User talk:Sjakkalle/September and October 2005

Archived talkpages

Use of this talkpage

I am inconsistent. Responses to postings here may be either on your talkpage, on this talkpage, or on both talkpages.
Comments posted here will usually not be removed unless it is simple vandalism. That means personal attacks stay, they say a lot more about the attacker than the attacked. Please don't invoke WP:RPA here.
If I see signs that a battle starts brewing on this talkpage, and I don't get to take part in the battle, I may choose to cut the thread short. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome!

Great idea. In fact, that'll keep the vandals at bay just as well. Thanks! - Lucky 6.9 14:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!

Dear Sjakkalle, thanks for your vote of confidance at my RfA. I'll try hard to make the soggy mop proud! — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi Sjakkalle, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance

I merged inheritance (computer science) into inheritance (object-oriented programming). Could you move the latter to the former? Cheers, --R.Koot 00:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Everyking toi apoligise

I am a very busy and impatient man. All i want is Everyking to apoligise for his insulting actions with the aaland islands page. If he doesnt- then I will take it as an insult and I will continue to ruin and vandalise wikipedia. --202.156.2.58 09:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:POINT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK

WWW.XANGA.COM/cheeze_boi THE PROOF OF THE AALAND ISLAND WAR. so tell him to apoligize b --202.156.2.58 10:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EveryKings apoligie

No appilgie yet + insults = vandalisim from me! --202.156.2.58 10:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4:2 votes and consensus

I tend to look for at least 70%, and am more comfortable with 75%, but would in some circumstances call a high seventies with weak arguments as a no consensus. I think the 2/3 standard has become more widely accepted in recent months, but I don't think it's right. If 1/3 of those who express an opinion disagree with the proposition to delete the article, that's a pretty significant dissent. 1/4 dissent I'm usually more happy to face, because you have a good 3:1 supermajority. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I set the bar at two-thirds majority (after disregarding votes wich I believe were cast from sockpuppets) for deletion, but I can easily make exceptions based on comments. I will only in extremely rare circumstances delete things which obtained less than a two-thirds majority, it would need to be a fairly extreme situation such as 6 keep votes with the reason ("I think the article is interesting") vs. 10 delete votes ("The article is a complete hoax, none of what the article says is true, look here are references to prove that this is a fabrication: <external links here>"). Anyway, I am not always comfortable with deleting at 67-75% either, and the common 2 delete/1 keep situation in particular can be quite irksome, so instead of calling a decision I sometimes review the article to decide what I personally think should be done, and then cast a late vote so that another administrator can review it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the latter option is always useful. In a low vote situation you can help to break a bad tie by expressing an opinion and letting someone else close, rather than trying to make sense of what's there and close yourself. I've done that once or twice. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Almeida

I tend to use the 70% threshold but 66 usually works as well. it's a judgement call and yours isn't any more correct or less correct than mine. It's whoever gets to it first. :) I would've deleted it, but hey...it's your call. --Woohookitty 10:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. Yeh

My edits are not bad, they are good. I think I am a productive wikipedian. I am strictly insulted if you think a bad editor. I demand an apoligy or I will block you. --HelloolleH 10:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Read WP:POINT please in addition to WP:CIV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ulayiti's RfA

Hi Sjakkalle, and thanks for your support and the kind words you left at my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk)

Joolz's RFA

Hey Sjakkalle, thanks for your vote on my recent RFA, your support was appreciated :) -- Joolz 11:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash's RfA

Joining in the chorus of your last few messages, thanks your support on my RfA. I think you were promoted just after I got here (newbie? me?) and since then I've learnt no small amount about how a good admin conducts themselves by watching you so to find you heading my supporters was a pleasant surprise. I'll tread carefully while I explore my new buttons, but please keep an eye on me and my logs! Thanks again, Splash 13:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unicycle

Sjakkalle,
Thanks for your note. I wasn't that fussed about the image per se, as to the way my removal of it was handled. If someone had dropped a note on my talk page saying something like, "Hey, is a bicycle on the schoolwatch page really such a big deal that you had to remove it?" I might have grown a bit of a sense of humour back. (^_^) But that's not what happened.
I do have to admit, it is a mighty fine looking bicycle. Oh, and just for the record, I have no only opinion on schools in particular. I simply think that anything on WP should be notable. Now what was the name of your alma mater again, I've got an AfD tag and can't find a band vanity article to stick it on...
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re-check mate?

Are you planning to re-check before the closing move, mate? (AfD: Patrick Haseldine: listed 6 September)Phase1 16:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a rare case of a truly unanimous "keep", which shows that the undeletion was entirely justified. But since I voted on the AFD, I won't close it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. They mean a lot coming from a fellow "sensible" person. :-) android 79 22:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The 47 cent question: has Scimitar lost it?

