User talk:Shalom Yechiel/Archives/December 2005–February 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Welcome!

Hello, Shalom Yechiel/Archives/December 2005–February 2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --אריאל יהודה

Contents

gobbedlygook

Yikes....there are several hundred Google hits for "gobbedlygook"! --JWSchmidt 17:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

Your recent edit to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 15:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD

Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz 18:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominating article that have already been through AfD

Hey, just to let you know, when you nominate an article for deletion that's already been through the process once, like you did with Crisis of 2020, you need to create a separate page for the new nomination, not put it on the same page as a previous nomination. I've done this for you already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crisis of 2020 (2nd nomination), but in the future this can be done with either the afdx template or adding "(2nd nomination)" (or whatever number the nomination is) along with the article title in the standard AfD template. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I knew there was something wrong with how I did it, but I was hoping an admin would fix it. YechielMan 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A recommendation

I was glancing through the AfDs and noticed that you had submitted one and that another editor had questioned the legitimacy of your submission, as follows: "Why is an editor with a one-month history at WP already proposing articles for deletion and trying to create policy?" This struck me as odd, because I submitted my first article for AfD with less than a week of edit history if I recall correctly, and never experienced this.

I have a suggestion: If you create a user page (even if it's minimal), the link in your signature will appear blue and everyone will assume that you are an editor of standing. (It worked for me -- in fact, it still works for me.)

Just thought I'd mention this. I would have been quite upset if someone had replied to my AfD in that way -- you handled it very well. --N Shar 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have to agree, that was not an appropriate thing for Kevin to say, the only reason I ended up getting an account was so that I could put an article up for deletion, I just used my IP before that. It appears Kevin does not like it when people put up articles for deletion that he? believes should stay. Well done for not attacking him? back. Firelement85 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
here you !vote in an AfD with: " Keep. Seems too large and well-formed to delete. Often you can make this call at a first glance". Your opinions may be taken more seriously if you appear to have done due dilligence, and read the article and the other editors comments, before adding your 2c. Pete.Hurd 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You are doing fine (judging from a few of the AfDs you participated - I did not read them all!)! At least better than when I was starting to edit in Wikipedia! And even if sometimes your comments like the one criticized by Pete.Hurd are not so "mature", in general you have arguments and you expose them in a civil way. Try to remain always civil, avoid "ad hominem" attacks even when you are provoked, use concrete arguments when you vote, take advantage of the criticism against you to become better, and don't worry. After some months you will have improved your judgment, and you will be more experienced. I hope that you will also be interested in writing articles! Hey! This is an encyclopedia!! Cheers!--Yannismarou 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
--Yannismarou 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long
Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey
May there be many summer mornings when
With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time

Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey
And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something
To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable
This is my assistance with anything I can help.

Shaare Zedek Medical Center

Shavua Tov, YechielMan! The relevant policies are WP:ORG, which would cover the medical center if it has a famous history, programs, etc., and WP:LOCAL, which covers the site and buildings if they have a famous history, architecture, etc. The key thing needed for both is independent sources -- preferably in mainstream media or scholarly publications -- specifically about Shaare Zedek that show what makes it noteworthy. I don't think every hospital gets an entry just because it's a hospital. Hope this helps. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Shira. I think it's a close call, but it's worth at least a stub. WP:ORG says "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." Shaare Zedek has offices in several countries outside of Israel, so it qualifies as an international organization. I found some press coverage on Google, but most of the source material would have to come from in-house, such as slide show from their website. Having been founded in 1902, SZMC is one of the oldest hospitals in modern Israel - I think that helps the notability case. YechielMan 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

...re yr cmt to me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Eitan.
--Jerzy•t 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy, let me explain. You wrote the following:

Nom & vote... Del on this n-n figure's bio; only defenses against A7 & ProD were

(Notability claimed but is weak enough to warrant a prod) and

(rm { {prod - )}} --Jerzy•t 01:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have written it like this:

Delete this nn figure per WP:BIO. I previously nominated this article for speedy deletion (A7) and ProD. The speedy tag was removed with the message "(Notability claimed but is weak enough to warrant a prod). The Prod tag was removed with the message: "Google shows few links for "Wendy Eitan". This may be biased, as we should search with hebrew alphabet."

