User talk:Kafziel/archive9

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

hawking died this morning
from cnn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.232.8.8 (talk • contribs)
 * Not the CNN I'm looking at: . No mention of it on any news sites, his personal web page, or on Google. Whenever someone famous dies, like Steve Irwin or Corey Lidle, there's always a flurry of activity on the page that usually lasts all day. That was my first clue.
 * You should also be aware that placing false information in articles about living people can get you immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vandalism is never good, but vandalizing biographies is taken very seriously. Kafziel Talk 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

24.173.8.254 link spam
Thanks for removing the book spam link from Jackson, Wyoming. We had an edit conflict on the user's talk page where I was commenting on the exact same thing, and by the time I got back to the article, you had already cleaned it up. I guess I should type faster next time. :)
 * No problem, glad to help. She was all over those Wyoming pages! Kafziel Talk 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Orange County template
Hey, I just created this. Now we have one too!

Feel free to go put it in every one of the articles on the named communities. And while you're at it, put on the talk pages that don't have it yet (most of them, IOW). Daniel Case 04:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice! I'll put them in wherever I see they're missing. Kafziel Talk 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Absinthe "vandalism"
No, the original article in 2002 was actually in Commonwealth English. And just by counting the countries mentioned in the article it should be clear that countries speaking that dialect of English outnumber those that do not. I've given justification. If you are still insistant that American English by some stretch of the imagination is more appropriate, you should justify it on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjk91 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, you've given no justification. The original stub might have used Commonwealth English, but since it's been a full article it has used American English. The number of countries mentioned in the article is irrelevant. It also mentions France and Switzerland, but that doesn't mean the article should be in French. There's no need to discuss this on the article's talk page; you're the only one who seems to have a problem with it, so your user page is the proper place.
 * Also, you shouldn't call other people's changes vandalism unless they really are. You didn't "revert" anything with your first change, and you are the one who made the change so you need to discuss it on the talk page. Kafziel Talk 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your principle that if in doubt, leave alone. However, we clearly have differing opinions on where exactly this article started. I could be really awkward and insist on the article being perfect British English, but I am aware that not many people speak that, and am instead opting for an umbrella dialect which most of the English-speaking world use. The article is on a french alcoholic beverage. Sadly the article is on English Wikipedia, and so I've opted for the dialect with the greatest number of speakers. That is my justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjk91 (talk • contribs)
 * It's clear from your contributions that pretty much all you do here is try to bully articles into using British English. I don't have especially strong feelings about the language issue, but I don't like it when users claim to be reverting vandalism when in reality they are making changes. I also don't want to get into an edit war with you, so I'm leaving your most recent change until other users can have some input.
 * By the way: you can sign your comments by typing the ~ four times in a row. Kafziel Talk 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I need to defend my record to you, but it is true that I do modify dialects where I feel it is appropriate. It would appear that our two most recent edits have been erased from the history page anyway. Thank you for your information on signing. Cjk91 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To keep things on one page I will reply here. The article started from a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition which is why it was in british english to begin with.  The 1911 Encyclopædia had only a small paragraph or two about absinthe and currently only about a sentence of the original version remains.  I don't have a strong opinion either way, however I have reverted the british english to keep things consistent as most of the absinthe articles are in american english and most additions will be made in that english.  The one issue I do have whether many americans know the term "aniseed" especially since "anise" is commonly used throughout wikipedia. -- Ari 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern there. Particularly given that I didn't know what "anise" was. I do believe though that fewer people would be confused by "aniseed" than "anise". Cjk91 08:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that most literature uses "anise." Frankly I see no reason to use commonwealth english, since those who actually make contributions to the article will be the ones who need to remember to keep it consistent.  Perhaps the best idea instead of hastily changing the spelling and calling it "vandalism" (which it is not) you can put it up to vote in the absinthe talk page. -- Ari 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cjk91 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (please stop)
 * I'm not sure what you think you'll get out of that. Falsely accusing others of vandalism is, in itself, a bad mark on you. The warnings I placed on your page only came after a long while of trying to talk this out, as well as gaining consensus on the article's talk page. I've been nothing but patient with you (I even taught you how to sign your posts). Placing warnings on my page won't get you anywhere. Kafziel Talk 18:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cjk91 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC) (last warning)

