User talk:49TL/Archive-17

Information This is the FireFox talk page archive 17.

If you want to leave me a message, please see my current talk page.

I'm an admin now!!
Thanks a ton for your support on my rfa, the final tally was 50-0-0; I'll try and live up to the expectations of others and do my best in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. btw, your signature is really cool. --Gurubrahma 14:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA
Thank you, FireFox, for your support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC) <--note new "admin gold" sig :-D

My RfA
FireFox, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) Kudos on all those worthy projects you're involved in. --bainer (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

My failed RFA :)
Dear FireFox, I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another RFA Thank You Note to clutter up your talk page...
FireFox:

Just writing a quick note to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. My goal as an admin is to never give you a reason to regret supporting my RFA. And thanks for the compliment on my sig. I think it's pretty spiffy myself. =)

All the best. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Pathoschild's successful RfA
Thanks. ^_^ (I do intend on giving better support thanks, but since I dislike copy-and-paste messages it'll take me a while to get down to your page.) On a related note, my tally should be 23/0/0 since Izehar voted twice. ;) // Pathoschild 08:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it didn't actually take all that long. ;) Thanks a lot for your support on my request for adminship; it passed with 23/0/0 (plus one duplicate support and an oppose from a vandal IP). I'll do my best to exceed your full expectations. // Pathoschild 09:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking vandals
Hello, FireFox. Thanks for your help with the blocking. Things seem to be working okay now. -- PFHLai 10:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Humanism
I've been trying to clear out the issues with npov from humanism for a few days now and there is some resistance in the form of one person. why have you intervened on behalf of the only person? if you follow his edit trail, you'll come to see that although that several of us, 3 people, have agreed that we need to be inclusive of Catholic humanists, and other forms of humanism. there is a long discussion of the changes and their justification in the talk section. I need an accurate and neutral article on humanism for my class to read in the spring, and currently, the article isn't accurate. --Buridan 13:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, it isn't my fault, but it does appear as if two administrators just jumped into the fray and reverted my edits, bleh, appearances can be deceiving. --Buridan 13:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Light or lighthouse
As the Coast Guard lists them as lights rather than lighthouses, and most other articles on the subject use light rather than lighthouse, I was trying to keep things consistent. If there is a consensus on always using lighthouse, please point me to it. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you did not move articles I have just created without checking with me. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  13:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Roberts Article
I don't quite understand why you reverted my changes. I actually spent a great deal of time rewriting the article. I'm trying to improve many of the article related to Oregon Politicans. Please explain why you reverted. Davidpdx 14:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine..I would caution you against reverting article when they are being worked on however. I was in the process of fixing my own error. It certainly wasn't vandalism, but a legitimate edit. There was also another editor working on it at the same time. Between the three of it, there was lots of confusion. Davidpdx 14:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)