User talk:Sjakkalle/November and December 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am going to take a Christmas break now. I will be back some time in January. See you around!

Archived talkpages

• /March and April 2005
• /May and June 2005
• /July and August 2005
• /September and October 2005

Welcome to my talkpage! New messages at the bottom please. Responses may be either here or on your talkpage. I am quite inconsistent. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 White American AfD 2 cassandra Trelawney 3 WikiProject Inclusion 4 thanks 5 RfA thanks 6 School suggestion 7 CoW Greeks 8 My RFA 9 FireFox RFA 10 THANK YOU! 11 How lost? 11.1 Thank you again 12 Physical punishment 13 Thanks for the good block 14 Jerk-er, not Jerk-y 15 User 212.85.15.86 16 Understood but disgruntled 17 Johann Wolfgang's RfA 18 Ernie Dingo 19 Allow me to chuck a barnstar at you 20 Arthritis edits 21 User talk:4.242.198.138 22 School mergers 23 Aqua Cure history 24 Main page FA protection 25 Your sig 26 Christianity and Jewish prophecy 27 GMA Films 28 Unsigned AfD 29 re: Typos on /Admin criterion 30 Thank you! 31 GraemeL's RFA 32 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimlick 33 Ianblair23's RfA 34 MONGO RfA 35 Appomattox Basin 36 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers 37 RfA thanks 38 Cheers 39 Thank you for your support! 40 Chess players 41 Sexual Slang confrontation 42 The assault on the List of sexual slang 42.1 The results of the 18 October AfD: 42.2 The anonymous clean-up notice 42.3 The results of the 10 November Afd 42.4 Dishonest report of Afd results 42.5 Non-consensual list move 42.6 The current situation 42.7 To summarize: 43 User:72.10.122.69 44 Exicornt AfD 45 AFD 46 Britney Spears article 47 New user box 48 Durmus Kumdereli 49 Arbitration accepted 49.1 Webcomics RfA 49.2 About the spam 50 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators 51 Thanks! 52 Cnwb's RfA 53 Merge decision on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Octagon_Press_-_Idries_Shah - well done! 54 Wonderful comments on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_day_dictators page 55 Help 56 Thanks 57 Matthew 7:3 58 Gracias 59 Thank you so much! 60 BD2412's RFA 61 My RfA 62 My failed RFA :) 63 Impersonator? 64 Semi-protection 65 Bonehead here 66 Thanks for participating on my RfA 67 Alhutch's RfA 68 My RFA 69 Thank you! 70 IP 72.1.206.187 71 Freakofnurture says 72 4IM campaign 73 Cheers! 74 Feliz Navidad 75 Cartoon Network 76 re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment 77 malo's RfA 78 William Lipscomb redirect 79 My RFA 80 W.marsh's RfA 81 ArbCom elections 82 Izehar's RfA 83 Howcheng's RfA 84 My RfA 85 RfA thanks from Deathphoenix 86 Thanks for your RFA support 87 Another thank-you

[edit] White American AfD

Excellent call on that AfD. Some admins are kind of weenies when closing them, while others make it hard not to assume an agenda behind their decisions (even though I assume good faith). This was just a good, heads-up call on your part. Keep up the good work. Youngamerican 13:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cassandra Trelawney

I noticed, but I approve Sandpiper 08:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah bother, I was hoping nobody would see it... Good to see that you approve anyway :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Inclusion

I'm usually not a fan of ignore all rules, and rarely, if ever, use it. However, this case seemed particularly appropriate.

• the project was a flagrant abuse of NPOV
• it was only "keep" because only the four or so people involved with the project were involved and no one else knew that the page even existed; the fact that the likes of Kappa and Tony Sidaway made no objection to its speedy deletion (nor, in fact, anyone that I've seen; no one has posted a comment on my talk page, WP:ANI, or anywhere else that I've seen) would seem to vindicate this
• it wasn't necessarily controversial; as even the most ardent inclusionists on Wikipedia seem to have avoided it
• I maintain that had they known many of the inclusionists, such as Tony, were likely to have voted delete on NPOV grounds

I'll wait for a response from you before re-deleting, but seeing as no one has complained, this does seem to be a clear-cut case of ignore all rules; the process led to a flagrantly absurd result (because no one else knew it was happening). With this in mind, I'd seriously appreciate if you could reconsider your attitude to this. Ambi 09:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• FYI I saw that it had been listed for deletion, but I didn't vote keep because a consensus I agreed with had already been formed. Kappa 09:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Alright, I see. I don't think this thing should have been deleted, however I believe that this thing should be deleted, and have cast a delete vote as such. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I deleted it for the reasons above, but as with all WP:IAR things, it is on the proviso that no one actually does object. I hadn't seen the VfU at the time I replied, and I hadn't actually seen anyone complaining about it anywhere else. Ambi 12:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Could you do the same with Ammar ibn Yasir? Peace! --Striver 15:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

