User talk:Matt Yeager/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt Yeager

User talk:Matt Yeager Talk archive: 7/21/05—2/6/06 Talk archive: 2/7/06—3/27/06 Talk archive: 3/28/06—5/1/06 Talk archive: 5/2/06—8/31/06

[edit] your RFA

Your RFA is unsuccessful but not hopeless. The comments on your RFA is a real chance for you to think about opposes and neutrals. Don't give up editing:)--Ugur Basak 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry it didn't pass, shame. the best thing is to take the constructive criticism to heart, and ignore the rest. btw, e really is __extremely__ important in mathematics & the sciences, though not in day-to-day life ;) Derex 00:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, pi is more important than e, otherwise I wouldn't have memorized 150 digits of it! (Yes, now you can see how "sad" my life is according to some - Wikipedia, and pi.) Anyways, speaking of your RfA, which is why I originally came here, I'm sorry it didn't turn out as well as you had expected. But - argh, don't begin a sentence with but! However, take this is a learning experience. Read your critiques and... learn. If I remember (which I probably won't because I have a bad memory for everything except pi - oooh, I'll put it on my calendar), I'll nominate you in a month or two, pending ample progress. Now, let me go write it in my calendar before I forget to do that, too! --M@thwiz2020 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that you'd put it on your calender! That makes me feel really happy. You said you'd do it in a month or so... hmm... what about in, say, 31.4159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 days?

Pi forever! =P Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit! Well, I already wrote it down and I wanted a Friday about two months from now so I arbitrarily chose Fri 7 Apr 2006 although your idea for pi days is a good one... --M@thwiz2020 01:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Matt :) I'm glad you're taking the RfA in seemingly good cheer, and you'll have my support if (and hopefuly when) you're re-nominated.

Regards, Adrian Lamo ·· 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that people do not recognize your talents to be an admin. I would support you again if you re-register yourself at a later time. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wait a few months and try again...my Rfa barely passed so next time, you should be a shoe in...Let me know if there is anything you needa and I thank you for the kind words.--MONGO 02:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for your kinds words of support. :) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have received your message. Best wish for your continued contribution.--Jusjih 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt - thanks for the comments. Sorry the RFA wasn't successful. I hope you try again sometime soon. Grutness...wha? 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. You really should have walked this - boooo I say :) Drop me a line on my talk page when you reapply so I don't miss it. Keep up the good work! Proto||type 11:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Myeager1

I just saw this template on someone's talk page. I thought the photograph inclusion was very funny! I'd like to ask you though that given this is a one time use template, may I delete it if you are done informing those who commented on your RfA? --Durin 15:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Just trying to avert a vandal (71.32.90.85), who has been vandalizing pages I edit. I will put the blanked articles back up in a few days, after the vandal goes away. Thanks. Madchen Hoch 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Not redirect passing, because Kennewick is actually a disambig page. But yeah, it's nice doing little things like that. It's both constructive and stress-free. Everyking 06:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need your help

Hi, I need your help. User 71.32.90.85 is now vandalizing my user page as well. Thanks. Madchen Hoch 16:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not Edit true info

Why would a user want your help editing out true information? Because the user does not like the information, does not make it vandalism or untrue. This site is about honesty and I was correcting knowingly wrong data by that user. I do not think posting true info is a violation of anything and does not make me a vandal.

[edit] Revert of Vandalism?

It is not vandalism when you erase info that is not true on a page. Please do not add this info again. My friend owns and created the show she is trying to illegally take credit for. Stop helping this user do so.

[edit] Article Naming

Could you give a hint about why you insist on moving Padua to Padua, Italy? This violates the usual naming convention (compare with Rome, Venice, Florence, Pisa et. al. Tangerine Cossack 19:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COTW Project

You voted for Aeronautics, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

[edit] Christian Article, interpretation

I noticed you reversed one of my poorer edits. The statement was supposed to read:

They believe to be Christian one must agree and follow the doctrines set forth in their specific interpretation of the Bible, as opposed any other interpretation of the Bible or any other religious work.

