User talk:Bearian/ArchivesDec2007

Peters Cartridge Company
Hi, Bearian. Can you give me your objective opinion on something? Do you think the "Ghost Story" link given for as a source here qualifies as a credible source? Also, the first two "sources" listed in the References section appear to clearly violate OR. Because I'm acquainted with the creator of this article from conflict we had on another site (it's that guy mentioned in my RfA), I want to avoid possible accusations of bias. Can you work your magic on that article? Thanks. Nightscream 06:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. (Just don't forget!)  Happy Holidays! Nightscream 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any time! Nightscream (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue III (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities!  Noetic  Sage  19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:New accounts
I created them, because they were requested at WP:ACC, the diffs are here (link is here) and here (link is here). &lt; DREAMAFTER &gt; &lt; TALK &gt; 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, I do have to prove that. &lt; DREAMAFTER &gt; &lt; TALK &gt; 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Priscilla Painton article
With all due respect, please justify the "controversy" tags (which I've removed). --Nbahn 12:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, as a neophyte to this editing business, I guess that I may have been a bit too hasting in undoing that part of your edit. However, (and I am making an assumption here) I do not understand what is controversial about what I put in.  Maybe I am completely misunderstanding you.  Any clarification that you can offer regarding this matter will be sincerely appreciated.
 * --Nbahn 14:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bearian! I've offered to help the above user, via the article talk page. Would you like to watchlist the page to help keep an eye on it? ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Automated Vauation Method
RE: Some person working for Calnea, a provider of such services, created and edited this article, without notifying the users of WP. Bearian 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A spokesperson for Calnea did post this article, but as a new user, was unaware of needing to contact the users of WP. The article strives to be unbiased, e.g. all providers are listed and no one company is mentioned more than any other. I would very much appreciate it if you would have a read through and verify this. User: Seal1234try

I have removed your comment as it is no longer valid. WOuld it be possible to remove the COI tag on the article, as it no longer applies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seal1234try (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is actually for the Automated Valuation Model. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of main article boilerplate on Intelligent design
This edit deleted the main article boilerplate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CruftCutter (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep cutting the cruft
Good job cutting the cruft. CruftCutter 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Small error
On your subpage User:Bearian/Standards, you have a section called "WP:AfD standards", but it appears to actually be RFA standards. Just thought you'd like to know. Useight 20:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that you had commented on my RFA, and I clicked on your username. I just happened to run into that subpage and saw the error. So, it was pretty much random chance that I bumped into it. Useight (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Condolences
Dear Bearian, I saw on Durova's page that your mother had passed away. I am sorry for your loss and offer my sincerist condolences. I hope that you and your family are okay. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Mushroom (Mario)
Hello; I'd like you to take another look at the AfD on this article (and the article itself.) Notability is determined by the presence of reliable secondary sources on the topic of the article's topic. As a result, the claim "this is notable" (as all of the keep !votes claimed) is meaningless unless sources can be found to back it up. Since notability is objective and based on sources, an article without any sources can't possibly be notable by our definition. I think the clear consensus among editors who based their opinions on Wikipedia policy is to merge/redirect to Mario (series). I invite you to take another look at the discussion. Thank you! - Chardish (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Drill Down
Can you please be specific what is missing as far as citations and verifications are missing for this page. Thanks. Clint Malarchuk

Concorde Tower and Notability
Bearian, you recently put Template:Notability on the Concorde Tower page. I would like to know how much information needs to be added to the page to ensure it is not deleted. I added information, but I am uncertain whether it is enough. Thank you for your time. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Hey Bearian, why did you delete my stub on lexical ambiguity? It was legitimate if you check any of the links/citations. Please restore it, thanks.

-TimT1006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timt1006 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey
Hi, thanks for the note. Definitely feel free to weigh in on the talk page if there's anything you felt should have stayed, I'm glad to replace it. Did you notice that I kept a tiny portion of the pop culture section and moved it up under the "influences" section? That was the only part I could think of any possible use for. But you're right it was a pretty big removal. :) Peace,  delldot   talk  22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Anglicanism
Hello,, and welcome to Wikiproject Anglicanism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Anglican Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! -- SECisek (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just curious
You categorized Giano's statement as "terribe." I'm not trying to change your vote, as you seem pretty stridently anti-Giano, I was just curious as to what part of his statement you found "terrible." Thanks, Mr Which??? 20:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. As for me, I prefer my candidates be honest about both their strengths and their weaknesses. I still don't see what's "terrible" about that statement, but I do appreciate your quick response. Regards, Mr Which??? 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your vote
Much appreciated and I salute you. Keep the faith. EndlessDan for ArbCom 07. -- E n d l es s D a n  21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SRI & Psychic Research
I believe the intention was to merge it into the main remote viewing article, not the SRI page. It's way out of proportion there. jxm (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) To clarify: It's a supposed fork from remote viewing. Guy is the admin who supported developing a separate entry that relies entirely upon mainstream peer-reviewed science sources -- see here. Then he nominated it for deletion as being "too mainstream". I don't think it should be merged into RV until the neutrality flag is removed from that article. jxm (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The basic issue is that much of the editing in the remote viewing template area is being done by a few people with a "pro-psychic" agenda to push, who draw upon unreliable and partisan sources. It's a branch of parapsychology, which does seem to have a reasonably balanced WP entry. The SRI piece describes the principal (and only, as far as I know) discussion of 20th century ESP experiments in mainstream science journals (IEEE, Science, Nature, etc). After about 10 years of sporadic papers and exchanges (1974-1984?), the various journal editors concluded that it wasn't "real" science and declined to continue publishing on this topic.

