User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 2

Oliver Diller
It is not nonsense it is real - oliver diller is real —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emstu10 (talk • contribs).
 * Assuming arguendo that the subject exists, he is nevertheless non-notable, and the information you added was plainly unencyclopedic; see the deletion log for more. Joe 04:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning
First of all, after reading your user page, I would bet that if you did indeed attend the universities which you claim to have attended, you did so as an extension school/night school student, rather than as a legitimate undergraduate. Secondly, you have been identified as an agitator by the User:AeurianOrder, and from now on your edits will be watched and reverted if they shown sign of POV. AO Charles 04:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This was posted in view of my removing unsourced criticism from an article with an already large criticism section. You be the judge! Joe 05:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Emstu10
Hmm, yeah, this is an interesting one. You're right that AN/I would do little at this point; the guy has made an interesting mixture of small useful edits, trolling posts and nonsense article creations, but has swung clear of doing anything bad/often enough to warrant a block. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was gaming the system and trolling with every edit, fully aware of what he's doing. But Assume Good Faith: he must be a newbie who doesn't know our ways yet.

The best I can suggest is that we keep an eye on him. I'll watchlist his talk page and pop by to see his contribs every so often. If he's going wrong, we can point him in the right direction and guide him. At the same time, if he resorts to adding lots of nonsense again or indulges in personal attacks, the fact that we're watching means we can get him quickly through the templates and out the door in one day - although one, as always, hopes it won't come to that. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 08:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Jcreator11
Excuse me, but you reverted a piece of my user page, and I don't appreciate that. I don't bother you, and you don't bother me. I'm not angry, just irritated. Thanks.Jcreator11 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert your user page (you haven't a user page); I reverted your removal of my vandalism warning (given after you altered an AfD tag). Joe 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The AO club
Joe, I strongly suspect that you and I will get along just fine, despite the a priori truth that your Badgers must have cheated whilst playing against my Bears. If you read my comment on WP:AN/I, you'll see I'm probably in for some sort of elite, special level of membership in the "I obviously hate Jews" club (nevermind that I could regale you with stories about, say, my brother's bris. Yick). I see you've already read it. You're right: I simply want attention. I've been informed that my hands are tied and I am "unforchunately" powerless to resist AO Charles, but have not received the warning I sought, so it appears my efforts were fruitless. Perhaps next time. JDoorj a m    Talk 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA

 * Good for a laugh.ßlηguγεη | Have your say!!! 06:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mike Gabbard
Thanks, I basically agree with your assesment. When I saw the spinning and pulsating graphics I almost let it go. If Gabbard's people were shrewd they'd point to that site and say, "See? This is what our critics are like." Tom Harrison Talk 20:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I usually ignore nonsense personal attacks that crop up here and there on Wikipedia, unless the person making them is persistant, but when you get six emails addressed to "dear cunt" with pages and pages of vituperation, then that's a little over the top. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, and in general, I agree with you, but there are times when an admin can only take so much. My Talk page gets vandalized daily, but I tend to ignore it.  Other people revert the edits, I just don't worry about them.  They would be attacking my User page, except that it's protected because it used to be the target.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the commiseration. :)  Having read your discussion, I think you'd probably make a great admin, because you still believe in WP:AGF, which I've left behind years ago, unfortunately.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Edits like this tend to wear you down after a while. I got so fed up that I left Wikipedia for over a year.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheep sexing
Yeah, I sniggered to myself when I wrote it. Personally I pictured someone walking away from a sheep with a really satisfied look on their face melting into concern, then panic, then terror. Or maybe the sheep was more worried than he was... Phileas 04:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Second nomination
Thank you for moving my second nomination of "Intel processor confusion" to its own page. I wasn't sure how to add a second nomination, so thanks for helping with that. Jgp 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Gl e n T C 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD
wow, a "strong delete". and after i made it neutral. so unnecessary... fascists.

the only reason anyone would go to thomas cooley is the money or the schedule. i've always wondered if i would've been happier there. i doubt it, you know... michigan.

VandalProof Problems
Hi Joe, sorry to hear you are having problems with VandalProof. There have been problems recently with users added to the list by moderators, and so AmiD has actually stopped us adding new users for the present time. Your best bet is to just leave a message for AmiD and he'll get back to you and should have you working in no time. If you still have no luck drop me a message and I'll take a look for you. --Wisd e n17 00:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalproof
Hi there. It's been discovered that a bug in VP actually removes all users added by a moderator when another moderator makes an addition - meaning we've all been adding people, seeing them get wiped, adding them again, and in turn wiping our fellow mods additions without knowing it. You can imagine the frustration! I will ahead and have you added manually now, and apologies for the confusion! - Gl e n T C 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem sorry about the hassles! It may take a little while to come through so thanks so much for your patience - Gl e n T C 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof
Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just Curious
Was just curious why you posted a message on my talk page, erased it immediately and then apologized.

