User talk:Rudget/Archive/14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

userpage | talk | contact | past projects | userboxes | miscellaneous | awards | archive

Contents 1 Welcome back 2 New Section 3 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 4 Re:Adminship 5 I am now an admin 6 Features and admins 7 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 8 OMG jaw drop 9 Good choice - 10 Resysopped 11 typo 12 are you coming or going? 13 Link on your userpage 14 Welcome back! 15 RE: Edit conflict 16 Thanks 17 Télévision Sel + Lumière 18 Thinkfinance.com 19 Portal:Comedy 20 Coaching 21 Thank you 22 Nope, I won't 23 What would have happened? 24 Extension of block 25 User talk:86.81.101.178 26 Your RFA 27 New messages from Voyagerfan5761 28 Multiple thank yous 29 Aherm - blush 30 Top Bar 31 E-mail. 32 Sockpuppet help 33 Thank you. 34 Seresin RfA 35 Nicole LaPlaca 36 WP:TSQUAD. 37 WP:SSP 38 Your (my) RFA 39 Granting rollback 40 re: Congratulations! 41 RFA thanks 42 Help Wiki 43 Did you mean this article...

Welcome back

I'm glad to see you back! :) --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

+1 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you back. :) GlassCobra 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto ^Avruchtalk 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you back, if so welcome back. →Dust Rider→ 18:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

<insert something encouraging here :)> Qst (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

<insert something more encouraging than what Qst said here> Gromlakh (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Support per GlassCobra and Qst. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! Now lets put the past behind us, :) Tiptoety ^talk 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. If you get your bit back, congrats and yay, it's the right thing. If you have to go through RfA, that sucks, but you can expect my full support. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you back! STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Breaks out Root Beer!!! WELCOME BACK!!! The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you back!   jj137 (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

W00t! By the way, I need your opinion - How do you like my new sig? Justin^(c)_(u) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We need as many younger admins as we can get. It's great to see you back, big guy! John Carter (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back, man! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge & redirect. I mean, support per <hic> above. :) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom ;-) WB (Can I have my rollback now?) BpEps - t@lk 16:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. :) Rudget. 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back! BTW, my RfA passed if you hadn't noticed. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Echoing my esteemed colleagues, Welcome Back! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I need hardly say how pleased I am to see you back. Good decision! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't tell you how disappointed I was when I learned of your departure from the project. I'm overjoyed of your return. Welcome back! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Although we have interacted only infrequently, I am certain (and am on record as saying) that you are a great asset to the project as an admin. I am delighted that you are back with us. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New Section

Hey Rudget, I know you're following the WP:BN stuff. I know you probably predicted that a new storm would start up again. I think the way to calm the storm the quickest is to be Rudget, and forget about the renaming bit. If you are renamed, I think you could understand how that would require you to completely vanish and not just kinda vanish. Keep your chin up Rudget. You've done a lot of very good work to this encyclopedia. Your user/usertalk will be watchlisted by dozens of people (don't believe me? Look at how many people said "welcome back" in the first 10 minutes from having your talk unprotected). Hope you stay, and hope you stay Rudget. There, you have my 2 cents. (or 2 pence - I forgot where you lived...:-) Keeper | 76 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with the above. I'm very happy to see you back. Just ride through the storm. I'm sure everything will be fine. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

...and I don't see why people were making a fuss about getting the cousin's account. We don't need the cousin's account name. If that account vandalizes, it will get blocked for that. If it doesn't, it doesn't need to be blocked. I think people were just getting emotional and feeling that they had to do something. Just relax. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. I just wanted to say that I agree with the above comments. A change of name would be a bad idea in my opinion (someone ought to write that essay). Whatever storm is to come, just ride it out. I don't know whether you lost your admin bit or not, but if you did, I would counsel against just asking for it back. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, I'm still your coach ;-) See email and see [1]. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage

Dude, I see you closed it. Wouldn't it been better to have undone the blanking though, prior to archiving? Pedro :  Chat  16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking that. Glad to have a second opinion. :) Rudget. 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Rudget. 17:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Adminship

Thanks. Once again, good to have you back! Malinaccier Public (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am now an admin

Thank you again for your support and coaching. Due in large part to your support, I am now an admin! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Features and admins