It seems a pity to jumble the deleted article into the partisan morass of remote viewing right now, but I can see how some people might mistakenly consider it a POV fork away from an already totally non-neutral set of entries. But in any case, it needs to be taken out of the SRT entry, as it's way out of proportion -- there were only about 10 people working on this low-budget project in a high-tech institute of maybe 3500 scientific researchers at the time. Not sure how to deal with this, but thanks for any help you can give. jxm (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

db-spam: Atlas terriers
Hi Bearian, I wanted to let you know I contested the db-spam on Atlas terriers. It looks like there isn't a good guideline on what is a notable breed, and though the article has problems including coi, it doesn't read to me like an advertisement. That said, I think the article may be headed for deletion, and I wouldn't contest a prod. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I left a note on the talk page -- I'd be happy to prod the article. I just don't want to see it deleted before the editor who created it has a chance to substantiate the article with references to demonstrate notability, etc. -- Shunpiker (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

  Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → → Janitor's new tools

Spam must stop -- will new mop act?

Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools

Earnest newbie furrows brow

Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about

Sorcerer's Apprentice mop

Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful

Wikipedia trembles

Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why

Copyright always confused

Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked

Shucks those range blocks are tricky!

Will get it straight soon.



Dear RfA friend, I will learn, chaos will fade ''Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Bearian, thanks for not just for your support but your strong support. I look forward to living up to everyone's expectations -- without losing my sense of humour. -- A. B. (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful  with a vote of 33/7/4. Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help. I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great success!
  Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Cornbrat
Sorry, this one falls under Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Try googling for it. It fails any reasonable definition of notability, IMO. Dr.frog (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

About the tag
Hello, thanks for the contribution in Otaru University of Commerce. Since you put the cleanup tag in the article, I'd like to ask you which points should be copyedited or cleaned up. If you find any points should be modified, I'd like you not only to add the cleanup and stub tag, but also edit some points which should be copyedited. I actually wrote that cleanup MAY be needed in the edit summary, but it didn't directly mean that I just wanted someone to put the cleanup tag, though.... You seem to be very fluent in English, so I assume it's not going to be very hard work for you to find and edit some mistakes in the article, isn't it? If you wouldn't like to reply, just forget this comment please. --Daigaku2051 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely thank you for the contribution in the article many times! I didn't know that is your way of contribution like put the tag in the article first and back to the article and edit later. I'm also really interested in Japan and Japanese Wikipedia, since it's the 5th largest Wikipedia. I often find some articles in Japanese Wikipedia, and sometimes I translate those, although I'm not confident in writing.... I'll submit some articles, and if you find some points should be modified, I'd like you to copyedit again when you have time! Regards --Daigaku2051 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cincinnati Public Radio
Not a problem ... I only listed it for deletion because I didn't see anything in that article that couldn't have gone into the station articles. Maybe it was my deletionist mentality, I dunno ... Blueboy96 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

100th Night
I'm sorry I have no recollection of creating 100th Night maybe your notice on my talk page was placed there in error. If I did and have forgotten (as is very likely) I wonder you might inform me of this as I not being an admin can't see the page or it's history. Thanks Harland1 t/c 15:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
--Michael Greiner 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. Yeah I remember editing it. It came as and article needing to be wikified. I don't actually know anything about it I just tried to wikify it a bit. I wasn't sure whether to prod it but I thought better not better safe than sorry! Harland1 t/c 19:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi Bearian, you weren't told of this yet so I'd better inform you that your block of PHG has been raised at ANI here. Acalamari 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FROM YOUR FRIEND:
 * No problem. Its my job. Enjoy the rest of the week. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

 Idontknow610  (WANNA TALK??) 11:07, 14 December 2007(UTC)

