User:Redwolf24/Archive08

The Millard Fillmore Gang

You closed the VFD on The Millard Fillmore Gang but it didn't get deleted. Just wanted to let you know... --Etacar11 14:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

...I thought I killed that. I'll get it now. Redwolf24 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Brent Walters VfD

Howdy. How did you arrive at a "no consensus" decision for Brent Walters? I'm not implying that it was the wrong decision, I'm just curious how you got it. Thanks. android79 15:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I edit conflicted with Android79 just then, asking the same question! -Splash 15:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

5 Keep to 9 Delete. Thats rather borderline. Doesn't reach 2/3. Thus, its No Consensus. Redwolf24 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In yet other cases, such as approving a request for a person to become an administrator, it is generally considered an 80% majority. In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article.

See? Redwolf24 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You didn't count the nominator, I think, which would make it 10d, 5k and reach two-thirds. It's your call as the closing admin, however. -Splash 17:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Correct. You may renominate it if you see fit. Redwolf24 18:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Yes its me at a friends house, not signed in.

No, I'll leave it since I was myself unsure of how to vote. Just so I know in future: is your personal take on closure to not count the nominator's vote (unless they clearly cast a vote, of course)? -Splash 18:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That was rather sarcastic sounding. Yes I'll count it. 24.16.56.62 19:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No, no. Some admins don't count the nominator's vote unless they make it explicit (which is why I always do when I nominate at VfD). I'm not out to get you and Essjay, you know. -Splash 19:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure? Yeah I had a feeling some of my VfDs would be yelled at, it was my first day doing it. I thought I did alright, I closed... I dont know between 5 and 15... Anywho Im gonna go eat. Redwolf24.

Positive. I saw quite a few (e.g. 8) of your closures go past on my watchlist and they all looked fine to me, apart from this knife-edge decision. Since it was close, and you hadn't tallied votes or given an explanation, I thought I'd ask. No obligation to give a reason, of course, but when it's close it'll save the talk page messages...Enjoy your food. -Splash 19:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

One of the keep votes was made by Wenwen2099 (talk · contribs), whose only edits to date are to that very discussion. Discounting that vote, and implicitly counting the nominator's, we have a 10-4 decision. android79 20:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, sorry about that. I'll be sure to check next time. Redwolf24 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

So does it have enough consensus to delete? -Splash 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me... -Splash 00:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Redwolf24 00:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! android79 00:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Use of Watch Page

Thank you for your note. I have to say I am a bit overwhelmed by the complexity of all this. I also have the hardest time finding out how to do something via help. Well, I am enjoying it. But I can't figure out how to use the Watch Page. With Vaughan's response I was able to click on the Talk page and look to see what things had been commented on. However, there were some apparent notifications (from IPs) and I couldn't figure out where to find them. So I don't if there is a trick I don't know. Thanks. Rsugden 22:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You click the Watch tab on articles you want to watch, then up in the upper right corner click "My Watchlist" and itll show you the last edit there. You can revert if if its vandalism... etc. Redwolf24 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Random article

Why did you delete the random article entry? Is it frequently vandalised? I think it would be interesting to learn the algorithm and purpose of the Random article option on wikipedia. I also think its origin would be interesting. Is this available in another entry?

That wasn't a random article that was.. randomosity IN an article. If you want to go to a random page on Wikipedia, go to Special:Random. Redwolf24 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote (I can be kind of dim). What does the randomosity in an article mean? and I am still wondering why the entry for Random article is a "Protected deleted page"? Also thank you for telling me about Special:Random, but how is this different from the Random article option on the navigation section? Also who is Rambot? Thanks in advance.

The page was unencyclopedic, it was like "OH SHIT THE SITH IS COMING". The page is a protected deleted page because it was deleted three times and I knew if I didnt protect it it would have been recreated. The Special:Random and the Navigation random are the same thing. Rambot is a bot, maintained by User:Ram-Man. I think that its the oldest bot on wikipedia. Redwolf24 00:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Redwolf24

Hi Redwolf24, thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. You may not remember it, since it was about two weeks ago. Anyway, thanks for making me feel welcome. BTW, if you're a transwiki guru, you might take a look at a transwiki I started. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Do_no_take_a_bath_in_Jordan,_Gordon!. I'm not 100% sure I'm doing it right. DavidConrad 00:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright... as for the links that are broken, just remove them. By the way you may want to make a user page... Redwolf24 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Imposter

