User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Regarding Portals
Yeah, I noticed that you totally re-wrote the selected articles for the football portal. I have no problem with that, and I would have personally done so, but I was a little busy, so I was planning to save that for another day.
I'll be happy to take over Portal:Baseball now. I guess I'll start working on the DYK, Quotes, and selected articles first.
If you want to lighten your load, I can manage Portal:Tennis and Portal:Ice hockey, both of which I actively watch, and I'm sure I can handle those portals. If you want, I can also take over Portal:American football, too.
I guess I'll start working on updating Portal:Baseball and the others too.
Thanks, Joe.
--Nishkid64 19:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Nishkid64's RfA thanks
 |
Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC) |
RfA thanks
 |
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 12:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC) |
RfA thanks
 |
Joe:
Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, with the tally at 5/8/7, It was clear no consensus was going to be reached, so I have withdrawn the nomination. Most of the nay-sayers just want more experience from me, so I think I'll give it a try again in a few months. - Mike (Trick or treat) 11:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
RfA thanks from StuffOfInterest
 |
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 11:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) |
Re: Paparazzo
That would be "is a group."
*ducks under rotten tomato*
Seriously, I wouldn't doubt it, but the obvious question is, would it pass WP:BAND? :D
RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- To point out that Green Day is a single entity comprised of plural humans would betray my pedantry, huh? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- LOL anytime jocularity and pedantry intersect is fine with me :)
- Just for fun, I should mention that I prefer a hybrid Brit/US style when it comes to the use of punctuation within quotes (British, always outside; American, always inside). For me, if the punctuation as used is not the same as originally written or spoken—e. g., part of a thought utilized to close a sentence—I put the punctuation outside the quotes. Same with lists of titles; it drives me nuts when I see lists of films as enumerated by US media with commas inside the quotes—unless the comma is actually part of the title, it should not be within the quotation marks. Of course, I'm easily annoyed... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
I am not the least bit aggrieved. I really appreciate your vote, I pretty much agree with all your points, and I respect you very much for writing all that. I hate Lou Piniella only a tad more than I hate the Devil Rays (who should henceforth be known as "The Devils" for all I care). My offer of a RfA nomination stands. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Lori Klausutis
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your alternative view on how the closure could be carried out and the manner in which you presented it. I took a personal decision before I started to closing AFDs that in such cases I would close as "delete" rather than "no consensus", as from my reading of the guidelines that seemed the correct course of action. In this case, I should have perhaps spelt out that the delete decision did not preclude the creation of a NPOV article on the subject - unfortunately, MONGO's subsequent deleted page protection rather undermines any chance of infering that from my comments, and in fact implies the opposite. With regards to reducing the article to a stub: I again took a decision before starting on my closure "career" that in cases where the decision fell outside the realm of the normal "keep", "delete", "merge", etc. I would restrict myself to actions suggested by the participants in the discussion. In a role that should be that of an impartial arbiter I felt it would be wrong to engineer my own solutions, although I'm not sure I would have created a stub in this case even if it had been suggested, since the debate about notability was still raging. If you do manage to produce a NPOV article on her I will support its reinstatement (even though I'm sure the AFD tag will reappear within minutes). Cheers, Yomanganitalk 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Larry Craig
You recently added the rumor section back. Maybe there is a better name than "Unconfirmed rumor." Previously, when someone deleted it for the 3rd time, I issed them a 3RR warning, and was promptly warned that members of the WP:LPP "Living People Patrol" were not to be issued 3RR warnings, and that inserting the material back after they deleted it mioght be a blockable offence. I just wanted to let you know about that claim, since it is not obvious in the edit summary. If you have not heard of WP:LPP, as I had, not, you might wish to take a look. Thanks. Edison 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
A belated note - Gary Kirk's RfA
 |
Dear Jahiegel Thank you very much for voting in my request for adminship. In the end, not many people let their opinion be known, and I didn't get the mop just yet. I have already begun acting on the issues brought up by the community, and will continue to do so. If you have any more suggestions for me, feel free to let me know. |
Apostrophes and suchlike
Joe said: I reverted your excision of the apostrophe, principally because I think the context to be one in which the use of the genitive case to be preferred to the use of the objective case. Gerund#Preceding genitive phrases seems to suggest, though, that whilst most manuals of style counsel the former usage, the latter is no longer considered as proscribed in the formal English grammar (especially in view of the instant formulation's ostensibly serving to compose an object; our MoS, to be sure, is silent on the issue.
I realize there's a big debate about whether to use its or it's in a particular context and if I got this wrong while using a manual spellchecker, I do apologize. I tend to make a lot of grammatical, punctuational and such edits at once, and if I missed one or added one extra, that's entirely my own fault.
Joe said: I'd not have reverted, so I mean, I suppose, to apologize and to express my hope that you'll drop by the ice hockey portal, to which few editors contribute, in the future. If you're scoring at home, btw, I have, indeed, consumed an entire paragraph writing apropos of an apostrophe—that sort of behavior often leads to one's appearing at WP:LAME#Punctuation. In any event, my bad as to the reversion and my thanks as to your partaking of editing the ice hockey portal; good on ya!
WP:LAME here we come. I think I was assuming you were talking about multiple franchises at the time, rather than the act of their dissolution (if that provides anywhere near a decent excuse as to my error). I will have a good look at the ice hockey portal and see what I can contribute in the future - though most of my sport-related contributions span football and cricket (as you can see from my bragsheet on my user page), I will research what I can about any information which is needed, and I might join up in the near future. Thank you for your message. Bobo. 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:Wikimedia for Portals
Hi, Jahiegel. Do you know how to center that template at Portal:Cats? I replaced it because it's a "common" template that doesn't display properly. At least for me, it's left-justified, which looks screwy. Rfrisbietalk 13:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Your comment re an RfA
Thanks for your comment on my talkpage (as well as for your prior e-mail), and I definitely will let you know when I decide to pursue adminship (I guess I've decided that I will go for it sooner or later). If you have a second, please go back and sign your comment on my talk since that will serve as an additional reminder for me to keep you in the loop. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
