User talk:Savidan/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Welcome 1

Welcome!

Hello Savidan/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome 2

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material.

This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/HistoricalLists/TopicsNational1921-present.htm. As a copyright violation, CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words.

Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Melchoir 07:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've responded at User_talk:Melchoir#you_deleted_my_article. Melchoir 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Allah and islamic concept of God

Hi Savidan,

I see you've proposed a merge for these two (recently split) articles. Could you please start a discussion topic on it on Talk:Allah stating your rationale, as per the merge tag? Thanks, Palmiro | Talk 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. While I was in favour of the split, I didn't actually carry it out myself and hadn't read the new article (the Islamic concept one) until I saw your merge proposal. Having looked at it for the first time, I can easily see why a reader would think they should be merged. However, I think that as you say the two articles, particularly the new one, should improve and the reason for the distinction become clearer through the editing process. All the best, Palmiro | Talk 22:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Rock, Paper, Scissors

I've created a new category for RPS-related articles, Category:Rock, Paper, Scissors. Melchoir 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't encourage what he's doing. It's ridiculous to create a separate one-sentence article for each different RPS gambit. All of this information should be added to Rock, Paper, Scissors. Not only does this use less articles, it actually puts it all in one convenient place, which is better for the reader. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, you're right. Melchoir 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and added the content to the main article. Savidan 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Flatheads

As a Zork player myself, I know that there really is very little to add to the flood of Flathead articles that you've been adding lately, and wikipedia policy says that perpetual stubs are bad. I'd like to recommend to you merging all of them together onto one page, perhaps List of Flatheads or something along those lines. --InShaneee 03:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page.Savidan 03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks!. For example, for Zork related article, you probably want to use {{cvg-stub}} (which is for computer and video game related stubs. Where (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Zork

I just wanted to let you know that when I first started editing Wikipedia in August 2004, I created numerous Zork articles, just as you are now. Almost all were deleted through WP:AFD. So, rather than create a separate article for each king, you might instead create one article listing all the kings, and then redirect each king's name there. As more information is added on each king, then you can safely split them off into their own separate articles.

Also note that you can't copy contents from Encyclopedia Frobozzica exactly, because it is still being held in copyright by Activision (though they have probably forgotten what "Zork" means by now). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-16 04:28

Thanks for letting me know. I think that by now there may be slightly more precedent (i.e. the chain of articles on every king in lord of the rings, even the ones who only appear in the appencides). Also, I don't plan to "copy" information from Encyclopedia Frobizzica even though I feel it would be legitimate to paraphrase form it. See Trivial Pursuit#Columbo Controversy. Savidan 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ronnie Laws merge to Earth, Wind & Fire?

You've suggested that a newly-created article on Ronnie Laws should be merged into the EW&F article; what's your basis for this recommendation? The new article does need significant cleanup and a move (the title isn't properly capitalized), but Laws appears to be a notable artist in his own right, and he was only in EW&F for about a year. I've left the same information on the article's talk page, but I'd like to request that you remove the merge tag -- it just doesn't make sense. Engineer Bob 07:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response; I'll work with the author to clean it up. Engineer Bob 07:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Emmanuel Ortiz

Please cite reliable sources to establish your subject's notability. For example, What in the world is "Bookstore of the Americas Book of the Year Award"? I can't find any "Bookstore of the Americas" that exist. One writeup in one nonnotable website leaves me unconvinced. Thanks. --Perfecto 07:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bible as myth Neutraliy Dispute

Would you please either contribute to the article to make it nuetrual or at least explain on the Talk page. Having not heard others' opinions at all, I don't know what the neutrality problem is you're thinking of. --JBJ830726 01:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've posted my reasons on the talk page.Savidan 03:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Contestmap.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Contestmap.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 03:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the tag; its been a while since I uploaded that Savidan 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Contestsite.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Contestsite.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 03:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the tag; its been a while since I uploaded that Savidan 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate (sport) and disambiguation

I noticed you added and removed the {{otheruses}} template for a disambiguation link at the top of Ultimate (sport). There are several otheruses-style templates listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Templates for disambiguation links. I personally like to use {{for}} and {{this}} too. It gets kind of confusing. In any case, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says not to disambiguate the more specific ones. I hope that makes sense. --Christopherlin 09:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops

At WWII I reverted some vandalism by an anon and inadvertantly removed one of your edits. You may have already caught it; just FYI. --DanielCD 19:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Yohanan_cohen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yohanan_cohen.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hotel New York