I had a typo with the/their and included "a" inappropriately. Did you revert because it was a bad edit or because you disagree with the edit? Storm Rider 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the talk on my page; thank you. I appreciate your definition of Christian as attribtued to BAC's. I would hope that it would be the definition for all people, but I find that it does not always apply. For example, as a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) I find that definition is seldom if ever applied. After stating an acceptance of Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and following His commandmants, the conversation inevitably goes to a specific interpretation of the scriptures i.e. you can not possibly be Christian because... Would that your definition was the way it was in life, but I have yet to see its practical application. Historical or Orthodox Christians will always go the acceptance of the concept of the Trinity as a prerequisite for identification of Christian; if you don't believe it there is no way you could possibly be Christain. Thoughts? Storm Rider 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You said nothing about being Christian with which I disagree. Incidentally, having come from a Protestant (Baptist) background, grown up in the South, and the majority of my friends are not Mormon I feel that I have some ability to speak to commonalities and differences between Christians. Agreed, we are not talking about plastic Christians; that is a separate issue and applies to Mormons as well as to members of any other organized religion. To follow Christ is central to Mormonism. In fact, we are accused of "only" following (works) rather than relying on Grace only. We could easily get off topic here, so I will focus on being a Christian.

"Lies like the Book of Mormon". This has always fascinated me; the Holy Spirit is the conduit of truth except for Mormons who profess to pray diligently and have received an answer that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, when he spoke of other sheep He was including the early inhabitants of what we now recognize as North and South America, and that the Book of Mormon is a true record of His interactions with them. This is an example for Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. We believe it becomes irrefutable evidence to all the Jesus is the Son of God. One may deny the Bible, but one can not deny both the Bible and Book of Mormon that testify of the same God. Somehow this affirmative answer is an impossibility. Once this is "established" we are left with sola scriptura; the heavens are closed and Mormons are wrong because "my" interpretation of the scripture says they are wrong.

In truth, the vast majority of LDS are not really concerned about how other Christians view them. They focus on when they kneel down at night to pray can they feel the love of an all knowing Father in Heaven that cares about them. They repent of the constant failings and seek for continued guidance and direction through the trials and tribulations of this life. The rejection they receive from others who follow Christ is ignored; it is a personal matter for those that reject.

At the end, I really do believe that interpretation of scripture really does have an impact on the way individuals judge the "Christianity" of others. All of us are far more willing to limit the relationship with Christ of others. Somehow it makes us feel that we are better and closer to God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thanks again and your thoughts are welcomed. Storm Rider 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been an excellent conversation; thank you for your willingness to talk. Yes, I agree with where you have now arrived in your thought regarding the definition of Christianity. One of my favorite sayings is by J. Kenneth Grider:

"All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ."

Christ’s sacrifice allows for our forgiveness by being washed in His blood. After accepting Christ the work is not done. Sometimes it seems like Protestants like to hang it up thinking they are saved by Grace, they walked down the aisle and are therefore saved. It is true if they begin to live in Christ and follow.

I would be wary of judging the actions of others to determine if they are saved. True, the Savior said that we shall know them by their fruits and we shall. But our Father in Heaven knows our hearts. We all sin, but what is the condition of our heart? Paul said that a thorn of the flesh always caused problems for him, but yet he ran the race and finished the good fight. We cannot judge the condition of the heart of others and thus are unable to judge; allow God to handle that.

You will be faced with many sermons in your life that attempt to delineate between who is Christian and who is not. Remember this conversation and know that there is not one person on the earth today that can judge that issue. One is Christian if one is forgiven.

