User talk:Renesis/Archive 2

Removing inappropriate link

Hi, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia and was wondering about your removal of the link to Guide to Punta Cana and Dominican Travel. I actually followed that link last week and it is where I found the information that I wrote in the history and culture sections of this page. If the link is valuable enough to provide information for the page isn't it then appropriate for the page? Not trying to be critical, just trying to learn the guidelines :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandomol (talk • contribs) 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I apologize for removing the link somewhat abrubtly. I actually assumed it was added along with the advertising link for "Punta Cana" real estate, and removed it because advertising links are inappropriate on Wikipedia. However, after reviewing the content, it doesn't seem like it was necessarily advertising, although the original user who placed it may have had the intention of driving traffic to the site. Even if it isn't advertising, links still need to adhere to the guidelines located at Wikipedia:External links and the policy for What Wikipedia is not. I personally think that as a travel guide, and other reasons, the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Of course, implementing these guidelines is a subjective task, and your opinion may differ from mine. Since you have more knowledge in the matter, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion after reading the related guidelines. Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for refering me to the guidelines. I read the guidelines and went to the link in question and read a good deal of the site and reread the guidelines again. I kept the following points from the guidelines in mind while reading through the site:

• Is it accessible to the reader?
• Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
• Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
• Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

The site's content with regard to Dominican history, culture, politics, cuisine, location, climate and resorts fits the Wikipedia guidelines for being a credible external link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandomol (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines you have quoted above are the basic guidelines for technical feasibility of including an external link, but do not thoroughly address the appropriateness of the content of external links. #3 in the section "What should be linked to" is so broad that it could be argued that this link fits into that category. However, I believe there are a couple categories in the section "Links normally to be avoided" that this link could fall into, specifically:

Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

The article Dominican Republic is an article about the countries history, people, geography, government, economy, etc. The site being considered is about travel to one specific location within the Dominican Republic. While this site may contain information relative to the Dominican Republic, it is not directly related. The reason I mentioned Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before is that one of the things Wikipedia specifically is not is a directory. While a web directory for useful sites concerning specific topics is a worthy goal, it is not the goal of Wikipedia (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). Many new users wishing to help Wikipedia feel these links ought to be included, and their desire to help is certainly appreciated, but those type of links would be more appropriate for a project like dmoz.org or the Google Directory. I don't wish to make a definitive statement on this specific link, as it seems your wish to include it is in good faith, but I would ask you to further consider these Wikipedia guidelines I've mentioned. Thanks! -- Renesis (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You make several good points, but the one that confuses me the most is the validity of direct vs. indirect relation to the page. I went back and read the other external links. The Presidential website (in Spanish) is definitely related directly albeit complete propaganda, but that's another conversation. The link to the Dominican Ministry of Tourism also has a direct relation, but is not anywhere near as informative as the other site. Their site also seems to contain many ads for the Cap Cana group, which suggests some bias. My call would be to let the link stay, but I will defer to your experience and let you make the decision. Thanks for keeping an open mind (must be hard dealing with us newbies)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandomol (talk • contribs) 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point about the remaining links. When I cleaned out several links today, I left alone those links which seemed to refer to "official" pages. I didn't mean it as an endorsement of those links, but rather I was just trying to eliminate the obvious problems. I think considering the points you have made, we could at least leave the Punta Cana Information Guide link at the Punta Cana article, but I'd prefer not to have it at Dominican Republic. The remaining links at the Dominican Republic article might need to be reconsidered as well. I just didn't want to clean it out entirely! Thanks for your help sorting this out. P.S. -- you can sign your articles by ending your message with "~~~~" ! Thanks again, Renesis (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the learning experience! I didn't know it was at the Punta Cana article, you're right that is a better location. Thanks again, "~~~~"

RfA thanks

I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent considering my successful RfA. Thankyou Gnangarra 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Non-deletion