I believe you are being impersonated by a troll, User:R℮dwolf24. This would not be the first time this has happened. -JCarriker 02:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

x.x what do I do to get these guys... Ah well no worries. Redwolf24 02:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment about my talk page, Redwolf. ;-) Also, just so you know, your impersonator tried to cause you a problem here [1] with an insult that he signed as coming from you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that was what I was apologizing for... My troll needs to go to spelling school. Redwolf24 02:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Biting people

A subject that I understand a wolf taking interest in. :-) I have left comments on the relevant talk page (alas, I'm afraid you won't like them much -- let me know if you think I'm being unreasonable). A policy proposal, if you seriously want it made effective, needs several things. It should be linked to Wikipedia:Policy thinktank (that may be a category thing now...haven't proposed anything in ages). It should be announced that it is available for discussion in as many public ways as you can think of (I'd say the village pump and the mailing list are best...probably WP:AN too). Set a time (say, 1 month?) that is left for discussion only (that is, voting will not start until at least <insert date here>). Once discussion has reached some kind of consensus, establish a clear voting schedule (what possible votes may be cast -- yes, no, neutral, for example -- what each type of vote means in real terms, how long voting will last, who is eligible to vote, whether or not the question may be altered once votign is underway, etc.). Alternatively, if discussion seems generally to favor the idea (but it's not clear that there's enough consensus to make it enforceable policy), it may simply linger as Wikipedia:Semi-policy, in other words, a principle that's a very good idea that a lot of people like, but which for one reason or another isn't fully policy. This was all no doubt very confusing, and I'll answer any other question you have whenever you like. :-) All my best, Jwrosenzweig 07:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well if we always agreed, I'd be accused of being the puppet master next! :O Redwolf24 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Coypright Image

Hi I am new to Wiki. I posted a picture here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vampires.jpg) and used the tag, "This work is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use. It is believed that the uses made here are likely to be fair use for most United States reusers of the work but this is a decision reusers must make for themselves based on their own circumstances. Permission granted by Wang Wei, the owner of image. E-mail Wang Wei at [email protected] for further information." A user DreamGuy says this is a copyright violation. First the owner who I know, Wang Wei, says it is fine where it is. I have an e-mail giving permission to have it in Wikipedia. Further, it is used as a promotional on his web page so it would even qualify as fair use even if not used is a free encyclopedia such as this. Can you let me know if I am in the wrong or not. If not can your protect the page with the correct tag. If I am wrong let me know so I can remove it. Thanks --Evmore 07:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the owner can't just say its alright at Wikipedia, he has to actually say its in the Public Domain. Redwolf24 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying it's a copyright violation? The owner clearly allows it so it isn't a violation. The question really is if it is a violation of Wiki policy? Why even have the tag {{PermissionAndFairUse|copyright}} if you can't use it?

Somethings you can never show at wiki... such as lyrics. I think a picture of a vampire kit is allowable however... I'll check on it. Redwolf24 22:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Per the instructions on the upload page: "Please do not upload files under a "non-commercial use only" or "copyrighted, used by permission" licence. Such files will be deleted." <---That's from the Copyright infringement page. Wang Wei has to release it into the public domain for it to show here. Sorry, Redwolf24 22:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Long Hair

Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As long as that thank you message wasnt copied and pasted Im fine :) Redwolf24 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

HEY! I copy/pasted my thank you messages, and they were sincere; not everybody has the time to go thank fifty people with a personalized message! Wikipedia:Do not bite the new administrators over their thank you message!!!! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 06:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Haha. Mine were unique at least! Redwolf24 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for the welcome message! I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed some of the formatting from your user page for my own :) Happy wiki'ing! Mushin 16:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I love to share as does almost every other wiki user! Redwolf24 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

As far as 12.182.192.28 (talk · contribs) goes, I would have made this latest block for a year. They've never produced anything but vandalism, and clearly several shorter blocks didn't wise them up. Noel (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Well theyre currently unblocked and they haven't done anything since, so I am fine :) Redwolf24 22:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought I saw (when I looked at the block list) that they were still blocked (by you last 1-week block). I see now that it's gone, though - perhaps when I cleared my duplicate block, it cleared yours too. I have blocked them again. Noel (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A little VfD help.....

I'm trying to submit the page for David Harrington to VfD, but it came up as PageName instead.... I then recalled your "welcome to wiki" note on my talk board and thought perhaps you could gimme a hand fixing my new guy mistake.

