User talk:Johnleemk/Archive5

'Welcome to my talk page''; feel free to leave any enquiries/comments/brickbats you feel like leaving here. If it necessitates a response, one will be made on your talk page instead of here. I do not usually watch Talk pages I write comments on, so I typically expect a response on this page. Thanks for co-operating.'''

You can add a new comment to this page here.

Archives:
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive1
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive2
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive3
 * User talk:Johnleemk/Archive4

Articles for deletion/Kai Unreal
Hi, I just saw you closed this debate as "merge and redirect". I was about to close it myself but decided to do a bit of research to determine the best target. I suggest that you merge it with Unreal II: The Awakening rather than Unreal since I think that is the only game where this race is present. (One learns a lot of extremely useful stuff from closing debates.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

INTL
You mentioned that you spend time on INTL; ever thought about adding something to the HeavenGames article about the split? I briefly looked into the place once; the FAQ (http://forums.interestingnonetheless.net/faq/index.html) is quite interesting (and probably citable). Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 13:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh
Oops, looks like we hit a few of those AfD closings at the same time. Looks like they're all fixed now though. I noticed we had different interpretations on one; I've added a note on the Talk:Brutaka page about my reasoning for the "redirect" result. Happy editing! -- Jonel | Speak 05:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Dual gauge for Africa
Given the level of work in that, and that it had no other home, I hope you considered userifying it before it got the axe... (I was a delete voter) No reply necessary (but if you reply, here is fine, I'm in the I watch what convos I start camp) ++Lar: t/c 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for userifying for him, that was kindness. I left the user some suggestions (take the categories out, as articlespace cats should not point to user pages, and find another home as soon as they can) Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Balls
I won't say where, because even some of the trees are on her side, but that took some chops. Pure numbers put this somewhere from .64 to .68, but of course it's not a vote. I'll bet this makes the mailing list just light up. brenneman (t) (c) 12:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

closing insults
I really don't see why you needed to take this cheap shot. Its insulting, and obviously mistaken. I normally vote to keep verifiable school articles, and I've noticed a number of those who usually vote delete, have themselves voted to keep (or made) articles lacking basic verifiability (in other words inclusionists care as much about verifiability as anybody). Also, one reason people sometimes do make irrational votes, ignoring reasoning (on all sides) is because they get sucked into an emotional debate, which exacerbated by immature comments, such as the one you gave. What's particularly annoying, is that when I decided to make this second nomination, I knew it would be used by those who's sole contribution would be to repeat old whining about school artilce inclusion. Yet, I did it anyhow, because I care more about the encyclopedia, then the silliness (which you wish to promote). One the reason this article wasn't deleted the first time, is the nominator in his reasonings, failed to discuss the only good reason for deletion: non verifiability. By getting side tracked into meaningless POV on notability, core policy was ignored. We see too many AFDs where policy is ignored because people are obsessed with pushing their old POV. Perhaps one reason those opposed to school articles have failed so miserably, is that the entire extent of reasoning of *some* (not all) is saying "nn" and then insulting people. Incidently, the first AFD was supposed to be closed as consensus delete, as some "keep" votes were conditioned on verifiability. Anyway, despite your discouraging words, I'll continue to nominate non verifiable articles (schools or not). --Rob 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver deletion...?
Why is there a link if it can't be updated?

The information is accurate. What’s the problem? How is this vanity and self promotion? I'm not TC Tolliver. Furthermore the link is to T.C Tolliver, so of course it’s going to be about him.

I see Ritchie Stotts, Chosei Funahara, and Neal Smith where able to update their links, how is TC different?

What is acceptable? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk &bull; contribs).

