User talk:Wizardman/Archive12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Wizardman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 20 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Casanova, 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. |
--EncycloPetey (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding an AfD...
...this one, to be exact. Would redirecting to the district page be OK? I'm not saying it was a bad decision (I put it on AfD for a reason :) ), but it could go either way. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks. I'll redirect. Usually when I vote merge on school AfDs, I mean just redirect, and I think people do the same, but it's not always clear to the closing admin. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Joyeux Noël
I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Closure of the Lucy Hannah AfD
Hi Wizardman, and Happy Christmas!
I am writing to ask if you would like to review your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Hannah.
I am aware that there were more "keep" !votes than "deletes", but I can see nothing in any of them which justifies keeping this single sentence as an article rather than as an entry in a list. Even NelalIRC (who maintains, or used to maintain, a website on this stuff at http://www.nealirc.org) acknowledged that there is no prospect of any more substantial sources to allow the article to be expanded ... so it is destined to remain a permanent substub.
I can see a reasonable case being made to merge or redirect, but as per the AfD, I simply don't see any valid arguments to keep. Please could you reconsider? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
An Administrator is I!
.svg)
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!
Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.
I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.
Thanks again.
An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burr Road Middle School
Hi, my view is that for GFDL reasons the history should be restored and a protected redirect to Wauseon Exempted Village Schools, where the content was merged, created. Perhaps you would look at this again, please? TerriersFan (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
0/0/3/0
Copy and paste from the case below. ;-) Thanks! Jehochman Talk 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK updating
Please remember to protect the DYK image, or you're just asking for vandalism on the Main Page. See Wikipedia:Did you know#Pictures --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK on Ohio Sta- I mean Michigan
You never know, if I run out of good Michigan football topics, I might just write an article on Ohio Sta-- nah!Cbl62 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
about the RFPs?
Hi Wizardman,
I was just wondering: You denied the requests for protection for List of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air characters and for Roger Federer. It's not just looking at the last 4 days or so. It's a regular pattern of unconstructive edits or vandalisms. Sometimes it's high frequency and sometimes it's at a low frequency. But it's getting to be quite annoying. Maybe not so much for other users, because I'm the one who keeps catching these edits! If you look at the history, you see my username about every 7 edits (estimated lol).
~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I see what your saying. That's a good point. I guess it's not fair to the few IPs that actually contribute. I'll continue to serve justice to the vandals. Till next time, God bless and happy nbew year!
- ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Solution to a question
According to the subpage on your WikiPhilosophy, you are unsure of what it is. Judging by some of your actions at AfD, I believe that it may be deletionism. You can thank me at my talk page, or if you'd like to reward me monetarily, I can give you PayPal information. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
|
On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al Javery, 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. |
--Royalbroil 01:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar. Luckily, I think more people have added the vandalism-prone year articles to their watchlist. --TM 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Question
Sorry to bother you with this general question but I wasn't sure where to ask. I once came across a type of proposed deletion tag for uncontroversial deletions that don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I can't seem to find any mention of it in the deletion policies. Do you have any idea what I'm talking about, or was I imagining this? And if it's real could you direct me to the tag or info about it or something? Thanks!
- Found it, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Thanks anyway :)
Re: Admin
I've asked Ryan Postlethwaite, my admin coach if he thought I was ready for it. Here's the discussion, but I'm awaiting an answer. Thanks for the offer, but I want to see if Ryan thinks I'm ready, being my coach. If he doesn't think so, I don't think an RfA would be wise at this time. J-ſtanContribsUser page 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I got the OK from Ryan, so if you're still interested, you can talk to him. Thanks, J-ſtanContribsUser page 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Adminship
I'm not quite sure if I'm ready for a 4th RfA quite yet. Let me get back to you on that once I'm a little more coherent (I overslept today so I'm kinda groggy). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, now that I'm fully awake (finally!), I've made my decision -- I'm ready for RfA #4. Go ahead and nominate me if you want. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
*You haven't created the RfA page yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)- My bad, you made it while I was typing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
why, thank you!