Thanks for reminding me! I've delisted the 18th now, but not deleted {{Newpagelinksmain}}. The reason for this is that I'm waiting for it to be orphaned, and it's waiting in the holding cell now. Do you know - is there a bot for this? Martinp23 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I run User:MartinBot, User:MartinBotII, User:RefDeskBot and User:AMABot (so far!). I just get the feeling that the job of template removal/substing would be much better done by a bot. if only to save time. Maybe my next project :) Martinp23 16:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nav Bar

Please can you help me insert those nav boxes you have on your userpage into mine!? I put 'User talk:Renesis/Archive 2/nav' in but it just shows up as a dud. Thanks for your help. Chavatshimshon 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! Here's a barnstar (+) wtvr they are. I think i get it how to edit them. Btw it looks like you're going to be an syspop soon! Can you give me advice on how to help, i.e. where to look to keep out vandelisrs etc.

Thanks for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

• Administrators' reading list
• Administrators' how-to guide
• Administrators' Noticeboard

• Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
• Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Way to go! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done! (aeropagitica) 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The mop

Congratulations on becoming an admin! Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care: Category:Images with unknown source Category:Images with no copyright tag Category:Images with unknown copyright status Category:Replaceable fair use images All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

Congratulations Renesis13! Have fun with the admin tools and if you ever have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. Btw, how did you pass your RfA? Was there some rule change or something? Nishkid64 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the offer of help. I'm not sure what you mean with your question though -- I'm not aware of any reason I shouldn't have passed (27/6). The participation was low (as I guess I'm not a well-known editor) but that is still over 80%. That's actually down from what it was — 22/0 — just a few days before. Some editors were considered over my experience with XFD, which I personally felt was significant, but I guess it wasn't readily apparent from my contributions. -- Renesis (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I was one of those editors. I believe I went neutral on you. And wow, I just learned something. I always thought it was 75% support was needed for an RfA, and I thought neutral votes counted in that system as the same as oppose votes. Hmm...so basically I shouldn't be voting neutral against all those people since it basically does nothing. Dang, if only I knew earlier. :-P Nishkid64 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch... um, thanks? :) Well, I don't know if you read my reply to trialsanderrors or not -- I didn't want to seem combative so I didn't reply to concerns about my XFD experience until several users had commented. My number of edits is low but my time certainly isn't -- I've been participating in XFDs for about a year at least now. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Just be sure to let me know if I do anything out of line and I'm always open to suggestions at any time! -- Renesis (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I didn't offend you or anything. I only go neutral when I believe I see an excellent user who has a slight problem. I mean...if I seriously had doubts, I would have just opposed you, but I didn't. Besides, I only wanted to see a bit more AfD experience from you. That was all. "Half of the XfD edits have been made in the last two weeks or so. I would definitely support if I could see a bit more participation in XfD's for the next month or so." Anyway, just take it slow at the beginning and then progress your way forward. =) Nishkid64 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, you didn't offend me. I was just saying that jokingly because it sounded a little bit that, knowing that neutrals didn't count against me, you wish'd you'd opposed me instead! :) Anyway, thanks again for the advice. -- Renesis (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And unfortunately, I never saw your message, or else I would changed my vote to support. Nishkid64 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Even now the support means a lot, since my work is just beginning! -- Renesis (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Many congratulations from me as well, and many apologies for my failure to have replied sooner to your cordial RfA thanks and the personalized content thereof, for which I was much appreciative (you weren't entirely wrong, I should say, as regards my thoughts apropos of the categorical imperative; whilst I am probably best termed a preference utilitarian, I am in sympathy with Kant on several issues and, in any case, am quite awed by the extent to which he shaped the structure under which we debate and study philosophy today and advanced concepts that informed the work of others whom I admire (inter al., Hegel, of whom I am apparently a distant relative). I should be willing, by the way, the proscription against editing a close RfA notwithstanding, to switch my neutral to a support if you should simply transmit to me your RX8, which I think to be ridiculously nice; I will settle, though not happily, for an RX7 (actually, I have come, as Nishi, to conclude that I probably ought to have supported your RfA, but I'm quite happy to see that it succeeded in any case; good on ya!).  :) Joe 07:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User Fartx

