I see that you are among the 5 most active editors to the Boeing 747 article even though you haven't made an edit to the article since 2006. It has just been granted featured article status! The star isn't shown yet but it's listed among the promotions.
Too bad you are retiring. I've seen your name a lot. Archtransit (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Douglas-logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Douglas-logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Inotstupid.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ( I do realise it says "retired" but I'm leaving this for all category members) ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am very honoured to receive your support in my RFA. You know this comes from the heart as I even mentioned you in the RFA! Best of luck in your post Wikipedia life. (Our laksa is not nearly as good as that in S'pore!). Archtransit (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Squeggs are real dammit!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squegger (talk • contribs) 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it was a mistake to delete this page that has been up for almost 2 years, ots of google hits, youtube and many other sites talk(ed) about the band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tba03 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Erik Rhodes (porn star). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 72.76.92.30 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Quanmindamenguo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Quanmindamenguo.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Can I get a copy of the last version of this somehow? If my memory serves, there are a couple of sections and cites that could be cut and pasted into the Espiritista Union article that needs almost the same amount of effort this one would have. thanks.Vontrotta (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This article was intended as a resource for developers of Infantry Online, (an online game). I did not create this article, but a member our development team did. We were not aware that this broke any rules with Wikipedia, and we are very sorry. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia we thought that it would be ok to post it here because we have many people that reference this scripting code. The computer that this code was stored on crashed and as of right now this is the only way to get the information back. I am very sorry that this happened. I was wondering if there is any possible way to get the information that was in the article back. The information that went into that article took many years to compile. Please help me out. You don't even have to undelete it. I was just wondering if there was any way to retrieve the information. If there is any way that you can do that I would really appreciate it :)
Thanks for uploading Image:Otis.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Corporeal reanimation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thirty Ought Six is definitely a band with plenty of legitimate and valid reasons for having an article here. Any info on how to re-instate their past info would be appreciated.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of OrganizedWisdom. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Underoneroof.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Underoneroof.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Little hard-working bee eagerly celebrating your return!
Welcome back! How was your break? Here's hoping you'll be a little more active from now on ^-^ --PeaceNT (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I see you still have a retirement notice on display. I suppose it's better to have you here and there than not having you on Wiki at all. Happy writing :) --PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Remember when someone with the screen name Mfurniss created the Maureen Furniss and it was speedied? Well, I'll see if I can make a good article about her. I used lots of sources and I tried to get as much about her as I could. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
On 28 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trim and Fit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kenneth Fowler, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kenneth Fowler.
The main concern is that the only possible source for this article is disappearing along with the publisher. The name is quite common amongst authors, there is even a contemporary historian of the same name with 5+ published books. I worry that there may be confusion with the name, and the confusion cannot be resolved since no sources exist to confirm the claims in the article.
I contact you because you handled the Copyright permission confirmation for this article. The main author has no account, but I have also notified an editor who did significant cleanup within the last month. Sorry to bother your retirement -- if you remove the prod I will not continue to seek deletion (though I may move the page for a disambig). JackSchmidt (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
G4. Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).
If the new article is basically the same text as before (not just the same topic), then you can just put a {{db-repost}} speedy deletion tag on the article. For instance as {{db-repost|Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_Dragon_Ball}}. If the article text is new, then you probably want to do the whole {{prod}}, {{afd1}} routine instead. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jack, here it is. Think I added more than enough reason for a speedy deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to personally thank you, MD, for leaving your retirement to come and participate in my recent RfB--I approve of your message . I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
On 2 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uniform Invoice, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Mailer diablo/Archive π" page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Otis.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
