User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/003

Oh gawd, not you again...
Thank you very much, I don't think. The way in which you caused me to be blocked on my previous account was entirely unnecessary - if only someone had taken the time to tell me what was wrong with those page moves, it need never have happened. I am only on Wikipedia to make positive contributions! For evidence of this, see Church of St. Peter, Brighton, which I am in the process of creating. Please leave me in peace to make positive, happy editing - and positive, happy editing to you too. Yours contemptuously, Vox Humana 8&#39; 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

123 Pleasant Street
I believe you closed this AFD without following the guidelines for admins. Deletion Guidelines for administrators quite clearly states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable' and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

Well I believe that you had not followed this and closed the article as keep even though no one had addressed any Verifiability questions. The article had no third-party, independent, reliable, reputable sources (let alone multiple sources). There was a local news article on the missing manager but every other link was from the club or was a 'missing persons' page about the manager. If you would take some time and go over my thoughts in the AFD, I would appreciate it. I don't want to waste our time going through a deletion review so I thought I would try to solve this here first. --Brian (view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Charlotte, I was checking the status of this case to see if you have any questions or have had a chance to review the afd again. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if I can offer any additional assistance with this. For expedience of the process, if I don’t hear from you by the end of business today (5pm PST), I will send this case on to deletion review. If you believe that your closing was correct and that it requires no comment, I will understand and will proceed with the process, without malice. I appreciated the opportunity to work with you on this incident. If you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance please let me know. --Brian (view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Indef block evasion
Interesting - User:Vox Humana 8'. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

123 Pleasant Street on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 123 Pleasant Street. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Brian (view my history )/( How am I doing? ) 18:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dave Grohl
What does it matter Wikipedia isn't a realible source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice Concerning an AfD on 123 Pleasant Street
I am providing this notice because you recently (Closed January 1, 2007) provided an opinion concerning keep/delete or other comments relating to the AfD for the article 123 Pleasant Street. This AfD had an announced result of a consensus to "Keep." A User or Users dissatisfied with this outcome have intitated a process other than the public AfD to overturn this result. The article is presently once again listed on a AfD discussion. To assure that your original comments and opinions are considered you should immediately again expression them in the Current AfD

I am providing this notice after consulting with the Admin closing the AfD. Edivorce 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exeter
Hi there. You tagged the infobox at Exeter for cleanup a while ago and nobody seems to have acted on it. What do you think is wrong with the box? — mholland 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there not some "Infobox UK City" template that can be used, rather than a non-standard hand-coded table? That's what I was getting at. Perhaps the template could be worded to that effect, or forked into a new one if that is not the intended meaning, though I always assumed it was. — CharlotteWebb 08:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The template's fine. I would have assumed that it was an invitation to standardise or replace a badly-coded table, except that in this case, the infobox at Exeter is pretty standard among the British cities.  There's no template at the moment, but some cities (Bath, Lichfield) are using infobox England place with map (or without map), and others are using tables like the one at Exeter (Lincoln) or Liverpool.  I'll have a look around and see if there's a solution.  Thank you. — mholland 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