I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks.--Scimitar ^parley 18:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of VfU

Considering the Harry Potter trolling VfU discussion and several recent ones, it's time we revived the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU and dealt with the question directly. You were involved in the original discussion and your remarks on this VfU suggested you might nevertheless want to chip in, so I thought I'd let you know. We'd got about as far as simplifying the immediately preceding discussion and then things sort of stalled. Anyway, I've started a new section on that Talk: page. -Splash 21:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARedwolf24&diff=23172558&oldid=23167116 for harry potter trolling. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois

Why did you close the vfd on Bartlett High School, Bartlett, Illinois as a no consensus? Last time I looked, 36 was more than 20. It's a 2/3 majority, in fact. Soltak | Talk 21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. 36-20 is less than two thirds. About 64% actually, and the number of keep votes was as I recall a bit more than 20. Finally an argument that the article was a yellow page entry was successfully rebutted by the article being rewritten. A very clear "no consensus" I think. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to violate WP:CIVIL and I fear I might have with my initial comments. For that, I apologize. In any event, your opinion that the yellow pages entry justification is no longer valid has no impact on the fact that the delete votes stand. Unless a user were to change or withdraw their vote, it stands regardless of whether you think the reasoning is justified. Soltak | Talk 14:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, outright breaches of WP:CIVIL are more severe than that. I have to disagree with you that a closer shouldn't consider the fact that an article is rewritten during the course of the debate. AFD is not all about vote counting, even though that is probably the most significant factor when a debate is closed, it is not the only one. Factors such as rewrites (which address the reasons provided for the delete votes), votes given without reason, or a provided reference for an article believed to be a hoax or unverifiable, influence my decision, and may swing a close call where the vote count is close to a two-thirds majority. Such discretion can occasionally (but more rarely) go the other way too, I have sometimes closed debates as "delete" even though there has not been a two thirds majority. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom for example. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nandesuka's RfA

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I'll try my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. You are, frankly, one of my role models as an admin, and if I can do even half as good a job as you, I'll be doing well. Thanks, Nandesuka 00:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a little advice

User:Astrotrain believes that my block on him for his 3RR violation was inappropriate. Is there a standard response / recommendation for someone to whom he should complain to, or are these sorts of complaints par for the course, and I should just let it drop? Thanks. Nandesuka 15:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quale / Kvale

Thanks for the interesting info. I think any Norwegian immigrants in my family (father's side) go back at least 4 (maybe 5) generations. I'm not into geneology, so I don't really know anything about my ancestors that far back. I do remember my grandfather almost 35 years ago having to ask someone how to spell "Merry Christmas" in Norwegian so he could write it outside his house in giant letters formed with Christmas lights. The small town in Minnesota that my father's parents lived in had a competition for best outdoor Christmas decorations, and my grandpa really tried hard to win. My mother's side of the family are German. I think they immigrated 3 or maybe 4 generations before me, but again I don't know the details. My mother's father went to a tiny parochial school in his small Lutheran church (again in Minnesota, although a different part) where they taught the students in German rather than English, and my grandfather said he hated it. Quale 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

If he's vandalizing, I doubt it. Is there a particular reason he's vandalizing? Everyking 12:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from September 10

its not fair, i keep being warned for vandalising, when i havent. in fact, i get rid of vandalism! (preceding unsigned comment by 195.93.21.6 (talk · contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like you are using a shared IP, and that you may have received some stray comments which were directed to somebody else. You can solve this problem by registering an account. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up. --Doc (?) 19:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anon post

moved from "Sjakkalle/Admin criterion" ∞Who ?¿? 04:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to find out how a person is to defend themselves in Wikipedia. This may be the wrong place, and if it is I'm sorry. My name is John D Curnow and I'm not a hoax, as one person suggested. I was one of the first people to record bird songs in the midwest. My tapes were sold by the Audubon Camp here in Wisconsin. The NASCO Corp of Fort Atkins, WI sold my tapes to high schools all over the US and Canada for ten years. A copy of my book "Plant Communities - Ecological Studies Of The Upper Midwest" was copyrighted and sent to the Library Of Congress. I was also awarded the outstanding alumni award from the University Of Wisconsin-Platteville and I did teach from 1951 - 1999. I may not be important enough to be found in Google and I can accept that, but I'm certainly not a hoax! John D Curnow —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.173.116 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi John!

It would have been perfectly acceptable for you to add a comment on the deletion debate, but I don't think that it would have stood a good chance of being kept anyway. The perhaps most important criterion for inclusion of articles is that the content is verifiable, and another, more subjective criterion is that the content is notable. In most cases, few or no hits on a google search will mean that the subject is at least difficult to verify and/or of insufficient importance for inclusion because in all but a few cases, Wikipedia won't be the first website which profiles a notable figure, rather it would be in some sort of online newspaper or magazine or similar. In general, Wikipedia also discourages the creation of auto-biographical articles.