Thanks in advance, JDoorjam

JDoorjam

Somebody else already did my dirty work.... thanks anyway (and for the welcome message... good info), JDoorjam

Sorry I was asleep :( And remember to sign with ~~~~ as it changes to your screen name AND the date. Thanks, Redwolf24 22:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Term "sheep vote"

You just used this term, and I'd be curious if you feel it is a commonly used term. See wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Sheep_vote. Please reply here, not on my talk page. — Sebastian (talk) 00:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Its a term we're all familiar with mostly so that's why I used it. I'm more spoofing Boothy than condoning him. Redwolf24 00:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

thx! — Sebastian (talk) 05:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

no problem.. Redwolf24 05:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the links and information -I went back and entered the four tildes on the page I <think> you were referring to.

If you follow my contributions you'll see I'm a theatre buff, with a great deal of knowledge of musical theatre history. I am fascinated by the whole wiki thing -what a wonderful opportunity for people to share their knowledge and expertise!

Remember to sign pages with the four tildes... Only talk pages! Like this one. And when voting. DON'T sign on article pages. Redwolf24 02:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Just Telling You

I'm trying to get my username changed. Its taking a long time, but I just wanted you to know, that that's what I'm doing. Wikipedia Username 02:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing to what? Redwolf24 02:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to get it changed to Nihilistic Plunger. Wikipedia Username 03:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Although I am sure it was just a form message, thank you for it. I am fairly new to use this resource but I hope to contribute in any field in which I have some knowledge.

I also find your personal page very well made. Would it be all right to copy and paste part of it to help me start to create my own? I am not yet familiar with the code tags used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoove K (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. If you need help you know where to find me. Plus remember to sign with ~~~~ on talk pages. It changes to your username and date. Redwolf24 03:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Your listed...

On User:Exir Kamalabadi/Friends!--Exir Kamalabadi^{Leave me a note!} 04:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. ;-) Redwolf24 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA

Muchas gracias amigo for your vote of confidence on my RFA!--Jondel 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you the user who I sang the Oscar Mayer song for? Redwolf24 06:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You put something about a bologna and Mayer song just about 15 minutes ago in my RFA.--Jondel 06:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I saw your welcome back message; thanks, I'm glad to be back. Faculty meetings are boring, and I'm glad they are over for now. -- Essjay · Talk 06:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Also saw your announcement that your gay at your user page. Have you see Category:Queer wikipedians? Redwolf24 06:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I added that in the hope that the vandals might stop leaving "You're so gay" messages on the page. As I've said elsewhere, calling me gay is stating a fact, and if you want to contribute facts, then go edit an article. I'll check out the category, and you should check out Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee#Overenthusiatic welcomers -- Essjay · Talk 08:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the greeting -- and the reminder to delve deeper into the help articles. So far I've just gone over them quickly and kept my two edits simple.

The one thing I missed at first was opening an account and having the username listed on the history page. LarryB

no problem Redwolf24 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

image licensing questions

Hi Redwolf32 again!

I uploaded this image a while ago thinking it met the fair use rules - however, now that I've been reading the pedantic responses to other images on FAC I'm not so sure. I didn't really find anything on the guidelines in reference to someone's (a famous person's) picture... also if a site says (c) whatever at the bottom does that proclude the site from wikipedia images? Also, what if I just nabbed the picture from the person's site?

Sorry for the incessant questions :) --RN 08:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Since Red's out (poor guy, he has to sleep sometime) I'm going to answer this one. If the site says (c) then you cannot use the image at all (for any purpose, including Wikipedia) without the copyright owner's permission. There are certain exeptions in copyright law, but as for Wikipedia, we no longer allow fair use or conditional images. If the image is not released to the public domain or licensed under the GFDL, then it should not be uploaded here.

Taking the picture from a person's site does not change anything; even if the site bears no copyright notice, the image is still copyrighted. With regard to the US (assuming you are using sources covered by US copyright law) every creation whether written, photographic, music, whatever is automatically copyrighted to the creator when it is created. There is no requirement at all that any type of action be taken to enforce the copyright; it automatically exists and everyone but the owner is prohibited from using the creation without the creator's permission. The only way an image is safe to use is if it is specifically released into the public domain or under the GFDL. Without the specific words "this image is released into the public domain" or "this image is released under the terms of the GFDL" or something very similar, the image is covered under copyright and use of the image without permission is a violation of the law.

