User talk:Lquilter/Archive 011

AfD nomination of Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier)

An editor has nominated Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Burns (US Civil War soldier) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me! this was a cleanup on my part. notify the real editors; history on Mary Burns. --Lquilter (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

FI

Perhaps you could rejoin the discussion on Fanny Imlay and the naming nightmare? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on it. --Lquilter (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

re Renaming of Intellectual impairment category

Thanks for your support :-) I was surprised to see the renaming go that way? I hope it gets relisted and hopefully gets the nod for "People" first format. If you see it relisted could you let me know please? Knowing me I'll probably miss it. Cheers, Sting_au Talk 03:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Knowledge discovery in databases

Hello, I came across a CfD nomination you'd added to Category:Knowledge discovery in databases. It doesn't seem to have been listed on the CfD log ... could you list it or can I just remove the tag? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Forget that, seems it has been relisted. Doh! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weird - the link was wrong. I've fixed it. --Lquilter (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Leap tall buildings in a single bound!

Well, maybe not. But can I interest you in the new Wikipedia:Rollback feature? An unlimited time offer means that this awesome power can be yours for just 0,00 Swiss Francs. If you're tempted, leave me a note on my talk page and I'll flip the switch. If you know of anyone else who would benefit from rollback, you can can ask them to contact me and I'll be happy to help, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've enabled it now. All the best for 2008, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_December_31#Category:Types of organization

Sorry I was unable to reply to you before the CfD was closed. It was an interesting discussion with plenty of participants, and I hope it continues somewhere, but Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization seems to have only two participants, and Category_talk:Organizations seems completely moribund. Any pointers to new active discussions? Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Various people post on the WP Organizations, but I think categories are too esoteric for most folks. <g> A few new people have been expressing interest -- you, VegasWikian is looking into it, I've been talking with some others, too. So, I think if you just go ahead and post on Category talk:Organizations. --Lquilter (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation case about the proposed merger of Firefly characters

Since no agreement could be reached through discussion about the proposed merger of Firefly characters, a mediation case was started in which you were listed as party. If you wish to comment, please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 List of characters in the Firefly universe. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• weighed in. --Lquilter (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christian companies

Hi, please would you clarify your last suggestion on this at CFD? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• done --Lquilter (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism

I'm leaving notes for those of you interested in a Feminism project/portal. There's a discussion at WT:GS#Portal proposal over some ideas. Thanks. Phyesalis (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD

E. H. Harriman Award winners I actually only migrated this from "E.H. Harriman Award winners," so I have no investment in the outcome, but thanks for the note. You may want to figure out who made that category and post on his talk, though. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks - have weighed in. (probably too much) --Lquilter (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Activist & organization categories

Hi Lquilter: Just want to let you know that I've been putting a good deal of thought into this and related issues since reading your note. I'm working on articulating a cogent response, rather than just an off-the-cuff comment, so please bear with me. :) Cgingold (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, we just "crossed in the mail", so to speak! Cgingold (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective Episode Standard

I saw your support for my statement. I would like to propose this as an objective standard:

Notable episodes are those that meet any of the following criteria:

1. has been nominated for individual awards by a notable organization;
2. have had elements of the episode nominated for such an award (i.e. "best supporting actor" for a guest-starring role);
3. reached an unusual peak of ratings (such as the finale of M*A*S*H);
4. achieved other notoriety due to an unusual impact on the real world(the "seizure-causing" episode of Pokemon; the Trapped in the Closet episode of South Park, etc.)

Can you think of any specific additional criteria?Kww (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We're totally thinking along similar lines. I started gathering these up at User:Lquilter/Episodes Guide. I like your formulation for the most part. I would either add to, or tweak number 4. "Notoriety" implies a certain amount of public attention which is good; I would like to also talk about critical attention somewhere in there. (as in, criticism and reviews, not as in, "I hate it because it sux"). If your #4 is aimed more at "unusual impact" like seizures, I think critical inquiry or review would be a separate point.

