User talk:Adambiswanger1/Archive 3

Hey, you contributed formatting to Feminist Phil Grad Progs
Your subject line/note on the Feminist Philosophy Graduate Programs page, that still much formatting needs to be done, is so true.

Your formatting so far is delightful.

Your contributions make it a much better page already.

I began that page because my students found the search for a graduate program frustrating, and so on their behalf (behalves?), I thank you.

Thank you!
 * Sure not a problem at all. My initial contact with the page came from changing "List of women philosophers" (shudders at grammar) to "list of female philosophers", and I stumbled across this page.  I am not very familiar with this topic, so I'll make a few more wikifications and then leave a few templates at the top of the page for some suggestions.  One concern of mine is that the article conforms to a world-wide and has an encyclopedic tone (at the moment it reads a bit like an article out of the Atlantic or New York Times).  In any event, it's very good and hopefully it'll get better.  Regards, AdamBiswanger1 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List guideline discussion
That dark corner wasn't the only place these issues were being discussed. I found 3 locations where the "value judgements" issue alone was being talked about, one of those being on the main talk page itself. Therefore, I've reposted all these issues, including moving the actual prose of current live discussions, to Wikipedia talk:List guideline. A major benefite of this, as that now they are set up as their own subheadings, so that each can stand or fall on its own particular merits, while a draft is generally approved or rejected as a whole. This way, some of the proposed additions may actually make it on their own without being dragged down by the others. And one last reason I made the move is because there's a central underlying issue that needs to be hashed out that pertains to the proposed additions as well as to lists in general, and that is the apparent conflict between the role of lists and categories. Take a look at the main talk page and how I've set up the discussions, and I think you'll agree that it is the appropriate forum. By the way, I've already started posting replies to each issue. I encourage you to respond. --Polar Deluge 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also archived the older discussions on Wikipedia talk:List guideline, which streamlines the page somewhat, making the new discussions much easier to spot. --Polar Deluge 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying, but please don't redirect to that page, and please don't make controversial moves as such because a consensus has not been reached, and it may be seen as leading to WP:3RR. If you want to post certain materials on WP:LIST, that's fine, but also remember that WP:LGR is my creation and I have the right to hold a discussion there and propose my own ideas.  I personally think that WP:LGR is almost perfect, and I want the principles to stay together rather than be tossed into the mix and therefore ruined. AdamBiswanger1 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC
 * They are already in the mix, and were already being discussed seperately before you created your page. I've found 2 discussions so far that 2 of your issues duplicate.  You are holding independent discussions on things that are already being discussed elsewhere. It's needless duplication of effort and will also create confusion, especially if conflicting consensuses are reached in seperate discussions.  You should come inside from the cold and join the larger group.  --Polar Deluge 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I will, but for now I want WP:LGR to be a separate and yet indivisible proposal. AdamBiswanger1 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see
User_talk:Paolo_Liberatore

I mention your name. Travb (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Adw
Hi. When using Template:Adw, do not forget to subst: it. Otherwise, edits to the section will go to the template (Liberatore, 2006). 17:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not true for all templates. Generally, if subst: is necessary it is specified in the template page (in this case, Template:Adw). I have also changed the template so that it gives an ugly red message if not subst:ed (Liberatore, 2006). 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations!

 * By the way, there's a couple empty templates on your userpage, looks like deleted userboxes? ~Kylu ( u | t )  20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

re: "Funny"
(yeah, I just started reading my talk page today for the first time in a bit)