123 Pleasant Street Again
I'm sorry to bring more trouble to your door about this AfD, but as the closing admin of the AfD I don't know who else to address the matter. I am completely confused. The article seems to have had a "Keep" consensus on an AfD two weeks ago? I gather some editor on the losing end has raised some procedural issue, and triggered some less public form of review. My question is: Will the comments of all editors from the previous AfD be considered as part of the record of this AfD? To do otherwise would be profoundly unfair. It would amount to blantant "do over", without even notice to the participants to the AfD. Please condider this a formal request to incorporate these comments. Edivorce 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are unaware of the new AFD and might wish to comment, you can inform them on their talk pages. That, I think, would be the fairest way to proceed with this. And yes, the original AFD did look like "keep" or "no consensus, defaulting to keep" to me also, but as you've concluded, I'm done dealing with it. — CharlotteWebb 08:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please, as a last service, direct me to the appropriate admin or other authority to direct my concerns towards. Thanks. Edivorce 13:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * After I closed it, the complaints began pouring in, see sections above. The best place to direct your concerns would be to the people arguing to delete the article. Provide a rationale for keeping the article, convince the other users to change their minds on the issue, if you can. I wish you the best of luck. — CharlotteWebb 18:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Canvass neutralizer
Hello. You opposed this proposed move. There's a new discussion about the same move here. Users who had previously supported the move were canvassed into the discussion, so this is a notice being sent to users who had previously opposed in order to establish a canvass equilibrium. Regards,-- Hús  ö  nd  20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA
You called me a troll because I voted oppose in Ryulongs RfA, this is considered a personal attack. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks. -Lapinmies 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Church of St. Peter, Brighton
Hi, re. your deletion proposal, you are right of course, in principle, and yet the article actually looks pretty much above average and somehow I couldn't bring myself to deleting it. This EccentricRichard guy, however disruptive he's been, actually seems pretty competent in his area of interests in some way, doesn't he. Weird case. You have obviously more experience with him - do you think he could be rehabilitated in some way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - I've looked a bit further into his past. Wow, quite a history. Competent writer, but extremely opinionated and belligerent, and absolutely no sense of collaboration and compromising. Is that also your experience of the guy? Looks bleak. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I dare stick my own neck in here, my belligerence and opinionation have gone out the window - I have had an experience recently (which, if you don't mind, is too personal to relate) which has shown me tht they do me no good. Could you, on the basis of the good edits I have made, at least give me a week or so's trial period to allow me to prove that I can be a force for good on Wikipedia? EccentricRichard, 22:09 UTC, 23rd January 2007



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Exeter infobox
Hi, Some time ago you added a cleanup-infobox template to the Exeter article (diff). Nothing has changed in the infobox since then, and nobody has discussed it on the talk page. I can't see any problems with it at all. Can you please explain what needs fixing? Thanks. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 09:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (With apologies to CharlotteWebb for butting in - ) Hi Sakurambo. I left a note here to the same effect (which has now been archived).  The infobox on Exeter is a very old design which was applied without templating to political (not geographic) divisions of settlements in England.  I started a thread at Template talk:Infobox England place to discuss expanding Infobox England place to accommodate the cities, but it sort of fell flat.  If you're feeling brave, you can expand the template yourself (wouldn't need much tweaking, but would need to be done carefully to avoid conflicts/upset with the substantial number of other articles using the template).  If it's all right with you, CharlotteWebb, I'll remove the tag on Exeter and add a comment on its talk page instead, to avoid further confusion.  Thank you. — mholland 15:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

None of my business, but ...
Hello CharlotteWebb, bold-non-admin-closer-of-AfDs-extraordinaire. Do you have any plans for an RfA? Any self-imposed shrubberys to meet? You've got a heap of edits, including the near-obligatory AIV ones. I haven't wikistalked your contribs, but I'd have thought you'd be an obvious candidate. Yours in idle curiosity, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You think I stand a chance? After watching Ryulong 3 almost fail, I have my doubts. — CharlotteWebb 00:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryulong was a controversial candidate in many ways. I've never noticed you being less than civil. The things I've seen you bring up at AN* all seemed reasonable. Your experience is broader, or so it seems to me. And you're not a member of the non-existent IRC cabal, not that I've heard anyway. You do stuff in mainspace (we can never have too many redirects!). If you're thinking about it, you should get a third/fourth opinion: ask Radiant, Majorly, or JzG or someone like that what they reckon. I don't see why you wouldn't succeed. The last person I said that to was Isotope23. (But, on the other hand, I nearly said the same to FisherQueen. I was a bit disappointed with the way her RfA went. Just as well I wasn't placing bets!) No need to leap to any rash decisions. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I'm sure JzG really, truly loves me. — CharlotteWebb 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

hi if you dont have anything special to do and want to help you can either wikify the article on The graaf sisters or help on the pages on Melodifestivalen 2007./matrix17