Equally I am afraid I cannot see how you can justify reverting my changes. I have given my reasons. Cjk91 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And a bunch of other people have given theirs, too. Nobody agrees with you. What makes your opinion more important than everyone else? Kafziel Talk 18:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You do not even know which dialect of English you are arguing against. I made the edits I did because I genuinely believed (and still do believe) that it will enable more users to understand better. You need to accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjk91 (talk • contribs)
 * I have no doubt that you think it's helpful. You're just wrong, and edit warring is not the way to go about making it happen. Discussing changes doesn't mean posting a statement and then going ahead and doing whatever you want. Discussion goes both ways, and the article should be left as it was before you got here until the subject is settled. None of the reasons you've given are acceptable reasons for changing the language of a page. But I know you're not here to discuss anything or to accept consensus about anything, so I'll just bide my time until you're blocked. I'm patient. Kafziel Talk 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Count
Hey. Its Corinthians12. How do you get the edit counter on your userpage?
 * I've added the code to your user page. To add other userboxes, see WP:UBX. In particular, since you like soccer, you may find userboxes here that you'd like to add. Just copy the template including the and paste them inside the table on your user page.
 * If you'd like help, let me know which ones you want and I'll be happy to get you started. Kafziel Talk 14:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of Hercule (Dragon Ball) to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball)
Okay - Some users decided to request a move from Hercule (Dragon Ball) to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball) - See: Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) WhisperToMe 20:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's happening again at Talk:Hercule_%28Dragon_Ball%29 WhisperToMe 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Are you interested in having another go at adminship? Let me know on or off wiki. - crz crztalk 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be honored, if you think I'll fare better this time around. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings!


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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
 * Thanks for that - it's nice to meet you! I'm not sure where our paths crossed, but I'm glad they did! I'll pass the smile on. Kafziel Talk 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD tag
Can you explain your removal of the deletion tag from Template:Campaignbox State terrorism in Sri Lanka, here? I don't see discussion on that page or at the Templates for Deletion page supporting the removal of the tag. I don't have an opinion on the issue itself (I have not voted in the discussion or edited the template) but I'm curious to know the reason for the removal. Generally speaking, deletion tags should only be removed after the discussion is closed. Kafziel Talk 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Kafziel, I had mistakenly misread the tag thinking it was speedy delete tag and I removed it almost like a reflex, believing it doesn't rightfully apply in this case In retrospect I committed a number of faults particularly not commenting etc and was quite ignorant of this procedure.  Having understood it a little further I would like to apologize for the mistakes made.  Elalan 02:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. I figured it was just a misunderstanding, and I'm glad I could help clear it up. Happy editing! Kafziel Talk 03:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Absinthe links
I assume you have been following this. Although each site should stand/fall on it's contents not who owns it or proposes it, I think I should mention the owner of absinthebuyersguide has bad blood with the owners of the other sites that were being blanked (I don't know the details). All the IPs that are arguing the same position seem to come from comcast and a couple seem to point to the same basic location as the owner of absinthebuyersguide. -- Ari 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Time!
 Crzrussian would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Crzrussian to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Kafziel 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. - crz crztalk 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When you answer the questions, please sign the accept line and transclude the RfA at the top of the main RfA page. Good luck! - crz crztalk 13:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take my time with the questions so I will probably post it late tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again for the opportunity! Kafziel Talk 20:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Pocket knife UK Law
I've reverted your edit to this page because there are sources relating to good reason. I've added one such source (the British Knife Collectors Guild) and will be trying to find the legislation as well. If you still want to remove it, please let me know by responding here and we can yell at other for a bit :-) --User24 17:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, looks fine to me now that it has a source to support it. Thanks for the note. Kafziel Talk 19:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * no probs; I didn't want to just revert it without letting you know, because you did have a valid reason to remove what you did given it's unsourced nature. :-) --User24 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

you welcomed me
...about 2 and 1/2 months ago, and I failed to thank you. Until now. gratia tu. fas est video a socius miles. -- Samantha 03:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise! Have you considered joining the military history project? With your experience, it's more than likely that you have some good stuff to add in that department. Kafziel Talk 15:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please email me
ASAP - crz crztalk 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice anti-vandalism work
Dear Kafziel,

You pounced on an IP vandal whom I was in the process of reporting / reverting, rapidly reverting his most recent vandalisms, including one to my user page. Your summary when repairing my user page said "hope you don't mind". I wanted to let you know that indeed I do not mind, and would like to thank you for your prompt and effective action.