I am sorry about the labeling of your article as a hoax, which is something I'll admit that I thought too, it is a consequence of finding nothing on google.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Your vote on my RFA

Ack! I noticed that you voted support on my RFA, which is appreciated, but it seems you put it under the oppose header. I don't want to fiddle with someone else's vote, but I'm fairly sure that this is a mistake. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I'd forgotten that Neutrality was the deleter of Religious persecution by Jews; an action that stirred so much vitriol it would have been better never done. Disappointing to see in the deletion log that he repeated the deletion, too. I don't understand what the goal of the recent school deletions (and speedies) is — he's sure to know that the only possible outcome is undeletion, either speedily or otherwise. If anything, such a course of action simply reinforces the invincibility of schools since, even when deleted, they rise from the ashes. A while ago, he summarily closed a number of AfDs that weren't speedies, and again a couple of days ago. Admittedly they were sure deletes and haven't been challenged (apart from by me) but that's not really the point. Or maybe it is: but if he wants wider speedy rules there are better ways of going about it. Doing it 'for fun' just causes antagonism that needn't be caused. If he were Arbitrating a case involving such admin-actions, there really wouldn't be much choice but censure so he should know better. The current waste of time on VfU is almost certainly disruption and is gradually nudging me towards simply speedily actioning those VfU debates and being done with.

Yes, I really must finish trying to turn VfU into Deletion Review. We got a bit stuck trying to work out the mechanics and were waiting for a not-forthcoming comment from one of the still-active participants. I'll give it another shove later today. -Splash^talk 14:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit block request

In here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.30.31.8 you threatened a block if vandalism continued. It has: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=212.30.31.8 (And I think you're an admin who can actually do the block.) :( Sorry for the bother. TomCerul 14:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't logged in when I received this message. At any rate, this anon seems to have stopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence

09:59 Alex Ong (diff; hist) . . Sjakkalle (Talk | block) (AFD)

09:57 Charlie Dodd (diff; hist) . . Lupo (Talk | block) (vfd)

Within two minutes, independently. Talk about serendipity... Check your AfD if you want to know why this made me smile. Cheers! :-) Lupo 10:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice the Charlie Dodd article. The only reason I spotted the Alex Ong one was that I made a routine look through the contributions of a vandal after reverting some of their edits, and immediately grew suspicious of any articles that he/she had created. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, same here. Lupo 10:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your kind support of my recent nomination on RfA. Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes, not Proof

I'm going to reply to you both on my own page and yours, because, although what I wrote I wrote well over a year ago, I do think it's important to clarify my intent. As I wrote, offering a reasoning for one's vote is vital, but trying to cudgel the other fellow into submission is ridiculously wasteful. I.e. argue your case, but do not have an argument. I was trying to dissuade people from the vote-by-vote rebuttal that we have all seen all too frequently. The rabid and avid supporter goes to "comment" after every vote that is not consonant with her own, and then feels that she has "proven" that the article must or must not be deleted. (N.b. I don't agree with the change to AfD, either, but I abide by the policies that I disagree with, so long as they are consented to by the majority. And yes, I could get a lot more picky about it than I am, but there's no point.) The endless "prove" vote degenerates into a spitting contest and discourages people from making VfD nominations or casting votes. I.e. that "discussion" ends all discussion, and I was advising people to state their reasons and not try to "prove" the issue. Geogre 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, reasoning is part of the vote. Blistering the other person's eyeballs in an effort at proving your point is not. That's why VfD is for votes, not proof. Geogre 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response; OK, I see it is the debates which degenerate into shouting matches or where a person sets about to answer every opposing vote which you were talking about. While I think it is OK to comment politely on another person's vote, I tend to agree that shouting matches are a bad thing in general. (Actually, I've seen that kind of thing more often on RFA than AFD, this one and this one for example, where such arguing is really making a disservice to yourself.) I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that well-reasoned comments (i.e. good arguments for either keeping or deleting) can easily override the simple vote count, especially in close cases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on specific chess variations

I saw your edit to Sicilian Defence and just wanted to say thanks, I agree completely that Wikipedia normally shouldn't have articles on individual opening variations and the Toilet Variation is an example that certainly doesn't deserve an article on it's own. I think there may be some exceptions for a very few variations such as the famous Najdorf Sicilian played by the three Argentinians against the Soviets in the 1955 Interzonal. A 15-year-old Fischer later played it against Gligoric as described in a good Chessbase News article. Quale 14:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Regarding the Argentinian Variation played in Gothenburg, I don't know if that truly deserves its own article either (a variation of a variation of an opening), especially when we have the article Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. It's a fascinating story, and one which definitely deserves mention though.