This was a Speedy Keep, right? (Complex conjugate root theorem)
Hello CharlotteWebb. When you recently closed this AfD it was less than five days. Opened Jan. 29, closed Feb. 1. The fact that the nominator withdrew is irrelevant, according to what I've read. Would you consider marking this a Speedy Keep, to clarify matters? 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack removed
I have removed this personal attack from this page. Special mentions to the HagermanBot, which sagely and efficiently marked the attack as unsigned. — mholland 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

question :)
u seem like a moderator hehe so i got to ask u a question, welllll , how to earn the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar thing ? :D lol cuz i have been working alot in this case Ammar 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say fast hands and familiarity with the types of pages where the average edits are most likely to be vandalism. — CharlotteWebb 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey CharlotteWebb,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oratory Preparatory School
I think you might have accidentally reverted back to a vandalized version on the Oratory Preparatory School page. There was a lot of vandilism and confusion, but just so you know, my version was correct, and you then reverted back to a previous one. - OPrams10 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like I did, thanx for the fix. — CharlotteWebb 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

regarding 'Jews in Syria'
Hi, I changed the redirect on this page from Islam and Judaism to History of the Jews in Syria, and you reverted my edits for some reason. I think the edit I made was useful, as the article I redirected it to is much more relevant to the title, Jews in Syria. Please tell me why you reverted, thanks. Asabbagh 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't see any discussion to do so. — CharlotteWebb 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that I didn't add anything in the discussion page regarding my edit? But this is obviously a useful edit, and like I said it makes much more sense and besides, one would expect 'Jews in Syria' to redirect to something like 'History of the Jews in Syria', rather than 'Islam and Judaism'. Ok, I will add a discussion there anyway. Would you please discuss it there? thanks. Asabbagh 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I misread the diff or something. — CharlotteWebb 04:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For protecting my user talk from vandalism.Proabivouac 10:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for revertigng my talk page --St.daniel 12:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The image doesn't appear to be on that website any more -very strange I promise you thats where I got it from -it has texactly the same style as some of the others. I have uploaded Image:AddaGleason1916.jpg for you to look at -a colur art image also orginally taken in 1916. Take your pick. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Look type her name in on google and you'll see the picture. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this but for some reason that site no longer has her image. Look I don't lie about my images -She was never a huge actress but see the first photograph and if you compare it to other siletn images on that site you'll see the historic santa barbara society source they are the same. ALthough she had some uncredited films until the late 1940s I think her career was at its peak in the 1910s up until 1919. You can tell tht the photo is a very early one anyway. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
For reverting vandalism from my user page too :). Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Havocrazy (talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Royal City --> Royal City (band)
Just a reminder...normally if you move an existing article to a new title, you should check to make sure that any links to it are changed to reflect the new title as well. I'm fixing them now, so don't worry about it, but it shouldn't have been left undone for over two months. Thanks. Bearcat 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dana Delany
Thank you for so quickly catching some rather odd vandalism on Dana Delany's page. I've been involved with WP for a few years now and I always try to make sure I understand how other participants help support the efforts here. x 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:MIT images
The MIT license by itself is actually free. The four images that are in that category, however, are (or should be, but are not tagged) unfree because they are derivative works of, in part, a Microsoft operating system. --Iamunknown 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: NBA Players?
Hey there! Could you give me examples of NBA articles which got tagged, so I can look into it a little further. The list my bot has was generated from Category:College basketball and all the sub categories and articles - so somewhere, there were some articles mis-categorized - so it's technically not the fault of the bot. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some examples: Probably all of these are categorized as alumni of some college. I do not think that alone is sufficient reason to tag them as "Wikiproject College Basketball". — CharlotteWebb 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bonzi Wells (Houston Rockets)
 * Steve Francis (New York Knicks)
 * Gary Payton (Miami Heat)
 * Steve Nash (Phoenix Suns)
 * Bobby Phills (deceased)


 * Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention. The bot is now working on fixing the articles it shouldn't have tagged, and the remaining College basketball articles should be tagged correctly from now on. Thanks again --Sagaciousuk (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The James Jordans
_ _ Thanks for catching my clerical errors in adding the military to father & dropping the Jr from son. I think i recall each giving me a small surprise, bcz it contradicted my initial impression, and apparently my first impressions were the more correct! _ _ I summarized
 * ...& + lo-res trmnlgy, non-bio-lk-free version re father

where _ _ I think i've addressed everything you raised, except what you put back: _ _ Thanks for asking, and thanks for your careful and responsible use of the summaries. --Jerzy•t 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the plus sign makes no sense, and probably was from momentary confusion about whether i had added date, nationality or calling information (which i routinely summarize as "+ data")
 * 2) "lo-res trmnlgy"  (low resolution terminology) refers primarily to the removal of details not useful for navigation, in this case the precise relationships and the name of MJ. The navigation that the LoPbN tree is designed for is guiding to a biographical article a user who either can't stand to type another article title into the Go/Search pane, or is unconfident of typing the title close enuf that the system's case-guessing algorithm and the applicable Rdrs are sufficient for getting there without multiple attempts.  Such users must roughly know the surname, and depending on the surname may need at least some such additional information as a hope of recognizing the given name, time period, nationality, and/or calling, in order to reduce the number of candidates for the target article to one, or to very few. The assumption justifying the lo-res trmnlgy is that on one hand the list is useless without having the name down pretty well, and on the other adding more detail impedes access by adding clutter that isn't useful to anyone except those with so little information that LoPbN is a foolish choice for finding the desired article.
 * 3) in particular, adding links, other than to the titles of the bios of the person whose name determines the alphabetic position of the article, can't be helpful and complicates the navigational process in about 15 very minor ways.
 * Saying "ampersands look unprofessional", you substituted "and". (That reason is unsound bcz the symbol stands for the scholarly Latin "et" meaning "and", and is constantly seen in the legally registered and rigorously standardized trademarks and service-marks of entities in the professions, and other entities devoted to vocational rather than avocational purposes.) I don't doubt that you meant "informal" rather than "unprofessional", but that is wrong too, in contrasting formal prose with other (simpler but equally formal) uses of language. Ampersands are appropriate here because this is not prose, even tho it differs as much as prose does from instant messages and quick notes meant to be read once and discarded. This is a highly structured list, possessing many of the properties of a table, and calling for terse expression. Use of "a" and "the" are inappropriate here bcz they carry too little meaning in these contexts to justify the brief distraction of reading them. Ampersands are appropriate bcz they encapsulate the function of tying together the items in a list, in a single immediately recognized character. With a tachistoscope, you could immediately show that "&" is read faster than "and", and in human factors studies entailing many more "trials" you could show that LoPbN as it is, with ampersands (and no comma preceding them, and unlk'd rather than lk'd words) produces faster research, reduced fatigue, and enhanced user satisfaction compared to what you would measure with those factors changed.
 * Likewise, i intuit, and think it stands to reason, that for steady users of LoPbN, stereotyped expressions like "sports-family member", "political-family member", "musical-family member", in place of richer ones like your "father of Michael Jordan" produce analogous results.
 * If you trust your own intuitions and knowledge more than mine, the place to deal with it is on talk:LoPbN or one of its subpages. There we can muster more than two intuitions, and hopefully recruit to the discussion subject experts in cognitive psychology, who can effectively search and competantly interpret the literature of that field. In the meantime, changing it piecemeal accomplishes nothing but increasing inconsistency in these roughly 700 pages of entries, whose preponderant style is what you are objecting to.

