User talk:Caulde/Archive/27

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3

I think you forgot to indent your support. ;)

And now the inevitable persuasion: If you're on the edge, I believe you should read my assessment of the candidate (support #137). It addresses the major points of the opposers, but I may have missed a few. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I will. Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not canvassing? Tool2Die4 (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, I suppose, but it didn't sway my current vote. Rudget (Help?) 15:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good lord, this is not canvassing. Have you even read WP:CANVASS, tool2die4? Rudget has already been to the RfA. Canvassing would be nousernamesleft coming here and notifying Rudget of the RFA, not asking him about his !vote. Good grief. Enough drama already. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered the possibility that this was canvassing before posting this, but immediately dismissed it as absurd - Rudget had already participated in the RfA, and this is no different than arguing against opposers. RfA is a discussion, not a vote. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like I didn't read your second message. Oh well, I needed to address such a serious accusation anyways. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation for SUL

Hello! You asked me to log in to confirm this usurpation request. However, it is said in instructions that "If you do not have an account already at the English Wikipedia and have already unified your global account, you do not need to create one. You may place your request without logging in." I've placed a confirmation on my Russian talk page [1]. Hope this is OK. Thanks. User:Volkov 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I see it has been performed now, I think that the bureaucrat will have seen this message and verified the account request. Good luck with future editing. Rudget (Help?) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I just sent you an email to your google mail. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Rudget (Help?) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan's RFA

Hey Rudget, would you mind adding the edit counter to Tan's RfA? I've seen you do that before (and now that you've contributed to it, it isn't canvassing :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll do it now. Rudget (Help?) 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rudget. (and BTW, your tricky little edit summaries over there about made my old heart stop ticking. Thanks for the jolt, you meanie...)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the trick from DerHexer :) You should try it sometime, it's amazing how many "I can't believe you opposed my RfA! threads you get.... Rudget (Help?) 19:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Merseyside

Hi there, I hope this isn't considered spam, but I noticed on the UK Geography project page that you have an interest in northern and Liverpool related pages, so I wanted to ask if you would be interesting in supporting a Merseyside Wikiproject? I'm trying to gauge if there is suitable support before making a formal proposal. Cheers. Zenichiro (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. A place I'd suggest to propose this would be the talk page of the Greater Manchester WikiProject. I don't really work that much with UKGEO, but those at GMWP are experts in what should stand as viable. Rudget (Help?) 15:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Topic bans

Hello Rudget. I guess I am, yes. Is there any topic ban you need feedback on? Regards, Hús ö nd 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense. But lately I haven't been monitoring the Kosovo topic much. Too much trouble there and I was really not satisfied with Future Perfect's intervention last time. I can cope well with the stress of dealing with uncivil users, but I have little patience for coping with admins willing to on their rescue by weaving undue controversies. And there was probably a lot of thread to weave there if I were up for drama. So, I've just decided to have a break on Kosovo to avoid any new confrontations. I hope someone else is monitoring the topic these days (hopefully without too much bashing). And of course, should you need any feedback, I'll be here to provide it. :-) Best regards, Hús ö nd 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been taking it easy on the Kosovo page. Just today/yesterday have I got involved again. Husond, I have no hard feelings. Although it may seem I'm being a dick, I commend you for your current actions. Beam 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help when ever needed. That may, at least, provide some help for others. Rudget (Help?) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey Rudget, I wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. I've left some thank spam below. I would also welcome your input at my in-depth RFA analysis. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I most definately did. I've been meaning to drop in and last you know =). It's part of my "tone down my userpage" initiative. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sense and sensibility