PCE 07:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks for the explaination. Just wondering where my user name was found?

LOL - I was looking for but could not find the stuff the doctor prescribed for me. Instead I took the opposite approach and began drinking coffee. I'm up to a pot a day.

Also I was curious becasue I had done an edit on law and my cousin graduated from Princeton.

I may have fixed the edit summaries bug
Aha!! God, am I dense. Try copying this into User:Jahiegel/monobook.js to install popups:

// User:Lupin/popups.js

document.write(' ');

And then purge the cache by pressing Ctrl+F5, and click this link one last time. I didn't even realize that the switches my app uses were depependent upon popups' routines. Even more incentive for me to go to Java. Tell me if this works. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reason for reverted your change on Andrew Wiles
The two people mentioned and I plan to add the April Fools joke related to FLT but also important to stopping rumors about Andrew Wiles targeted Wiles most likely for fame but failed. One was a hoax and the other one was simply biazzare. I do not think I'll revert I'll just remove it. It was not meant to be a cristism section but ... Timothy Clemans 06:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

afd of cool
Your thoughts with respect to the capacious discussion that has taken place at both the AfD page and the AfD talk page well encapsulate my thinking on the matter; I have been altogether amazed that at the wide-ranging and strident debate that has taken place, parts of it altogether irrelevant to an AfD determination. I feel altogether sorry for the admin who closes the debate; it surely is easy to dismiss such a long page as necessarily reflecting no consensus, but that determination should not be made exclusively in view of a lengthy debate's having taken place--nevertheless, I expect the article will be closed as no consensus. In any case, you're altogether right that soon this may fall into the "lamest edit wars ever" category... :) Joe 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I've made my statement on what I believe should happen and I'm now staying away from that debacle. And you are correct--I pity the admin that has to wade into that crap. That's a shame, though. There is an article buried in all that crap but I suspect the editors involved will not be able to reach consensus and find it. Best, --Alabamaboy 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

DAATH and Roadrunner have 27,200 hits, (and on a major label)
DAATH has been signed to a major metal record label, Roadrunner records this month. If you checked the proper sites, you would have found this. DAATH is scheduled to tour with Opeth and Cradle of Filth this fall. Daath is listed on Roadrunner's main artist page. check here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/artists/

and here: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/artists/Daath/

I'm not certain where you get your webhit listing from. But when you search the largest search engine, Google, you find the following:

Daath+Roadrunner = 27,200!!! Daath + metal = 54,200 hits Daath+MTV = 820

If you search Daath with other members you will find far less but much more than 22:

Daath+Eyal Levi = 148 Daath + Michael Kameron = 104 Daath + Mike Kameron = 24

Reputable notes:

-Daath's producer is former Death, Testament, and Obituary guitarist James Murphy. -Daath's new album has Kevin Tally from Chimara, a Jim Malone from Arsis and James Murphy as guest artists. -Daath completed one leg of a tour in Europe with the band Organ earlier this year. -Daath has had national interviews on ghostlytalkradio and 4Q Radio in England lasting more than an hour. -Daath has announcements of their next album on MTV and VH1 websites and will be on the MTV Headbangers Ball Compilation this year.

MTV Listing (search for DAATH on the page) http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1528101/20060406/lacuna_coil.jhtml?headlines=true

So as you can see we are deserving of being listed on Wikipedia. Please restore our site or make it available for entry, The first 3 times (daath) was entered in by our fans. It was being edited for consistancy.