Moving kindly received barnstar to awards section :) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: RFA of J-stan
Sure will. Wasn't Ryan Postlethwaite doing admin coaching? Regards, Rt. 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Done - I'd like to say thanks for informing. Most other users wouldn't. :) Best, Rt. 16:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Billy Joe Tolliver
|
|
On 3 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Billy Joe Tolliver, 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. |
Fifty references on a Did You Know?! Wow, don't see that too often... Great job! --JayHenry (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Talk page edit
I am not sure I understand this edit. However, as long as the page has any categories that are included at WP:CHIBOTCATS such as Category:People from Cook County, Illinois, a bot will check the category twice a week and add {{ChicagoWikiProject}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject College football January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you starting Art Houtteman, well I'm starting Gene Conley, lets see who could finish our articles to at least WP:GA first :P, and lets get User:Nishkid64 to do an article as well :p. By the way, if you need sources http://www.paperofrecord.com/default.asp (which you need to sign up) has all the Sporting News archives, which is the best sources for those old players we are doing. Thanks Secret account 21:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Houtteman and Trucks
Very impressive work on Hotteman so far. I have access to some databases that would like turn up some good stuff on him. I may chip in a bit too, unless you prefer I don't. On the Virgil Trucks image, if I include a better fair use rationale, do you think it can remain?Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did a quick check for Houtteman article and came up with a few things. Take or leave as much of it as you decide to.Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
NFL drafts
the 2002-2006 NFL Drafts that you nominated for featured list have been listed at WP:FLRC to be de-listed from featured list. Gman124 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
[1] Cheers. WjBscribe 04:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Co-Nom
If you you would like to co-nom, than you are welcome to. Would you be co-noming with Useight? STORMTRACKER 94 12:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking that I'd nominate Stormtracker94 on January 23rd, because that would be exactly 3 months since his previous RFA. What is your opinion on what date would be a good time? I think he's ready right now, but some editors want to see a buffer of some specific time between RFAs. I'll get a nomination written up in the next couple of days. Useight (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, the 23rd it is. I'll keep you posted. Useight (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Trees of Mars
In response to your question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeepday: In January 2008 the user Thetreesonmars made a series of contributions with the attempt to include WP:OR that are summed up in this edit Diff that proposes that NASA images provide a case for the existence of plant life on Mars. All of the user edits to the main space have been reverted by the community. The two images you mention Here and here are remains of that attempt. The descriptions, titles, and sources of the images are suspect and their source as NASA Mars images has not been confirmed. I marked the images with {{OR}} pending verification of source and, validation of description or deletion of images. The Images are now pending deletion. If the images are NASA they could of some intrest to Wikipedia but currently I am at a loss on how to validate the source as the descriptions and titles do not appear to be NASA derived the search would be extremely challenging. Jeepday (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Adminship
Thanks for the consideration. However, at this point in time there's things I'd need to get some experience on that would likely come up as issues in an RFA. E.g., my participation in xFD debates is a handful at this point, and I don't really participate in Wiki maintenance beyond mainspace edits. There's also the question of time spent; Wikipedia at times keeps me busy enough without admin duties to handle, and I'm not at the point yet where I could comfortably spend enough time on here as an admin without compromising what I have to do in real life. When I think I'm ready I'll change the userbox about not wanting to be an admin to wanting to be one someday. I think that I'd rather be a good user first rather than a bad admin second. BrokenSphereMsg me 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Your closing of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nowlin_Middle_School
Hello, you closed the debate on this school with the comment that multiple sources had been found. I'm a little lost; I thought that middle schools and primary schools had to establish notability to be included; my AfD was not on WP:V, it was about WP:N. Notability was never established, only verifiability. I'm not contesting the closure, I'm just looking for a little more explanation in case I come across another middle school on New Page Patrol...--CastAStone//(talk) 04:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've just made another submission. Could you double check this for length please? DurovaCharge! 05:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
re:adminship
Yikes, that was out of the blue. Not what I expected logging in Monday morning. I've forwarded your very flattering message to another admin, user:JodyB, for a second opinion before I say Yay or Nay. He and I have been doing the "adoption" process for a month or two (see this) . Thanks for the consideration, I'll let you know! Keeper | 76 16:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good call on User:Keeper76. I have begun the process at this link if you would like to join me. He and I have been working for awhile and I think he's ready to do a good job. -JodyB talk 12:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
HMS Bonadventure (1650) @ DYK
Hello, Wizardman. Would you mind elaborating on this edit of yours, please? The nominator wants to know what happened, and another editor re-posted the hook on DYKNU. I thought it's best that the three of you can discuss it. Perhaps a short note on T:TDYK would do. I've moved the hook to a 'holding area' on DYKNU for now. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply, Wizardman. I'll let the nominator know. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thx for prompt reply ... I was expecting to fimd it still there if short. However ... we are all fallible. Victuallers (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Stormtracker94
I've created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 3 because I wanted a place to get my thoughts together for nominating him. The page won't be transcluded until the 23rd, but if you want a place to write up your co-nomination, it's available. Useight (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Commendation
Congrats, Wizardman! Looks like you got an "Amazing Admining" commendation on VigilancePrime's What Were They Thinking? page, which highlights some of the worst AND the best moments in the use of admin tools in perhaps the most polite and civil way possible. This then led me to read the AfD for which you were commended, and I must admit, it was a stellar piece of admin-work. Good job, and keep up the good work - if only more admins were more like you, working to clean up and maintain this great project rather than squabbling over policy. DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK expiring
It is January 8, 11:07 p.m. (UTC). That's almost January 9th. Ideally, we should be putting the last of the January 3rd hooks, possibly even starting January 4th.