[edit] School suggestion

I like your idea in principle, but it's highly impractical to check it, and it feels sort of unwikish. Radiant_>|< 11:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CoW Greeks

I will revert - if the debate was reopened just because of a premature close, it seems to me that discounting the votes already cast is the exact opposite of what's trying to be achieved. And though the article may have changed in a week, if the issues are issues that can be edited to and fro in a week, deletion is not an appropriate remedy - going to the page and changing it back to the preferred version is. And if the article was editable to quality, one shouldn't have voted delete, one should have edited it. :) Phil Sandifer 17:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FireFox RFA

FireFox 18:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU!

Thank you so much for voting in my RfA, and especially thank you for supporting me. I really appreciate it, and will wield the mop and bucket the best way I know how. I, like RoboCop, promise four things:

1. Serve the public trust
2. Protect the innocent
3. Uphold the law
4. Classified

I hope to do all those things and, even if I can't keep my fourth classified, will do all I can to be a great admin. I appreciate your comment about me being a good contributor, it really warms my heart and soul to get a compliment like that ;). Stop by my talk page, or on article pages; I look forward to working with you. A belated thanks again, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] How lost?

You wrote on the wp:an archive: Well, in all fairness, Ed Poor did lose his bureaucratship. But still, I dislike the presence of the Ed Poor barnstar since it seems to encourage vigilante behaviour from admins.

What does that mean? Thanks for your time. Travb 11:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you again

Thank you again for the detailed explanation on my talk page Travb 17:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physical punishment

As my record shows, I am not only a fairly active contributor, and I dare say a rather serious one, but also an active believer in appropriate redirects, like you. However in this particular case I can NOT agree that my article in the making would be aborted by a redirect to Corporal Punishment, where I originally contributed most of the material now restored as a first work-draft.

Firstly, as will become clearer when I elaborate on P.P., this notion is (used) wider, since C.P. (though etymologically parallel, as I point out) is usually limited to beatings, excluding Amputation, deprivations, excessive exercice and other forms. Secondly, and actually even more importantly, C.P. is the only of my many contributions (well, most of it was mine) that has fallen victim to perhaps the worst kind of vandalism: a bunch of 'contributors' (mostly anonymous, but I stress many anons do a fine job) who systematically demolish every eleborated section (they don't even get the point of the echelon structure), throwing out so much content that it is no longer informative, let alone encyclopaedic, but little more what I knew around the age of 10 on the subject, and even that bit is often misleading or even wrong.

I have tried to reason with them and am generally willing to accomodate for sensitivities, but such arrogance and ignorance as i never read on othertalk pages are both close to insufferable and indicative that a compromise is not within reach. I realise that this sounds to much ad hominem, but I really could not find any objective rationale in their destructive rage, while suspecting there may be a hidden agenda, such as avid opponents of C.P. planning an ostrich approach: the less is known about it, the better? So rather then engaging in an endless edit war -wasting time better spend on actual contributions of content, in my view the measure of all things Wikipedian- I sat back for a while, gazing how every wave brought more harm, and cooled off just enough to realize that all the wasted material can fit in a wider context, see point one above.

Therefore I urge you to endure missing out on one technical redirect which would really be something far less desirable: wasting most of the material contributed in this context, since the present dribble in C.P. is no substitute by a long shot, nor a workable basis for the further additions I plan to make under P.P. as well as in various appropriate specialized articles (none of them seems to have contributed there, I still do). I would of course be ready to consider any obeservations and/or suggestions made in a constructive spirit, as a dare hope to find with an Admin. After the next few weeks, in which I expect not to find the time to do much more than try to follow up my watchlist (in fact, there are periods without access to Internet, so please be patient if my reply is slow), I hope then to resume work on the P.P.-material; while reading up I found it's actually a subject on which it is very hard to find out abut the basics, such as terminology, so this is a 'niche' for Wikipedia we would be unkind to the interested readers (and judging by the flood of material of unsatisfactory informative content, there is quite a public for it) to neglect. Fastifex 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the good block

Just want to say thanks for finally blocking that vandal. It was getting hard to keep track of changes done by that guy. --LifeStar 16:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerk-er, not Jerk-y

