User talk:DennyColt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
DennyColt is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Help:Edit summary
Qxz Ads file info – show another – #2
Talk archives
Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3


Contents

[edit] Women's rights

I'm not on a shared IP, just a lowly comcast inet connection and I certainly did not vandalize the Women's Rights page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) page. Feel free to contact me at victor at fourstones dot net but don't ban my IP since I use wp as an important resource in my work. (this is me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fourstones-framed_bg.jpg ) -- 24.5.196.208, 22:18, March 8, 2007

[edit] Fair use disputed tag

I put a fair use disputed tag on the image you put on the article Barbara Schwarz. Don't get me wrong - I think an image would add nicely to the article, but that particular image doesn't have enough of a fair use reasoning behind it. There are a coupla things that could be done - You could add a "Fair Use Rationale" subsection to the image description page, with about 4 or more "points" as to your fair use reasoning, or even better, attempt to contact The Salt Lake Tribune, and see if they will give permission for the image to be used on a non-profit encyclopedia with attribution given - for education non-commercial purposes only ... Let me know what you think. Yours, Smee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

hi, I'll reply on the Schwarz talk page to everyone. I didn't realize we weren't linking to the mirror SLT article so will DB self the image for now, and mail SLT for an OK. if they give it, I'll reupload the image then with an email authorization from them. thanks! - Denny 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Denny, thank you for your efforts with seeking permission from the SLT to use their image. Sorry it didn't work out. Best wishes, Orsini 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks again! There are probably more public domain documents somewhere... Smee 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats

I have found four additional sources with identical content. Is this adequate citation? -- Cat chi? 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at then now and replied to you on the afd also. My 5 days comment was just in regard to how long Afds typically might run... - Denny 06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry. :) I misunderstood you. In any case, I would welcome any assistance -- Cat chi? 06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been sorting the article. It appears there are multiple groups doing the same thing. Do you think it would be better to change the scope to include all attacks by the various Armenian groups? Or maybe 3 separate lists? -- Cat chi? 09:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The main ASALA article only has a handful of attacks listed, so I'd guess it would be probably be easier/better to make it all-inclusive for now. all Armenian groups/attacks, then it can always fork later if that gets too big. - Denny 13:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. This has a lot of attacks listed, not all aimed at diplomats. Certain insignificant-looking events (such as incidents were one pesky security guard is killed) turns out to be a full fledged hostage crisis. The more I read about this stuff the more stuff that comes up. I haven't even mined half of the stuff on www.atmg.org. -- Cat chi? 14:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yo, would you care to assist with mining of this source? [1]. Its too demanding work for a single person to do. -- Cat chi? 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try this week, but I'll be a bit pressed for time from IRL stuff the next 10~ odd days. - Denny 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CU

There's a speedy tag on the CU you posted. Gwen Gale 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Gwen Gale 05:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re; fundamentalist angle on Stonewall Jackson

Denny, it was removed for a reason. See the talk section. If you disagree, let's discuss it there...although the topic been open for a week without disagreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.23.77 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] please remove my Wiki page

Hello, I am Archimedes Plutonium. I respectfully request that the Wiki page on Archimedes Plutonium be immediately removed because there is no fair and objective and reasonable editor in the Wiki organization. Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium has been a ten year old joke and mockery.

Wikipedia does not deserve anything dealing with Archimedes Plutonium, please delete his page immediately and without having to go through any process, just delete

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Information

I added info to the article. In what way is that being disruptive. I already took it to the talk. I fixed the wikiboxes and added more detail. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a specific question. In what way am I being disruptive. I already took it to talk before I edited. This is a very serious matter about your allegations. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anon Vandal question

Wondering if I could ask you, since I've seen you use it... how do I get the optional anon IP message to appear when using the new UW vandalism tags? Thanks, JRHorse 04:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

The AfD for AP has become a mess (due to edits by "AP")? I'm hoping you will reorganize it so newcomers don't first see his post ... and so readers can follow the discussion around his other inserted comments. I'm not quite brave enough to do it myself ... but will if asked by another. Thanks for your efforts! Kind regards, Keesiewonder talk 11:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--Just taken care of by Uncle G. Keesiewonder talk 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaking my head

What in heaven's name is he up to? I wasn't a huge fan of the article, but after so many people had worked on it to get it to survive AfD, and genuinely felt it was worthwhile, this must be a kick in the head to them. I am really drawing a blank on what is motivating him. Oh well - he has had many editors reach out to him and offer guidance (though some of it may have been less than completely helpful), he seems to be getting it then goes galloping off in all directions again. My patience is certainly wearing thin. Risker 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia community