redirects are cheap
What do you mean by "redirects are cheap"? --jeolmeun 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saugeen Stripper 2
Removing votes from people who only had a couple of edits (although if we didn;t the results are largely the same) ends up with a finally tally by my count of 40 delete votes, 6 merge/redirect votes, and 20 keep votes.... and you closed it with a claim of "no consensus" and also with a claim that the votes on the page cannot be used to demonstrate consensus for any action? Is this a joke? By most standards I've seen that's a pretty clear vote to delete, with a redirect option (obviously those people who support deletes would support redirect over keeping as is) as a clear, clear consensus. I think the way you count and the way you describe results is clearly making it virtually impossible to end up with reasonable results, and the vote just becomes a colossal waste of everyone's time because one person comes along and just declares no consensus. Clearly not how things are supposed to work. DreamGuy 14:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also object as there was twice as many delete votes as keeps; if that's not consensus, I don't know what is anymore. --OntarioQuizzer 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT a democracy. From Consensus,
 * "Precise numbers for 'supermajority' are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. When supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin."
 * AfD is about the comments more than about votes. The comments were convincing to a facilitator who used his best judgment and properly determined that there was no consensus.  -- Jonel | Speak 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may intervene, 40 delete votes out of 66 total is only 60% delete, which is about as low as anyone would go to close a debate in favour of delete, and even then at a stretch. Most people use 66%, some even use 70%. Anyway, it's not supposed to be a vote, its a debate, and the keeps had a good argument, which bolsters their weight when weighing the votes. I would have closed this the same way. --bainer (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the first few keep people mentioned that nothing of substance had changed since the previous AfD two weeks earlier, which is a pretty strong argument. I would have closed, and I probably would have been bold and merged too, since that wouldn't have caused any problems for a majority of the participants in the AfD. --bainer (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The merge is already done, so no need. The clarification was mostly for other people, eg DreamGuy. cheers, --bainer (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver standards?
While I appreciate your response; you still did not explain why the other members of the Plasmatics where granted entries to their links. Mr. Tolliver has earned his place as any other member of the band (Even the NJ Music Hall of Fame recognizes that http://www.njmusic.org/).

A little guidance to rectify the situation would lead me to believe there is an interest in up keeping standards; other than outright denial.

Obviously there must be an acceptable compromise, unless of course there is deeper bias issue.

Thanks in advance for reconsidering. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk &bull; contribs).

AfD Thanks
Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Afd closing of Matthew 1:2
Hi, I noticed you closed this AfD as a merge. As I count the the votes, there were:
 * 8 KEEP (SimonP, Dan, Doc, Choalbaton, Tvaughn05, Dsmdgold, ViolinGirl, and DJ Clayworth) (40%)
 * 9 MERGE (Esprit15d, Uncle G, Ruud, Grimm, NaconKantari, Kerowyn, T-Boy, RJHall, and Jaranda) (45%)
 * 3 Delete (Phroziac, Johnleemk, Logophile) (15%)

This looks to me like a No Consensus vote for which is a default Keep. What was your reasoning behind your closing? Also, should you be closing AfD discussions in which you participated? Dsmdgold 13:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver You're avoiding the questions...
It seems you have no intention of helping me resolve this issue in civil matter. Now its becoming more evidant to me you are being bias on this matter.

You still have not justified why the other members of the band where granted their personal write-ups in.

What about the partial un deletion policy?

If you can't help, or just simply don't want too; please direct me to someone who can.

Thank you &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk &bull; contribs).

Please stop yelling
You seem to yell alot when closing AFDs. Also using your closing comment to soapbox is not constructive since no one can respond to you. People using "keep per WP:SCH" as a vote because consensus on ALL highschools and most schools have been reached. We refer to that to get people to go read it to stop the school AFD madness.Gateman1997 17:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver
I have to agree with the young man who is criticizing the deletion of the article in question. I didn't even know the article disappeared until he brought it up on his page. I must say I have to agree with his criticisms, and had I known the TC Tolliver article was up for deletion, I would have voted to keep it.

Given your age, I'm sure you never heard of the Plasmatics or their late lead singer Wendy O. Williams, but they made a big impact in America and Europe and still have a large devoted fanbase to this day. Mr. Tolliver was a part of that. Cjmarsicano 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on AN/I
Hi John. I think I was agreeing with you rather than anything else! The "we" in my comment referred to the broader community, not to you. Grace Note 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Father
I am curious about your verdict on this AfD, considering the WP:NAME violation, and also considering that, were the results of Articles for deletion/Holy Father adhered to (as it would have been but for a single determined editor) the redirect target would itself be a redirect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Re the state of Holy Father, what you said was exactly opposite to advice I was given earlier by another admin. Moot since I'm giving up on it at this point, but still. Thank you for your clarification of policy otherwise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

TC Tolliver If you don't like it, tough?
That comment spells out the non-intellect behind this operation. You sound like you’re about 12 years old.

It’s bad enough the main claim for the deletion was vanity, the irony (Have any of you read your own bios?).

Right from the start no one had any interest in handling this matter properly.