The problem is that I was the one who called him a jerk. He'd done a lot worse, but still I lost my head. I've got to get some new method. I'm fine with an argument, an exchange of ideas, someone violently objecting to what I say and providing concrete reasons with citations. I was actually really happy when some evidence came in, even though it was against my position.
But when it's all hysterical language and bluster, I let myself get sucked in. Boo. But, hey, thanks for the message!
brenneman^(t)(c) 09:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right "deletionist" really is "a lot worse" than "jerk". Please.--Nicodemus75 09:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. If you have something to say to me, use my talk page.
brenneman^(t)(c) 09:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly when "deletionist" become a cuss word? I joined the only association which specifically says I am not a deletionist, but I don't consider it a swear word. Let's see, some of the things I like about deletionists: they are concerned with quality, they usually write pretty good articles and they usually behave responsibly. Some of the things I like about inclusionists: They like to make information accessible to everyone, they are usually tolerant of newbies who write articles on non-mainstream subjects. I don't endorse the view of conservativism either, but it just is an opposing viewpoint. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Just so you understand the context here, Sjakkalle, about a month ago, Aaron put forward a block request against me because he felt that when I referred to him as a deletionist, that it was a personal attack. I agree with your statements completely.--Nicodemus75 09:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User 212.85.15.86

The vandalism continues. Please put an end to this -- thanks! BeteNoir 10:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I blocked them, then regretted slightly. I will be keeping an eye on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Understood but disgruntled

I understood why folks had referred to another page, but, as I'm sure you know from my own user page, it's antithetical to my philosophy on VfD/AfD. I personally (and thunderously, sometimes) reject the idea that there are blanket decisions or blanket reasonings. Because I believe that it is the article and not the topic that is ever to be debated on VfD, I don't believe that anyone should use shorthand. If it means retyping until our fingers fall off or until war breaks out again, then so be it, but I think we must visit every single article and judge it as an article, not as a possible article. This particular article, for example, could have been speedy deleted as a substub, IMO. It didn't say anything. However, it invoked the old arguments -- arguments that belong on an RfC for the subject -- instead of a consideration of whether this particular article should be deleted. Did it establish the importance/significance/need for an article? Did it pursue NPOV? Did it fail to advertise? Etc.

I do understand that part of the judgment in the past is a decision on "notability," and the various school arguments are about that, but that's merely one criterion among many.

For what it's worth, I agree that merging is sensible. I would not have a problem with school district article, nor city schools articles. To me, those would be logical, as well as significant and useful. We need to be considering "useful" more than "pleasurable for the author" more, IMO. Geogre 13:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Wolfgang's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ] 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie Dingo

Thanks for catching that. I've restored to the version prior to the copyvio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me to chuck a barnstar at you

Thanks, I'll put in on my userpage! Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arthritis edits

Sorry about that. I'll stop editing now, methinks. It's not worth editing all these arthritis articles. --150.204.105.126 15:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you suspect a campaign is going on against these articles?? Should we get registered accounts?? --150.204.105.126 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:4.242.198.138

I notice that you gave this user a warning earlier. This person comes in from the whole range of 4.242.*.* and edits. While one or two of the edits are useful most of the work is vandalistic in nature. For some strange reason they hit Circuit City and Pumpkin pie with edits that are easy to see. The big problem is that they also make sneaky edits to pages of the type 1986 to 1987. With the exception of someone from that range who was making proper additions yesterday I have taken to blocking the IP as soon as a vandalistic edit is made without a warning. Thanks CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School mergers

I just noticed that you added a good section on arguments for merging in the school arguments page. Thivierr has also added some anti merging arguments. Since all schools are kept now, regardless of the size, quality of the stub the merging issues seem like the most likely to succeed with regard to gaining a consensus on both sides (Please don't laugh ;-), we need to try something.). I'm not sure if you're aware but there has been a huge amount of activity on the Wikipedia_talk:Schools page regarding this issue. Specifically I have outlined the arguments for NOT merging and would like some constructive comments regarding why these arguments are not really that strong. I have looked at all these arguments for not merging and I personally think they are baseless. One obvious contradiction in the arguments against merger is the worry that district lists are too large with say, 200 schools, yet they endorse categories such as Category:High_schools_in_California. Ironically the most useful links in that category are the lists such as List of high schools in Orange County, California.

I was wondering if you would like to contribute to this debate as you have in the past. So far I have seen very few of the users who are active participants in the school Afd's make comments. Those that have shown up seem to be discouraged. Hopefully if we don't let this drop they will see that a truce and real discussion has to happen to stop the atrocious waste of time that is currently sapping energy from constructive editing. I know for a fact that I have wasted too much time there. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aqua Cure history

Would you mind undeleting the history of Aqua Cure so I can merge it? I'm always grateful for your help. Kappa 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, the history is back in place. Not much context there really, but it is propbably suitable for merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main page FA protection

Please do not protect the main page featured article. See user:Raul654/protection for explanation. Thanks. →Raul654 19:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

So that was why the article was under so much attack... Oops, sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hehe ... :) &rarr;Raul654 07:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your sig