On a related note for what deserves and does not deserve articles, where do you think the line should go for players? I definitely think that all GMs and WGMs deserve articles, and I have no qualms about making articles on them if I can find some sources. I also think that national chess champions usually deserve articles (if we have articles about every Premier League team in football (soccer in the US), even those who aren't national champions, I don't see why we shouldn't have articles on every chess champion. IMs are a bit more borderline, if such an article wound up on AFD I don't know what I would vote, but I don't think I would set about making articles on people whose chief claim to notability is being an IM.

Sorry, but I have to log out now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I think I'm in full agreement with you on players. I would definitely not support using a bot to add every GM on the FIDE rating list (there are about 900 of them already, and the number is growing), but I would keep any GM or WGM articles created by hand. I agree with keeping all national champions, regardless of titles or ranking. I don't think an IM or FM title alone is enough for an article. An IM or FM or untitled player should have an article if she has won a national championship, is a notable author (Eric Schiller, Fred Reinfeld, etc.), has served as a top official in a national chess organizations or FIDE (Florencio Campomanes), or is notorious for other reasons (Claude Bloodgood). Quale 15:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add something else. I wouldn't support adding new categories for Chess IMs and FMs because I don't think that's a very important categorization beyond Category:Chess players. I do think we need a cat for WGMs, and I will probably create that sometime soon and put the appropriate bio articles in it. There are currently about 180 WGMs, which is an almost perfect size for a cat if we had good articles on each of them. Quale 15:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Wikipedia the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxl's RfA

Hi Sjakkalle, thanks for your support vote on my RfA! Rob e rt 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now one of the most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA!

My dear Sjakkalle, I simply wanted to drop by now that my RfA is closed to give you a big THANK YOU! for your kind support. Your consideration that editcountitis is bad since we all go through periods of inactivity, when the matter was being put against me by a few people, gave me strength and cheered me up a lot; I felt I was being understood at last. You'll always have in me a friend. Hugs! Shauri Yes babe? 20:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quale RFA

Thanks. I'm still thinking about it. I have two main concerns that I am weighing. I wonder if I might feel inhibited by the extra responsibility. As an admin, I might be overly cautious. Second, and more importantly, admins not only take a lot of abuse around here they also frequently get involved in contentious stuff between others. I try to avoid that and I really don't want to be a playground monitor, but I think as an admin I might feel compelled to carry my weight and step into the line of fire from time to time. I enjoy an exchange of competing ideas, but not when it becomes personal as happens all too often here. That's part of the reason I work most on chess articles instead of religion/politics/Middle East/Cyprus etc. Usually with chess the greatest concern is things like what to do about the addition of the f2/f7 attack stuff in Blitz chess. We already have a VFD about that content in an article on it's own. There is a reference listed, but I don't find a 1960s book for children very compelling. My concern is that it looks like WP is endorsing a usage that I think is extremely dubious. Anyway, I plan to make up my mind by the evening of Mon 3 October (in the -05:00 timezone). Quale 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

205.222.240.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

You are right, this is a little drastic. Check the block log and contribution history for more information. If you would like to revise this block, go ahead - I won't mind. --Duk 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save your soul! Repent!

The Working Man's Barnstar may be awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks.

This barnstar was introduced by Blankfaze on July 6, 2004.
Finally, a punishment worthy of your sins! Revert this vandalism, close that AfD debate, revert that vandalism, close this AfD debate- sound familiar? For your grievous sins, especially in closing AfD debate after AfD debate, and reverting various vandals, I sentence you to bear a Working Man's Barnstar. Repent, ye sinner!--Scimitar ^parley 16:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, I'll put in on my userpage. Nice to feel appreciated! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the double message here: we were boilerplating people. I noticed you edited the proposal very slightly but not the talk page...I'm not sure if that's ominous or not... -Splash^talk 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a good read through it, and add my comments, but it may take a bit of time. Thanks for letting me know! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Katedralskole

Congratulations. You have found and written an article on a notable school. And somewhat obscure it seems too, though perhaps w:no: needs a copy now. I have done the same, though only with British public schools, yet you won't find me bragging about it.

You can, I hope clearly see the difference between a notable 800+ year old school with several alumni and St Joseph's Primary School in some random village without an article yet. Let's find some more interesting and notable schools and write about them in the spirit of Wikipedia.

However, if you are trolling for an aggressive response you won't get one. It is however interesting that you closed all of those debates and marked them as "keep". Technically, most of them ended in "no censensus" because of organised vote rigging and intimidation.