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article. Turns out it's an album by Anouk, a Dutch singer for whom we have an article. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neocon in List of -cons

The article List of -cons says right at the top "This is a list of conventions ending in "-con" or "-Con"." Neocon is a political movement, not a convention. JIP | Talk 19:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus template

Hi. I reverted your addition of Jesus and nonviolent resistance to Template:Jesus, as it's not a major enough topic or article to be included on the template. (I'm also a bit worried about the article itself, as it doesn't cite any sources). I just wanted to let you know why. --G Rutter 13:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've left a message on the articles talk page and if no-one improves it in a few days I'll list it for deletion. --G Rutter 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good plan! Thanks- I've done that, so we'll see what happens. --G Rutter 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cart00ney

Nine minutes after I save the initial stub of an article, you list it for deletion with no attempt to contact me, no discussion, and only the most cryptic of reasons listed on the deletion page. Thank you for such a clear demonstration of the toxic nature of AfD. ➥the Epopt 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please join this discussion on WT:AFD#AFD.27s_public_relations_with_the_rest_of_Wikipedia concerning such nominations - David Gerard 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome.

And thank you for that. I find some of the translations quite hard to do; so it's nice to know they're well received. Kelisi 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) because you participated in the first vote. Savidan 21:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. That's the largest nominator's argument I've ever seen. I don't have a case, but you're right in that it does interest me, thanks. --Kizor 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the long nomination. Savidan 00:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Right. That was you. *Cough* No reason to apologize, though, explaining one's grievances well is a good thing. What gets me about it isn't the length, it's that I've invested significant time and effort in the article, received a barnstar for it as well, but in all fairness can't argue against your points. --Kizor 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider moving the content to Muggles’ Guide to Harry Potter or the Harry Potter Wiki. I didn't mean to disrespect your hard work. I just don't think it belongs on wikipedia. Savidan 06:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop apologizing, would you? :-) I didn't think you were disrespectful and have already agreed to your reasoning. Thanks for the links too, that hadn't occured to me. --Kizor 11:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

...'s law

(moved Pinto's law to Pinto's Law: its a proper noun)... Are you sure about that? If you type in 's law into the search field, every different "...'s law" redirects from the capitalized form "Law" to the lower case. Nagelfar 06:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Prince Popiel

Please take another look at the article for Prince Popiel that you voted "Speedy Delete" for on the AfD-- I was able to verify that it is at least a traditional Polish legend about an early ruler in that region. Crypticfirefly 07:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers

You voted "keep if verified" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other names of large numbers. I have since traced the origins of the number on this list to several websites and blogs which state this is original research. The valid numbers are already listed at Names of large numbers. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Cheers, —Ruud 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Bootlegs section

:) - dharmabum 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

redirects

yeah, sorry, i know that. just a mistake, but thanks. Arre 05:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

facebook

I kinda foolishly started over the facebook voting debate at Talk:Facebook_(website)#Voting (because there were some comments like waffle iron's that weren't clear whether or not they were voting and for what). I have now realized that not everyone who commented before may have had it on their watchlist so I am sending this to anyone that commented earlier and has not yet (re)voted. Sorry. --L1AM 07:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Cart00ney

Thank you for informing me of this. I have voted merge to List of Internet slang. It is a somewhat used neologism that clearly does not need its own separate article yet is still worthy of being listed. Have a nice day! ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, recently you left a comment on the Esperanza talk page, asking for input on the AfD for Cart00ney; I think you might have meant that to go to a specific user, instead of Esperanza. Esperanzians often display a green letter in their signature which leads to the Esperanza page, and not their talk page; this is sometimes a cause of confusion. If this has happened here, you'll have to go to that user's talk page and leave a message there. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 20:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've commented. Looks like it's no-consensus for now. ---J.Smith 22:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Savidan! Since the content of Cart00ney has already been added into List of Internet slang, it would be a violation of the GFDL to delete the article, so I cannot change my AFD vote to delete. Why do you not wish it to be a redirect? Why would any of the terms on List of Internet slang not be redirects to that article? --Stormie 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As it has now been merged I suggest it redirect to List of Internet slang. Merge and delete I don't believe is an available option in this case, for reasons of GFDL compliance. Please let me know what you think. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"traditionally when one is created from an AfD the article is deleted first and then a redirect is created to prevent someone from wandering into the article and restoring it" .. hmm, I have never done that when closing a VFD/AFD discussion as a merge & redirect. Never seen it suggested in Wikipedia:Deletion process either. --Stormie 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - no harm meant

Hi!