Yeah, that is pretty funny. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with Wikipedia at times like this, because it seems that logic isn't spread as widely as it needs to be. Besides the unsupported, blanketed "keep" argument, the audacity of having seperate articles on Scooby-Doo, Where are You! episodes is astounding. (This coming from someone who knows them word-for-word. *shrug* I had a lonely childhood.) As more and more people start editing Wikipedia for their own reasons, it's becoming a lot harder to maintain decent quality. Most of my edits are on music articles, and....oh man, it gets ridiculous. --FuriousFreddy 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Catamorphism
Just wanted to drop off a very quick note &mdash; I've asked the nominee a question to clarify their position on assuming good faith and on anonymous editors. Thought I would let you know in case the response would be of interest to you with regards to your vote on their RfA. Thanks. &mdash; Mike (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Mike. I'll check back periodically.  ;  ) AdamBiswanger1 15:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. They've actually already responded. &mdash; Mike  15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the Note
I'm actually a wiki "olbie" who stopped posted several months ago after one too many lame edit wars. Trying to fight the wiki-itch. Right now I'm content to posting in the shadows. I have a sort of Brandt-ian bent about privacy and the fact that my postings at my local starbucks is showing up as an Office Depot ISP amuses me. (Same plaza but I didn't think the wireless range was that far). See you around, Dude. 205.157.110.11 00:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey don't let it get you down. Yea I just thought I'd run that template by ya b/c you can't "vote" in RfA's and your opinion is basically ignored in an AfD. AdamBiswanger1 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Philadelphia_wanamakergrandcourt.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Philadelphia_wanamakergrandcourt.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opthamology
The reason they dilate your eyes is that they want to increase the size of your pupil in order to see your retina better and look for any disease/damage to your retina. There are now cameras that can get a good image of your retina without dilating your eye at all. The best of these are digital so they can take both eyes in rapid succession and view the images instantly on a large computer screen.    Ask your eye doctor if he has the right camera to avoid needing to dilate your eyes. Johntex\talk 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice rewrite on Johann Christian Bach article
Hi, Adambiswanger1. Thanks for the great rewrite you did of that confusing paragraph in the Johann Christian Bach article, which I had mentioned on the talk page for that article. Now I feel like the paragraph makes sense and actually says something worthwhile. Well, just wanted to let you know it was appreciated. Thanks, Tom (MollyTheCat 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)).
 * Sure no problem-- I heard a really great piece by JC Bach, the name of which I can't remember, so I wanted to learn a little more about him and I read that paragraph and I was really confused because the section headings were irrelevant to the content, and you can tell whoever wrote it absolutely loves JC Bach and is rather resentful that he isn't more popular. But hopefully that helps : )  Oh and one more thing-- Earlier I saw your comment about a need for a source concerning the statement of JC's 90 symphonies.  I researched it on google a bit, and I couldn't find anything.  Have you gotten any leads? AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Adam--What I think I will have to do is manually count the listed works in my copy of the New Grove Bach Family, which has a J.C. Bach work list. I did a rough count a few days ago and did not get even close to 90--but I will have to check again when I have the time to spend ensuring my accuracy. Thanks for the great comments. -MollyTheCat 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Geez, I should go right to sleep when I say I will. I wouldn't say that I was "vicitorous," I would say that I was on the side of opinions that the editor closing thought had made a stronger argument. Wmarsh does make a good point about my actions do appearing not to follow "the rules," when it is a self interest case. I also highly respect Wmarsh as an editor and an admin, so I will respect his opinion. Thank you for your interest, and if you need anything you can contact me or drop one at the RfA. Yank sox  03:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks
Appreciate your kind counsel on how to better position myself to achieve Admin status. Williamborg 06:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Goad
I thank you for informing me. Moreover, the revert by you you was fine. Sometime, I do things in a hurry! Cheers. --Bhadani 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Foucault text
Thank you for informing me about the AfD page. I can guarantee you, Adambiswanger1, that if this article is deleted, I will be personally involved and committed in spreading the news about the existence of this information throughout the Internet. (I am already considering doing it even if the article is not deleted - only because someone suggested it should be deleted is enough reason to do this, once the suggestion to delete it is already totally absurd, IMHO). Paulo Andrade 23:53 July 24, 2006 (GMT)

Eluchil404's RfA
Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructive critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. Thank you very much for identifying a specific reason (even a specific diff) for your oppose "vote". I responed in the RfA itself, arguing that while the criticism of that specific edit was (at least partially) valid, it was not symptomatic of a larger problem. But it is a good learning experience nonetheless and I will take the lesson that poorly written articles can often have nuggets of valuble information hidden in them to heart. Happy editing! Eluchil404 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with you that single incidents should not be proclaimed as evidence of a larger trend or evidence of a candidate's true character. I personally hate when people to that.  But just for the sake of clarity, I considered that evidence secondary to the inexperience assertion of the oppose side, and I certainly did not want to portray you as careless or apathetic, but merely as someone who is still learning.  I'm happy to support a newcomer, so long as his or her record is spotless, and even brilliant.  But unfortunetly, this is all too rare, and most users with less than one year of experience earn an oppose vote from me (even though I myself have only been here for several months).  So, don't lose heart--in a few months try again, and maybe put some diffs showing experience and knowledge of policy in your nom, or in response to an oppose vote.  The great thing about a failed RfA is that you have plenty of feedback as to what you need to work on for your next one : )  Thanks again for your note, AdamBiswanger1 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I was dead serious when I thanked you on requests for adminship.