The best policy is, if you are at all unsure, don't upload it. -- Essjay · Talk 13:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, are you sure about the fair-use thing not allowed? AFAIK that applies to the commons only, as 99% of the new images I see are fair use (is there a way to display them other than uploading them?). Also, if the site doesn't mention the copyright, does that mean we can use them (some for a conference etc.)? This is complicated :\ --RN 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Essjay, I think his photo is alright, as its not art or anything... Redwolf24 22:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was a decision not to allow fairuse items any longer, because they cannot be used by some types of organizations that might desire to use Wikipedia (I think it came down from Jimbo, the idea was "nothing that can't be given away to everyone"). As for whether the site mentions anything about copyright, let me reiterate: Copyright notice is not required. Unless the image is explicitly released, it is under copyright, and its use is prohibited by copyright law (with the exception of fair use, which as I've said, I don't believe we are currently allowing). The copyright owner is under no obligation whatsoever, of any kind, in any manner to give notice of copyright. It is the responsibility of the user (the potential infringer, as it were) to ensure the copyright status of an image. Copyright is automatic, it requires nothing more than taking the picture, and must be explicitly released. My concern isn't with one particular image, but with the broader understanding that every image has an automatic copyright, and that copyright exists whether it is acknowledged by the owner or not, unless specifically released. -- Essjay · Talk 00:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:George Lucas

I quite enjoy vandalism. One of the techniques which I am surprised has not been stopped is using the sock puppet technique. Several users have used this and it seems to have worked well. May the vandalism continue...

It may well continue, but I've blocked Mr. Lucas indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, We may have another Michael on our hands... (though at least Michael's a good guy now as Mike Garcia) If it gets too bad we can get David Gerard to use his check user ability and clear it up as we did with Michael. Redwolf24 21:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll stop my wave of vandalism. I know it must be hard work constantly reverting the vandalism. I guess I just get bored always working on the usual pages and like to have a little fun. I suppose the many other vandals will have to fill this position for now. By the way, can you tell me what the supposed worst case of vandalism was? I consider my main responsibility on here to keep the star wars articles in order. I even revert the vandalism to these pages. Its just that certain pages that I really have a dislike for (George W. Bush), I feel need their fair share of vandalism from time to time. Sorry for all the troubles. Adamwankenobi 03:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. Fine, but keep on mind you're on thin ice and we have sockpuppet checkers. Thanks, Redwolf24 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, nothing ambiguous about that exchange. Not that there was really any doubt. Thanks for alerting me to it. Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

George Bush Edits

I understand. However, the section in question is about the issue of civil rights, not Bush's appointments. Painting the bush administration as one that is unusually inclusive of homosexuals is horribly misleading. Please add an addendum/change to the sentence so that the sentiment is not so easily miscontrued, yet does not influence the POV of the article. I appear unable to satisfactorily do so myself, and do not want to be in danger of violating any 3RR rules. (preceding unsigned comment by Sdauson )

I don't know if it really misleads... but perhaps I will try an addendum. Redwolf24 22:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[2] Done. :) Redwolf24 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Better, but... my beef was with the big deal it makes out of the fact that Bush appointed an openly gay man to a government position. However, there are numerous reasons why this is not a big deal. Firstly, a President makes thousands of appointments during his tenure. Secondly, presidents before him (Clinton) have appointed gay people in much larger numbers. And third, it should be noted that he is really one of the first republican presidents with even the opporunity to appoint gay men. The last time a Republican was in office was 1992, when tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual community was at a very different stage than it is today. Bush is almost certainly not the first Republican to appoint someone who was gay, but is the first to appoint someone who is OPENLY gay. Openly gay politicians were a lot harder to come by in the late 80s and early 90s, and Bush's Republican predecessors shouldn't be faulted for that. Do you see what I'm trying to say, and how the sentiment in the article as it stands now is misleading? Sdauson 22:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (sorry for forgetting to sign the first one)

Well don't you think thats a bit like Lyndon Johnson appointing Thurgood Marshall as the first black supreme court judge? It was in 1967, near the end of the Civil Rights Movement, so before then he wouldn't of had a chance of appointing a black judge. It shouldn't be made a big deal... My point is the fact he appointed someone openly gay should be acknowledged as perhaps it means that his party may be taking the first step (there's always a first step) towards accepting gays. And yes they'll change eventually, much like Democrats gave up on the idea of slavery that they supported for so long. Redwolf24 22:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That's just it... the statement masquerades as an indication of Bush 'taking the first step' towards embracing the homosexual population. Yet he has personally and vehemently denied to provide other forms of recognition to the GLBTQ population. Just read some of the links that are cited in the edits I made, they ALL speak terribly of his record and his views, and they ALL indicate that Bush's appointment is merely a token move to appease the Log Cabin Republicans, of which the first gay appointee was a member. Sdauson 22:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So the gay was a log cabin one, did you expect him to appoint someone overly liberal? I mean that would be a bit like Bill Clinton appointing Rush Limbaugh wouldn't it? Its perfectly reasonable to try to please your own voters and every president has appointed more of their own party than of the other. Redwolf24 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to note that he was a conservative, just that he was a member of a republican campaign financer that has butted heads with the rest of the party over the past over issues of homosexuality. Whether conservative or liberal, the issue of "tokenism" still stands. How is it that Bush deserves praise (which is what the sentence seems to imply) for appointing *one* gay man, when Clinton appointed 150? The fact that he's the first Republican to appoint a gay man is no more significant than would be the first Hyundai to have anti-lock brakes. Mercedes did it first, that was the real break through. Sdauson 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (something didn't show up right in sig)