If there's actually any content you believe ought to be preserved from the article, say what it is or merge it into the wikipedia article. I've had a discussion section open on Talk:wikipedia and no one has disagreed with the suggestion. Don't just revert unless you think you're actually making the encyclopedia better, instead of just trying not to go against a supposed consensus. We're supposed to be bold here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Dennycoltmine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dennycoltmine.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bates College

Denny,

We currently attend Bates College. The Bates College Rough Crew is a crucial aspect of the Bates College student life. There is no joke here. The Rough Crew is as much a part of student life as the pub crawl, Newman Day, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pstrumol (talk • contribs). 05:36, March 22, 2007

[edit] Oops

Looks like you've double-voted here (support votes #12 and #26). It may be an idea to strike one. Cheers --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] for editing the subject

i m very sorry for that but i m sincerely telling that i dont have any intentions to destroy the subject matter. so please forgive me and once again i am asking sorry for that thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uplakshgupta (talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Img

Hi. Any word on this ? Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Thanks for reinstantiating Template:Buddhism!

You reverted the vandal within a minute. Amazing! Well-done! I applaud your diligent, righteous, safe-guarding efforts! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Bradford (professor)

Thanks,Denny. I appreciate your fairness and decency. I imagine that the enemies I made 2 years ago won't be happy with the edits and will want to revert everything, and if you would be kind enough to be on guard for that I'd be very grateful. I've written to the administrator asking for relief in the form of either removing the page, freezing it in a fair format, or else "salting" it I believe is the proper phrase. It's difficult work being a whistleblower, and to have to bear the burden is hard, especially since my wife is disabled from what happened to her in 2001 and the smear campaign has dampened my job prospects. I'm hoping the sun will shine again, and I pray every day in Christ's name. So I know God is watching.

Warm regards, and thank you.

Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.202.104 (talk • contribs). 06:44, March 24, 2007

[edit] Cheers

Have a nice w/end, SqueakBox 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page houskeeping upon closing a "move" debate.

I would like to invite you, when moving an article, as a consequence of a discussion or debate to also do some talk-page and debate-housekeeping.
One model is here at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/Archive_5#Requested_move.
I can't find a policy guideline for this kind of thing, but if you do, please point it out to me.
What is helpful about doing this housekeeping is that it affirmatively closes a debate, and gives notice that the move has been accomplished, which...might not be clearly closed without the housekeeping.
(The move at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move is what brings me to make this suggestion, which I marked concluded, after your move.)

-- Best regards, -- Yellowdesk 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. A follow-up and another caution.
For your information, the moved page has a reason for being moved in your edit summary remarks (as related to similar pages, titled Political views of ..... listed at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Requested move) that is erroneous. I had initiated the discussion because of the exceptional character of the move, and so we would not have future "move wars" on the page because this page doesn't follow similar article titles. Perhaps the proposal's intent to not follow other pages of the same name is something that should have been said on the project page, and that the move was exceptional...and now (for the moment), intentionally unique. For an outsider, I can see it might be a challenge to see why the discussion was created. -- Yellowdesk 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RegisterFly

Hi there, got your message. Haven't been online very consistently so far today, but I will gladly take a look at that article sometime within the next 24 hours and make minor cleanups/tag, and leave a note on the talk page at minimum. You seem to be having an interesting evening ;). Risker 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Denny, give me a few days to go over the article. I get back to you then. :-) (→Netscott) 20:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the article over the course of the day (you can probably see a few of my edits), but failed to get back to you until now. I did put a couple of cite tags in where there are quotes that are not specifically attributed, down near the end of the article; I know I may be a bit cite-happy given recent editing experience ;-). I am of the overall impression that the introduction could use some further discipline in its structure, in particular bringing to the surface why the failure of RegisterFly is significant in a world-wide sense, and not just to those domain holders. It will probably be difficult to really flesh this out before the expected announcements from the ICANN meeting later this week; and of course when the deregistration occurs later this week, there will also be yet-to-be-seen impacts on the customers that will be reported. What you have here is a good base for moving forward in the next couple of weeks as the situation continues to evolve. While I think it will be a while before this will be eligible for GA status (simply because it is a current event), you might want to see if there is a really good sentence or two that might be suitable for Did You Know; perhaps talk with one of the editors there? Risker 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz] 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherent sentence on Registerfly

About this edit, the sentence is a direct quotation; the source itself is good. Did you mean that the quotation itself--that's literally what the person said--is incoherent, or the way I referred to the quotation? - Denny 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The quotation itself (on Registerfly is incoherent, and lacks a subject to relate to the verb "understand". If maintained as a quotation, it needs a [sic], ; even better is a different quotation that makes sense in English, or better yet, paraphrasing in a non-quotation context, or editorial insertion of the subject of the sentence with [I] ; or something like that. -- Yellowdesk 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jesse, updated (sorry, I forgot!). - Denny 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This image should be replaced with a free photo.