Rather than waiting 53 minutes and placing the January 8th hooks in the "expired noms" section, I've just placed the January 2nd hooks there.
Some people reach for expired noms for the next update. I think a slightly expired nom is not ideal but sometimes necessary due to the DYK lateness in updating. However, this worsens the next day's problem.
The next update only had 5 hooks and was already more than an hour late. I added two more to try to reduce the number of hooks that are rejected because of DYK lateness. Actually, I favor 8 but some don't like it when the main page is not evenly divided between DYK/FA and today's birthdays/in the news.
So my rule of thumb is 1. allow slightly expired noms, 2. don't change the expired noms date until it's really past 5 days, 3. fill up the next update and not just have 5-6 hooks (unless they are long), and 4. try to get DYK on time. Archtransit (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Somebody else did the formatting of credits wrong. I did the last 2, which I think are correct. Thanks for updating the main page. The choice of DYK hooks was a little skewed being sports and war, but being so late, it had to go out. The individual hooks weren't that bad and taking even one out would mean that the hook would be old and never chosen. Archtransit (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK and GA
I'm a bit confused. Why was the hook for Ali Williams added as a DYK now when it was only expanded on 8 January? Especially considering there are still valid noms from 2 January? Another note, I've placed the GA nom for Luis Castillo (baseball) on hold. You can see my comments here. - Shudde talk 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was expanded on January 6th. Still, out of courtesy to others, it should have be held until about January 11th. I wasn't the person to put it in the next update. I made a note on the person's talk page who chose the hook for the next update. Archtransit (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the DYK
Thanks for the DYK for the Altenberg bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track. I really appreciate it. I wasn't expecting this until later this week given all of the other nominations out now, but thanks anyway. Chris (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why you restored the unsourced information about a living person to this article and removed my comments from the talk page? Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I saw that it was pretty hoaxy and that's why I moved it to talk, in case there was any real info there. I think Wikipedia is better lacking info than having bad info. It' been a while since an edit of mine was reverted. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Re:Adminship request
I originally had thought about waiting a month or so before nominating myself, but what the hell, why not. I would gladly accept your offer for a nomination. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I've filled out the questions. Is there anything in particular you think I have left out or should cover in greater detail? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Four DYKs
Thank you! athinaios | Talk 08:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK credit on Werner Greeff
Wizard, I just commented out the DYK banner you posted on my talk page. The credit for creation/expansion goes to Jimmy Pitt (talk · contribs). My only part in it was nominating an alternate hook that was eventually used instead of the original nomination. (I had put it up as a full nomination, but pulled it after seeing that it was hiding in the blizzard of prior nominations, and then proposed my hook as an alternate.) AFAIK, the DYK process doesn't give credit to those who propose alternate hooks that get used... or does it? — Dale Arnett (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK me
Just for easier reference :P --slakr\ talk / 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alrighty. So you, cremepuff, and aqwis I will give a copy of upon completion. Wizardman 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Adminship
Thanks for the offer Wizardman. It would be amusing to watch the potential bloodbath that my RfA would become, but ultimately it would just be a waste of the community's time. I've opposed too many RfAs, argued to keep too many AFDs, overturn too many DRVs and -- the greatest sin of all! -- been critical of too many of the wrong people. I think if you looked through my contribs you'd start to see where all the opposers would come from ;) It's okay though. T:DYK/N is where things get backlogged anyways, and I can continue to help there. Thanks again for the offer and I do appreciate your faith in me. --JayHenry (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
|
|
On 10 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dick Selma, 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. |
- And I can still do the credits too! --JayHenry (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Thank you so much for the nice surprise! Next stop - world domination. ... discospinster talk 14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK
I am attempting my first move to the main page. Let me know if there are any errors. The change is due in 30 minutes but it may take time for me to do it. I already protected the image. Archtransit (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your RFA support. Although I didn't save any effort this time because you had to supervise the DYK move, I think I'll be able to help myself next time. Archtransit (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
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 "S"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 "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! 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. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Art Houtteman
|
|
On 11 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Art Houtteman, 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. |
--Excellent work here. Good luck getting it through FAC :)GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:54, 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) 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In case you don't notice, this has been recreated. I've changed the target from FBI to my proposed List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication. Before you speedy delete as recreation, please consider whether consensus is really delete. The first three people did not seem to realize the alternative, and the last "obscure inside joke" comment seems only to refer to FBI as the target. I mean, if V& is actually explained somewhere, a search for it should lead there. –Pomte 06:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Rudget!
