User talk:Flcelloguy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Busy; responses may take some time. Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave comments, questions, or suggestions. Please place all messages on the bottom, using the new section header ( ==HEADER NAME== ). I will respond on your user talk page. Some responses may take some time if I get sidetracked; thank you for your patience. This page will be archived periodically.

Archives:

• The Complete and Unabridged Edition of the Archives
• The First Archive: From the Beginnings to Adminship
• The Second Archive: The Early Steps of Adminship
• The Third Archive: Adminship Expands to Mediatorship
• The Fourth Archive: From Mediatorship to Guiding Esperanza
• The Fifth Archive: Half a year and counting
• The Sixth Archive: Editing into 2006
• The Seventh Archive: The 100 Message Archive
• The Eighth Archive: Double A, the April to August 2006 archive
• The Ninth Archive: A new year, a new role
• The Tenth Archive: COMING SOON

[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]} 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article review of Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

I added my name to the checkuser requests list. I understand that you are opposed to the process being done this way and I must say, I'm not sure this is a good approach. That said, I'm not sure what would be a good approach, assuming more checkusers are required. Perhaps admins requesting checkusers frequently, though most cases of sockpuppetry can be resolved without RFCUs. --Yamla 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)