I didn't mean to vandalize anything. I thought the tag appeared automatically because my browser froze and then I re-edited the content. I had seriously forgotten that there was an old page there. I only saw your message after I erase the repost tag.

I still don't understand why PLOrk (Princeton Laptop Orchestra) is not a valid entry - what does A1 refer to?

I am not new here, but I don't know my way around too well. Sorry for any inconvenience. I really wasn't trying to disrespect you or wikipedia. At the same time, you shouldn't make assumptions about why I deleted the link. It was quite an accident.

Ge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewang (talk • contribs)

Thanks for reply

Thanks for the reply and understanding.

PLOrk is actually not a student organization. It is

founded and actively directed and taught by two Princeton Professors
a university/industry funded long-term projects and ensemble
a true ensemble, many leading computer music composers are being commissioned to write pieces for PLOrk
soon to be published in computer music journal and international conferences

I didn't make it clear yet on article and didn't stub the thing. It seems to me that it could be a legit and interesting wikipedia article. What are your thoughts? Thanks again for your time.

Ge!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gewang (talk • contribs)

appreciate it

Thanks! I will add some content and also leave as a stub.

gewang 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about jumping into the PLOrk thing.

I jumped in thinking it was a contested speedy and tried to tag it for AfD without noticing that it had already been through AfD and that you had the situation under control. Sorry to be a buttinsky. That's what I get for trying to watch Women's Curling and edit WP at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtwilson3 (talk • contribs)

AfD

Based on what I've seen from you on AfD, I think that you might have something to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney. I'd appreciate you weighing in on the matter in either direction. Savidan 18:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You voted "Merge to Internet slang". The content has recently been added to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing your vote to delete? Savidan 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge implies deleting after the content is merged, so a delete vote should be assumed. --Rory0 96 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Junta (game)

I was thinking of nominating this to be a featured article, but I'm worried that it would fail because it doesn't contain much information other than on the gameplay. Do you know of any sources that exist on the culture of the game or maybe some mainstream media coverage that it has gotten so that I could expand it without doing original research. Savidan 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/242 This is all I could think of. I'd try asking around here and see if you get any leads. Either way, you're going to need a couple more references and footnotes. Palm_Dogg 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 09:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:DJH47

Hey,

In a message dated 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC), you write:

>>You voted "Merge". The content has recently been added

>>to List of internet slang. Would you consider changing

>>your vote to delete?

It can create the appearance of ... well, dodgy practices, when you seemingly solicit a specific vote on AfD. A note like "New information is available about this AfD here (link, diffs, whatever), would you perhaps care to have a gander?" would avoid any raised eyebrows.

Thanks for working to keep votes from growing stale on rapidly-evolving AfD's. Cheers! :)

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd raise my eyebrow just as archly at *them* too :) Thanks for replying though, and for your understanding.

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dartmouth

Sweet! thanks for the userbox. Dylan 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, danke! I think every Dartmouth-related article is on my watchlist - definitely needed that userbox! --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you!

Hi Savidan/Archive 1. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.

Soothing R 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote

My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

AbleNET AfD

You recently recommended the Article for AbleNET to be deleted with the caveat that edits from keep threads be monitored without any mention of the edits for delete threads, which at least one of these persons had continuously removed comments from others that they found disagreeable and indefensible. As the article is no less relevant than 90% of the entries, would you support their removal as well? I did not create the article, but as the network founder, I considered it necessary to improve the relevancy and the factual elements, which I have done (well before the nomination). It's easy to say "delete as per everyone else" but do you have any solid reasonings of your own that you believe in? What makes this factual entry any less relevant than the others?

I am not attacking you for your beliefs but I do feel that the initial nomination was made with intention to do harm, where if you look at the history for more than one of the 'delete' entries it appears that they were created with the sole intention of removing the entry. As a person involved in the strengthening of the community (esperanza), I would rather expect that you would not condone such actions, even in passing.

