparent popups on the RC wiki - I've fixed that using CSS. Try copying my monobook.css on that wiki and purging your cache. Lupin|talk|popups 12:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/3RR

Would you mind taking a look at my report on the WP:AN/3RR page? I'd appreciate it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandals

Howdy, just thought I would drop a line to say, great work on fighting the vandals! Are you on Crypotoderk? I am watching it and you keep beating me to vandalised pages! One question, when you reverted "you suck" from the William Johnson page, I was about to do the same. Now, if I had, I would have been breaking 3RR. Does that rule apply to obvious vandalism wars? Thanks, better get back to Cryptoderk.....Banes 17:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. I was worried about 3RR. Cheerio and good luck with the reverting! The fight goes on. Banes 18:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for extremely lesbianically supporting my RfA. I'll try my level best to live up to the faith you're showing in me. Nandesuka 00:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]