Replied here. Hope it helps. --Blackcap | talk 08:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sjakkalle <small>[[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]]</small>]] 08:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, didn't seem to work I'm afraid, Let's try removing the <small> altogether Sjakkalle [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]]]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sjakkalle [[User talk:Sjakkalle|(Check!)]] 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey buddy. Some of us have put together a page about the recent undeserved Troubles. See WP:SIGHELP. In the service of the innocent downtrodden ;) encephalon 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity and Jewish prophecy

You're welcome. I make mistakes like that all the time, so please keep a weather eye on mine. NatusRoma 18:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GMA Films

Presumably, 202.65.191.134's deletions were done to respond to my point that the article, as he/she previously had it, was too much company propaganda. With the deletions, the article actually reads more NPOV and better, I think. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Nlu 09:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned AfD

Thanks for looking up (and counting!) my unsigned AfD vote on November 11. Must have been really sleepy not to have signed it. :) Turnstep 03:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Typos on /Admin criterion

My pleasure. I wish all sub-pages were as well-written as that one. I wholeheartedly agree with you on your criteria, and so you saved my the time it'd take for me to write it myself ;). Blackcap (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I was wondering: when someone else edits your userpages, do you get a notice saying that that's happened, like the MediaWiki:Newmessages reminder? I've been curious for a while. Blackcap (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't but I keep my userpage as well as all its subpages on my watchlist. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, I've been curious for a while. Blackcap (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

[edit] GraemeL's RFA

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimlick

Hi, you deleted Grimlick after the AfD debate, but there were two additional articles lumped in the same AfD nomination. Could you take care of those too? They are: Joust More and Tag Team Transformer Pretenders. Thanks. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, soory. OK, they're gone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ianblair23's RfA

[edit] MONGO RfA

I really appreciate your support vote on my RfA. I will do the best job I can to ensure you know you made the right choice. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you!--MONGO 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appomattox Basin

I think that was a good call. Thanks. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia aka Vaoverland 08:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers

I have to say I'm cranky about this one.
I'd firstly like to say that it would have been gratifying to see a slightly longer closing comment. I went and parsed out the discussion on the talk page, and yes it is indeed a no consensus vote. If Tito had said "delete" and W.marsh had come back, that would have made the magic 66% that is "allowed".
But that's what makes me cranky. These are meant to be discussions, but they aren't. There was nothing cited here that demonstrated that this had any impact outside blogland. The "references" all were either about people whom are on the blog or were in other blogs. There is really nothing there. And my standards aren't that high, really.
But I can't imagine what would happen to the admin who did the arguably correct thing and deleted or re-directed this. I know I would have, but it probably would not have stuck, unless I did a really good job explaining it. Bugger. It's really not you I'm cranky with, of course, so forgive me.
brenneman^(t)(c) 11:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember, Aaron, that these are supposed to be discussions on whether to delete an article, not whether to keep it. If the delete proponents don't ensure that their reasons are adequately discussed, we can't very well delete an article anyway. An article doesn't need to justify its existence. I've never understood why you're so mad keen to remove articles from Wikipedia, anyhow. It's almost as if you had decided that our task here was to unwrite an encyclopedia! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Progressive Bloggers AFD... things really get amusing when the outside world learns of one of our AFD debates, doesn't it? Remember, when you become an admin Aaron, you will be facing that kind of AFD to close. :-)

Well, to business, I must admit that when I closed the debate I didn't take out a sheet of sheet of paper, draw up two columns and start entering the names to make a careful tally. Rather I took a glance at the votes, saw that there were a number of dubious votes on both sides of the debate and decided to review it based on the comments.

One thing which struck me when closing the debate was that this was the second AFD on the article with the first nomination only some weeks old, and that there were really no new reasons provided to delete it this time around, when it had not been deleted the last time around. It looked like the typical "Delete it's not notable. Keep, it is notable" kind of debate, which towards the end degenerated into a kind of meta-debate, with people voting based on external factors (i.e. the nominator's motive) rather than the article itself. There was little else to go on. Considering that this second AFD debate looked remarkably similar to the first debate, I decided to let it get a remarkably similar result, I felt that nothing had changed since the first debate and that the vote count was probably a rough tie anyway. I am glad that Aaron's vote-count confirmed a less than two-thirds majority so that it is no consensus based both on vote count and comments, actually I'm a bit surprised that it was that close. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA, and the compliment. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

I'm here too to express my thanks at your support on my RFA, and I hope I continue to be a good contributor! Steve block talk 09:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support!