Do you see how it's easier to understand that? Clear communication is critical to our collaborative effort on Wikipedia. YechielMan 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastlake Middle School

I wrote most of my Wikiphilosophies about 1-2 years ago, but I still agree with them in principle. Here is Schoolwatch's schools for deletion archive, in case you're interested in seeing how debates regarding schools have closed; I did notice that some schools have been deleted recently after many months of our keeping all real schools almost unconditionally. However, bulk nomination would probably draw much ire from school inclusionists; so if you do nominate any schools for deletion, please keep that in mind. In most of the debates where I participated (2005 - early 2006), I've seen a lot of the people who do want to include schools say, "Keep. School.", "Keep. NPOV and verifiable.", or "Keep. School." and then attack the nominator.

I think that this article should be merged into the article on the school district, along with the other middle schools in that district, since not much more may be able to be said about them than is already there (unless this school has been covered at length in any national/regional news stories). When I have more time, I can look into this more. Hope this helps. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agua loca

Hello. Thank you for your interest in the Agua loca article. Perhaps you did not notice the WikiProject Mixed Drinks notice on the talk page of the article. The proper way to request removal of mixed drink-related articles (even really bad ones like this particular one) is to place {{WPMIXMergeDelete}} on the talk page and then add a note explaining the request. The reason we request this (and it is a request, not an official policy), is because we tend to cut and paste little snippets of otherwise bad articles and merge the good parts in with other articles. For GFDL license requirements, we need to keep the original edit history intact, and turn the old page into a redirect pointing to where the information has been moved. I hope that you will keep this in mind for future articles. For Agua Loca, the consensus appears to be that it's a joke or a slang term, so it probably would not be merged anyway, but sometimes it's tough to tell, because our WikiProject has a variety of plans for dealing with certain types of articles that, on their own, seem worthy of deletion, but will make part of a very good article once we have the time to merge them into a new article. If you ever have a question, please feel free to discuss it on our talk page. Thanks, and have a good day! --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You don't really need to remember the template. Just remember to check the talk page before nomination. On our project banner, it includes the instructions and the template right there. Easy. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about...

Adding a few userboxes to your userpage? Dark Ermac 12:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations...

...on your first strike-through. Tyrenius 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pamela Fischer

Thanks for contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Fischer. I expanded the Pamela Fischer article, and you might want to take a second look at it. --Eastmain 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce in which you participated, some editors suggested the need for a guideline where a consensus could be reached regarding whether everything which is newsworthy is also encyclopedic. I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). Your input is welcome. Thanks. Edison 15:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ashwak Saleh

Please do not restore prod tags to articles after they have been removed. If you look at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion especially the section called Conflicts you will see that the tag should not be restored no matter what. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem. I simply did not see the previous prod. I'll put the article on WP:AFD. YechielMan 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kadosh Hakadashim and Holy of Holies

Hello, I replied to your comments on both article talk pages. In its current form, both Most Holy Place and Holy of Holies are used in a generic sense, referring to the general concepts of a sacred place and a sacred building, respectively. It's been argued that using either term to refer to Jewish content would be POV, as (for example) the Mormon Church claims that the Holy of Holies (LDS), in Salt Lake City, not the Kadosh Hakadashim in Jerusalem, is the real Holy of Holies, and Wikipedia cannot represent that the Mormon claim is wrong. If an English name is desired, note that Holy of Holies (Judaism) currently redirects to Kadosh Hakadashim. Perhaps this redirect could be reversed. --Shirahadasha 03:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my editor review

You make some good points which I will work on. Other points, I am afraid are just differences of style.

1) I recognize that brevity is not one of my strong points. I will try to be less verbose when submitting an RFA.

2) The AFD debate that you looked at was the first AFD I had ever been involved in, it was on the first article that I ever created, the nomination was made within minutes of my creating it and I believe I had less than a month of experience as a Wikipedian at the time. As you can imagine, I was quite impassioned about that discussion. I think I conducted myself quite civilly given those circumstances.

3) I also recognize that I am sometimes quite sloppy in failing to use "Show preview". I have gotten better but this is not yet a reliable reflex of mine.

4) I do have almost 100% use of edit summaries so at least I'm safe on that score.

Thanks again.

--Richard 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I do need a user page

Thanks for the heads-up. In all the other Wikistuff I've been doing, I've completely forgotten to to a user page. Duh! Realkyhick 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I got carried away with the user boxes. They're addictive. :-) Realkyhick 06:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Word of thanks for YechielMan
Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley -
I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards.
If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message
at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia!

Regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C]
Behavioural Aims:
Participation Aims:
Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know!
By the way: your comment about the Bipolar - cheers a lot; much appreciated. Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

hi (again)

I see you found out how to use the userbox 'container' as well. Dark Ermac 14:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - Editor Review

Yechiel,

Thank you for your feedback in my editor review request. It was greatly appreciated. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 13:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

YechielMan, Thank You so very much for peer reviewing me :) , I really appreciate it and thank you :) . I completely agree with your suggestions, and I will try to improve on what you wrote :) . See 'ya! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the editor reveiw.Chamberlian 04:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be a difference

Per WP:POL, there is no difference between a proposal that was "not adopted" and one that was "rejected". In both cases the proposal is not a guideline. >Radiant< 10:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. YechielMan 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Well, it seems like you've been quite busy reviewing editors. It is highly unlikely that mine will lead to a second RFA, but I still appreciate the help in improving my editing. Keep up the great work!--Eva bd 14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

<It seems like you've been busy reviewing editors> I figure if I review others, someone's going to get to me sooner or later. It's interesting besides. YechielMan 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Moose (drinking game)

Hi, please see the new comments in the AFD. Thanks --AW 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my vote to delete. YechielMan 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Review

Thank's for the review, and in response to the comment about the references, AJMS is not in any other source, other than the beginning-of-the-year district newsletter, and it is hard to find that information any where else, besides the school's [http:www.ajms.lancasterscschools.org website]... I just gave myself a great idea, THANKS!!!

P.S. can you look at my nominations for motto of the day?

Again thanks,

-Steptrip (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight. -Steptrip (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Shalom Yechiel/Archives/December 2005–February 2007

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

rfa thanks

Thanks for the support on my RFA. It passed successfully with just under WP:100 supports and 1 oppose. I look forward to serving the community as an admin. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for the comments on my editor review, they were very informative and kind. I wish you the best of luck on your endeavors as well. Galactor213 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

editor review

Hi YechielMan. Many thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. --Rebroad 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi.

I think that you are way off-base encouraging novices to participate in AfD before they get a feel for WP though contributing. I'd like to see a policy of X-months as a member. I do not think that being direct is a problem. In my mind wikilove is over stressed to the detriment of the community.

I respect your work here at WP and your right to dispute my candor, but please think through the encouraging of premature participations in the infrastructure.

Thanks.

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, the logical reason to exclude newcomers from AfD is that in practice, many of them are single-purpose accounts designed to skew the process and waste everyone's time. I dealt with exactly that scenario in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corpus_Juris_Civilis. I assumed good faith, but the nominator was a single purpose account who either didn't understand the deletion process, or was just trying to make trouble.
The question, to my mind, is one of cost versus benefit. The AfD header already states that the viewpoints of older users will be given more weight than those of newcomers, and I assume that closing admins take that into account in the case of IP addresses or single-purpose accounts. But it's one thing to give extra weight, and another to make a hard-line policy. My opinion, having nominated at least 100 articles for AfD, and having voted on at least 300 others, is that new users can sometimes help in the discussions, and at worst can be a very minor nuisance. That is not sufficient reason to shoo them away.
Upon further reflection, this is exactly the principle upon which the open wiki system is founded. When I first read a Wikipedia page, and it said "anyone can edit", I was surprised. Was it really true? But then I tried it, and yes, the page changed. And then I wondered about all the vandalism issues. As it turns out, Wikipedia has some very elaborate tools in place to keep away the vandalism, but some have suggested banning IP addresses entirely because of vandalism. The response has been that IP addresses do more good than harm - they contribute a lot of content, much of which is entirely appropriate for this project, and the vandalism is a minor problem in comparison.
Of course, if you want your viewpoint to see the light of day in the Wikipedia community, you can submit it as a proposed policy. I'm fairly certain that the community will oppose it, for the reasons I mentioned, but I respect the sincerity behind your opinion, and suggest that you seek a formal peer review instead of surprising users who just stopped by to list an article for deletion.
Best regards, YechielMan 00:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding my agreement with most of what you said, I oppose encouraging nominations by new editors at minimum. From a practical standpoint it would be herculian task for AfD closers to check the longevity of all the contributors. The only way that I can see to effectively get the discussion going is to be blunt at the AfD discussion, but I will probably take with me some temperance from your kind words. --Kevin Murray 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Aside from my previous comments, there is another consideration that is specific to AfD. You have to jump through some hoops in order to make a nomination. You have to know all of the following, in some order:
  1. Wikipedia has a deletion policy; i.e. if an article seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia, there is a specific process for dealing with that.
  2. In most cases, you should suggest the deletion of an article at WP:AFD.
  3. In order to properly list an article at AFD, you have to follow a technically detailed 3-step process to perfection.
There may be a self-selection bias, such that editors will only come to AfD if they know the basics of how Wikipedia works. That doesn't guarantee they will know why original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, but it does guarantee that they meet a minimum standard of competence. You suggest that they should acquire experience in addition to competence. I think competence is a sufficient minimum standard for participation in AfD. (By the way, I don't think so for RFA - there, experience is a sine qua non.)
Also, nobody encourages nominations by new users. They go ahead and do it themselves.
Also keep in mind that some "new users" are folks who have been editing as IPs for a while, and decide to get usernames in order to create a new article (such as an AFD discussion page). YechielMan 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I doubt we'll reach consensus on this, but I have enjoyed getting your perspective. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Bleich picture