Best regards Daath and Claire Reeve

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download
Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to point out ...
As you apparently will be reading for the law, allow me to point out that the originator of the Rfc which you endoresed [here] had closed that Rfc, annoucing in bold text near the top of its page: "This request for comments is now closed. The matter has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration. Please do not add further comments to this page. -- ChrisO 18:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)" That you, whose screen name has not appeared much and who has never communicated with me, would endorse a dead file in the manner you did makes me wonder what you are attempting to contribute and to whom you are attempting to contribute it to. Thus, since you seem to have some interest in the area, I invite your communication. Terryeo 15:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding that I needn't to justify myself to you, notwithstanding that it is generally understood as untoward to assume bad faith, and notwithstanding that signing an outside view on a closed RfC is understood as "commenting" on that RfC (cf., editing a closed RfA or AfD, upon the close of each of which a template requesting no further amendment is added), I would suggest that I am often involved at RfC (toward which proposition I adduce, inter al., that my Wikipedia space edits are more numerous than yours, especially to RfAr and RfC), and, so, irrespective of the fact that we haven't interacted much, my signing an "outside view" on an RfC about you isn't particularly gauche. I certainly haven't any animus toward you and don't impute malign motive to your writing me; I apprehend a sincerity in your query, and, so I should say that my signing an "outside view" stemmed mainly from my having read the RfAr to which you are a party and my having agreed with the views (apropos of your conduct) of those pursuing the RfAr and those agreeing with Cyde's outside view. Even as I haven't talked to you previously, I have certainly seen your contributions, inasmuch as sundry Scientology articles are on my watchlist, and I have appreciated in some of your edits a tendency toward POV, although I certainly don't mean to suggest that such POV insertion is volitional. Nevertheless, I hope you will not infer my signing the RfC, especially out-of-time, as reflecting disdain for you; I haven't any ill will toward you, and, indeed, think you to be a good editor in several areas, but fear that you tend sometimes toward POV in the Scientology articles. Cordially, Joe 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, whew, an impressive and cordial presentation, Jahiegel. While I mentioned nothing about bad faith, I appreciate that you made the effort to bring it up.  No, my question was real straightforeward.  Why did you respond to a close Rfc ? Terryeo 12:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are refusing to answer the question, is that the message? Terryeo 13:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
Joe 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the only way to unblock you would be to undo the entire rangeblock.-- Shanel § 02:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand, but I think the relevant rangeblock should be undone; much of the vandalism for which Curps was blocking came from IPs in the other SBC blocks for which he issued blocks. In the alternative, the block time should be reduced; IMHO, rangeblocks, generally looked upon with disfavor, should be 24 hours only in extreme cases.  Btw, after seeing the meat on your userpage last night, I ate exorbitantly today and now must work out seventeen straight hours tomorrow; my weight gain is on you (and Essjay, of course).  Joe 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This particular vandal has been very persistent both yesterday and today, moving on to new articles when his initial target pages are protected and moving on to new IP addresses and IP ranges when his current IP addresses or ranges are blocked, making a few hundred vandalism edits using several dozen IP addresses. Articles targeted have included Disturbed, Gay, Queer, Wikipedia, Introduction, Apple Macintosh, Michael Moore, Liberalism, Steve Wozniak, Apple Computer, France, Hacker, and ranges have included (to the best of my knowledge) 66.72.232.0/21, 68.21.192.0/20, 68.23.128.0/19, 68.74.160.0/19, 68.74.192.0/20, 68.75.80.0/22, 69.210.96.0/19, 69.210.128.0/19, 75.7.76.0/22, 75.12.128.0/21.

There really isn't any other way to deal with this person other than range blocks. I really hope you and other SBC customers have contacted [mailto:abuse@sbcglobal.net], 800-648-1626 as suggested in the blocking messages. Given the IP addresses and timestamps, SBC can easily identify which one of their customers this is and can tell them very firmly to stop.

Here is a small fraction of the vandalism IP addresses and timestamps (in Central Daylight Time, since the vandal may be physically located near Milwaukee). You might wish to pass this information to the SBC abuse contact:

/Apr 16/ 13:00 CDT 68.74.194.79, 12:59 68.74.195.87, 12:57 69.210.118.150, 12:23 68.74.195.57 /Apr 15/ 11:31 CDT 68.74.198.108, 11:27 69.210.119.239, 11:14 68.74.193.60, 11:12 68.74.199.116 /Apr 14/ 22:34 CDT 69.210.131.18, 22:33 69.210.150.113, 22:32 69.210.134.114, 22:31 69.210.137.170, 22:30 69.210.153.245, 22:28 69.210.121.139, 22:27 69.210.148.86, 22:22 69.210.151.8, 22:21 69.210.102.221, 22:20 69.210.98.43, 22:18 69.210.120.9, 22:17 69.210.122.38, 22:14 69.210.99.21, 22:13 69.210.133.84, 22:09 69.210.100.164, 22:05 69.210.129.50, 22:03 69.210.110.215