All of your replies are feeble attempts to right your wrong not addressing the issue (how vain of you). Your arguments are weak; you should not be an editor.

Key word; editor? Or is it deletor? It's painfully obvious now this is your power trip.

TC Tolliver is very notable. He’s played and worked with many famed musicians (and still is). You refuse to the see the truth.

I see you already have one backlash comment in Mr. Tolliver’s favor. Truth be told.

Whatever… more bad press for Wikipedia. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsconroy (talk &bull; contribs).

Revert war in IMO page
It's obvious that the user 60.51.64.225 has been trying persistently to revert the IMO page to the un-encyclopedic version. Is there any way we can stop him/her? It's an eyesore, and we can't just live in the history page and watch over his/her every revert. Are you in the power of doing anything? --218.111.7.96 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is an unwritten testimonial valid as a citation? I can testify the point from my own correspondence. --218.111.7.96 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. I wrote the previous two comments here. --changyang1230 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Templemore Sports Complex
Thank you for your brutal honesty in discounting our "ludicrous" keep votes for Templemore Sports Complex. Could you perhaps explain how a red link in Derry means "it's already in the article" so it doesn't require a merge? Kappa 16:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

IP ban - South Africa
Hi,

I received a message from you that the SAIX IP had been banned, while I was editing the "AuthorIT" page on Wikipedia. I would like to object to this ban. I am not vandalising Wikipedia - I corrected incorrect information and added value.

198.54.202.18 22:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Regards, Maritza van den Heuvel, AIT author and technical writer non-registered Wiki user

Proposed_deletion
...would be interested in your feedback. Barring significant opposition, it's going for a test run soon. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki? Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generate a keypair using OpenSSL
Where was the article Articles for deletion/Generate a keypair using OpenSSL transwikied to? I can't find it on wikibooks. Lunkwill 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikisource
For some reason you transwiki's are not showing up at s:Wikisource:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here. As there are only three items in the log, it seems to be a common problem. However I have no idea how a transwiki works so I have no advice, I just wanted to alert you to the problem. Thanks-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

hey
whatever happened to the bat embargo? I need the page info to:

a. If aloud, work it as a project in my user page to improve it until it gets accepted either as a section or a sub-article.

or

b. Try to give is to some of my budds on other batman page outside wikipedia (optino b is also an option if I'm aloud to do option a, but it never gets aproved :| )

Thanks beforehand!

--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! that was heplful! how abuot use my user page to develope the project? I do want it to have a very profetional periodistic looks and I could use help fro some otrer editors.

and a second question... what ever happened to the last vertion? I swear I won't re do te page here again. Thanks, man.

--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 23:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realized the section header was a link. Duuuuuuuuuuhh!! °w°  You're the best, man!!--T-man... &quot;&quot;worst vandal ever&quot;&quot; 00:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk application approved
Your application to become a clerk for the Arbitration Committee has been approved. Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration is for recording organizational work and communication between clerks. Raul654 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge, delete and the GFDL
Hi there John. I was intrigued to read your comment made in closing Articles for deletion/Breaking vine to the effect that deleting the article titles after their contents had been merged into another article would be 'illegal' under the terms of the GFDL. Would you be able to elaborate a little further, I'm not sure I follow. With the merge now completed, I don't see any particular value in maintaining those as redirects- for eg, someone typing in "tying someone" might well be surprised (if not a little disappointed!) to find an article about Turkish Folklore instead...not that it really matters too much, just curious. Cheers,--cjllw | TALK  01:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the answer John, I suppose that makes some sense. As an aside, I presume that some of that merged text will have to be rewritten, as it seems evident that much of it is just a direct (if inexpert) translation from the original source. Will look into doing that at some stage. Thanks again!--cjllw | TALK  21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