Hi! I don't follow your argument here. The user committed some minor vandalism, but I reported him to WP:AIV for a violation of WP:USERNAME ("Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body"). I'm sure he would have taken User:Fart, but that's already blocked. :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, just noticed the messages right above mine...congratulations on your shiny new mop!) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I apologize. I have rolled back my removal of that user from WP:AIV. I am still learning the ropes! You left the message on my talk page as I was reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:Username (which says that usernames that refer to excretory functions of the body are not allowed and should in fact be listed at WP:AIV like you did ;-) ) and checking the block log for User:Fart. Unfortunately, User:Fart was blocked for more obvious vandalism... so it left me undecided. I'm still thinking about it, but someone else may take action while I do so! Thanks for your polite message and I apologize for the confusion - as I said, I'm still learning my stuff! -- Renesis (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I see that Fart was indef blocked for vandalism after only 15 minutes...but the username would have been enough. There doesn't seem to be a rush to block FartX; he stopped vandalizing after I sent him a warning. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. While I'm here, congrats on your own successful bid. Good luck! Kafziel Talk 13:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wankel

Congrats! I'm a big rotary fan, I'm building an airplane (Cozy Mk IV) which I plan on putting a turbo normalized 13B or Renesis into. In the more immediate term, I'm thinking of buying an engine-less LongEZ and putting a N/A 13B on it. These engines are just about perfectly suited for aviation, not just your undoubtedly pretty RX8. :D - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jjm83 block

Hi, I am looking into a request for unblock by User:Jjm83. You blocked this user with a reason of "Sockpuppet" -- how did you determine this? The user says this is a ridiculous accusation, although I can't tell where they got the idea it was for impersonating "Hannah montana 92" (a user I can't find). I can't see anything in the user's contributions that supports the idea that the account is a sockpuppet. What can you tell me about this? -- Renesis (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're so right. I blew that one and I'm here to fix it. He was trying to clean up the mess and the system credited him with a reposted nonsense piece. - Lucky 6.9 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lucky, thanks for following up on that. Looks like Netsnipe figured it out before I could! -- Renesis (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Actually, I found out via e-mail and realized what had happened. I always look to see whether or not the user really is a sockpuppet...except this time. Damn, that's embarassing! - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

congrats, and PS

Thanks for your Zoom Zoom support at my RfA! To confirm your assumption: This user drives a Mazda RX-8. Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools, and as a fellow administrator, would be much appreciated! Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. — are you a fellow Mazda owner?

re: your PS. I drive a 7 with a street ported engine. SchmuckyTheCat 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Coding

Thanks, its working fine. Congrats on becoming an admin. Plz can you help out again with some coding. I tried to put a button on my talk page which says if im online or offline, like on User talk:Nishkid64's page, but its not working. You can see the loose link at the top of my talk page. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 10:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Belated congrats

On your successful RfA. I was your first support, though I've changed my user name since then. Let me know if I can be of any assistance on the use of admin tools, or if you need a second opinion on anything. I have learned to bounce things off other admins from time to time when I'm not sure I'm making the right decision on something. :) --Ars Scriptor 15:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA: Khukri

Just a quick note to say thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It became clear very quickly that my editing background was going to detrimental to my nomination. Having seen other recent RfA's fail once one or two admins opposed and others just piled on the vote, I decided it would save the ignominy if I withdrew my nomination. I don't intend to change the work I do, as it's what I enjoy, so it'll be unlikely I'll apply again. On a side note, I still need help with WP:UW and as an admin there is alot of work to be done, mainly in the area of implementing new templates into the protected pages, if you can help out let me know. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I also was sorry to see you withdraw so quickly. RfA's certainly do have a tendency to snowball, and it is a shame when it happens to good editors. Despite the objections those who opposed your RfA, I hope you consider running again when the time is right. I am very impressed with your work and you obviously possess the demeanor and level-headedness that I look for in an admin. When the time comes, I would even be happy to nominate you, as I feel strongly that your RfA should have passed this time. -- Renesis (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. When I have a minute I will be working on the spam UWT's, and I would be happy to take care of any editing of the protected templates that you need. Just let me know.