[edit] Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Navdeepbains.parl.gc.ca.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This image is a repost of an image that has been deleted as a replaceable fair use image.

Since this person is not a recluse, fugitive, nor prisoner, it is possible that this person could get a free image created which does not restrict the usage to non-commercial entities, so this image fails the requirement that a fair use image be unrepeatable. He could grant permission to use this photo under a free license like the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses (which are not version 3.0 (which has a clause that prohibit derivitives that infringe on the moral rights of the licensor) nor have the noncommercial attribute attached). Jesse Viviano 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion might help here

You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? --Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I replied as requested. - Denny 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.  :-) --Coppertwig 22:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MyWikiBiz

Denny, thanks for your enthusiasm in defending the article. Aaronbrick 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

two days later... interested in RFC or arbitration for this? apparently some people still think they can unilaterally delete the article. Aaronbrick 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

Just wanted to tell you that the message you left at my talk could be deemed rather far out of place. Inappropriate speedy nominations with wrong template use is something I can live with, but I will thank you not to welcome (!) me to Wikipedia and direct me to the sandbox. Regards, Punkmorten 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a complete mistake (I had just woken up). :( - Denny 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but on the other hand I apologize for not keeping a sufficiently cool head about the issue. Punkmorten 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries... if it makes you feel better, you'll always remember this as the time someone accused a footballer of being a no-name musical act. - Denny 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perry Tong

I just wanted to let you know that I removed your speedy deletion tag from this page. The article does indeed assert notability, it does so in the first sentence. I replaced it with a prod. You shouldn't just throw on a7 speedy notices on articles you don't think are notable, it doesn't work that way. Please be more careful in the future.

Other than that, have a nice day :) Oskar 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0.

Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt block

Thanks for bringing that to my notice. I've tweaked the block to 1 week. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DennyColt

Dear Denny, please see above page where I requested a checkuser. If it wasn't you, please don't be offended. The sheer sensitivity of this article outweights personal issues in my opinion. For the record, as long as there is a diff on the talk page linking to your removal (which I added), I have no objections to the removal of the comment by Brandt itself. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As confirmed it indeed wasn't you. Thanks for understanding my request though. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous shared IP templates

Your concerned is covered by {{SharedIP}} which covers for everything. -- Avi 00:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied on the template deletion page. :) - Denny 01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Denny, Thank you for the warm welcome. I am new and could read up more on how I can contribute. I am concerned about contribution's to bio's from sources that use "self hypnosis". Which if you know much about the vast anti-mormon community you will find a plethora of opportunists who would prefer to distract or redirect the readers attention from the fascinating scholarship and faith of Hugh Nibley, to his estranged daughter's disingenuous "so called memory" of her father.

Is Martha Beck his only child? Where are the comments by his wife or all of his other children? (I noticed there is no mention of his wife Phyllis or their marriage, or their children and their names.) Can you see the potential snowball effect of allowing such defaming comments. I hope there is concern here for defamation of character. Obviously Martha has distanced herself from the LDS church. I hope she is not given a platform here to blemish her fathers memory because of her distance from his faith.

I point this out to show the motivation force behind this. It is driven by a hatred for Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) & gains momentum from sites that propagate its so called contributions cloaked in honest or fair rhetoric. Well I don't know what outcome will prevail, all I can do is attempt to remind the powers that be, that responsibility precedes credibility. I can only hope that authenticity prevails over objectivity.

Sincerely,

Derek Harris User:SentinelLion

[edit] Reasons for my actions

Hey, since I'm doing things that affect you so much, I feel I need to explain why I'm asking you to slow down so much. One reason is due to scaling issues, our software will not easily allow such a large number people to use a single page, as you may by now be aware.

The other reason I wanted you to slow down is to slow the rate of people coming to the page for a while. You can still try and reach the entire 3 000 000 registered userbase, but please give us some space and time to handle the new people and stay organised?

If everyone hears about this at once at the rate you've been advertising, it's like mopping while the tap is still running. It just can't be done. We'll all end up with a big mess, rather than a well organized process, which is probably what you're looking for.

So could you maybe give us all some time to figure out how to deal with this rather novel approach? Else the new groupings will spawn faster than I can handle them. --Kim Bruning 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh, before it sounds like I'm harping on you or anything, did I mention I admire your energy and can-do attitude, and that it's that attitude in people that really makes wikipedia great?

But at the same time, you do have to be a bit careful to not bite off more than you can chew all at once. Especially when you're not the one having to do the chewing :-P We have plenty of time. Right now I'd really appreciate it if you could direct your energy towards talking with the people already present. Preferably about ATT itself. (Since I'm already swamped.) Later on we can then try and advertise and pull in more people. But there's some issues with that we may need to look at.