a note
Good luck with your appointment. In other news, in case you haven't heard the whole ruckus about the United States Congress editing Wikipedia (and changing some facts), here is Requests for comment/United States Congress. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 10:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk question
You're clerking Ruy Lopez, but seem to have submitted evidence for it on the 25th - is there a conflict of interest there? What's up? Phil Sandifer 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerking question
Hi Johnleemk. I noticed you are clerking the KDRGibby case, but have presented evidence. I had supposed that clerks would not clerk cases they were providing evidence for &mdash; I wonder if you'd comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration (and forgive the barbarous mispelling in someone else's section title). Thanks. -Splash talk 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, This is Adam Sprague, student at Fall Mountain Regional High School. I'm not sure who is committing the vandalism against wiki, but I would appreciate it if you would be more allowing for the IP's of this High School... a lot of us use wiki often and responsibly. As far as I know, adding or editing wiki is against our computer use policy, and so the perps. should be punished if they are caught. I'm actually running the risk of suspension from the computers by writing this response, and I hope that wiki might be kind enough to give FM a few more chances. I understand your position however, and it seems a difficult one to be in. I hope that you might find it best to allow this school continued access, while the administration here deals with the few 'bad apples.' Thank you for your time and patience. I apologize for grammar or spelling errors: I had to type this quickly. Thank you, Adam Sprague &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.211.131.115 (talk &bull; contribs).

User:Ohnoitsjamie's RfA
I really appreciate your support for my admin nomination, especially with me being a relatively new user. Cheers,  OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

CloseAFD.js
I stumbled across WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js tonight, and thought you might be interested in digging through my standard.js for the version I'd written. The relevant parts are oldafdfull, close_xfd, and the places later on where close_xfd is called. oldafdfull automatically wikifies the date field so preferences work, and finds the default votepage much more robustly (why parse the form's action when you've got &#123;{subst:PAGENAME}}?); close_xfd allows you to do complex closes where you only want a few words bolded and mentioned in the summary (by bolding them in your response to the prompt), and also works for WP:MFD and WP:TFD. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow...This is good! Thanks for the much-needed script, that sure takes a lot of work off me as a regular VfD closer! XD - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And a suggestion : It'd be nice if the pop-up box actually gives buttons to select pre-defined closing phrases (i.e. delete, keep, no-con), instead of having to type in all the time. Then perhaps an other option for typing in manually. Oh well, that's because I find it too cumbersome to type them in when I have to use my virtual keyboard on my Tablet PC to close VfDs! Hehehehe... :P In any case, thanks for the script again! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Hello Johnleemk, please disregard my rude comments on the talk arb comm/clerk. I was sorry the minute I wrote it. I have no problem with your actions on Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. I exaggerated my concern toward you because I'm in a terrible mood from comments Kelly Martin  made to me yesterday. I ignored Kelly's comments because the situation is so explosive. Then I take it out on you. : - (  I'm still upset from Kelly's remarks. Not sure I can get past it any time soon. I need to find a more productive way to deal with it than sniping at innocent people. --FloNight 13:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * [''Re: Apology
 * No problem. :) Johnleemk | Talk 12:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)''
 * Moved your reply here from my user talk. --FloNight 13:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)]
 * Johnleemk, thanks. By the way, I'm past feeling bad from Kelly's remarks. Back to writing an encyclopedia. : - )  --FloNight 13:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts
Please don't use shortcuts such as WP:Point on the workshop page. It is better to spell out the title in full so folks don't have to guess. Thank you for your work there. Fred Bauder 17:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Also could you provide about ten diffs that nicely illustrate this proposal: Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop. Thanks, Fred Bauder 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Biodata
Hi my friend. I keep learning from your contributions so keep them up :) I'd like to know how to make a Biodata like the one you have on your User Page. Just leave me a reply if you can and whenever you get the time & the internet access. --Unbreakable_MJ 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Left handed
Clearly anyone who opposes must be evil incarnate, but did you just suggest that someone might be supporting me for something other that the purest motives? Never! ^_^ brenneman (t) (c)  05:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'd better be NPOV
Clerks are eeevil and must all be destroyed! Ban all clerks to the furthest reaches of the internet! Destroy Destroy Destroy!!!

I still have misgivings about the whole thing, and think it almost could not have been handled worse PR wise, but you'll do a fine job. Good luck!