You have also expressed your opinion that cruft ought to be kept since "it is never deleted". Unfortunately it does seem like the schoolcruft gang have won through rather foul means, and we are now in a rather ridiculous situation where Chinese primary schools are kept. However the "schools shold be kept because they're never kept" is clearly an instance of the naturalistic fallacy - just because something happens doesn't mean that it's right. Troll. Dunc|☺ 10:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Companies copying the contents of their webstie into Wikipedia are, under the new criteria, speediable--nixie 06:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at

Hi, a while ago you closed a VfD with a delete result for International_Asperger's_Year, however, as you can see - it is back again. Is it a deletable recreation? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the two versions were awfully similar. I have speedied all of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kind of unfortunate, though :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Ambi

I just wanted to thank you for your comments on the election endorsements page - particularly when we've disagreed on quite a few issues, I much appreciate the support. While I'm here, I just want to add that - while I perhaps would have called it differently - the closing of the page you noted on my talk page falls well within the boundaries of closer discretion, as far as I'm concerned. If I've said otherwise at some point, I do apologise. Ambi 11:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, you're very welcome. The arbitrators which I look for are those who will follow the rules, and after looking at the cases you have been involved in I see that you are one of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kaeberlein

Sjakkale,

As noted on the AfD discussion, I have identified the source of the copyvio. However, our Caloric restriction article links there and as discussed on the AfD debate, he has probably done enough in my book to warrant an article. However, the copyvio should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 11:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for finding a source of the copyvio. Now, I am no good at all with handling copyvios (legal mumbo-jumbo is not my strongpoint.) Is it possible to tag this article as a copyvio, list it at WP:CP, and start up a proper article a a /temp subpage? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thank you very much for your support on my nomination for adminship. Now that I have been made an admin, I will do my best to live up to the truest you and the community have placed in me. If you ever see my doing something you think is incorrect or questionable, or does not live up to the standards that should be expected of an admin, please let me know. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hello Sjakkalle,

I don't think we've ever had a conversation before, but I've thought for some time that you do an exceptional job as an administrator and an editor, and I wanted to tell you that. You're very sensible, thoughtful and fair, and your demeanor inspires the best in those around you. WP being a place where good people and good things often go unrewarded or unremarked, I thought I'd say this. All the best, and do keep it up enceph alon 12:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those very kind words Encephalon! It is that kind of message which inspires me to continue here! Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it, Sjakkalle. I don't mind confessing that I've wanted to give you a barnstar of some sort for some time, and I'd been looking at the list for the perfect one, but Scimi beat me to it a few days ago. His was very nicely worded too, so I'm left only with this humbler alternative—an honest expression of thanks. You're a credit to WP. :) enceph alon 12:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Fair enough. I actually went to the block screen, then hesitated and decided on test4. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you deleted Jimbo!

See? Kelly Martin 11:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I realize that. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but it was rather funny. Especially when we're talking with him about the article on IRC. :) Kelly Martin 11:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few example quotes:

06:13 <@jwales> hmph
06:13 <@jwales> I hope I don't blocked.
06:14 <@jwales> I made it better.
06:15 <@jwales> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aumann
06:15 <@jwales> Maybe it'll survive a minute longer this time.
06:20 <@jwales> It was a great stub, too!
06:21 <@jwales> I think the exclamation point is what killed me.
06:21 <@jwales> Getting excited is a cardinal sin in these matters.

Kelly Martin 11:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email. IRC rules prohibit me from publicly posting a complete IRC log. Kelly Martin 13:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! FYI, I read about it on de:Wikipedia:Kurier. (If it makes you feel better, I think i would have deleted it, too, if I were on RC patrol, not looking at the username) -- Chris 73 Talk 08:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:195.144.130.1

Repeated vandalism and several warnings. Please look into this user when you can...thanks...KHM03 14:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celestianpower is an admin

Thank you very much for your support - my bid (as you probably know) went swimmingly. I couldn't have asked for a better one. Thank you very much and I just hope I don't mess up! I've hardly seen you before so your support vote: it meant a lot. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 12:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Points taken; I'll be more careful henceforth. DS 13:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert M. Wolters

What would you think about simply closing the AfD as a speedy delete because of the out-of-process recreation? I think that I would be witin the leter of policy to simply delete without tagging, but I do not want to get into a "wheel war" over this. I do want to take some actionm to prevent the out-of-process actions from succedding. DES ^(talk) 15:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, H e rmione1980 23:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway's block