It's important that SBC customers contact SBC, because they are unlikely to give much priority or attention to complaints by third party non-customers. -- Curps 04:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the celerity with which you replied and the capaciousness of your reply. I'd not realized, I suppose, the extent of the vandalism.  Even as I typically frown upon contacting ISPs apropos of abuse undertaken by users, and even as, upon viewing your summaries suggesting that one contact SBC, I'd planned not to, I think now that I certainly will; it is surely correct that complaints by customers are likely to be better received, and, in any case, Wikiwithdrawal surely can't be good for my health. :) Joe 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dogstar Photography
No problem, Joe. Keep fighting the good fight out there. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

many thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated! --Ixfd64 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just glad I could help. Cheers! :)  _-M      o      P-_   03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: User page vandalism
No worries. That's what Wikipedia editors do for each other. Well, the non-vandal editors, that is. :) Buchanan-H  e  rmit™ .. SCREAM!!! .... 03:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My Apolgies
My apologies. You must have been doing it wrong. I suggest you try sticking a 60 watt light bulb into you right eye and see what happens. Should you unfortunately become blind in both eyes, I suggest that perhaps you may still be misunderstanding my instructions. As a final resort, try hooking up a 120 volt wire to your testicles. That should do the trick. If this doesn't work, I'd be pleased to send you a cheque. Send me your address so that I can send you a $20,200 cheque. (US$ of course) $10,000 for each eye and $100 for each testicle (believe me, that's way more than yours are worth, if I were you, I'd take the money and settle out of court.) Best wishes. Loomis51 07:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Berman
I do think the shootings Mr. Berman died in would be notable enough to merit an article, the more I think about it.

You have to be gentle. The younger Berman is the sort of person I'd like to see encouraged to make positive contributions to the project ... Lord knows we have enough teenage vandals; one who legitimately edits cannot be encouraged strongly enough.

You can shop for a barnstar in the morning. It's been a while since my last one. Daniel Case 05:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Vandalism
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page while I was on WikiBreak!

-- Primat e #101 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am really starting to hate that vandal (he keeps changing IP's)!

49-Mile Scenic Drive
Thanks for moving the page. Much better. The lower-case format 49 mile scenic drive looked bland. Schmiteye 03:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Angela Shelton
The aformentioned citation on the Angela Shelton page, relatiing to her molestation and subsequent placement in foster care can be found on her official website. Since I am unsure of how to site articles properly, I don't want to mess up the article in the process. If you or another user could provide help in this matter I would appreciate it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kc12286 (talk • contribs).

perspicacious
thanks for your praise, which was definitely 4 parts Princeton, 1 part Thomas M. Cooley law school. LOL. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

AN/I
Your suggestion (complete with sample template text) was, for me, one of the four or five funniest things ever I've read here. I'd bust out a barnstar with which to commend your humor, but I'm certain that some will perceive your facetiousness as indifference/malignance and would find your being honored for it altogether gauche. You have my compliments, at the very least... Joe 06:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Watch, this will come up in my RfA in 2008 :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA
--M e ts501talk &bull; contribs 01:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Team Re: RfC Woggly
I am presently coordinating a team of advocates re: my RfC for harassment / threats by user:woggly. I welcome you to be a member. Simply read the RFC lodged against me by user:woggly and the RFC which I have filed against her. It's really simple stuff when all of her harassment and my (and others) various attempts to resolve any issues are in black and white. Please also view the talks pages where Woggly admits to harassment and infers that she will not cease. Thank you for your consideration. Best wishes, IsraelBeach 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
On 2006 I have tried 2 times to add my input for May 25th I am meaning no harm I am just adding a possible date there is plenty of info so I should be able to add it. I would add it again but that would break the 3rr so would you please revert the page back to the way I put it? Being that it isn't I who am doing vandalism. Mahoga ny


 * I guess you guy's have a point it sort of is crap, so back to fighting vandals Mahoga ny