As far as the article goes, just remember that each denomination has their own interpretation of the Bible and judge truth by that interpretation. I have a pretty good working knowledge of the scriptures and have taught the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to Catholic priests and protestant ministers. I have seen them enter the waters of baptism as a result of their newfound testimony of the Book of Mormon and the fullness of the gospel of Christ. However, I also now that there will be many that follow the gospel as they understand it and they are certainly led by God to do so. I believe the things I do because I have studied the scriptures and determined their truth. More importantly, that truth was confirmed as Jesus said was best when speaking to Peter, because His Father had revealed the truth unto Peter. The Father has revealed the truth unto me through the workings of the Holy Spirit. The article is not a place to discuss what is true, but rather what different Christians believe without any judgement from the rest of us. I have rambled far too much. Thank you again and continue on your path. God Bless. Storm Rider 02:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Matt, I had been fixing the links to disambig page Economy, and I found that well over 90% of them were more properly re-linked to Economic system than to Economics. Your redirect of the disambig page may need to be rethought. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to say...

I like your signature. Almost pretty. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I sure hope so! It's your signature. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote

Hi. You voted in support of Alex Bakharev his previous RfA, and I just wanted to let you know that there's a second one at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev 2. --Khoikhoi 03:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your voting!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia User Page, Emailing You

Hey Matt, It's me Nathan again. Thanks for the message. Could you please tell me what your email address is? I'd LOVE to email you. My email address can be gotten from my website, and clicking on the Contact Me link. By the way, I made my own page here on Wikipedia...by no means even close to yours, but it'll do for me. Nathan, Mizzou Ram

[edit] Thank you

I appreciate the candour and thoughtfulness to your response; indeed I have little to add to it. I can't say that I fully agree with you, but I do respect your views on the matter. My only quibble concerns consensus–there are some things, I think, that consensus cannot override. The most obvious, of course, being NPOV in articles. Another would be civility and respect for fellow editors, and that's where a template like that provokes anger. I don't believe that I've ever abused my powers–if you look back at my arbcom election statement you can find a long essay about the legitimacy of administrator powers. At the same time, I know there are people who believe that I have.

I find this troubling–in large part because they won't engage in a discussion on the matter, whereas you did. I saw people voting "keep, and desysop [admin]," and they were serious. Or they'd put that template on their page, except it wasn't the current version, which is far, far milder. Placing a box on a page is a statement, but it's not discussion. It's a stance, but it's not engagement. Consensus should rest on discussion and engagement, not posturing and flash-mob majorities. I've begun to feel over the past few weeks that I'm not being heard; that my concerns aren't being addressed.

You've defended the template on the grounds that there are power-tripping admins. Of course there are; no one would deny that. I was personally involved in the case which saw one desysopped. What bothers me, and correct if I'm wrong, is that the people who are using these templates have not been here long enough to be familiar with any of the cases of for-real rogue admins abusing their powers. We've had those, they aren't pretty. What these templates are referring to is those admins who made legitimate good-faith efforts to interpret the new speedy deletion criteria. We know that. And it hurts.

I've tried to engage with a number of folks here (one who insinuated that I was out to create a Nazi-style police state) who believe that Wikipedia is some kind of battleground. This strikes me, and other long-time contributors, as a strange notion. Wikipedia, as you say, is about consensus-building. It's also, more importantly, about writing an encyclopedia. Many of us pride ourselves on being able to write neutral encyclopedia entries. We're also proud that we haven't been pigeon-holed by our beliefs. We check our beliefs at the door.

The userbox mentality, and correct me if I'm wrong, is different. It seems a celebration of point-of-view; an acclamation of the individual. At the same time, by the use of standardized templates, these boxes deny the individual by binding them into like-minded groups. This, to my mind, is factionalism. This idea of groups of Wikipedians, ordered by viewpoint, is new and strange, unlike what's come before.

At the end of your comment you called us administrators "Wikipedia's most respected citizens." I'm flattered by that remark, but I question it. If we're so respected, why isn't our judgement respected. Why aren't we listened to? If we're respected, why must two-month old users sit us down and explain what Wikipedia is all about? This is why some of us have become so angry and so frustrated. On the one hand, we're the old timers entrusted with the janitorial tools and looked to as pillars of the community. On the other, we're out of step with the new moods, in which factionalism is prized and the expression of individuality takes precedence over the writing of the encyclopedia.