Portmanteau

Two other problems with it:

• This is often not technically the proper use of this word. A portmanteau has a special kind of packed meanings, in the manner of the Lewis Carroll quote. It is not a simple combination of letters, or even simply a combination of the meanings of two different words.
• I think part of the reason it is always linked is that otherwise few people have any idea what the word means. If a word is so bizarre, while being so general as to include on all manner of articles, that a wikilink is necessary to explain, it shouldn't be used.

We need to get rid of it. —Centrx→talk • 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your post! I'm glad someone read my pet-peeve list :) I didn't know the facts behind your first point, and I 100% agree with your second point concerning the wikilink usage. I've never been able to express so academically or clearly the reasons that use of portmanteau should go, so I haven't taken much action, but I think you've said it just right. Any ideas on what wording we can replace it with? -- Renesis (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"combination" or "blend". "Blend" is usually the right linguistic term (and some portmanteau-fan merged it into that article, which was totally inappropriate, if anything the merge would be the other way around and we would be rid of it), and has a clear meaning, but "combination" still has the right meaning and is also understandable. Also, in some cases no replacement word is necessary; the sentence has sometimes been a mutated cludge just to fit in the favorite word, like "it is a portmanteau word derived from a combination of the words..." and things like this can often be replaced with just a straightforward sentence like "derived from". Also, Wikipedia not being a dictionary, it would be quite fine to simply say that "Televangelism is television evangelism". A problem someone related to this is the cluttering of the introduction with pronunciations and etymologies; to correct this, I have been thinking about making a template to include this information. —Centrx→talk • 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping your admin status on the down low?

There's no mention of it on your user page. ;) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL... is it standard to mention it on your user page? Since it wouldn't fit right into my intro section anywhere and (as much as I hate to propagate this quote even one more time) adminship is "no big deal", I hadn't really thought of mentioning it. -- Renesis (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if space is the issue, something unobtrusive like the {{Administrator}} template may be just what you're looking for. Although of course it's totally your call whether or not you mention it, but from what I've seen most admins do and it can be helpful to other users to have an indication of your status somewhere.

Anyway, best of luck and enjoy your new tools! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Thanks for handling my unblock request. —Goh wz 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for making contributions that made it easy to see your account was not the problem :) -- Renesis (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for making the effort to move my transclusion to the top of the heap. I did indeed put it in 'close date order'. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

responder Now I understand ... I've made the change to the end time as suggested. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennis expert

Is there any particular reason you just unblocked a sockpuppet of a banned user as determined by checkuser as "unfounded" without contacting the admin who did the block and the user who performed the checkuser idntifying it as a sock beforehand? This strikes me as disrespectful, as well as mystifying, behavior, and not one I'd expect from a fellow admin. Dmcdevit·t 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- I reviewed the user's contributions, the sock-puppeteer's contributions, the reasons for the sock-puppeteer's block, the user's discussions with others responding to the unblock (including Ryulong, who decided to close the request -- an action which, coming from a non-admin, I disagree with -- and then reopened the request upon response from Tennis expert), and then I considered the fact that there seemed to be multiple requests for communication from you, with no response. I am sorry if it seemed disrespectful, but I hoped to show that I meant no disrespect with my comments in the reason for the unblock (in which I said that I didn't wish to step on anyone's toes, but considering the evidence I felt greater harm would come from leaving the seemingly innocent user blocked than waiting for further communication). Again, sorry, and feel free to overturn my action if my unblock of the user was in error. -- Renesis (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For further discussion of this issue, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive65#Block and subsequent unblock of Tennis expert