I recently had a discussion with Essjay where we were arguing about dividing up the scarce number of people who are available to help out with dispute resolution. Requests for adminship simply isn't turning out the right kind of people for that anymore, for some reason. I was guessing that edit count inflation was perhaps one of the reasons, and your statements compared with my past experience seem to strengthen that hypothesis.

I'm not attacking your personal choices. I'm certain you mean well, and/or perhaps have different priorities wrt adminship.

Thank you very much for taking the time to discuss with me. People should have communicate on requests for adminship more often. Discussions are very important for obtaining consensus, and for keeping process on track. Kim Bruning 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry if I misinterpreted your comments..it's just that sarcasm runs rampant on Wikipedia, especially among those who disagree, and words like "enlighten" really turn on my sarcasm-detector. But in any event, I think you're right that the wrong types of admins are passing through RfA.


 * I look for people that are intelligent, civil, hard-working, knowledgeable in the realm of policy, and almost emotionless when it comes to matters of business. Of course, being able to turn off the academic diction and spirit of argumentation is certainly OK, and even desirable, especially in the interest of propagating WikiLove.  I have this model of an ideal admin in my head, somewhere between CrazyRussian, Will Beback, Geogre and Centrx (and maybe you, if I knew you a bit better), and I look for this spirit in all candidates.  Luckily, experience, participation in meta-wiki dealings, and Rationality can be found in both my ideal candidate and in edit counts with a study of user contributions.


 * I agree with you that we need more admins apt to dealing with disputes, as the title of "admin" does carry some weight with it in a discussion. I believe we may be able to solve that.  I have only been here for a few months, and yet I think that time on Wikipedia is imperative, and we need higher adminship standards.  Here's why:  I realize that most Wikipedians cringe when they hear about "hierarchies", and in RfA everyone is quick to spout the "Adminship is not a reward" line, but for the ultimate benefit of Wikipedia, hard work should certainly come into play.  I've been doing a lot of thinking about the psychology of the Wikipedian, and it has occured to me that, on some level, Wikipedians make contributions in order to earn some sort of recognition.  We all do it.  I'm sure barnstars have had an enormous impact on productivity.  The same rule applies to me--I'm sure that as an IP my contributions were severly lower and less involved than they are now.  Just look at how some people (myself included) flaunt their accomplishments on their userpage.  Everyone does it (no offense, Geogre). As Sir Walter Ralegh said, "Tell them that brave it most, they beg for more by spending, Who, in their greatest cost, seek nothing but commending."


 * So, once we make adminship a position for the experienced and the hardworking, it will be the natural response for anyone who wants to be a sysop to get to work and try to impress, whether it be by writing a featured article or making 20,000 edits. The result?  Thousands and thousands of hard-working Wikipedians striving for adminship, actively learning policy, and leaving only the cream of the crop at RfA, and improving Wikipedia exponentially.


 * I don't dare voice this opinion publically, because, well, I know it would be harshly crushed by those under the impression that all efforts of the Wikipedian are altruistic, and no one but myself seeks commendation.
 * I also share your sentiments as for the need for active discussion on RfAs, and I look forward to seeing you around : ) AdamBiswanger1 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

cannot find page
I cannot find page The Role of United Nations in Kashmir using the search on Wikipedia's main page. I did find it before using the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Role_of_United_Nations_in_Kashmir

This page was created more than a month ago.

Thank you.

Maakhter 03:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much! RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: orchestras
Well I guess that's the end of that then. No worries in reporting it...Let me know if anything extraordinary happens. Jarfingle 13:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Syracuse WikiProject
Seeing that you'll be going to SU next year, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in joining the potentially soon-to-exist Syracuse WikiProject. See Talk:Syracuse, New York. Even if you just keep an eye on Syracuse University and the sports-related ones... I'd be great to have you aboard. -newkai | talk | contribs 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey why not-- I don't know much about the city itself, but like you said I'll monitor the university-related stuff. AdamBiswanger1 14:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