I just found out about the {{fairusein}} rationale, which basically means that you can consider virtually any copyrighted image as fair use as long as the image serves specifically "to illustrate the object in question," or more specifically, as the primary means of visual identification for the article's subject. That's a pretty sweeping leniency. --DLandTALK 04:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Natl1's RFA

Hello Shalom Yechiel/Archives/December 2005–February 2007, thank you for the recent support in my recent RFA. However, even with your generous support the RFA did not succeed. I still hope to become a sysop in the future and have compiled a list of things to do before having another RFA.

1. Use edit summaries (I have enabled edit summary warnings) Grandmasterka, Jhfireboy

2. Mark edits as minor Jhfireboy

3. Not enough (2,000) edits for adminship Anthony.bradbury

4. 6 months of experience needed to become an admin. Nishkid64

5. Try more Wikipedia mainspace edits, policy edits, and Wikipedia article edits. Darthgriz98

6. Do not use fair use images in user namespace (sandboxes). MECU
Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost

You're right, no apology is necessary. While the edit wasn't quite right for the page, it's the sort of thing the wiki format allows for, and "being bold" can sometimes help people find information even if their changes don't stay permanently. Thanks for understanding. --Michael Snow 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rabbis' march

YechielMan. I can't tell you how amazing it is to start a new article on Wikipedia (Rabbis' march) and to find that within minutes of my beginning the article, somebody else is already helping by contributing sources to it and categorizing it! --Metzenberg 08:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

From user page

Hey Yechiel! Good idea about advance preparation, but I started it only because I saw a page was needed. Others will see it and hopefully add to it as I compile info on it. Lounge Trekker

Misplaced comment at DRV?

Hello! Reading it, this comment seems to be in the wrong section. I think it's referring to the Category:Articles with unsourced statements discussion. Right? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You for the Editor review

See Subject Headline--St.daniel 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure

Sure, you'll be the next one I do. I've been neglecting ER lately but I'd been planning to get back to work on it anyway. I probably won't get around to it till tomorrow though. Peace, delldot | talk 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Looks like someone is cheating on his Wikibreak already... :) DLandTALK 05:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You're right, but I couldn't resist that one edit. Basically my therapist told me today I need to cut this stuff out so I can focus on more important things. I'm sure you can relate (not to the therapist part, of course...). YechielMan 05:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Kasuto

I've redirected this to the relevant Zelda game so people who look for it will find where it comes from. I totally agree it doesn't deserve its own article yet, but please do be more descriptive in your prod summaries. "Who cares?" is not a valid reason to prod something per deletion policy and is bound to offend someone. Citing WP:FICT for one off mentions of stuff that's otherwise not very much talked or written about in that universe, would probably have worked too. - Mgm|(talk) 11:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

... in the discussion about "Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy." The goal is to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic resource, and protect Wikipedia from civil liability. The consensus appears to be that WP:BLP should be modified to include ongoing enterprises. What do you think? I realize you're on an extended Wikibreak, but if we're still talking about it whenever you get back, please add any additional comments to the existing discussion on this page. Dino 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I am just writing to ask you a question about what you said on my editor review. You reffered to Recent change patrolling as playing "cops and robbers". Although we are not the most important function, which is of course adding material, we are very important because wikipedia would be plauged with vandals even more than it is. This doesn't really have a point I just thought it was innapropiate.--St.daniel 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Editor review

Thank you for the editor review. Sirtrebuchet 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done

OK, I finished your review (and updated it, in case you haven't seen the update). Peace, delldot | talk 14:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, YechielMan, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm honored at the trust the community has placed in me and hope my conduct as an administrator will justify that trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 08:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Some thanks from a new admin

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Enjoy your wikibreak, James086Talk 12:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)