Regarding your question here, you'll probably get some sarcasm, but you deserve an honest answer. You're doing a great job as an admin. If you hadn't said anything, I wouldn't have thought about your age at all, which is a sign that you do good work in a mature fashion. Being a teenager is not the problem (though it's unfortunately phrased in those terms at times). It's acting like a negative stereotype of a teenager that's the problem, and that's been known to happen among our more chronologically advanced admins as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but in retrospect I suppose I shouldn't really have asked that question. Does seem a little 'glory-hunting' now. I think teenagers are often misinterpreted, but to write from that perspective is a little biased. Sure, the youth do give plenty of reasons to others to indicate that they are 'immature' or 'irresponsible'. But I think greater evaluation of a candidate is needed before such a generalisation. I speak myself because often I find myself being patronised, (I realise this now seems like a sob-story, please forgive for this slight foray) by adults all the time. Like I said in another editors' RfA recently, if we were like others, we wouldn't really be here, dedicating our time to an encyclopedia. Rudget (Help?) 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHU

Hi Rudget, per our discussion I've decided to decline your request which, I think, is not a big problem for you. Let me know if I can be of assistance in the future. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Will do. Rudget (Help?) 15:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Public Information

You deleted this entry as a possble copyright infringement. The publication cited was originally issued by the US National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. As a US Government publication, the Principles are in the public domain as defined under Title 17 USC §105. I added a public domain statement to the site this morning, but I am not sure it is in the correct form. Please restore the page and advise me if I need to assert the public domain status in a different manner. Thank you,

JudithRussell (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was left on my talk page, but I am going to have to move this to the talk page of the admin who deleted the article. (I am not an admin and can't restore articles) --Rividian (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deer

Hi. You semiprotected Deer on January 17th. I was wondering if you thought it could now be unprotected. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rudget (Help?) 10:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFB discussion thread

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I just woke up. Perhaps I worded my statement poorly. Let me try again to say what I'm trying to say. Here's what was going through my mind. As I watched the RFB progess I saw people in the support section citing my answer to Q7 and I saw people in the oppose section citing my answer to Q7. Not everyone was citing it, but several were. I thought that was interesting, so I wanted to doublecheck what the stance was of some of these people were at DHMO's RFA. I noted that 7 of 8 had supported it at one time or another (2 eventually struck their comments). I did not draw a correlation between which, or how many even, of my opposers citing Q7 had supported. My point in the statement regarding the "seemingly conflict of interest" was that 7 out of 8 was high enough to give the impression that something could have been askew but I always assume good faith (except in obvious cases that fall under WP:DUCK), and knew that I wasn't being opposed soley for that reason. There are plenty of other reasons for which I can be opposed, such as me being an admin for only 6 months and the fact that I'm not active on WP:USURP, only CHU. As for my "would I have more support if I said I'd have closed that contentious RFA as successful?" question to myself in that same block of text, I was merely trying to convey that there was no answer to that question that could please everyone. I might as well have said, "Would I have more support if I said I'd have closed that contentious RFA by flipping a coin?" I was just trying to say that there was no perfect answer to Q7. Perhaps that's why Anthony has refused to answer it in his RFB. I answered it because, well, if it had made it to the close, then some bureaucrat somewhere along the line would've had to answer it, in a much more real and binding way than my hypothetical way. I'm a man of few words and I really don't like speaking in huge blocks of text (this paragraph is at least twice as big as I'd want it to be) and sometimes when I ramble on I go off on tangents. Anyway, my point in this whole thing was, no, I do not believe there was any sort of conflict of interesting going on, I am not going to question the integrity of the valuable editors who have participated in my RFB. Useight (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I can has unblock? :) I'm sorry, it just happened to be there...so naturally it was too tempting to resist...I'll let you have the next one, just because I'm so generous. ;) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

Thanks, Caulde/Archive, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page.

I would also like to thank Acalamari, Rlevse and Nishkid64, for their nomination statements.
Thank you again.
AngelOfSadness talk 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for the comments on my RFA. I personally felt that the only way to learn something you don't understand is to ask questions. The answers provided by the help desk greatly helped me out. Whilst images wouldn't be my forte if I were to become an administrator, I will do my best to learn everything I can about copyrights. Thanks again. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JeanLatore