More opinions needed
Given the fact that we have (respectfully) disagreed on some matters in the past, and because I value your ever-insightful comments on any occassion, I hope it's not out of line to draw your attention to this minor matter [], and this more serious topic []. I'm involved in both discussions and would welcome your comments, whatever they might be :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * crossposted from my talkpage
 * Thanks for the handy tool! I'll remember that. Re: disagreement, I was recalling our first interaction at an AfD. Based on your comments and then a talkpage discussion I ended up changing my position, after I had initially "opposed" your stance. That's one of the reasons I'd value your input now; if I've missed something important, I can count on you to point it out :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam, when you make a point you don't just support it, you stand over it with a rocket-launcher and challenge to take on all comers! It really is a pleasure to watch you work :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Pollyanna has started your new talkpage. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement
RE: "rocketlauncher": The AfD process does not have to be antagonistic. If you think I've misinterpreted Wiki policy, I'm happy to discuss this with you. Medtopic 22:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Medtopic, please excuse my use of hyperbole which may have given an impression of combativeness. My original comment was intended to remark on Adam's thoroughness, not his nature :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry if you were offended, but it was mere humor between two editors, and I certainly do not want to accuse you of misinterpreting Wikipolicy. AdamBiswanger1 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for volunteering to help me clean up this big mess...sucker! :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

my RfA
Thanks for your opinions in my RfA. Ultimately, the request did not pass, with a vote of (43/16/7). But your honest opinion was appreciated and I'll just keep right on doing what I do. Maybe I'll see ya around -- I'll be here! Cheers! - CheNuevara 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support opinion on my RfA. With a final vote of (62/0/1), my RfA passed, and I am now an Administrator. I will work hard to ensure that the tools entrusted to me will not be abused, and will wield my mop proudly. Happy editing! -- Firsfron of Ronchester 23:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The challenge
After all the fuss I made about saving these, I guess I'm honor-bound to carry through. And you actually volunteered for it :) I had a busy weekend but I'll start going through them on Monday. Just let me know when you get back from Hell; we'll see what we can do. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just checked in and found the articles in Brenneman's log []; he moved them to a talkpage under my name. I had some RL things come up and I won't be able to get started until later today, but feel free to jump in if you get there before I do. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, I've got the articles listed here [] under the heading "Userfied Articles". This week has been unexpectedly busy, but I won't let them languish for too long. Before we start major rewrite we might discuss possibly merging some or all. Talk to you soon. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ouch
Ouch man, you got screwed. South Campus generally isn't that bad. It's 95% townhouse-style apartment buildings... Blocks of buildings with 2-3 person apartments, each with two floors. For some reason, they also built three regular dorms down there, that are pretty small. They are called Skyhalls I, II, and III. Freshmen were never put down there until last fall, when way too many people who were accepted to SU actually came. They ended up having to put some lucky freshmen in the Sheraton, re-open a former sorority house, and put some on South Campus. Since the university lost way too much money putting students in the Sheraton, they had to come up with a new solution for this year. That basically involved putting more freshmen on South Campus. Here are the advantages/disadvantages of your situation.

Advantages:
 * South Campus has a pretty independent feel to it... You probably won't feel as watched. A lot of people in the apartments will have parties.
 * The Skyhall rooms used to be doubles, but, since no one wanted them, they made them into huge singles... Don't know if they reverted that now though.
 * The Goldstein Student Center, right next door to the SkyHalls, has a great dining facility... Burger King, Dunkin' Donuts, Sbarro, Freshëns smoothies, and some place that'll give you chicken... Called Sam's Birdland.
 * South Campus is home to just about all the athletes. So if you're a 'Cuse fan, you'll probably have dinner next to them at Goldstein a lot.

Disadvantages:
 * You're a 10-15-minute bus ride away from the main campus. Then you'll have to walk up to another 10 minutes to get to class.
 * You're on a field, with a walking distance to the student center, ice rink, graduate bar, and that's about it.

Here's a photo:

-newkai | talk | contribs 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I should mention... My roommate sophomore year was assigned to a Skyhall. He moved to my room a month or so later, as my original roommate never showed up. There's a good chance you'll get something on the main campus if you want. I should have not originally said "you got screwed", as there's much worse. They were making make-shift rooms in a basement of Brewster-Bowland complex... Like under the dining hall last year. That really sucks. -newkai | talk | contribs 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea I mean I can live with living away from the rest of the campus and being slightly out of the loop, but taking that bus every effin day is gonna be a pain in the ass, especially considering I'll have to deduct an additional 10-15 minutes per day from my sleep (assuming I have a morning class). And if I have like an hour between classes, it's not enough time to go back to my dorm and too much time to go straight to the next class.  Hmm let's do some math-10 minutes per ride, at least twice per day, at least 5 times per week= at least 62/3 hours per month on the bus.  Oh plus there's the fact that the for my first year I won't know who I'm going to sit next to, or the guy next to me will have BO and a huge bag.  I know, I sound like a complaining bitch.  I'm really not as bothered by it as I sound--
 * But so long as my roommate doesn't turn out to be my best friend, and so long as I don't decide that I like the south campus for some reason, I think I'll ask for a transfer, like you suggested. (somewhere near the bathroom you told me about) AdamBiswanger1 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/GHe
Your concerns expressed relative to the candidate's knowledge of policy were, I think, quite valid (and cogently expressed) and are insufficiently addressed at most RfAs. I've offered a support that I think to elcuidate my thinking vis-à-vis ignorance of policy, but I write in any event to thank you for having raised an issue about which, prior to his participating in RfA discussions, one ought to have formed an opinion; your oppose, as all of your contributions of which I've been aware, was surely consistent with your profession of appreciation for reason and logical argument, on the preservation of which the sustainability of the consensus processes that underlie the project rests (ridiculously, your thinking apropos of Wikipedia closely mirrors mine in sundry ways yet is expressed much more succinctly and persuasively than is mine).