For another good example of #4, I'd add the Murphy Brown episode in which she announced she was having a baby, and the one that responded directly to Dan Quayle's attacks on the show. Although, it's not limited to one episode, exactly, so this might be a good example of a how an arc or series of episodes could become tied in with an incident. In general, episodes which were censored -- like Ellen Degeneres' coming out episode -- would be a great example.

And can I just say my frustration with all the people who don't want standards, want WP to be an episode guide ... what is it with this childish attack language ("you're just a deletionist!" i can almost hear them stomping their feet, mentally). i'm a *FAN* too, ferchrissakes. I have been so appreciative of rationality on these discussions. --Lquilter (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a critical attention standard. How would you phrase it so that it would require an unusual amount? Shows with big cult bases tend to get multiple reviews for every episode, and nearly every piece of anime produced gets some kind of review in Newtype or Animage.Kww (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean, basically I'm talking about academic work. Any commercial failure might turn out to have gotten great critical reception or be really influential on future creators. ... There is definitely a systemic bias issue in that any pop culture topic has gajillions of magazines that churn out lots of reviews. (And sometimes the reviews aren't even really on point -- for instance, some of what we've been seeing passed off as "references" are actually DVD reviews, rather than reviews of the work, per se.) Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to distinguish between trade publication & fan publication reviews on the one hand, and mainstream press and scholarly literature on the other. WP:RS would have been helpful here, but, alas, that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. --Lquilter (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping by, but WP does not make this distinction--attention & reviews in the popular press is enough for notability for any subject.DGG (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG -- Source distinction does come up in some places, though, and I'm not clear that "objective standards" page KWW put together was intended to be a notability guideline, although it did seem that way some times. It may all be moot, though, anyway. (Note to self: WP:RS and the RS examples page have a lot of information about ranking sources, and WP:V distinguishes kinds of sources "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.") --Lquilter (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13 24 character merging of minor characters

Please see the open discussion regarding the 24 mergers.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks - have weighed in. --Lquilter (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good job starting it, btw! Lquilter (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumption of notability

My reason for going for the presumption was to err in favor of inclusionism. Applying these sets of rules would be widely viewed as deletionism, and I really want to make sure that people see these as allowing a large number of episodes to be included. If we can cut shows down to three or four per season, we have solved 80% of the problem. If we make the inclusion rules too tight, then we don't stand a chance of getting something like this considered.Kww (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, political reasoning. <g> Don't worry -- I said my piece about how it should be, and I will likely argue for it as appropriate, but I wouldn't let my preferences stand in the way of consensus on a guideline. --Lquilter (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I was just thinking about "presumption of notability" and what that means. Maybe it's defined somewhere else? But it seems like if a notability-presumption-criteria is met, then that should mean it passes PROD, but doesn't close an AFD. Is there a definition somewhere of "presumption of notability"? --Lquilter (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but you're basically right. A PROD would be hard to justify. An AFD could take it out by vote if something was very wrong.Kww (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