A user that you recently blocked, JeanLatore, seems to be showing little interest in editing in a constructive manner. I asked him/her to use edit summaries because the user edited Florida v. J.L. roughly thirty times without edit summaries within just a day or two. That has prompted the user to attack me on my talk page and in edit summaries, as well as undoing edits I've made on articles that he/she had previously not edited. It seems a warning or another block might be in order. The user is also engaging in the use of sexism and profanity on other talk pages as well. Chicken Wing (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any scrunity of my edits to articles or talk pages. The above user approached me in a haughty and arrogant manner after I substantially improved an article he obviously feels some pride in ownership of (see edit history of Florida v. J.L. and hasn't left me alone since. The user seems to fancy himself some sort of "cop" on here, and I do not like his attitude. I totally trust you to look into both sides of this and use your judgment. JeanLatore (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Yes I understand and am sorry I caused some heated responses. I will work on dealing with other editors better, you can count on me. I did re-format my user page a bit last night also. Take care and have a good day. JeanLatore (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: The Ice Harvest; Chris Foote Wood; Krum High School; WCWM; Naruto; Shadow Minister; Criterion validity; Newton Heath; The Century Magazine; Ashland High School (Ohio); The Narrow Margin; Animal communication; Printemps; Rosewater; Creators Syndicate; United States Forces Korea; Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester; List of locations in the New Forest; Empire of Japan

Cleanup: V for Vendetta (film); Northenden; Suspension (school punishment)
Merge: Fiberboard; Schools in Anna Nagar; Raj
Add Sources: Bishop Middleham Quarry; Charles Reade; The Pirate Movie
Wikify: Holy Cross Convent School; Black Hebrew Israelites; Demographics of Uruguay
Expand: York Community High School; Defense industry; Visvaldas Mažonas

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A conspiracy, of the Wellwater kind

Hello Rudget, how are you? Could you check out User:Alive Would? Sun? I think I smell a rat. If you want I can give you a list of my suspicions. Thanks, indopug (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're similar in so many ways: the creation time just being a small piece of evidence in favour of assuming that they are a sockpuppet. Blocked indefinitely. Quack, quack.. and all that. Rudget (Help?) 15:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! that was quick; I was expecting another Request for CheckUser. This is his Norwegian Wikipedia account. Can we take action there too? (No doubt he probably has a sock farm there too) Thank you very much for your very prompt action. indopug (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he has a huge farm of socks, Commons no exception. I actually reported him on the noticeboard some days ago. On no: he has come clean, all socks redirect to him and he has received a second chance, although he got a block today for messing up the categorization of a lot of articles. No need for you to take action there, a lot of users are keeping an eye on him. :) Thanks for blocking him, but don’t expect that to be the last time you see him. — H92 (t · c · no) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any connection with User:Mortyman? Both editors seem to have a thing for the band a-ha, and both were working furiously on the same article (List of a-ha awards. (Mortyman came back about an hour after Alive was blocked earlier today.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's had elaborate conversation with himself if that is the case ([2], [3], [4]). Is that normal for sock-puppets to do? indopug (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this Mortyman (talk · contribs) character seems slightly out of my intuitive 'sock' mindset. I'd suggest asking for a CU, possibly relisting Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wellwater Conspiracy. I can help you if you wish to do so. Rudget (Help?) 15:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS from Xeno_Cre8or

I just want to say thanks because I was having signature trouble, and UltraExactZZ stole an idea from your signature to help fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeno Cre8or (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for block, endorsed

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for blocking this vandal. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTM reminder

User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200807 is underway.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userpage

Note that using the text to recreate an article deleted through a deletion process automatically qualifies it for speedy deletion.

You should also note that if someone just recreates a speedy-deleted article without changing the content, it will be deleted through the same code letter, so something shoudl be added about that. In case they want to wikilawyer about it.

I would have done it myself but I don't feel the BOLD inside me. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can amend it if you wish, I don't own any pages. Rudget (Help?) 16:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please

add your opinion at the third question here.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request update or blanking of WP:FAP

Hi. May I request that you update or clear out WP:FAP? There's a transcluded template on there (template:trivia) that I need to edit. (That template, being a cleanup template, should never be on an FA anyway, and indeed it is no longer in George I of Great Britain.)--Father Goose (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to edit it now. Rudget (Help?) 09:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical sensitivity