I'd love to have you help, although OhanaUnited and VanTucky have offered to take F&A for the near future. If you'd like to help out, what you might do is watch the newsroom and the tip line on Sunday and Monday, and look for things you might be interested in covering. Sometimes I'll post stories in the newsroom that I think are worth covering (like Foundation issues, edit wars, etc.); other times, someone will mention a story on the tip line. And of course, every once in a while, someone will be unable to handle one of their regular sections, and will post in the newsroom to that effect -- that's a great chance for you to pick up a story, at least temporarily, if you're interested. Ral315 (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008 January issue | March issue Project News There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Casliber (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Johnfos (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik (talk · contribs) Auawise (talk · contribs) Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Ddstretch (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) FamicomJL (talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) jackturner3 (talk · contribs) Kbthompson (talk · contribs) Keilana (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) pcbene (talk · contribs) Skeeker (talk · contribs) Snowolf (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! On Hold versus Failing an Article This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article: Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{GA}} to the article's talk page. Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page. On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page. Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page. So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be: the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory). minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes. mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references. a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags. On the other hand, an article should be failed if it: is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section). contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose. there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags. has evidence of an active edit war in the article history. has major neutrality issues. has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places. Did You Know... ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days? ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA? ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)? ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles? ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles? ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status? From the Editors Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Sam Cowan • Draining and development of the Everglades Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 10 June 2008 | edit

OMG jaw drop

900+ pages on my watchlist, and I forgot to include this one. *cries* *huggles* dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good choice -

- to return. Take care, my friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Resysopped

I have restored your account's administrator access. My full reasons are at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Resysopped. I agree with some commentators that a rename would be ill-advised at this time. Best wishes, WjBscribe 11:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's a relief. I hope this helps somewhat to lessen the bitter taste Rudget must be experiencing from being doubted and disbelieved by a number of people, which I suppose was the reason for his retiring and for his not wanting to edit as often. I'm confident that Rudget was telling the truth. I hope this whole unfortunate non-incident quickly fades in significance as it recedes into the past. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call by bcat. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you (fully) back, friend. Cheers, Keeper | 76 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(as long as the second third and fourth opinions don't all come from you. That would be bad.  :-D 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(I'll cover opinions one and five.) Now that you're retired returned resysopped ... Note that in explaining the reasons, WJBscribe said "The incident that prompted his resignation was a brief misappropriation of his admin account, admin tools were not abused and no harm was done..." To me, this suggests an implied acceptance of the truth of your version of events, Rudget. I think that's the proper and reasonable way to respond to a situation of this type. When someone has a substantial reputation (for example, they have just had a successful RfA) and their account does something wild and then states that their account is compromised, it's reasonable to assume that their account was compromised.

No harm was done. Sure, we felt sad for a couple of hours. But then, we felt very happy when we found out that you were fine after all, didn't we? We could have paid good money to go and see a movie that would have attempted to put us through emotions like that. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

typo

Just FYI, When you blocked 206.41.39.34, it was "with an expiry time of June 2007" which means the block did not take effect. I set the block for six months. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

are you coming or going?

*turns head in two directions at once* – Gurch 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The former. Rudget. 12:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Link on your userpage

This is really minor, but I noticed that User:Rudget/Userboxes-w links to User:Rudget/Userboxes, and the latter is non-existant. Is this because you forgot to restore it when you un-retired? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back to the community! I thought I was too late to give you this...

		The Reviewers Award
		I am presenting this award to Rudget for his work on portal reviews and showing leadership in featured portal candidates process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When people found out that you left, they were being bold and took your name off the co-directors list. Since you're back, I was being bold and add your name back. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to determine the consensus and close this nom. I was actively participating in the discussion and could lead to bias and COI when closing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I respect your actions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Edit conflict

Yes indeed! Some server slowdown to follow  ;)

PS Welcome back, this place just ain't the same without you! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 18:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a belated thanks for your input on Wormshill which achieved FA while I was on a wikibreak. Cheers Dick G (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Télévision Sel + Lumière

You deleted this page - this was originally a redirect, and you should be aware the reason given in the deletion tag is not actually a valid reason for speedy deletion. —Random832 16:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Restore? Rudget. 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinkfinance.com

Hi. I would like to know why you deleted the article about Thinkfinance.com and what can I do to make it available.

This site was very important for the uncover of two major frauds (Afinsa and Forum Filatelico in Portugal/Spain and also the PIPS in Southeast Asia). The action of its memebers actually prevented that the money continued to flow into these frauds, leading to its faster unfolding.