If you are blocking Tony for 3RR, can you show me the four diffs where he reverts? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both for revert warring, which by its very definition is disruptive, not for the letter of the 3RR. Admins should be above edit wars, and remember that three reverts are a limit, not a right. Radiant_>|< 11:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that they were revert warring about eight hours ago, what is the reason for asking them to "cool down"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Judging by their respective talk pages, this revert war is merely a signal of a larger underlying conflict over the past several days, at least. So I hope they will cool down regarding that conflict, and that they can reach an agreement. Radiant_>|< 11:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Had they been new editors, I would have warned them instead. But they both have been around for a long time and know perfectly well that revert warring is inappropriate. Because VFU is an important process page, I consider that an edit war there particularly disruptive. And of course 3 hours is not a very severe block. Anyway I do agree that if they would talk to the MedCom, it would likely help. R adiant _>|< 12:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm cool with this. No harm done. I attempted several different compromise versions, each one was reverted blindly by Aaron. He asked me to use the talk page even after I had done so, and went on blindly reverting as I poked around attempting to find a version that he'd at least treat as editable. Now if Radiant thinks that kind of good faith attempt to find compromise in a situation, where another editor is being clearly unreasonable, is edit warring, then that's okay with me, because there will always be other admins who think otherwise. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Salamis Glory

Nice job on the rewrite. I withdrew my AFD nomination. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics

I think you archived this discussion (for deletion) a little too soon. And what's more, I don't think the people who voted to keep the page offered any coherent reasoning as to why we should keep the page. Purely in numbers there were more who voted to keep it yes, but look at the arguments. At least those who voted for deletion argued a strong case. I'm tired of this issue being constantly side-stepped. NO-ONE has yet offered a sound argument as to HOW this list can be useful. "Yeah somebody did a lot of work on it, we should keep it", "it's factual and neutral",... bollocks. It's one of the most trivial pages on Wikipedia. Not too mention it's got numerous problems with categorizing. (instrumentals are excluded, translations are included, descriptive song titles are excluded, slight deviations are included, etc etc...) The page is a mess. Common :( --Steerpike 09:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, the debate had been on the AFD page for the required five days, and therefore the closure was not premature. Regarding the decision to "keep", I might say that vote count is not the only thing which matters when I make the decision of whether to keep or delete, but it does remain a major factor, and I will usually look for a two-thirds majority for deletion, sometimes higher. Here we had something like 10 to 12 keep votes versus 6 delete votes. I can only call "delete" decisions when there is a consensus to do so, and a 12k-6d is by itself clear indication that there is no such consensus. I can and do make judgment calls when the decision is more borderline, with the vote count on or around a two-thirds majority for deletion, a count which shows something like 60%-80%. But I think that closing this debate as a "delete" with 10-12 "keep"s against 6 "delete"s would be inappropriate, even though the keep votes were of the short, and not very detailed "keep, it's verifiable" type. Regarding the "useful" thing, I can't come up with a good explanation for that, but I suppose some song lovers find this kind of trivia interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Check-all, thanks for your support on my RFA. I very much appreciate it. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. See you around! —thames 18:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quroum

The question of what is or is not an AfD quorum for being able to reach consensus is difficult. This particular article I deleted so long ago, I have no recollection of the act. Somtimes but not always I view one participant+nominator as needing relisting, whether it was d,d or d,k or something else. Generally, I see three participants as enough given how many articles go to AfD and how many eyes pass over it. But you effectively point out that if I relist d,d but delete d,d,k I am turning a keep into a delete. That can't be right. I'm unsure of the real value of relisting everything with less than some arbitrary number of participants, though. You're right; I could join the debate myself but I don't really want to usually since I'm closing AfDs rather than doing all the legwork required to 'vote' in them. So perhaps the only way I can be consistent is to abolish my self-imposed quorum and delete even things that have only 2 people in them. That doesn't sound so great, so I'll go and have a think. -Splash^talk 22:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page and blocking the vandal! Maybe I should have explained my reasons for deleting that paragraph on the article talk page, but I got distracted by something and forgot all about it. --JoanneB 10:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CBW RfA

Thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA. If you have any concerns over my actions please let me know. CambridgeBayWeather 00:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mer

Hey, I was just curious as to why you undeleted Mer. This was the version I deleted, did you feel that was notable enough to not be a CSD? Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me in the direction of where this was discussed on VFU? I went over there and couldn't find a link to archives or anything. I've for some reason always ignored VFU in my time here, so I'm actually not terribly familiar with it. I'm also a little perturbed that nobody bothered to inform me they disputed my deletion, if I disputed an admin's deletion I would surely let them know. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. So is there not actually an archive of VFU? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are bloody kidding me. I'm tempted to pull and Ed Poor and delete the whole bugging thing. This is ridiculous. I had no clue that my deletion had even been challenged, and would have had no clue it had even come up for any discussion at all if you hadn't told me. Further, I think the policy on the page stating that historys can be undeleted is a tad ridiculous. There's no reason to have that silly neologism in the page history when Kappa came up with that perfectly good article in it's place. I think there's a reason I kept away from VFU all this time.... Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grapeshot