Revision checks
Hello, I uploaded a very initial articles that hit the WP:SPEEDY wall..I've been working with Tyrenius and made numerous edits to establish WP:Notability and cited many more points. I was hoping you might take a look at it and see if you thought it was improved enough to repost. The revised text is on my talk page.--Ditch1852 (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Rosetta Burke AFD
Hi there. I just wanted to drop you a note about this one. You and I both voiced concerns about the behavior of the article's contributor. The entire discussion was deleted from the user's talk page, which is fine. I moved the deleted comments to the AFD page and added some more comments. Ordinarly I would not be so worked up about uncivil behavior like this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this editor is hoping to become an admin herself, which I think would be a serious mistake. I don't think a formal RFC is the way to go on this one, but I could be wrong. Anyway, please take a look.
 * In other news, it seems that I am the lone vote against this article, and I do bow to the will of the majority. It seems there are a whole lot of bios on Wikipedia that are just as non-notable as this one, and I sure do not want to waste my time trying to clean them up, particularly in the face of tactics like these. I'd rather work to clean up the definition of notability so that other editors don't run into these same problems. Thanks for your time. --Cbdorsett (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...check my userboxes. I don't want to become an admin. Again, please assume good faith. Miranda 16:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I got an apology, which I accepted. As far as I'm concerned, this closes the whole thing. Thanks for your time. Cbdorsett (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA
Thanks for noticing I'm obsessive - I was worried no one would ;-) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I have reported vandals to AIV a few times that were not acted on because of similar problems (warnings not recent enough, etc.) so I plan to go through the school for new admins and work my way in slowly. Take care, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The ANI report
Hello Bearian, the archived discussion can be found here. From the discussion, all that seems to have happened is that PHG was unblocked, and everyone moved on from the issue. Acalamari 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dventers78
I userfied the newbie's page. No harm done. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks - I didn't realise that was the thing to do with a small autobiographical article. Can a non-admin do that directly - would page move "John Q. Doe" to "user:JQDoe" work, or would it be necessary to copy and paste and then tag the original article with ? JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but don't think I want to be an admin, not just yet anyway: (a) I need to spend less time on WP, not more, and (b) my experience is a bit narrow, mostly in the rather depressing areas of Recent Changes Patrol and AfD, and I would like to spend some time in more constructive areas. But I am flattered that you should think of it. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My Current RfA
Thanks for the message on my talk page. I am sorry to hear that you gave me neutral but also glad that you did not oppose - I relish any opportunity to grow on Wikipedia (as well as in the real world). I truely believed I was ready but I am unsure now because of the current state of my RfA - but that is life and I will continue to grow and will try again later. :D Jh  fireboy  Talk  23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RfP
Hi Bearian,

Maybe you remember this RfP (diff) where you replied this.

The edit warring is still going on, I think it's wise to have a full protection. What do you think? Kameejl (Talk) 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! Kameejl (Talk) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AtTask
Hi, you recently closed an AFD for the page AtTask (which you marked as CSD, I'm not sure why). I regularly watch the page List of project management software for spam, so I am fairly familiar with articles on various project management software products. I'm considering putting this up for deletion review, but I figured since you were the deleting admin I would start a discussion with you first.

I wasn't aware of the AFD until it was over, so I didn't get to put my opinion in, but I believe the argument that the "product may be notable, but the company isn't" is faulty. If you check out Notability (organizations and companies), it says: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. " It doesn't make sense that a notable product could be made by a non-notable company. While it may not warrant two separate articles, it does at least warrant one article, and as the page above it says it should be included in the article on the company. Now, I noticed that one contributor to the page tried to comply with this conclusion and created an article on the page itself, however this was quickly speedied as "advertising".

I have reviewed the content of the article and the sources given extensively in the past, and I believe it was both written adequately neutral, as well as covered adequately by secondary sources. In most lists of web-based project management software, AtTask will appear in the top few products along with a few other titles, some of which you will find at List of project management software. In addition, AtTask is in the top search results for "project management software" on Google, again with other products from the equivalent Wikipedia page.