--Kim Bruning 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What got into you?

Wow, I was shocked to see you add that screenshot in so fast! Thank you for self-reverting, I didn't want to have to have an edit war about it. If that article doesn't stay diligently neutral, it will be back on AfD. Keep the focus on the controversy itself, and its outcome. Remember the mantra of this article...talk for at least 24 hours about anything...I know it's not exciting, but I can tell you there are plenty of people watching this article all the time who won't hesitate to nominate it again. Risker 18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A picture has nothing to do with an AFD. These comments are branded. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop that

Kindly stop attacking me on the admin board. You don't own that poll, and people who think it is a bad idea have the freedom to state so. >Radiant< 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You certainly do have that right. I mentioned you by name, yes, but that was hardly an attack, please AGF. If you guys don't think there should be a Poll MfD the whole thing and stand up to Jimbo. I also have the right to stand up to El_C's abusive misrepresenation that I did something wrong. Up to when I posted, only an extreme minority complained in the way that people are now. I was only trying to help. If people were unhappy, why didn't they SAY so? Also, his assertation that I was keeping things out of the pre-poll was a flagrant lie meant to disparage me. I don't care if someone has 300 edits or 30,000. I have every right to defend myself if made to look bad with false statements... I never once remove a single thing that anyone added, and in fact INTEGRATED two other suggestions (Q4, Q5) that I said I didn't care for. Look at my history of editing--I go out of my way to not try to own stuff, and to add in suggestions that people give me since I've been here... if you took it as an attack on you, sorry, it certainly was't meant to be. El_C was 100% out of line in singleing me out and I wasn't going to let him make me a patsy for the problems some obviously have with Jimbo over this. - Denny 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I had the impression you were grouping me with El C. I'm glad to hear that's not the case. I wish you best of luck with sorting out WP:ATT/P, but it doesn't seem very stable yet. >Radiant< 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I honestly have less hope now. I know polling is evil, and I do agree, but to be honest, like I said on the talk page, we'd be at it till christmas jus to figure out Q1 without some forced structure. I figured, let me see what'll happen if I try to ram some structure down their throats for how to at least approach the problem, just for that one thing. I thought if it works, great, if not, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Worst case I get laughed at and it goes back to what it was, right? I was more surprised than anything that people not only ran with it, but liked it, and actually got people to focus more. Do I think the policy itself should be decided by poll? Probably not... but do you agree it would be interesting for finality to see what a tremendous number of people have to say about this? I think no harm from that exercise itself could come... - Denny 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Denny Colt, this is somewhat related to what is happening between you and Radiant! here. You may want to comment there. (→Netscott) 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? No it isn't. >Radiant< 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think the problem is that we already had a tremendous amount of people speaking about this (check the several megabyte archive of WP:ATT), and a secondary problem is that people seem now to be arguing about the poll about the poll. It's positively herculanean. I'm honestly not sure how to untangle this mess except by giving it a few days to calm down first and stopping any further forest fires. I'm afraid that not everybody in the discussion understands the underlying issues (and that would be worse in a poll). This has the potential to be closed as a lack of consensus either way, and we'd end up with four att-related policies (3 - 2 = 4 ? ). Which I don't think anybody really wants. >Radiant< 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD close

David, I like you a lot, but I rv'd your closure. you and I are not neutral parties and shouldn't be closing that (no one really involved on that poll page should, and the nonsense about the poll being dead needs settling/attention). Another neutral party can close later. Please don't take it the wrong way. - Denny 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We aren't going to delete the poll pages. That isn't how things work. I know that you mean well, but you're creating a needless distraction from the real matter at hand.
I'm biased against the poll, so there's nothing wrong with me applying common sense in deciding to keep it. —David Levy 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
David... the matter at hand is that there is overwhelming desire from the most people (including our founder) to run the poll. The same admins saying over and over again "NO POLL NO POLL NO POLL" is meaningless--please don't take this the wrong way. Admins have no more value/voice in policy than every one else on this one. If there is support to kill Jimbo's idea, lets be done with it. Letting the MfD run a day at least won't hurt anything. - Denny 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand. We certainly should discuss whether or not to kill the poll. MfD is not the correct venue. No matter what happens, we are not going to delete the pages. The question asked at MfD is not the one that needs answering. —David Levy 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help fixing up edit conflict?

I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. --Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, that section/date would be twice over archived by now, dunno how to get it back cleanly. Post on the Poll talk page. A veteran can probably get it easily. - Denny 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

  • Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/n/User_talk%7EDennyColt_8821.html"