Sjakkalle, I want to assure you that I never intended to question your integrity in my VfU comment. Instead, I wanted to say that the last exception is, actually, no exception at all, that these things are always going to fester. What happens with the exceptions, where something other than a deliberative (and a long one, I'm afraid) is employed is that we get even more inconsistent than we're bound to be. The deletion seemed relatively routine. Web comics, in particular, bring out nonce accounts and sock puppets, and they can write as if their very souls were at stake when an article is up for deletion. It's our procedure to ignore these, and Snowspinner is, of course, wrong in saying that there is no voting. "Vote" and "opinion" are the same thing in something like VfD. A new account is disregarded in either case (and Snowspinner is still railing about "notability").

Pop culture and web-based culture always gets attention. See what kind of heat there would be about deleting Matthew Arnold vs. the flavor of the week web comic, and you'll know what I mean (not that anyone is going to delete the former, of course). One doesn't see sockpuppets for a debate on Bartleby the Scribner, but you do for LevelLll Comix. It's appropriate to discount the bias inherent in debates like that.

However, the point is that we haven't settled web comics. (We have settled "notability," although some people feel free to delete namespace pages to protest that.) If we undelete because one has a big push and delete when another doesn't, we open ourselves not to notability but to slashdotting, IMO. If Tony or Snowspinner wants to jump up on this particular one, then that does nothing, IMO, except register two more opinions. I think we're getting seriously distorted by the volume of the voices, rather than the sincerity or number. (E.g. if that web comic is such that insta-expert at Florida believes it to be academically significant, then there would be no difficulty in presenting outside verification -- references in other media, references in journals, etc.) That's why I don't like undeletion by exception: I think it just delays the next fight over the next instance of an inflated or passionate debate. However, I in no way meant to suggest that you did not act with complete integrity, and I apologize if it appeared that way. Geogre 10:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker AfD

Can I ask which votes you changed your mind on from the AfD? None of the voters were sockpuppets, but by my count enough of them were meatpuppets—or, more specifically, new users sent directly from the webpage of the comic itself to vote against its deletion. Since they had very few edits, and clearly no intention to stay and learn about Wikipedia, I think discounting them all was the appropriate thing to do. One of the things that made the debate so messy was my effort to explain how deletion works, why their edits were being discounted, etc.—which I think was important to do—but I was, and am still, very concerned about the precedent that's set if their strategy was perceived as being effective. Thanks. -- SCZenz 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It was a very borderline call, but for what it's worth I think you did the right thing on procedural grounds. I know it's not your job as vote closer to state your views (and in fact you probably shouldn't), but I am worried about how this apparent reversal will be perceived. There seems to be an extremely vocal minority whose interest in cataloguing webcomics overshadows any interest they may have in building a great encyclopedia with consistent standards, and there seems to be relatively little comment from the majority who (I think) disagree. -- SCZenz 12:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Able and Baker responses

For some insight as to what I did here, I will first give a stream of consciousness view of what I was thinking when making the decisions I made here.

Upon closing the debate

Let's see, there was sockpuppet after sockpuppet here. First step in gauging consensus: work out the vote count among participants who have participated in good faith. Oh good grief, all the keep votes here are unsigned or by entirely new users. Let's see, delete votes, yes there are several, yes they are valid. "Gosh, that's a lot of unsigned votes", I quite agree. Aha! Among the people here we have more or less unanimous consensus for deletion. Clearly, this must be a delete.

The article was deleted.

Upon seeing this at Deletion Review

OK, someone is disputing my decision, yes that was one of the most sockpuppet infested debates I have ever closed, and I rather expected this, Digg and a number of other sockpuppet infested deletion debates have also been disputed. Let's read the votes and arguments. Plenty of "Keep deleted" and praise for making a good decision, thanks. Yes, Tony Sidaway who has of course voted "undelete" but I don't find his reasoning convincing, but let's look at what the others say. What? People are talking about valid keep votes, were there valid keep votes? Hmm... time to read the debate again. Aargh! Yes, there are keep votes here, and a number of them are actually valid. Man, that was superficial reading of the debate from me. Bother, I have screwed up completely, let's see how do we fix that. Ah yes, the box on the Deletion Review says that I can correct a istake of my own, so let's fix it.