Thank you for your reply,

Narfbio

There was no assertion of notability in the article, apart from those you mention, and the partially promotional in tone. There were no suitable references, or any at all, for the page and so it was unverifiable. You may wish to read this guide. Regards, Rudget. 16:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of notability, the Afinsa/ForumFilatelico fraud was worth 3.5B€ (approximately 5BUSD) as mentioned in this article (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/spai-j27.shtml), and the PIPS, although there are no accurate estimatives, it is thought to involve over 500 MUSD. So the two frauds involved 5.5BUSD, which I think is quite significative.

The promotional tone was not intentional, is more in terms of makiing small paragraphs for easy reading (leaving only the essencial information I would like to say).

The article had 6 references (newspapers, a masters thesis and two books). Only one of them is available online.

Sorry for all this confusion, but this is my first article on Wiki and therefore I would like to know what exactly would it require to have this article on Wiki.

Thank you in advamce,

Narfbio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narfbio (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Comedy

Thanks for doing the closing. It's good to have you back. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Coaching

Earlier this month, your status at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status was changed to retired to reflect your userpage, but since your back (yea!), I'd figure I'd point it out in case you wanted to become involved again in that function. MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I will return in some capacity in the future, but I won't as of now. Thanks for pointing this out MBsianz. :) Regards, Rudget. 16:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't your "activity level" column be changed, at least, to reflect that you've returned? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Nope, I won't

Sorry Rudge, I don't have email activated, nor will I anytime in the future. See this. I'm an on-wiki guy only both on principal and by necessity. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please know, I am a firm believer in transparency and on-wikiness. Have been since watching several "fallouts" based on off-wiki discussions. If your comfortable with whatever it is you were going to ask, I have absolutely no problem with it being on my talkpage, at least from my end. But I understand others' desire to move things off-wiki. You've just made me extremely curious now, that's all :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You can co-nom my reconfirmation RfA with User:Off to the loony bin if and when I screw up enough to get that far. Which reminds me, I'm so terrifically glad your "situation" didn't end up that route. So glad. I'm pretty sure I woulda supported though. Pretty sure....Cheers friend, :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What would have happened?

Thank you so much for your kind message at User talk:Coppertwig#Just a passer's by comment. I'm really glad to know my messages were so helpful.

Did you ever wonder what would have happened if someone really deleted the Main Page? Maybe you saw the answer already: it's here. I got a good laugh out of it, and out of this new page that was written as a result: Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page, especially the picture. I hope you get a good laugh out of it too. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No kidding: I was incredibly pleased to receive that message from you. I read it over and over again, especially the part about appreciating my support. I think the main reason I was so pleased is that I take it as a sign that you're feelilng at least a little bit better about the stuff that happened. I see that you're also doing a fairly large number of edits, which is also a good sign. I'm glad I was able to help. Thanks for the co-nom offer, by the way. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Extension of block

You're absolutely correct, I looked at the last block date of April, but I didn't notice it was for six months. So, I extended to an additional six months, although a year would have probably been appropriate, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.81.101.178

Hi, Rudget. I had reverted that person's edit on Carlisle Castle, and was about to mark a warning, and then I noticed that you made it before me. I might not erase my warning, but it's just that you made it before I did. I'm okay with that. SchfiftyThree 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hopefully it'll pass. :) Rudget. 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope so too. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New messages from Voyagerfan5761

Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ding! (Is there a freely-licensed OGG file of a mail notification? :P) Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 23:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ding again! Don't know how I missed your message on 2/7... Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ding! See my talk page and the admin coaching subpage you created, where I've answered the questions. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, long time since the last one... Ding! I probably won't be as snappy as usual for a while, just so you know. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Multiple thank yous

Rudget, thank you for the admin template (I didn't even know it existed), thank you for your note on my talk page, and a very special thank you for your support in my RfA which ended up being nothing like the hell I had been anticipating. Hope to see you around, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 08:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aherm - blush

Re: [2]. Oh dear Rudget, I think you possibly meant an "incessant" desire, not an "incestuous" one - that's something quite different :-D ... WjBscribe 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 :) Apologies. Rudget. 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Top Bar

Hey, Rudget. The links to some of the things right at the top of this page Blocks for example are a little dodge ;) Tiddly-Tom 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

 :) I see. Fixin' it now. Thanks Rudget. 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail.