To deny this article is essentially the same as denying the right to exist. In terms of relevancy, the network is 5 years established and has a historical lineage. In counter-action to claims of self promotion, the administration of said network has no designs on bloated false growth as witnessed by the terms of connection and the active refusal of trojan networks, file sharing, et. al. Truth be told, we prefer the controlled growth of a small network and we've designed it this way. Much like you, we believe in "Esperanza"... if you understand spanish you realize that is "hope". We believe in the "hope" of a diverse, peaceful community. We believe in real people for a real community. As the founder of the network I have been involved in large networks of thousands and helped build other networks from the ground up over the past 10 years to be thriving in the thousands today. But this... this is "my baby" and something I am proud of because the goal had been to establish a REAL community of REAL people without the boundaries, restrictions and elitist attitudes associated with status and false impressions of 'power' and 'authority'.

The people that have become involved in this discussion, surprisingly, the majority of support has come from people I don't even know who aren't even members of our community. Yes, some has come from our community, while some has come from members of the IRC community at large (including the owner/operator of mirc.net). We have a good reputation and good standing in the IRC community. Administrations of other networks are aware of who we are, what we are about and our regard for the overall community. I dare to say that we have the respect of our peers.

I ask you to take this into consideration and reconsider your position. Consider the goals of our community and what we are about. If you do not change your stance, at least provide a thought out and considered reason for it. We deserve that much. We do not "need" to be on Wikipedia but the fact remains we are... and we as equally valid as any entry on there, with far more information than many of the other, equally valid, entries.

I apologize for the length of this discussion entry; but as you can tell, I am very passionate about what we have built and it's place in the pantheon of IRC Communities. I am passionate about our community and the people in it.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Santavez 04:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Succession off Nobel peace prize winners

I saw your addition to Dag Hammarskjöld. Is it really appropriate to put Nobel peace prize winners in a succession box? It's a one-time prize, not an office of some kind, like an elected politician of some sort. That Linus Pauling got the prize after Hammarskjöld doesn't quite mean that he succeeded him, just that he got the prize the year after. Thought I'd point it out.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, to answer you question I saw succession boxes scattered around some nobel laureates, but not for others (and not just for the peace prize). I know its imperfect, but it is nice to be able to link the articles together like that, and a lot more convenient than the List of Nobel laureates. There is some precedent for sucession boxes for awards, but I'm not married to this format if you have a better way of linking Laureates together. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

White Mountain art

Thanks for your review of the article on White Mountain art where I have been the primary author. I intend to incorporate the images at the end of the article within the text of the article as you suggest. I wanted to point out, however, that the images are not random. The text above (called "Characteristics of the artists") references the paintings, in order, from left to right and then down each row. For example, there are textual comments on Champney, and a Champney painting is the first in the gallery. Then there are comments about Paskell, and the next painting in the list exemplifies the characteristics of Paskell, etc. So, the text is directly related to the gallery order.

Once I make the changes you suggest, do I self-nominate the article again? Please advise. JJ 15:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made the changes you suggest, and I would appreciate your feeback. I placed each image, as a thumbnail, below the text describing the characteristics for each artist. JJ 16:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, and I don't want to be argumentative. I do feel, however, that my earlier version of White Mountain art was better. The text corresponded one-to-one with the images in the gallery below. The image gallery seemed much "cleaner" than the long list of photos going linearly down the page. Would you look at the earlier version with the knowledge that the gallery images were not random? I feel it's a better presentation, but I will defer to your experience. Thanks. JJ 19:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

Thanks for the tip. I didn't know what I was doing. MikeDockery 02:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD Vote

At the demand of another Wikipedian, I have moved the three related articles in the Islamic athletics AfD to a different AfD page (since I added those three related articles after he/she voted). Your vote indicates that perhaps you meant to vote Delete for all four articles. If that is the case, I'm asking that you copy your vote to the new AfD page or at least give me permission to do so. Either way, thanks for your input. joturner 05:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Your AFD vote

I'd just like you to know that your vote for Entertain-Dome at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_22#Entertain-Dome is slightly invalid. It is a renomination, not a repost. The first nomination received a "no consensus" vote. So take another look at it if you like. - Hahnchen 11:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

With apologies for the impersonal AWB-ness of the message... Thanks for your support on my recent request for adminship. It passed at 91/1/0, and I hope I can continue to deserve the community's trust. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, and if I make a mistake be sure to tell me. My talk page is always open. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

People shot by standing Vice Presidents

Please see WP:DRV#Recently concluded. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it was clear that the CfD being closed as "no consensus" was a mistake. The CfD revealed a rather clear consensus to delete the category. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Afd

Well, thanks! It's a great honor. Hope your keyboard's okay! Melchoir 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So that's how those things achieve that color... Melchoir 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)