I recognize that this isn't exactly a response to your comment, but rather an exposition of my larger views on the matter. I suppose it comes down to one man just not understand why a multitude of boxes on a user page is so central to the writing of an encyclopedia. Nor do I understand these views about the encyclopedia being a battleground, and I fear for the encyclopedia's future development if this place becomes host to warring factions. It certainly wasn't that way before, and I view with great skepticism–and fear–attempts to make it that way. Again, sorry for the length of this response. Mackensen (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all (quick work fixing the Jimbo link, by the way). I've only one parting thought–for me, this isn't about restricting expression per se. It's about these boxes, which provide a so-far unique method to bind users of the same POV together. That, in a nutshell, is what this fuss is about. Most people talk about themselves on their user page; I still do. That's not a problem. The concern is the undue weight given to self expression and the manner in which people have started to act in groups. I don't think that's healthy for the eventual neutrality of the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Arc

Blush - I'd like to frame your words at FAC and hang them on my wall. Thank you, they make all those hours worthwhile. Warmly, Durova 03:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guantanamo Bay

Someone moved it in a way that was against the consensus and someone else just set up a new poll on what had already been asked before. Please come again. ROGNNTUDJUU! 15:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falling Up

You asked if anyone had Dawn Escapes? If you liked Crashings, while Dawn Escapes is somewhat different, you WILL like it. It's simply amazing. Falling Up is different to begin with, so the new album does catch you off guard, but you'll be hooked in no time. It took me a few listens to get used to, but I highly recommend it. I actually intern for a Christian rock radio station, and had a chance to interview them. Jessy Ribordy is actually quite adamant about letting everyone know that there is a certain mystery to the album that everyone should really try to look for. It also sort of ties into Crashings, as well. Needless to say, these guys can rock, and they put their heart and souls into it-- its not just another album, its their hearts. They are great guys and I know they want to turn this generation around for Jesus! I'd say go get it as soon as possible... its quite a catch!

Thanks God Bless, Lauren

[edit] Good luck

A wikibreak, now and then, is a healthy thing. Rest up and we'll see you in a few weeks. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] funky?

We have templates that do this. WHy create a new one, and why call it funky? ... aa:talk 07:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Funky duplicates {{for}} (after swapping the parameter order). Please mark Template:Funky for speedy deletion, just so we can avoid a lengthy WP:TFD debate. -- Netoholic @ 04:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Prefer you request deletion. Redirects to templates add confusion, plus someone may have a use for "funky" in the future. -- Netoholic @ 08:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guantánamo/Guantanamo-related move/redirects

Greetings! I hope you're well. In light of prior discussion and to round out recent moves and redirects/DABs regarding Guantánamo/Guantanamo-related articles, I have proposed another ... with a twist. Please weigh in, and thanks for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] senator template

I reverted to the previous version. The font size seemed too big. --DuKot 06:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be something wierd happening here. Looking at the wiki code it looks as if you are reducing the font size. But in my browser (Firefox) it looks bigger. I wonder why? --DuKot 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried in IE too, same deal. Which browser and wiki skin are you using? --DuKot 07:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

May be we should just conduct a poll to see which version is better. The previous version was last edited on Jan 31st. I think somebody would have tried fixing the template had it looked too big. --DuKot 07:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The poll could be found here [1]

[edit] 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, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). 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 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA withdrawal :(

Hello Matt Yeager, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appreciate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Terence Ong 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I will, in future (a few months time). --Terence Ong 05:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

Hi Matt! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, and your vote put me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Daughter

Template:Daughter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ~MDD4696 00:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amos (disambiguation)/Amos

Hi Matt! Another editor has raised an objection to the move of Amos to Amos (disambiguation). There are also ten subjects directly called Amos, three of them with articles attached. On that basis, I can't see you getting a consensus for the proposed move, as Book of Amos or Amos (prophet) isn't going to beat the other claims on the title. Sorry. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

[edit] Makemi RfA

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Makemi 05:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Quasiexplosions.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Quasiexplosions.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

[edit] RfA thanks

Matt Yeager/Archive2, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)