Typo
You have a typo on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stormtracker94 3, you have "i" instead of "I". Not a big deal, just trying to make the page look as good as possible. Useight (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up. |
Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you please reconsider your closure of the RfD discussion of this redirect? Several of the early "delete" comments were factually wrong and should have been discounted in the closure. Specifically:
- user:Jerry argued to delete because it was "non-english, non-latin". It is, in fact, a well-known Latin phrase.
- user:Magioladitis argued to delete because the redirect was in all capitals. To the best of my knowledge, this phrase is always written in exactly this way - all capitals. user:JuJube concurred without further comment.
Several editors further argued that "No one will ever search for this." The facts raised during the discussion did not support that claim. If you saw the phrase and wanted to look it up, you are very likely to copy-paste it into the search engine (which, by the way, is the most common way that people easily type in the æ character - but it's not that hard to enter by hand either). It might not be the way you would conduct your research but WP:R admonishes us not to make assumptions that everyone uses the encyclopedia the same way.
I appreciate your consideration of the issue. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
RE: adminship
- Thanks. I've been offered nominations before, but they never really formulated into real RfAs. One thing that worries me is my not so consistent contributions to the Wikipedia namespace, but I've been more active in them recently. Thanks for considering me, I'll accept. —dima/talk/ 01:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry for the delay in transcluding the nom. I am pretty busy right now, but will try very soon. —dima/talk/ 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay.. I have answered the nomination.. do you think I should reset the timer? —dima/talk/ 23:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry for the delay in transcluding the nom. I am pretty busy right now, but will try very soon. —dima/talk/ 05:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Something you've probably been asked before
I think that, yes, I'd like to try for adminship. Thanks for thinking of me. As for co-noms, User:Stormtracker94 asked me about a month ago if I would like him to nom me. I turned it down. NF24(radio me!) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, we weren't able to suggest any articles for you. Something is probably wrong on our end.
My RfA
My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
NF24 Co-nom
Yes, I will co-mom. I'll write it up later today STORMTRACKER 94 12:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK
Thanks for removing the hook with no new articles. Would you add a few more to the template while I credit the ones already added? Note that there's a large difference between today and tomorrow, so don't load it up too much. Royalbroil 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox MLB retired
When unprotecting a template, you should remember to check the number of transclusions. This one has a few thousand, which means that any edit to it will add to the job queue. So a sandbox is a better way for editors to test changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:Adminship
Thanks for thinking of me. Let me think about it and make sure that I can devote enough time to it, classes just started for me so I want to get into my schedule and see how much time I have. I will let you know probably in a week or so. But thanks for thinking of nominating me, I would love to be nominated by you! :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- After some though I will accept your offer to nominate me. Thanks again and let me know what needs to be done!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)- (I moved this to the bottom of your talk page to make sure you realized I responded to you)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- (I moved this to the bottom of your talk page to make sure you realized I responded to you)
- I answered the questions, if you feel they have covered everything sufficiently,
then feel free to transclude the nom. Thanks for the kind words on your nom statement.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)- Ehh I decided to transclude it anyways. Thanks again!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ehh I decided to transclude it anyways. Thanks again!
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)