to expound on rfc

Just to comment, my main concern is the ability to have a select group write policy, declare consensus, and mark as policy. That's where i saw a huge difference between userpage and policy page. I thought about it, but decided the statent was the best action. I also want to be fair. Nore, i've refactored based on KWW's comments on my userpage. BTW, TV's on and i've got "Stealth" running.:)--Cube lurker (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I just think that doing major comments critiquing someone's actions smacks of an attack; at the least, it's not the friendliest way of questioning or critiquing someone. Heated discussions -- such as WT:EPISODE -- can benefit from us all going the extra mile to assume good faith and de-escalate. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Epbr123. I'd be happy to think about it, but I've been mostly focused on categorization, writing, and vandal reversion. While I've thought about policy from a user perspective, I haven't really studied them from an admin's perspective. I'm not sure I'm prepared to go thru the RfA process. Do you have any suggestions about that? --Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your experience and vandal fighting alone should be enough to pass the RfA. Few admin candidates will have performed an extensive study of policy from an admin's perspective, and you have shown far more interest in policy and deletion discussions than average nominees. The RfA will be daunting and hard work, but the extra admin buttons gained may be worth it. I could give you a few weeks to think about it if you preferred. Epbr123 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested, but want to be sure that I have time to deal with an RFA. For the next 10 days I may be a bit busy with real-life work. Maybe early February? --Lquilter (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let me know when you're ready. Epbr123 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks! --Lquilter (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created your nomination page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lquilter. Once you have indicated that you accept the nomination and have answered the initial questions, the page can be transcluded onto Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and the nomination will begin. Take your time answering the questions, and try to be as thorough as possible, as some reviewers dislike short answers. You can see how other nominees have answered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and in the archives. You should also read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Admit to any conflicts you may have had, and avoid showing an immediate interest in admin activities in areas in which you are inexperienced (although you are experienced in most areas). Once the nomination begins, avoid canvassing user talk pages for support or comment, as this will be frowned upon. The RfA will last seven days, and you will need roughly 75% support to pass, although I anticipate that you'll receive at least near unanimous support. Let me know once you've answered the questions, and I'll begin the nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, responses to initial questions posted. Going for dinner & will see what happens next. --Lquilter (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:Orgsestcat

Thanks! On the downside, it's considerably harder to edit now. When I re-did the template, I tried to keep it with the same output as before, but I think one thing that should probably change is to have all by year categories included in a parent "by year" category. See Category:Political parties by year of establishment, for example. This would minimize the number of clicks necessary to reach the bottom-tier categories, which I think is useful. If you think that's good, please change the template(s) to do that.

The suffixes come from {{ordinal}}, which tacks one on to whatever number you give it.

When I changed the template, I did not realize that Template:Cat topic in year exists and can be used as a meta-template, which would probably be the best way to go to keep a uniform look. I'll do that within the next couple weeks, depending on how much time I spend in real life. --Eliyak T·C 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Template:Cat topic in year isn't quite what we're looking for. Template:Cat year nav is closer, but it always puts the year in front. --Eliyak T·C 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to have a standard, and Template:Cat topic in year looks pretty good, but I haven't dug around all of them yet. By meta-template, do you mean just copying it and adapting it? Or do you mean incorporating it by reference in some fashion, with just a minor edit? I think I shan't muck with it today lest I screw it up, but I will get back on it again, soon, and will follow your suggestions.

I just now copied the orgsestcat format over to polparsestcat, which I'd previously created but hadn't fully applied to all categories yet. And there are several other *estcat templates that I created, based on somebody else's *estcat template (to standardize), but that aren't as nice as the *orgsestcat is now. However, I'm going to hold off any more upgrades until you (or I) finish your suggested changes.

Like you, I was following the pattern of basically just writing a template to do what was already being done, and not changing the substance of what was already being done.

I like the idea of including multiple levels in one category for simplicity; also like the idea of having the decade- and century-level categories for completeness (and another form of simplicity). Ideally the *estcat templates could be applied to the decade & century categories, too.

Again, excellent work! I'm going to go dig around for a barnstar for you. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

barnstar done! (my first, i believe) --Lquilter (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eliyak T·C 18:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

?Admin?

Procedurally, it's easy. (Don't self-nominate; a vocal element will vote against you on that basis alone.) You find your every edit under a microscope, but as a Quaker I felt it was a refreshing experiment in humility and self-criticism. As far as actually using the Mop-and-Bucket: it's kinda like being a union steward or a deacon in a congregation - you spend time on lots of administrative details that somebody's gotta do to keep the project going, with bits of glee when you accomplish anything and stretches of "Well, somebody's gotta do it, and at least I'm doing it for the sake of the goal, not to further some little agenda of my own." --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for this. How much physical time did it actually take to go through the CFD? Like, do I have to reserve a 24-hour period? or more? Because it seems like one has to be ready to respond to comments very quickly. --Lquilter (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The process is given a week. Nobody seemed to freak when I didn't respond within nanoseconds. Don't sweat it: take the time to formulate clear and eloquent answers, rather than just bang out something stat. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And in my experience, it's good to remember you don't have to respond to every !vote. Questions, fine, but !votes / comments can go unanswered with no problems. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