Hi, Sjakkalle. I just want to thank you very much for supporting my RfA, and to say also that I hope I'll make a good job of it. I'm supposed to be working on an assignment at the moment, and had delayed thanking people, but I'm finding the new rollback button so easy to use that I'm just keeping Wikipedia open on my browser while working on other things, and I thought I'd like to thank at least a few of my supporters while I'm here. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chess players

Hi there. I just spent much of the last few weeks reorganizing the Sportspeople categories so that all athletes have an entry under (nationality/sport), like Category:Finnish sport wrestlers. Pretty much every athlete is now off the main page of both the sport and the nationality. However, I don't have the knowledge to do that to Category:Chess players, and I'm guessing you do. There's a weirdness with that page, in that players seem to be on that page for a quality they don't possess, that of grandmaster status. Is there an easy way to get them onto their natioanlity page only, or is it even desirable to do so? The chess category now sticks out among the rest of the sportspeople categories, but I guess I could live with that if there's a good reason. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker 03:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Good question. One thought has been that most chess players worthy of their own article are grandmasters, and therefore the category specifies that the player has that status. You might want to talk to Quale who made most of those categories. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Slang confrontation

Even though the AfD vote on sexual slang (formerly "List of sexual slang") was to keep, the opposition (User:The Literate Engineer and User:Voice of All(MTG)) deleted it anyways (though it was still in the history). I've written a long letter pointing out their bogus plan, revealing them for the frauds they are. I've taken the bold move of reverting the list to BEFORE they started their hack job on it (Nov 15). If you want that list retained, you better get over there and help with the reversion war that is likely to result. I can't do it alone. Bend over 17:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The assault on the List of sexual slang

Two users in particular The Literate Engineer & Voice of All(MTG) have apparently made it their duty to get rid of the list and they have been using underhanded tactics in an attempt to do so in any way they can.

But word is getting out, and supporters of the list are starting to rally against them and protect the list (via rerverting vandalism, countering their tactics, etc.).

[edit] The results of the 18 October AfD:

• Keep & clean = 3
• Keep, no clean = 11
• Delete = 2

[edit] The anonymous clean-up notice

The following anonymous clean-up notice was posted to the list on November 1st:

23:44, 1 November 2005 68.17.227.41

The notice was placed without group consensus, and there was no edit comment. Pretty sneaky.

This was the user's only edit. Nothing before or after. A sock-puppet.

[edit] The results of the 10 November Afd

• Keep & clean up =3 votes
• Keep, with no mention of clean up =7 votes
• Delete = 4 votes (including the nomination)

That's 10 votes to keep, out of which 3 voted to clean up. Seven out of ten clearly voiced their desire to retain the list without deleting its entries.

[edit] Dishonest report of Afd results

Voice of All(MTG) reported the results as " ", and he and The Literate Engineer used that as the basis to erase the content of the list, which they did in successive edits.

[edit] Non-consensual list move

During the 10 November AfD discussion, Voice of All(MTG) moved the list to the new article name sexual slang, citing the introduction at the top of the list as the basis for the move ("it is more than a list"). Several users then used the article title as an argument against including any list entries.

When an article is moved, the change history is moved with it, and a redirect is placed under the original article's title. If the redirect is edited, then the article cannot be moved back. That is exactly what has happened to the list. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for more information.

[edit] The current situation

The change history of the list is currently stranded as the change history of Sexual slang.

The content of the list itself has been restored to List of sexual slang, where it was originally. This preserves the spirit of the results of the two AfD discussions mentioned above.

[edit] To summarize:

1. On Oct 18 the list was nominated for AfD (article for deletion), but this attempt to delete failed, and the vote was overwhelmingly to Keep.
2. An anonymous sock-puppet placed a clean-up notice on the list. It has been used as a justification to delete entries.
3. On Nov 10, The Literate Engineer made an AfD attempt against the list and it failed too.
4. Then Voice of All(MTG) underhandedly moved the list to the non-list name sexual slang, while the AfD was still underway.
5. Voice of All(MTG)reported false results for the 10 November AfD vote, and he and The Literate Engineer edited out the entire list.
6. I posted a rebuttal to the above antics on the talk page for sexual slang, and reverted the sexual slang article to the November 15 version in the article's change history (the complete list). My username ("Bend over") was banned as inappropriate or offensive.
7. Some editors stated that an article is not the place for a list, and used that as a justification to keep list entries.
8. So I replaced the redirect at List of sexual slang with the actual content of the entire list. Unfortunately, the change history for the list is still part of the change history for the article sexual slang.
9. An attempt is being made to protect the list against vandalism at its original location: List of sexual slang.