brenneman (t) (c) 05:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you insane?
Articles for deletion/Mesh Computers was three keep out of eight! That's 62.52469 an obvious "no consensus". I've places notes as WP:AN and WP:ANI, opened WP:RfC/Johnleemk and WP:RfC/Johnleemk (director's cut). I'm also writing up WP:RfArb/Johnleemk (what do you do with a drunken sailor), plus you've been Slashdotted, Dugg, and have an entry on Brandt's "hive mind" page. I don't know how you think you can get away with this! - brenneman (t) (c)  11:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron not taking his meds again?
Or is this a joke too subtle for me? ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks!
Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your support in my recent RfA! I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0), which was a lot of support that I really appreciate. I'll try to live up to the expectations; and on that note, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please spit in my general direction. Cheers! --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons {sprotected}
Thanks so much for the protection that this article desperately needed. I don't understand why it wasn't given such protection sooner considering the incomprehensible and overwhelming amount of vandalism.AscendedAnathema 06:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesh Computers
You closed the above deletion debate on the same day that it was relisted. That was out of process, such relistings are to last five days, as per Deletion process. I have thus undeleted the page and closed the deletion review, noting the decision. Steve block talk 10:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow what you are attempting to communicate. I am merely informing you of what I did and why; whilst I understand how you came to close it early I don't see why that means it shouldn't be undeleted and wait five days at deletion review since it is clearly out of process. Could you please clarify your meaning; at the moment I am left wishing to point you to WP:DICK. Steve block  talk 11:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem; I apologise, I should have communicated that fact better. Steve block talk 11:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a blurb on Talk:Mesh Computers about the deletion/undeletion. I've tried to make it both accurate and fair, knowing you acted in good faith. I'm letting you know so you can provide your own commentary if you don't think mine is quite right. (By the way, I completely agree with your closing decision based on the evidence and commentary provided at the time you made it). -- Jonel | Speak 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Greenfield Potatoes
The Greenfield Potatoes entry should be a redirect to Arroyo Seco (Monterey), not cobble stone path. It's a reference specific to that region, not pertaining to cobblestones other that as a comparison. I’ve updated Arroyo Seco to include the information on the redirection target.

Thanks for your time in advance &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by James D Lamb (talk &bull; contribs).

Articles for deletion/Inconsistencies in the Bible
Hi, I have a question about what "consensus" means. If 28 people voted to delete this article, 12 voted to merge and 4 voted to keep, why isn't that consensus? Doesn't 63% of the vote count? Thanks, Yoninah 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I had the exact same question, and had to read through the summary of the AfD several times to try to figure out how I could have read the debate so differently from its conclusion, with no success. It seems that the overwhelming majority of voters came to the conclusion that the article should be either deleted in its entirety, merged into other articles, or kept only as a redirect. Only a small fraction of the vote was to keep the article as is. I think all particpants deserve a far better explanation of why the article should stay is in the face of such an overwhelming vote to kill the article. Alansohn 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Same question here, I see that it has been listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Criticism_of_the_Bible and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Inconsistencies_in_the_Bible Looking forward to your response. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Wente Clone
Can you redirect Wente Clone > Wente Vineyards The revevent information has been moved to that page and re written. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by James D Lamb (talk &bull; contribs).

EffK
Thank you for assisting the arbitrators in handling and closing that case. It was a longer ban than I had originally requested, but, in view of his conduct during the arbitration, I see that it was necessary. Please let the arbitrators know that I appreciate the time that they spent going through the volumes of his posts to discover whether there was any signal in the noise. Robert McClenon 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Josh Scogin
Was just wondering why the article was deleted if we had a tie between delete and keep? I'm not actually looking for a response, because I doubt that you'll give one. Was it because City forgot to sign ... or? It seems that you have a habit of doing this. Iffer 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for responding. I wasn't giving heat because I was angry, but I didn't know if you would respond ... and usually if you attack someone, they respond.  I have no qualms with you, and don't mind your decision; in fact, I respect you more for keeping your head on straight and responding to me in a civil fashion.  Thank you.  :) Iffer 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AfDs
I see you're taking quite a bit of heat about your AfD closings. Just wanted to let you know that I, for one, think you're doing a great job. Keep it up! -- Jonel | Speak 22:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Message
John, query for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

New proposed principles at Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Workshop
I've added five more proposed principles at Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Workshop. Please tell me what you think of those. I wrote a couple of them myself, so it might be good for somebody with more ArbCom-related experience to take a look at it and make sure that the new proposed principles are clear and not too redundant. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Brady/Xenosaga GAs
Thanks for reviewing those three articles; the two Xenosaga ones do lack diverse reference sources, so I understand why you felt they weren't up to GA status. Do you have any suggesitons for areas that could use solid sources/citations? Thanks. Deckiller 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll get on those once I'm home from school.  I'll also add your comments to the peer review, if you don't mind.Deckiller 15:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SGCSim (Computer Program)
Re this AfD, you're a WP:DICK on WP:DRV. I was going to close this AfD with the same result. Thanks, Deathphoenix 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblock of 168.213.1.134
Thanks! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)