Might want to check your inbox, I've a feeling there's something you've not read yet. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Replied. Rudget. 14:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet help

Hi Rudget. Is there any way you can give me a hand here when you have time? The user's sockpuppetry has escalated into major disruption on his pet pages. Or is this case not as obvious as I believe it is?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for resolving this case. I do hope Jvolkblum returns with a resolve to abandon his old shenanigans.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Rudget. 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Very unexpected, but appreciated. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Seresin RfA

Hi Rudget, I was wondering if you could elaborate here or on my talkpage your thinking on voting oppose in the Seresin RfA. An informal approach to a signature and a name change doesn't seem like the sort of thing I normally see you opposing for, and I'm not sure how you determined that he lacked commitment to the encyclopedia. You don't have to explain, of course, but I'd be curious to know more about your thoughts. Thanks, Avruchtalk 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't usually, or appreciate, being advised to change my decision in an RFA, I have done so on this occasion because of the strong arguments for and against. Rudget. 13:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I wasn't advising you to change your vote, I was just curious to know more about why you cast it the way you did. Apologies if I wasn't clear in my post above. Avruchtalk 13:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't of significance now anyway. Thank you for giving an explanation of the above post. Regards, Rudget. 13:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicole LaPlaca

Hi Rudget, I have been working with User:Sweetpea03 to see if the Nicole LaPlaca article could be revived in an acceptable form. I have wikified the article and removed the more obvious promotional aspects. You can see the result at User:Sweetpea03/Nicole LaPlaca. I believe that the subject does (just about) meet WP:BIO and the article could be reintroduced to article space in its current form. Currently Nicole LaPlaca is protected from recreation. Rather than just unprotect it, I'd like to get your input. Would you be prepared to lift protection so that the latest version of the article could be added?

Thanks, Gwernol 04:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, many thanks for your help, Gwernol 13:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TSQUAD.

Nice to have you. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything for you Aussies. *joke*. :) Rudget. 14:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP

Can you please look into the diff links at UserCompare? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.96.152 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Rudget. 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You blocked an IP address (which I have used) for nine days without drawing any conclusion to the SSP request. User:SchmuckyTheCat claimed I was a sockpuppet of User:Instantnood, but UserCompare doesn't suggest so. 219.77.96.152 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your (my) RFA

How do you mean? I know the answers are not that good but I tryed to keep them as simple as possible so they will be neutral (sp?). There was an edit conflict as I was updating the date. Unisouth (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what the count is let alone change it. I only folowed the instructions on the pages. Wikipedia is the only thing I have got in my life i would never compromise it. I knew this was a bad idea. I am really over dramatic! Unisouth (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Granting rollback

I think you may want to be more careful in reviewing candidates for rollback permission before granting them; in particular, Compwhizii (talk · contribs), whom you granted earlier today, had already been warned several times over the last few days of his overzealous reverting of IPs with (I believe?) Huggle, such as accidentally restoring vandalism and copyvios that IPs had diligently removed, several incidents of which were still being discussed on his talk page. His overzealous reverting only continued after he was granted rollback, and I've had to remove them for now. :/ krimpet✽ 00:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Congratulations!

(Copied from my talk page) Thanks! I've been meaning to thank you for co-noming me, but completely forgot, so here's an equally belated thank you :P. It was a lovely co-nom, and I really am very grateful. I am also very, very glad that you returned to the project - Wikipedia needs more editors like you ;). Catch ya 'round! _TalkIslander 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Help Wiki

Hi, as you know Help Wiki has been shutdown and at AGKs request I have the xml data for all the pages so we don't loose our hard work. At the moment I'm still thinking over what to do with the content but I think incorporating it back into Wikipedia is the way to go. Unfortunately I don't think the CC license used is compatible with the GNUFDL(its the no commercial restriction in the CC license that is the problem). Anyway if I am going to incorporate that pages back into Wikipedia I'll need you to release your work under the GNUFDL, just something like "I agree to release my work under the GNUFDL" will be fine. If you have any other suggestions or comments feel free to tell me them. --Chris 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean this article...

...that I so callously slated for AfD? A good example of the process leading to a net improvement in the 'pedia, I thought. (PS: Thanks for the support, despite my deletionist tendencies!) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think on this occasion you get my RfA thanks in advance of the closure! Greatly appreciated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)