Remember, the three reversion limit does not apply when reverting vandalism. Only if enough concerned users participate will this be successful.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Red Rover 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mu\ind that a "keep" or "no consensus" result on an AFD is not synonymous with keeping the article as it is. It just means that it cannot be deleted from the history. The article may still be moved, merged, trimmed, completely rewritten and so on. I see that an RFC on this article is up, so it's best to participate there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:72.10.122.69

I saw you placed a LVL4 on his talk page. The vandalism seems to continue. User:72.10.122.69 Chelman 13:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I see s/he has stopped again so I am not blocking it right now. I'm not even sure if it is the same person or multiple people (probably schoolchidren) using a shared IP. But thanks for letting me know and adding another warning! Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exicornt AfD

Thanks for closing out this ugly AfD! FreplySpang (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. After reading the debate thoroughly, the result was quite easy. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Had you deleted United States House of Representatives, California District 51? I am creating pages for the many congressional districts. This is not a minor project, and other people will be helping me in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Furthermore, I had put a note on the discussion page. --Mark_Adler (t·c) 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's OK to create articles on congressional districts, but they have to be articles. What I deleted consisted of

1. A stub template
2. A template for the congressional districts
3. Categories

Without any real content whatsoever about the district, the page meets at least two speedy deletion criteria, A1 for no context and A3 for no content whatsoever. If we don't have an article, we don't have it. Just having some templates and categories at the page is worse than having a redlink, since it confuses the readers into believing we have an article when we don't. Feel free to write these articles, but make sure that there is some real content and flesh in them. Good luck in your endeavors! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm… good point. I'll keep at it, then, with only articles that are complete. --Mark_Adler (t·c) 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears article

There is not a lot we can do I'm afraid, just keep an eye out and revert as needed. The good thing is that there are more of us than there is of him, and he will get bored and go away eventually. Just take time away from the wack-a-mole game any time you get tired, and don't let it burn you out. Otherwise, it's just keep up the good work :) -- sannse (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page for the night anyway - if he doesn't change pages, that will at least give it all a break for a while -- sannse (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. End of recess at their school seems to have solved the problem. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New user box

Hello Sjakkalle, It's SWD316. Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! SWD316 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if I can fit it in on my userpage eventually. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Durmus Kumdereli

I was rather expecting this AfD to be relisted for further comment, as I've seen happen to several AfDs that attracted few votes. In the end we had a single delete (mine), and a single keep, which while not explicitly conditional, carried the caveat that the subject should be shown to have received Turkish media attention, which didn't happen.

Not that I'm bitter over the irony of having saved the article (at least I saved the German AfDers the trouble), mind you, I rather like translating things :-) --Last Malthusian 15:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webcomics RfA

Hi.

I was the first anonymous user you mentioned in your Evidence at the RfA. I'd actually edited from a couple of other IP addresses occasionally, and only created this account subsequently. Still only about 20-25 edits total, mostly minor. Do you think this should be mentioned in the Evidence and should I mention it? J•A•K 09:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I wrong to find this the most disturbing thing to come out so far? The implication that we'll have to just take the word of someone surely couldn't be made a finding of fact, could it? Then again, now that I think about it and review the Able Baker AfD, that's really all that this has been about. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the spam

So that you don't think ill of me: I had placed a notice at pump, Tito recomended "keep" after I notified him of the Able Baker AfD, and Nendesuka and I often disagree. I respect all of their opinions regardless, and the phrasing of my request was fairly neutral. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, great! Add a comment on that in the workshop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Err, no thanks. I really don't want to enter into the fray there, see my recent edit.
• I'm less concerned about ArbCom outcomes than I am my general reputation, and I'm pretty sure that the ugly factor will go up exponentially when if I start presenting my views. Just as a for instance, can you imagine the fireworks if I pointed to User:Snowspinner/Webcomics and said, "Being a PhD student and contributing to a magazine does not make you an expert?"
• If and when some arbitrators step in and this starts to make some sense, I'll try and present my case. But if that doesn't happen, it's simply not worth the unpleasantness to try and push it uphill. I can always find something other than Wikipedia to do with my time.

brenneman^(t)(c) 07:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah OK. If you are feeling depressed at the RFAr, then I agree: take a break from it for a while now. If you don't want to take a full wikibreak there are always things to do in the calm(er) waters of the main article namespace. Write some articles, do some random page random fix-up and so. Such efforts are always appreciated and really ought to be what people spend most of their time on. (Good grief, I have looked at the length of the deletion log in my name and I think I must have deleted about twenty times as many articles as I have created. Perhaps I ought to get back working a bit more in the main namespace as well. :-) ) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I was dreading making the actual decision, so I'm glad somebody else stood up and did it. I agree with your decision 100% -- my personal opinion is that the article should have been deleted, but from the discussion that existed, I did not think any clear consensus had been arrived at, so I probably would have ended up with exactly the same result you came to. I did notice that closing the discussion didn't deter people from continuing the debate, so I protected the AfD page. Feel free to unprotect it if you think I did wrong. --RoySmith 14:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome. I think this is the second-toughest debate I have closed, this one was the toughest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you close the debate so early? Many debates go on longer. With 60% voting to delete, more people coming to vote only to find that they now cannot (2 have since turned up to vote but cannot) shutting down a discussion mid-debate, is IMHO a serious misjudgment. If there the debate had clearly dried up, or if it was still 50:50, or 55:45, then one could say there was no consensus. But with one side having reached 60% and still growing, with people turning up all the time, to cut off a debate after the bare minimum time is a serious error. It will just mean that instead of the debate having run its course and had a chance to see if it could hit consensus level it will go on — people will now fight edit wars over the contents, and the page is guaranteed to be put on AfD again almost immediately. So you have just prolonged the issue by prematurely closing the vote. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job on this close. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That one was very shiny indeed. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Now that my RfA is fully and officially completed, I want to thank you for your support. I appreciate your confidence that I can do the job. -- SCZenz 18:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cnwb's RfA