To answer the question of SCZenz, there were no keep votes in particular that I changed my mind about. It was rather that I had originally overlooked the clearly valid votes of such people as Adashiel, Tedzsee, Kjammer. More borderline votes were made by SuperHappy (long time here, the account is older than mine, but the number of edits is very low) and Bravado01 (sufficiently old account, but also very few edits). Against a total number of 6 delete votes, this was a more bordeline decision than what I originally thought. Also, the sockpuppeteering taking place here might well have motivated some of the delete votes. In short, what made me reverse my decision was not the voices of Snowspinner, David or Tony, but realizing that I had failed to take into account valid sentiments for including the article.

Regarding the merits of webcomics in general, I have very little opinion of them, since I never read webcomics and don't know much about them. If anything, I think they should be given the same treatment as websites (requiring high readership, major reviews and/or citations by major reputable works, etc.). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the wub's RfA

Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. the wub "?!" 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm a little confused, but all seems well. Trollderella 16:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Tito xd^(?!?) 17:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA/SV

Thank you tremendously for your support at my RFA. Its good to know that people look at my contributions rather than dwelling on the rare incident. :) -St|eve 04:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Horncastle/carpentry weirdness

I'm afraid I don't agree re this being a hoax - the number of articles and the reversions removing the Speedy Delete request suggest vandalism to me. But I respect your view and have voted to delete on AfD. Cheers! :o) Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilante

09:38, 27 October 2005 Sjakkalle deleted "Wikilante" (content was: '{{deletebecause|Recreated after speedy deletion, created by a disgruntled user}}A Wikilante is a rogue member of the Wikipedian community that takes ...')

Hello, Sjakkalle, I'm not distruntled. I am disapointed by the phenomena of wikilantism I found from another member of this community, and think the newly created word helps to identify that activity. After creating it, it dawned on me that bringing it to the wikilante's attention, he might communicate with me, which worked a little. When I went to look at the article newly created it was gone, so published it again, but since found the deletion notice after finding it gone once more. Is it possible to suggest this as an article? Can you help me to mediate with the one showing the Wikilante behavior.Johnski 07:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no, my skills at mediating are not the best in the world and my time is limited right now I'm afraid. If you want to protest against what you view as roguish behaviour, I suggest that you talk to the person politely and explain your concerns. If that fails, look at some of the suggestions at dispute resolution, and in most cases the thing will be solved peaceably. In any case, it is important to keep a cool head because making articles targeted against a user in the article namespace only results in unnecesarily escalating the tensions further, and we don't what that do we? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sjakkalle, thank you for taking the time to write, and explain more to me about this problem. After nine days of patiently working toward compromise with the "Wikilante", he stopped communicating because I reverted a page in good faith, seeing he couldn't compromise on any of many points. It seems his friend is encouraging him to agree to mediation, which seems better than arbitration. I wrote to him that I was sorry if he thought that the article was taunting him, as that wasn't my intention, and now I hope it won't be a roadblock to peace. Thanks again, Johnski 07:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Olai Kapskarmo

IMHO this vanity self-bio should have been deleted long time ago. His only claim to fame is that he was Deputy Member to the County Council of Bærum 1999-2003. He does not fullfil any of the criteria of notable bios, and categorizing him as a Norwegian politician seem rather out of whack. If we intended to include people because they are (deputy) members of Norwegian county councils in Wikipedia, that alone would amount to ten thousand of bios. -- Egil 14:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Seems he is not a member of the County Council, but that shouldn't change my argument. The only reason he is in Wikipedia is that he wrote his bio himself. -- Egil 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Milka

This was VFD'ed months ago, closed and deleted by you, later recreated and/or restored by Grue (not sure in which order) and the old AFD relisted (as closed) a couple days ago. Please take a look at it, it's weird. R adiant _>|< 17:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for deletion was the article being unverifiable since it lacked references. The new version certainly has references, which addresses the reasons given for deletion, and so I will therefore not speedy delete it. Perhaps the undeletion/recreation was not entirely within process, but I won't make such a big deal out of it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr K A Jaggar

As a fellow Nordic, I want to comment on your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr K A Jaggar. I have had trouble with this myself but have taught it to myself through repetition.

A principle is an abstract rule to abide by. Such as "I will never stoop low enough to pay for online porn".
A principal is the highest authority in a school.

The fact that they're pronounced alike doesn't help much, though. — JIP | Talk 20:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Thanks for the note! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

rolls eyes* The issue wasn't the factuality of the data, the issue is that there is no encyclopedic value in knowing what shoes she was wearing. Staxringold 14:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks anyway. I agree, I couldn't really care less what type of shoes people wear to their weddings. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:216.20.1.214

I am not entirely sure about this one. On one hand it is a persistant vandal, on the other hand it is five days since the last warning, and I responded to the WP:AIV report by giving a test4-template for today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the hope that some kind of message goes through, and because I am lazy, I am not going to unblock. However, I don't feel very strongly about it, so I won't object if you unblock. Thue | talk 15:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]