This is a notable article and the dispute over company/products is silly. I'd ask that you'd reconsider your deletion. I would also recommend that the best course of action is to ask the contributors to the page to be mindful of our WP:NOR and advertising policies. Thanks for your time, -- Renesis (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Being on the top of google means good seo, not Notability. Its aparrent after eight deletions total including two Afds, this has become an excessive case of abuse and sockpupetry to use wikipedia as a promotional tool. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. In this case the "contibutor" needs to be midfull of WP:SOCK, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. The AFD was was appropriate as was Bearian's closing of it. Also the article was recreated within hours of the second AFD on its redirect page by the sam sock account. Unfortunatly it's to soon to reconsider--Hu12 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Many of your arguments are ones to avoid.  As often happens, several rules of WP are conflicting here, and a sysop is empowered by the community to decide - even ignoring some or all rules if it improves the English Wikipedia.  Under the rules of AfD, a closing sysop may consider a consensus (which I always do - often to other users' chagrin), and several other factors as noted on the XfD pages, but primarily the notability of the article before the community's consideration. Notability of a product is not inherited by its manufacturer.  Examples of notable companies making NN products, and vice versa, abound.  But I was only, and shall only consider what was before me, not other articles that might be out there. In citing the rules at WP:CORP, you failed to note the following preceding paragraph, which puts what you quoted in context: If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services. Note the very important word, IF.  I can not assume the product is notable without any independent proof.  You may go to deletion review to appeal my decision. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you said, "IF". You are right that I assumed this fact, since it seems to me that there is consensus in the AFD that the product is notable.  Multiple, independent sources cover the topic.  This is a universal Wikipedia policy, and it is not up to the whim of one sysop to say otherwise.  In addition, please don't quote-link policies that don't exist ("not inherited") and I would have appreciated you actually covering my arguments instead of saying that they can all be dismissed because you think they are covered by some essay someone wrote one time (isn't that argument in there too?). I don't believe my arguments are actually in there;  If you'll notice, while I did say "other stuff exists", I also said that nearly all of it is less notable than AtTask and removal of all these articles (not any, but all) would worsen Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.  Isn't that our ultimate goal? -- Renesis (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I should note that I would also support the article being written about the product instead of the company, similar to 24SevenOffice. I noticed that this is what one of the editors attempted to do after the deletion of the article on the company, and spurred protection of the titles;  I would unprotect these now to allow this to happen (with warning of the editor to not simply recreate the deleted material) but would like consensus on this issue. -- Renesis (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only (two) keep votes in the AFD were WP:SOCK accounts. - recreated the article four times.  - recreated the article three times plus some redirects, which (within hours of the final Afd), recreated yet again. Neither of these users have any edits outside this topic. All other votes were for delete, by long established users. FWIW, I suspect the first AFD nom had some sock activity also, but that mute. Your arguments are ones to avoid, which seem to echo the same misconceptions made by the WP:SPA's (Assuming good faith of course).  I believe Bearian was refering to NOTINHERITED Wikipedia has 2,135,460 articles. Lets focus on more productive channels. --Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that there was consensus not to delete, but that most of the comments regarding notability seemed to be of the opinion that the company was not notable but the product was (or "might" be -- which I believe it is). I simply believe that coverage of this topic (the List of project management software) is unbalanced and inaccurate without AtTask (the product). -- Renesis (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources turned up in the two AfDs seem *extremely* lightweight. How can a software for project management be one of the leading products and yet have no-one write about it except in passing? My own Google search revealed an eWeek review from October 2006 where the guy actually ran the program and counted the number of clicks to do certain things. This is the only article I could find where anyone ran the AtTask program. If this is all there is, I still don't see the need for an article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Caleb Guillotte
Hi Bearian! I removed the rescue template from that article as its AfD has ended. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi there! Just a quick note to say "thanks very much" for your support on my successful RfA. I appreciate your comments, and especially that the whole furry thing didn't throw you off. *g* I'll be doing my best to use the tools wisely and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools.  My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, --Elonka 10:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How things change in 4 months
You contributed to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Christofascist. Please contribute to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Christofascism (2nd nomination). Uncle G (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) My good and usually very careful friend, you should take a look at the suppe Dorothee Sölle article also.DGG (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, Dorothee Sölle, the popularizer of the term. Sorry about that. I must figure out whom I was thinking of--the best known Suppe is a composer whose work i do not remember ever hearing, though the name sounds a little familiar. DGG (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks. As for the other, one of the few times I !vote to delete an article on a murder, and see where it gets me. :). DGG (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bart Hendrikx
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bart Hendrikx, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. AndrewHowse (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 *  jj137  ♠ 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Condolences
I'm very deeply sorry for your loss, especially at this time of year. I hope you and your family are able to pull together and resolve your differences. Sorry you won't be at the meetup, as I would've liked to thank you in person for nominating me for RfA, but there are always future meetups. For what it's worth, I hope you have an otherwise pleasant holiday. :-) Nightscream (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

An Administrator is I!
Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!

Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.

I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.

Thanks again.

An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear  22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24
I've asked more questions. I thought you may want to read his answers.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Close of Karel Smetena AfD
you were certainly right to close as delete, and to do so a day early. But it shouldnt really have been worded "by A7 speedy", since importance was asserted, and the AfD found it insufficient. Just per results of AfD is the usual reason--I'm sure it was just a slip-up. I think the way to fix it is to undelete, and then re-delete with the appropriate reason. DGG (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your comments on my successful RFA. I've made a minor clarification on my userpage based on your comments, I think there may have been a miscommunication based on the wiki meaning of "POV pushing" versus the non-wiki meaning of "push". Aside from that I take it from your comments that you'd like to see me spend more time on the hunting articles vs the firearms articles, but as you may note from the WikiProject Firearms page my main area of expertise is cartridges, so that's where I spend the bulk of my time. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! &mdash; Noetic  Sage  23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)