BTW, someone has removed your edit from the page. The sentence now stands just as it did before. Sdauson 13:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to omit it entirely. If people have a problem with that, I will take it to the talk page. Sdauson 14:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:VFD

When you close a Vfd nom, please place the {{vfd top}}/{{vt}} at the top, above the heading, so things can render properly. Thanks, ABCD✉ 23:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I've been doing that now. Redwolf24 23:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Cooley

Well, that's not entirely true. A no consensus is not a "keep as is". Anyone can redirect anything at any time. There were a substantial number of "merge and redirect" or just "redirect" votes, and that's generally a good compromise, particularly when the deletes outnumber the keeps, as they do here. A mere 5 keep votes out of 15 may prevent deletion, but it certainly does not make the article untouchable, and allows for a merge/redirect. If you like, we can try to open up a discussion and involve other parties. -R. fiend 00:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah well. Sorry I just found it odd as I just left a notice on the talk page and when I went to take off the VfD notice I went to some other page... Redwolf24 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized right after I did the redirect that I must have done it seconds after you closed it (coincidence; I assure you I haven't been circling over it like some sort of vulture). Anyway, are you steadfastly opposed to redirection (perhaps with a bit of merging. I admit, as she was already substantially mentioned in the article I didn't bother with a merge, but as there was no deletion it could be done later, if necessary). The problem with VfD is there's no official policy on merging after no consensus is reached. This is something I've been thinking about trying to address, what with all the talk of changing VfD. -R. fiend 00:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No I don't oppose redirection. I think merging with the real world would probably be good. But you just had it as a redirect which didn't make too much sense as there was no info from the article there. Go ahead and merge now if you feel. :) Redwolf24 00:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll probably end up smerging. -R. fiend 00:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Best word ever created for wikipedia ;) Redwolf24 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD question

Hi again. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MarioandLuigi looks like a no consensus, so default to keep (e.g. 6d, 4m or r). You redirected it which is ok since you can do that in your capacity as a WP:BOLD editor. But you give the decision as delete and redirect. The usual meaning of that is that you have deleted the article (i.e. removed its revision history) and then recreated a new article with the same name as a redirect. In fact, what you did here was just turn it into a redirect without merge. Which did you intend? -Splash 00:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry also that was my first day. I've gotten better ;) I redirected. It was also stated in the VfD that all the info there is found somewhere else, so a merge is useless and I never mentioned anything about merging. As for deleting, sorry about that. But keep it as is now. Redwolf24 00:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. (Oh, I wasn't looking for deletion, there's clearly no consensus, and I think the title alone justifies not keeping it standalone!) Unusually, I'm finding very little to do on the 26th list, how is VfD so up to date all of a sudden?! -Splash 00:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on it I guess. We were really falling behind! Redwolf24 00:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Xoxohth

You closed the discussion on Xoxohth. Within an hour or so, the article returned. I have tagged it G4, can you delete it? EvilPhoenix talk 02:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I KNEW, KNEW, KNEW it would be back but I was relectunt to protect it. I'll do so now :) Redwolf24 02:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well done. Congrats on your new mop, btw. EvilPhoenix talk 04:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

xoxohth

I think you should remove your signature because that miniscule bit of content registers as an article in the count.

lots of issues | leave me a message 03:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I announced that if offered adminship, I will accept it. I just had many people ask me to become one, so, why not. However, I will not do a self-nom, though. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I CALL IT! Redwolf24 03:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. User:Ta bu shi da yu offered the adminship, btw. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There. You're up. Go to RfA. Redwolf24 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Leaving?

No way! Not again :-) I might take a wikibreak though. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You are one loved fella, Redwolf24 05:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)