Hi

I have seen that you previously semi-protected the electrical sensitivity article. There is now a content dispute where a long standing editor of this article has made massive and wholesale changes without discussion on the talk page and he wont justify them despite being asked. I reverted the page and began to reintroduce uncontroversial edits, but the editor in question keeps reverting back to his version. Could you please fully protect the page for a short period so that these changes can be fully discussed by the community before being applied. Many thanks for your time. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for the intrusion of your talk page. This user (CaneryMBurns) is the latest reincarnation of Unprovoked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Unprovoked). I'll be putting in a case report probably tommorow with more information and detailed analysis of this users history.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomized (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow I don't know wjat to say. Firstly I'm sorry for bringing this controversy over to your talk page. Secondly I'm not a reincarnation of anyone and I think this accusation breaks good faith and civil policies, when all I've done is try to get this one user to justify their many edits. There are at least four content discussions about this users additions that give reasons why they shouldn't be included, and he hasn't joined in them. I haven't meant to annoy this user, and I'm still willing to work with the community to reinsert his edits if they get community support and meet wikipedia policy. Apology again. Any advice you can give me (in addition to that provided by eldreft) would be great. thanks! --CaneryMBurns (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel this should be taken elsewhere, as I was only protecting the page in response to a request. I see the page has now been fully protected by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I expect for you to gain more consensus for changes and report the users involved to RFCU etc. if there is any doubt that their account is illegitimate. Rudget (Help?) 12:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for your attention. I was pointed to to protection request notice board after I posted this to you, and the problem was swiftly delt with. I assure you my account is my own and i'm no reincarnation. Apologies again for incorrectly bringing this here. I completly agree that this should be dealt with on the talk page, with all edits justified and with consensus. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rudget!

(See also Moonriddengirl! and the bottom part of this thread.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C: Knock, knock!

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I'm on my way to becoming an admin. Just got rollback, hope you will nominate me in 8 months! Beam 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC) No Love? Beam 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what happens. Rudget (Help?) 09:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rud, I wasn't looking for a commitment this early! I just wanted a bit of positive rooting. But it's ok, you're always so formal, I love it. Please feel free to give me tips. Also, if you take a stop by User_talk:Husond#Hello_Husond and then go check out my user page and scroll to the bottom I bet you'll be wicked happy. Let me know what you think about it on my talk page. Thanks for checking it out, and see you in 8 months ;). Beam 05:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I changed my mind. I don't want your positivity. Keep it for someone who needs it! I'm STRONG, and need no reinforcement. ;) Beam 14:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that. Good to see you two getting on. I'll see you in eight months! :) Rudget (logs) 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback

Thank you, Rudget. I've used twinkle for over a month now, and I'm pretty confident I can rollback responsibly. - Amog |^Talk 14:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have no doubt that you will it use it responsibly and in a mature fashion. Rudget (Help?) 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Why do people have to get permission to rollback, when anyone can add twinkle? ^{Please reply on my talk page} - Amog |^Talk 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha..see User:Amog/Archive_Box..you've got your citation :) - Amog |^Talk 12:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And rollback couldn't be more damaging, because twinkle gives you the option to revert any edit, including good faith edits - Amog |^Talk 12:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While were still on the subject,consider this:

Rollback a good faith edit without twinkle = no more rollback privileges
Rollback a good faith edit with twinkle = Nothing happens to you

Just food for thought :) - Amog |^Talk 13:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you can activate twinkle in 'my preferences --> Gadgets'. You don't need the monobook at all - Amog |^Talk 16:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at RfA

It's done, but if it's to stop altogether, there needs to be less (and by less, I mean no) provocation. Cheers Rudget. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way innocent. Looks like a partial comment has led to that becoming what it is. I regret ever becoming involved. Hopefully we can move on from this point, and focus on the candidate not just the participators at the RfA. Rudget (logs) 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just sick to death of the recent onslaught of supporters who become indignant because others are not...well..supporting. It's frustrating to say the least. The challenging needs to stop. Unless, I need to correct somebody's interpretation of my oppose (which apparently I had to, twice now) I will not be participating any longer. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTM reminder

You have nominated an article at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200807 and have not yet voted. Voting runs through June 20.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]