I am a bit perplexed about one issue: you seem to be altogether reasonable and sensible, and yet you are a fan of the Phillies, Flyers, and Eagles. Have you perhaps suffered some sort of head injury for which treament is long overdue? You ought at least to hire Floyd Landis and Justin Gatlin to supervise the training of Reggie Brown and Todd Pinkston. :)

On a final note, and notwithstanding that you'd not necessarily support your own RfA, might you be interested in adminship? You seem altogether reasonable and civil, and, as someone once wrote on my talk page (surely incorrectly), you continue to be sensible everywhere I look. Joe 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about the sixers, who could quite be the worst of those sad, sad "teams". Hmm... the only head injury I have suffered would be the constant head-to-wall contact following Eagles playoff losses.  What? Where am I?
 * Ah yes, RfAs. So anyway, to be blunt, I think this guy is a bot (basically).  His edits don't really show any intellectual rigor of any sort, and I haven't seen any policy debates or discussions, or anything of the sort.  It's just my feeling that if we should allow admins the full tray of admin tools, they should be familiar with every aspect of policy, rather than having some sort of system of specialists.
 * As for my own adminship, I would love to be one, but I have only been editing heavily since early May (moderate experience and readership from other IPs before that), and I'd rather easily clear the bar of acceptance, rather than climb over it. I mean, I myself am a major proponent of time with the project as an RfA standard, and I would look a bit hypocritical if I applied at the moment. but perhaps in, say, 2 months, I would definetly give it a go, and your support certainly would be appreciated.  By the way the Phillies lost 15-2 and traded away their best player yesterday.  Maybe I do have a head injury? AdamBiswanger1 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to know your views on Adminship; I was going to raise the subject of your RFA myself, but thought it a little too early yet for the same reasons you mention. Let's stay in touch on this :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm honored. Maybe in October.  With RfA standards going the way they're going, hopefully adminship will actually mean something by then. AdamBiswanger1 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you haven't seen Phaedriel's RFA yet, you might want to check it out. Her RFA will almost certainly set a record. PS - Once again I have many meetings today and won't be free until this evening; hopefully I won't be too brain-dead for wiki-work. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea I'm in there at number 181. It's weird that the same popularity that you see in high school or something carries over to wikipedia, but I suppose it is well-deserved.  She's nice, although she did accuse me of being sarcastic once in an RfA, saying something like "I know you are a fantastic editor, and I totally respect you, but it disappoints me to see you doing this".  Anyway, I guess I'll get started on one of those articles soon.  Here's another nice tool for ya-- you might need it: Template:Inuse (although you will probably be violently attacked if you leave it up for too long).  AdamBiswanger1 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect to adminship, fair enough; I look forward to supporting you in a few months. I must say that I don't think Abreu to have been clearly the Phillies best player (last year he certainly was, and he well helped a few of my fantasy teams); even before the hitting streak, Utley surely merited consideration, at the very least (of course, I thought the Phils ought to have kept Polanco and traded Utley last year, so I'm apparently mentally infirm myself).  I thought Pat Burrell would have a breakout year, but, though his OPS is decent, he doesn't seem to have gotten it altogether.  Oh well... Keep up the good work!  Joe 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

image tags
Please. You should know by now that image uploads should always have a licence tag. Also, may I suggest that you upload to the Commons so that other Wikis can use them. -- RHaworth 15:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your... concern. I have rectified the situation and adjusted the tags to show that they are copyrighted but all rights are released.  If this is not enough, please tell me how we can fix the situation to make them valid, rather than speedy-ing them.  There is not even a remote chance of a legal issue here. AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. Viridae Talk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)