[edit] Merge decision on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Octagon_Press_-_Idries_Shah - well done!

I thought I'd drop you a line to say well done! I think that far too few people go around saying nice things to each other in talk pages, and I was impressed with your interpretation of the vote towards merge. 2 deletes and 2 merges could have gone either way, but I think that merge is the diplomatic thing to do in such a situation, so well done (after all, it can easily be deleted if a dispute arises, while an undeletion is a bit more difficult). I was quite impressed with the decision, so well done. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderful comments on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_day_dictators page

I thought that I'd write again to say how impressed I was by the eloquence of your arguments on this page, in what was a very difficult topic to decide on. I am personally of the view that topics such as that one will always be no consensus decisions, but that is what makes them encyclopaedic. We just have to be very careful of WP:NPOV over such things. I thought that you were very diplomatic and I am sure that your comments and decision helped all of the people who commented. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! They are always appreciated. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Damn I still don't get those AFD instructions. This is my 3rd time trying to nominate a page for AFD and it hasn't worked any time. I nominated Lighthouse (chat site) for deletion. I created the page, its a sub stub, and I am the only contributor, and my research has determined that I will be unable to ever make an actual article out of it, and besides which its not actually sufficiently notable so I thought I'd like to just delete it. Does it qualify for speedy delete under those circumstances? If so, I'd also like to delete Crossroads (chat site) and Ncohafmuta for the same reason (although those two I did get some info on, I am no longer convinced that they are sufficiently notable for their own page). Nobody else has contributed to any of the 3 articles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes any page which you are the sole author too is speedy deletable if you request it and can reasonably document that it was a mistake. I am deleting all three of them now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was asking for the same thing for Crystal Palace (chat site) for the same reasons, but it seems that some anon editors came along to edit it recently, so it has to go through the AFD process. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

But do you think they'd want me? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom should represent the community, and if the community wants you... yes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Me and Tony S; everybody's dream ticket. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see... Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 7:3

I have to confess that I was a terrible Catholic and had to cheat by looking up the exact reference, though I'd remembered the quote: it's the one about Jesus saying that you shouldn't be worrying about the mote in your brother's eye when you've got a beam in your own. Considering the bad behavior of the complainant in the posts I skimmed, I thought it was more than a wee bit hypocritical for him to be whinging about someone else's behavior. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I also thought the complaint on ANI to be a bit suspicious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gracias

For reventing vandalism on "David Miller (singer)" Rosameliamartinez 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you so much!

Wow, that was awesome of you to revert the vandalism on my user page (this). I know, it wasn't really the most impressive vandalism ever, but still, that was just a cool thing. Thanks.

How'd you come across my page anyway? Matt Yeager 06:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Most likely I caught it on RC patrol. Anons making edits to userpages is always a red flag which calls for attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Sjakkelle, for your support and your kind comments - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Sjakkalle, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket (now I can go check some vandals). Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My failed RFA :)

[edit] Impersonator?

See Skalle (talk • contribs). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see. If it's a vandal or someone trying to impersonate me it will have to be blocked some time, but if the edits are legitimate I am not too worried about the name "Skalle". The two users I have blocked for names too similar to, or insulting, mine are User:Sjakkale and User:Sjakkallehasamilf. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's something of a large discussion page, so be prepared. For a quick run-through of what's been said and done, see #rehashing) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonehead here

Hi Brookie here - how do you post a talk page link in your signing signature - my attempts in preferences haven't worked! Thanks Bonehead :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On the preferences screen I enter

[[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]]into the signature field and check the box turning "raw signatures" on. Hope that helps! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks for that :) Brookie - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 08:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for participating on my RfA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. The final vote was 57/4/3. I hope I don't disappoint those who voted support, and that those who didn't won't wish they'd campaigned more strongly in opposition. Tomer^talk 03:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alhutch's RfA