good points, both -- thank you. (orangemike, i'm not self-nomming; another editor suggested it.) --Lquilter (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

assns / orgs in US by state

'Check the introductions after the rename'. I think the wording in the categories would need to be changed after the rename I looked a t a few and the wording seems to be specific for associations. That would need changing. Actually this is a flaw with the bot process when a rename changes the focus of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I did it on the main category and will look around on the subcats too. --Lquilter (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA Review

I have removed the GA Nom from WP:GAC for the article Leipzig Human Rights Award, which you were in the process of Reviewing. Thank you for your help so far, but I think I'm going to have to do a bit more research on this, and that will take more time than is allotted for a GA Hold at this point, so I think it's only right to remove the GA nom at this point in time. Could I possibly ask you to come back and revisit this in the future, if/when I address the rest of the points you brought up? Cirt (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely; follow-up is good. --Lquilter (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Emma Goldman userbox

By all means, help yourself. Feel free to make a copy and have fun.

If you know how to use advanced template syntax, I'd be happy to change it so gender is a parameter (something like {{Emma Golman|she}} and {{Emma Golman|he}}). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have been playing with exactly that! i will be pleased to play with this and give you some code to play with. --Lquilter (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Per CfDs/AfDs

It is a very frustrating thing when I've said it three times that the category is in CfD and people keep saying, "turn it into a category." I do think some sort of coordination like that would be in order and simplify things tremendously. Maybe create a category for AfD discussions, "Proposed Categorization from Lists," and something similar for AfDs so that someone who knows a bit about both can come in and comment on the feasibility of it. As it is, people in AfD are proposing that virtually every list nominated for deletion be categorized, which is definitely not the way to go. Redfarmer (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is very frustrating. I wonder if it's something that could fit in the "deletion sorting" rubric. ... and i posted proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting and related places. --Lquilter (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

GA/FA Advice

Hi Lquilter. I just noticed your RfA, and I hope that continues to go well. I have never done a GA or FA, and given your experience, I was wondering if I could ask you for a bit of advice. Two articles I have in mind are Amish school shooting, which I have some interest in and recently spent some time improving, and Rings of Saturn, which I have long intended to improve with detailed references from the scientific literature. Any comments on the prospects of these two articles, and where I should focus on improving them, would be appreciated. If you don't mind leaving your response on my talk page, that would be great. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Bluemoonlet -- I haven't pushed things through the GA/FA process, but I'm happy to do a careful review of the articles in question. Maybe over the next few days, if that's okay? --Lquilter (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairy Tale

Hi there, thanks but I can't take the credit for 'shortest fairy tale', it was emailed to me and lets just say it struck a chord!!!

Also I would like to thank you for your input with orangemike, I really appreciated it. You really should be an admin. you know. Best wishes Sue - Sue Wallace (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, that's nice to hear. we'll see what happens with the RFA! --Lquilter (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pranksters

Actually, I am a bit too tired to have added anything too witty, although fart humor got the better of me indicating near mental exhaustion. Now I need to turn on some slapstick comedy and ease out of this evening toward tomorrow. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