How to report a vandal

Hi, I saw your note that you hope your post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism was the correct way to report a vandal -- well, it was! However, we do need to warn users before we block them, except in certain situations where the vandalism is blatant (a very large amount of vandalism or particularly obscene or attacking). Any user can do this -- just add a message to the user's talk page. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing with vandalism for more information. I've warned 198.59.99.217 for you. Thanks for your help! -- Renesis (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful remarks :)

Springnuts 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Closing redirects

Hi, I have a question about closing redirects and I know you have quite a bit of experience with that. When I close a redirect, am I allowed to count a vote I would have put on the subject? Or is that a conflict of interest? (Specifically, I am talking about Bt homehub for which I would vote delete because the target article contains no mention of the product.) -- Renesis (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. You should consider each of the opinions expressed, but you can decide that an opinion doesn't sufficiently address an issue or it runs counter to a policy. Determining consensus with only two opinions (which happens often at RFD) can be dicey. You should factor in precedent as well. It's basically a judgement call. The key is to fairly consider the arguments presented. If I have a strong opinion on a debate, I'll simply add my opinion to the debate and not close. If I don't, then I'll weigh the opinions expressed, make my own decision, and implement the result. Debate closing is not vote counting, but it's not implementing your own preconceived opinion. You can have your own opinion, but you should make sure you're not letting it drive your decision. Sorry for the long-winded response. It just that there's not really a simple answer other than "be fair." The guidance of "When in doubt, don't delete" (from the linked page) is probably most applicable to redirects. Redirects are cheap and they usually don't harm. For this particular debate, my personal opinion is that either answer is fine. Let me know if you still have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not one for barnstars

But you should give yourself a pat on the back for the unblock of Tennis expert. Hopefully the message should start to filter through that Checkuser is fallible, and a decline in knee-jerk reactions when there are requests to re-check the results. Catchpole 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would give you a bushel of barnstars if I knew how to provide them. You are my hero. I will remember your courage for a very long time. Thanks very much! If you ever need my support, you know where to find me. Tennis expert 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will add to the sentiment that you did an extremely thorough and effective job in sorting through the on-Wiki evidence and summarizing it so as to cause the Checkusers to take another look. Newyorkbrad 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well done. Good job in clearing an innocent user. – Chacor 01:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Much-belated RfA Thanks

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. I will run again after a long run without any policy violations, and I will be much mroe civil in the future. Have a nice day, and I apologize for the laggy response! -- Chris is me 17:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: RFA Questions

Thanks for changing the questions. I am opposed to these types of questions in the first place, because of their history of causing potential candidates to shoot themselves in the foot by having to answer constructed situations that in all likelihood, wouldn't happen, and if they did, would probably a) cause the candidate to seek help first or avoid the problem altogether, and/or b) cause huge amounts of admin and community input, insomuch that a single admin wouldn't make a difference. However, in reality, they probably haven't affected the actual outcomes of hardly any RFA's, with the possible exception of some like Wikiwoohoo, who seemed to be killed by the answer regarding indef-blocking IPs, which I think was really a simple mistake of not reading policy thoroughly before answering (and really, he had no responsibility to yet, since he wasn't actually considering blocking anyone). Anyway, I thought I'd just say thanks for changing the questions, and that to make a POINT, I'm going to have to think of some particularly ridiculous questions for you, should you open an RFA :) -- Renesis (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now I see them I think that I was good changing the questions. I have voted support; Dina appears to be a very good editor and would make a brilliant admin.

Oh, and I'll have to be ready for your ridiculous questions on my RFA ("If you were on the Moon, would you spend all your time doing admin work on the shuttle computers or would you go and do real work outside?" kind of thing) :) Cheers, Yuser31415 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos

I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 08:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting

I appreciate the feedback that I received during the RfA process. Unfortunately, I withdrew my candidacy. However, your participation is appreciated. I have made my New Years Resolution (effective immediately) to attempt to vote on at least 50 WP:XFD/week (on at least 5 different days), to spend 5 hours/week on WP:NPP, to be active in WikiProjects and to change the emphasis of my watchlist from editorial oversight to vandalism prevention. I have replaced several links that I had on my list to some that I think are more highly vandalized (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, my congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., my senator Barrack Obama and Jesse Jackson). My first day under my newly turned leaf was about what I hope a typical day to be. I quickly found a vandal, made a few editorial changes to Donald Trump, voted at WP:CFD and WP:AFD, continued attempted revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago and proposed a new stub type as a result of WP:NPP patrol. I hope this will broaden my wikipedia experience in a way that makes me a better administrator candidate. I hope to feel more ready to be an admin in another 3000 or so edits. TonyTheTiger 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for the support of my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your block notice

You may want to double-check your block notice at User talk:128.113.228.7. Muhammed Iqbal dosn't seem like any amount of time I've ever heard of. :P Pumeleon^T 08:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! How the heck did you notice that? Anyway, I've fixed it now. Being too quick to use my own popups warning-extension was my downfall... Doh! -- Renesis (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When I report someone to AIV, I always keep a close eye on their talk pages and contributions so I can quickly revert their next edits, no matter where they may be, and so I know when someone got blocked, so I can stop vandalstalking them. ;3 Pumeleon^T 08:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even realize they were at WP:AIV... I saw their vandalism at the main page article, then contributions and talk page last warning, and decided to block. Well, anyway, thanks again! -- Renesis (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Iqbal

Hi Renesis - thanks for the warning, but I did double-check the diffs. Rama's arrow 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know - I made the revert essentially becoz the presence of contentious POV and unverified statements is a greater threat than the undoing of the references formatting. As this is on the main page, I would like to see absolutely no vandalistic or POV-pushing edit - since this page has been attacked so many times in 12hrs, I was forced to go way back to revert. Rama's arrow 17:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. the page has been attacked so much, and since the summary below mine said "what the f***" I assumed it was vandalism (most contributors dont descend into vulgar rants).Bakaman 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Controlling of Projects revert

Hello,

why was article "Controlling of Projects" for you "advertising" ??? This software is in same time commercial and free (one projectleader licence). Commercial projects, like MS Project are in wikipedia presented without constraints (under NPOV rules of course). I'm administrator and birocrat on serbian wikipedia and I know what is NPOV and advertising. So please make you revert retrogressive. --Kaster 08:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, on enwiki we've had to implement pretty strict notability guidelines to prevent abuse through spamming. For articles on corporations, these can be found at WP:CORP. The List of project management software page should only have links to valid articles. Also, you should not be entering the link on multiple categories on the list, as that seems like spamming, since Wikipedia isn't an open (or commercial) directory project. Thanks -- Renesis (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, King of Hearts has deleted my "valid link" :) and I must first disolving this problem. Can I than (when this article again exist) enter this entry in one of categories on the list under List of project management software? Thanks, --Kaster 09:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I tagged that article as not asserting notability (see WP:CSD), but if you are sure that the article fits the guidelines at WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Notability, you can recreate the article and insert the link. If it does not fit the guidelines, it is likely to be deleted again. -- Renesis (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

you can recreate the article and insert the link :) I must write it again ... I have no more sources :-( --Kaster 10:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you need the original content from the deleted version, I will provide it for you. However, you will need to add notability information and cite reliable third party sources (see WP:V). -- Renesis (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be very grateful for original content. You can save it hier. And I try to find couple third party sources. --Kaster 10:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've added it to User:Kaster/Controlling of Projects. Hope that helps! -- Renesis (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Subst of tl in your comments

Sorry, totally habit. I barely notice I'm doing it. And don't let this get around, but I'm not actually on a mission here, I was just doing what I thought was right and was suprised by the knee-jerk responses. - brenneman 11:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's totally fine. I was only joking. It was the way my thought process went writing my response: "just like the tl templates..." (<<looks up>> -- they've been subst'd! oh, the irony!) :) -- Renesis (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

To the WA Project - hope you enjoy being involved in whatever way you can ! SatuSuro 07:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So I'm not the first to welcome you. Great to have experienced editors joining. Maybe I'll learn something! Best for season Fred.e 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)