Dear Sjakkalle,

I'm an administrator, and I've got you to thank for it! Thanks to your support, my RfA passed 25/0. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can help you with anything. See you around the wiki, :-) Alhutch 05:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for tyour support on my RFA. It is very much appreciated and will not be forgotten.Gator (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I alos want to thank you for assuming good faith in me. I honestly saw someone in distress and in horrible need of an advocate that could speak on his behalf, so, as an attorney, I instinctively jumped in and tried to be a voice that could be a little more articulate than he was being. I meant nothing by it and support the judgment of the arb committee on the subject. He just needed some help that was all. Thanks for understanding that. As an admin, I would NEVER abuse the tools and that incident is well behind me and, frankly, I'd love to jsut forget the entire thing and move on. Thanks again :)Gator (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Many thanks for your support during my RfA – following a 30/0/0 vote I’ve now been made an admin. Do have a Jaffa Cake! Cheers, CLW 13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IP 72.1.206.187

Hello, please do not ban this IP, this is the IP of an entire school/school board, so you will be banning lots of people willing to make good contributions. Also, if you ban this IP, someone who wants to vandalise can simply go home and do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frufru (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

Hi! Responded on your talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freakofnurture says

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my recent RFA, which passed 64-2. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:02, Dec. 17, 2005

[edit] 4IM campaign

Hi, it's probably on your watchlist, but just in case: I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4IM Campaign to update Union Jack (2nd nomination) with the decision to delete the article, but include a brief mention of it at Union Jack#Other proposed versions. Rather than a whole long section about 4IM I just wrote a sentence and linked to 4IM's website. Maybe this time it won't get reverted. --Angr (t·c) 21:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers!

---

[edit]

Feliz Navidad

Tony the Marine

Sjakkalle, O.K., so you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 06:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you too! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon Network

It wasn't a test nor vandalism. My net cut out and not all the info got sent so only the first bit of the new version got thourhg. I was trying ot correct it but got edit conflicts from you reveting it. 24.218.198.104 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK thanks. Things like that happen and all I wind up seeing on the Recent Changes page is the whole article disappearing. Thanks for the explanation. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details. This is a copied announcement, please reply on My Talk Page or in the category talk if you have any questions. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put the LN template on my painfully chaotic userpage... Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] malo's RfA

Sjakkalle, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Lipscomb redirect

Thanks. I was in the middle of trying to figure out what I was doing wrong merging the two different links for this guy.Bduke 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad to be of service. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey Sjakkalle! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W.marsh's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (30/2/0). I will do my best at the position I now am in. Thanks again! --W.marsh 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom elections

Hey how come you are not going up for the Arbitration Committee elections? I think you would make a great job. I am struggling to think of who to vote for. Do you know how many people you vote for? If its just 1 I know who, but if its like 5 or something I am struggling. I don't think there's 5 good candidates there. I was looking for your name, and was going to put you down for who I'd vote for, but I couldn't see it there. Is there any reason why you don't want to be on the Arbitration Committee? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! Well, I am not at all sure that I will have the time to be as active in 2006 as I have been in 2005, and with the time I will have available I would prefer to write and fix up articles and do less distressing janitorial tasks than putting people on probation and banning them altogether. My current slate for the Arbcom, that is, candidates who I think definitely should get a position there, includes people like Filiocht, Charles Matthews, Mindspillage and SimonP, all very well experienced users who have demonstrated a lot of sensibility. I also think that Merovingian, Jayjg, Ral315 and Redwolf24 can do a good job at ArbCom. Everyking is another user who I think might be a positive addition to the ArbCom, he is controversial, sometimes a bit impulsive, and he has been sanctioned by the ArbCom some times, and nor would I support an ArbCom consisting of ten Everykings, but having a voice arguing for milder sanctions is perhaps a valuable check and balance there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Izehar's RfA

Hi Sjakkalle,

I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy (formerly Lifeisunfair) 06:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Deathphoenix

Hi Sjakkalle,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me in my RfA. To tell you the truth, I was surprised by all the support I've gotten. I never saw myself as more than an occasional Wiki-hobbyist.

My wife sends her curses, as Wikipedia will likely suck up more of my time. She jokingly (I think) said she was tempted to log on to Wikipedia just to vote Oppose and let everyone know that she didn't want her husband to be an admin.

The trust and support of such a Wikipedia veteran as yourself means a great deal to me. I'll make sure your trust in me is founded. --Deathphoenix 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your RFA support

Hi Sjakkalle/November and December 2005! I have been on a refreshing wikibreak for the last week, so this is a belated thank-you for supporting my adminship nomination. You've seen enough of these before, so, simply: Happy new year (if that's your kind of thing)! jnothman talk 18:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another thank-you

Greetings Sjakkalle, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting another recent RFA you voted on, specifically my nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)