changes

Policies, like every kind of law, are only noise until they're tested. Sometimes I test them -- courteously; once, in every case when I want to go against them. If there is resistance, I go to argue. Then two things can happen. Either you can persuade me that I am wrong, which I will concede, or I stay by my opinion. But if I stay by my opinion, you will not find me pushing it. What does that serve, except to make you irritated? If we are locked in an argument where neither of us can prove the point, all we will do is prove that we like to argue. And that's a terrible thing to prove. Thank you for addressing me directly -- it shows that Wikipedia is a step ahead of the Internet at large. --VKokielov (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That should also answer you why I don't petition to change policies. It is a hopeless affair; even if the policy is changed, it stays in the minds of the people who have adopted it. That's our human nature. If you argue against a policy, you are like the African visitor who argues against the forest. He says he doesn't want to go there because he will get eaten. But the local fellow goes into the forest every day, because he can't help it, and because he knows that not every animal will eat you. He avoids the lions and panthers, but gathers the mushrooms. The same way with human principles. It is better to show that a principle is a lion than that it is in the forest. --VKokielov (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that you're thoughtful & engaged on these issues, and I don't mind someone "testing policy", and I can't blame anyone for not being willing to jump into policy discussions directly. My main concern is that I feel it, frankly, a bit dishonest for you to "test policy" under the guise of making an edit with some other rationale. In the Mary Wollstonecraft edit, you made several edits, proposed some reasoning for them, and only after significant discussion with other editors did you come forth with your real reasoning. That's deceptive, and your explanation that it is part of you "testing" policies brings to my mind Kant's categorical imperative -- that is, the moral precept that one should treat other people not as means to an end, but as ends in themselves. In other words, and to put it bluntly, while I appreciate your interest in pushing Wikipedia's boundaries, I resent being made an unwilling subject of your experiments. I don't think we need to go further in this discussion; I understand what you were doing, now, I think. But I really suggest you think seriously about whether this is good faith behavior on your part. --Lquilter (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As you would. But I didn't mean that I was testing policy to test policy. The rationale stays the same: I don't believe any of that ought to stand there. "Testing policy" only means that I don't think in terms of Wikipedia policy when I set boundaries for myself; I think in terms of the effect. I could carry the fight to the end -- and, I say again, what would that get any of us? I'm obviously outnumbered; the principles of courtesy say I should step away. It isn't true that, when you have a principle, you must either hold it in yourself or else see it through to the end. It might be true if I were saving my mother from armed robbers; but here I just didn't think (as usual) that it was a hopeless affair to try to persuade people. I am not blameless; none of us are. I carried the argument farther because it was gnawing at me. I will keep in line from now on. --VKokielov (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I really didn't know where the argument would go when I started to argue. It is my old folly; I'm known for it. A wiser man would have seen right away that it was hopeless, and never would have made an edit at all. And that is wise, no matter what the enlightened have to say about it. Because we cannot get over the fact that we are human beings. --VKokielov (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

my EGregious mistake

Get it? EG! Sorry for the mixup; I've left a reply on the talk page. – Scartol • Tok 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

edit summary & RFA

hi melesse -- just in case you want to regularly add edit summaries but just can't remember to do it -- i was able to solve this for myself by changing my preferences: preferences > editing tab > check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" -- cheers, and good luck with the RFA. i'm going to look closely at what you've done because i think having a diversity of admins can only be good, and most admins that i can see of late come from "vandal-fighting" experience. so your contributions to the image space are unique & great. --Lquilter (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh thanks, that's really useful! I almost never remember because the prompt is so small, as opposed to the prompt when you upload an image, which is huge. Thanks for the well wishes on my RFA too *fingers crossed* Melesse (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

Good luck

on your RFA. --Kbdank71 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck on your RFA as well. :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

remove comment tags at Jan 30 2008 1:16 UTC on passing your RFA! --Kbdank71 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

research guide

I'd appreciate your thoughts, one way or another, at the TfD for the Template:Research guide [2] DGG (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism / Admin

Thanks for clearing the vandalism. It doesn't bother me, but I appreciate that you deleted it.

I had no idea you had been nominated for admin-ship. Congratulations. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators‎

When you add afds to this, it helps to put an actual link to the WP page for the person in the edit summary--see the page history for how it looks.DGG (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)