Thanks
For the revert.:)--– Dakota 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Luckyluke's RFA
You placed an opposition on Luckyluke's RFA without a comment. Any reasons behind your opposition? --Deryck C. 10:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Rklawton
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my RfA. In order to gain a better understanding of your objections, I searched Google for instances where our user names might appear on the same Wikipedia page, but I found nothing relevant. Could you perhaps point to some diffs related to your objections? Rklawton 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hell to pay
Oh, so many people with no shame whatsoever.... KP Botany 05:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 25
I must respectfully to your closure to of the above CfD. Despite you note about a "frivolous" (nothing frivolous about one of these people raising another legal stink) concern, even the nominator agreed that input should be sought from counsel in defining what defined "clear cut," if you will. You will also note that the only person with a legal degree also expressed conerns.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to be said about people with degrees, but it does not change the fact that no other membership category is limited to the "here and now" due to the cultural stigma associated with the group. I would welcome a deletion review discussion if you would like to debate this further, however I am almost certain that this outcome will be upheld.. — CharlotteWebb 09:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In lihgt of recent events, I would say that WP:BLP trumps general trends in categorization. Before you closed the arguement, both sides were waiting for those concerns to be addresed by someone with a level of expertise in the legal end of the matter. I feel that such a closure should have been held for such imput. If someone can say that WP:BLP does not matter here, I am fine with your closure, otherwise, I'm not so sure about its validity. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC) I have opened a DRV at Deletion review/Log/2007 March 10. Hopefully, you can address my concerns over there and we can move on to more pressing matters. :) Cheers and keep up the good work.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just ignore all of that. I'm pretty sure that my concern comes out of some work that I did on the Robert Byrd article a year or so ago on building a fragile consensus (which included use of the deleted category for that reason). While I still feel that WP:BLP may come up again in the future, my attatchment to some old work on the 'pedia is not a good enough of a reason to pursue this further. Take care.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 15:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that there is a distinction to be made between "current members" and "former members" in some contexts, but categorization of members by group is not one of them. To change this would require a significant re-write of categorization guidelines. We'd want to have, for example, extra "Former..." subcategories for every organization, rock band, sports team, political office, religious affiliation, or any other grouping of people by a characteristic they weren't born with. I hate the KKK, everybody hates the KKK, nobody wants to admit having anything to do with the KKK, but I firmly believe applying different categorization standards to notable KKK members on that bias would violate WP:NPOV. — CharlotteWebb 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish that you would have said that in your closing rather than just dismissing the other side as "frivolous" (I promise that is the last time I quote your use of the word, btw :) ) Cheers.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Hey, I'm just writing to appologise for the copyright violation stuff, I am truly sorry for what has happened, please read my userpage for a full explanation. I honestly did all the edits in good faith and please be aware that there will be no reoccurance of this, when I realised what I had done, I was more gutted than anyone, I really hope you can forgive me, and I promise that I won't abuse any admin tools Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously I am not a victim of your plagiarism, I merely opposed your RFA. While I accept your apology, I doubt this is the place for it. On the other hand, apologizing to the sources whose work you copied might only draw harmful attention to the incidents, so I'm not sure what advice to give you. — CharlotteWebb 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Increase Mather
Please see Talk:Increase_Mather. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. Rest assured that I heard every voice loud and clear during the discussion, and will strive to use the mop carefully and responsibly. No harassment about edit summaries. Please don't hesitate to give me constructive criticism anytime. Xiner (talk, email) 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gary Radnich
I've responded to your comments on BLP, but I wanted to apologize for mentioning you there without first alerting you to the problems on your talk page. I understand how you could have construed the edit you reverted as vandalism, but in the full context of the content removed and the sources it cited, I believe that edit to have been a proper (if clumsy, given the broken reference) attempt to remove biased and malicious items from the article in question. Again, apologies for lumping you in with the various IPs that added the offending content in the first place. No need to reopen the thread, in my opinion, as the article appears to be in a stable state at this point. JavaTenor 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)