rfa
Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
Please leave talk page be. I do not have to leave taunts from vandals there. If you have questions about why I deleted Gulliver, look at his recent edit history. Also, why are you watching my talk page? I don't know you. Merecat 05:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat's talk page
I've sundry talk pages on my watchlist, many for users with whom I've had only tangential contact; inasmuch as many content discussions take place on user talk (cf., article talk) pages, I read many user talk pages, if only in order that I might insinuate myself into discussions that I find interesting. With respect to reverting your talk page, notwithstanding that I generally look with disfavor on one's removing anything from his/her talk page (I maintain a policy of not removing any comments from my talk page; I trust that, if they're frivolous, fellow users will apprehend as much), it's generally considered indecorous to remove warnings (even those that are constructive [cf., de jure/by template]) from one's talk page, even where one thinks such warnings to be altogether without merit. One is better served to initiate a discussion on his/her talk page with respect to the warning; most notably, even as a few warnings might be left in bad faith, most are sincere, if inappropriately offered, and ought to be discussed. Adding talk is always preferable to removing talk, IMHO, and, generally, under guidelines/policies. Cordially, Joe 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I am aware of common practice in that regard. If the user in question wasn't being so argumentative, perhaps I'd care to listen to him. His very 1st comment to me was simply not nice and based on my ad hoc dynamic talk page deletion policy, I sometimes delete comments like that sooner rather than later. I am sure that you, in earnest contemplation will respect and admire that my personal tranquility is also to value, yes? Certainly I am sure we agree. Tell me though, when did you 1st place my talk page on your watch list and why? A prompt answer to this question is mandatory, else I'll find your comment specious and will eventually delete it. When, I can't say. Cheerio. PS: I reject categorizing that comment which I deleted as a "warning" - look at the recent edits of the deleted poster and tell me what you think of them. Merecat 05:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

re: WP:NOT EVIL
Yes, well, thank you for your nice note. I also have found the discussion to be a generally fairly hight level and your comments in particular to be cogent. I will now proceed to rip them to shreds, not sparing arguments making an example of you personally, to the extent that you have vouchsafed information about your personal belief system. Sorry! All for science, you know. Cheers, Herostratus 21:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kiwi Alejandro Camara
See my response. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Where's my barnstar for suicide3? lol
 * I just don't see it anywhere in policy. I've seen people contest CSD's before, especially facially improper CSD's. Why not? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was nice. See AfD here: Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Belated Reply
Hi,

Apologies for my tardiness; I've been waiting to find the time to give your detailed note the full response it deserves, and have slowly come to the realization that such freedom may not happen until my retirement. So, I must scrawl now or never. :)

I am impressed that you seem even more fond of sesquipedalianism than I, a quality truly rare. It's always comforting to know that wordsmithery is not entirely extinct.

You may not even recall the subject proper of your note (still at my talk page, if you need a refresher), but it concerned the proper standard of review at DRV. The main factor absent from your analysis, in my view, is the status of adminship on Wikipedia. Although "adminship is no big deal" and administrative authority is minimal, closures are typically given deference as a matter of courtesy to the closing admin. This is, perhaps, more a reflection of an informal stare decesis than anything -- once any competent person on a Wiki has made a choice, that choice is respected because there is so much other work to do. This project is so vast such that it would be overcome with paralysis if every detail were pondered en masse. De novo review is inconsistent with this reality of Wikipedia's scope.

More practically, the sad truth of DRV is that a good proportion of the requests arise from either 1) ill-informed newer editors or 2) vexacious editors unwilling to yield to an obvious consensus contra themselves. In these situations, which together account for about half of DRV business, an invitation to de novo review is nothing more than an exercise in formalism. This is especially unfortunate when one considers that the two disfavored classes mentioned above, as a rule, revel in the trappings of formalism, since these can serve as a mask for the lack of merit in their claims. You will hear others refer to this problem as "wikilawyering"; being an attorney, I have my reasons for avoiding that pejorative. :)

Anyway, I do appreciate your note, and promise much quicker replies should I again have the pleasure of reading your well-crafted words. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

May the Force be with you.
Dear ,
 * Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M   o   P-_  21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Query
You seem like a very reasonable editor. Have you given any thought to being an admin? Seems like you may be the good type for it. Friday (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Joe, no worries. I realized you didn't have the full background. And actually I'm a dog and a cat person, almost equally (dogs are very slightly ahead). ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Child sex abuse
Hello Joe: In Response to what you wrote on my discussion page about my stated views about what I said should be done with people who advocate sex with minors. I must say I am surprised anyone would defend them, but since you asked... In the NAMBLA discussion, I spoke passionately, only because I was personally raped by such a person. Finding such a website sent ripples of fear all though me and flashbacks. Still, now that I feel calmer, I do not condone any civilian taking the law into thier own hands. I feel that the police should enfore the laws and that the community should watch and see that children are protected from predetors. A preditor is anyone who might stalk a child between between ages newborn & 16 for any reason. Children are innocent and can not think to protect themselves against the wiles of unscupulus adults. If you disagree with me, understand that with conviction that my experience, being libereral in most things has taught me this! It is candidness. I do not honestly advocate castration or such, but such criminals must be taught to fear the consiquenses of thier actions. Merlinus. --merlinus 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)