Keep up the fine work, and best wishes for your RfA. Direvus 10:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help! I just now noticed that his last act before being blocked was vandalizing my page in retaliation for fixing yours. He didn't put quite as much effort into mine as he did on yours, but it's the thought that counts. :) Kafziel Talk 13:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a few real one's
is from todays featured article of the day. Also this one and another.

Certainly not vital contributions, but good faith contributions, with no vandalism, non the less. Not trying to beat a beat horse hehe, but I thought you would like to see these. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ow! Ow! Oooh! Ouch! Neighhhh! Ow! Wtf!!? NEIGH!!! - crz crztalk 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I did not understand that, but I laughed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Ohh, I get it, beating a dead horse... I think they only neigh when alive, but I don't know too much about horses. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that there are well-intentioned contribs from anonymous users; I just don't think they outweigh the vandalism that their fellow anons bring to the party. Also, that first example is an edit clearly made in good faith but misguided all the same; the sentence was grammatically correct before he/she added the "had", and terribly incorrect afterwards ("had spoke").
 * Actually, the most persuasive argument I've ever heard against semi-protection of the Featured Article of the Day is that it helps focus the vandalism on one article instead of having it spread around among the other articles linked to from the main page. In other words, it's not that we expect quality contributions, but that it serves as a magnet for all the crazies and it's easier to keep an eye on one article than 100. In fact, it's okay to protect any of the other articles linked to except the FA; 99 mediocre articles protected for the sake of one excellent one being left open to vandalism? Sounds kind of backwards to me. In that way, my view is less cynical than most; I believe that most users are good, and that most of the simple vandals won't bother seeking out new ways to damage articles if they're stopped at the first one they try. Might be unrealistically optimistic, but hey - I'm nothing if not a big ray of sunshine. :) Kafziel Talk 15:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Question
Why did you remove the sockpuppeteer tag on User:Zarbon's user page here? Did you know that he is still suspected of using anon IP addresses as socks to do his OWN dirty work for him in order to evade his block/ban? I haven't checked and I'm just curious, did you remove the sockpuppet category links too? Please answer back to me or below this message as soon as you can. Thanks. By the way, Tom Harrison blocked him for one month on 22 October 2006, just to let you know... Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was a long time ago. I did notice that he's been in a bit of trouble again lately, but back when I removed the tag (I was the one who originally placed it) I did so because it seemed that his behavior was improving and if a suspected sock hasn't been confirmed by checkuser it's okay to remove the tag after a while. He was extremely upset about having the tag on his userpage, so after he went a while without edit warring I agreed to remove the tag while leaving the category in place. If he has since been confirmed by checkuser as using abusive sockpuppets, it's certainly okay to replace it with a tag. Kafziel Talk 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. Can you first CheckUser him (please?!!!!) I really don't have the time to do it and I really don't want to waste my time trying to learn it. It seems that it requires codes and stuff, things that I never may learn correctly. By the way, the use of him using IP Addresses and other socks is quite obvious, since they all edit the exact same articles in a different pattern. Can you at least place him back in the Wikipedia sock category and have his suspected socks categories at the bottom of his userpage? Do the best you can, man. I'm counting on you. If you want, I'll vote for you to be Administrator. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he's been blocked for a month; maybe when he comes back tomorrow things will be better. CheckUser has very specific requirements; I don't edit Dragon Ball articles so I don't know of any sockpuppets he's been using lately. If you want to file a report you're free to do so, but I recommend waiting a while to see how things go after his block expires. If you send me a couple of examples of sock puppetry stuff, I'll take a look at them and see what I can do. Kafziel Talk 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:WesStudi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WesStudi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Wiki-Philosophy #5
Hi,

I've arrived at your userpage by way of your RfA, and have a tiny observation. Although it isn't clear, it appears that you are only arguing for the featured article of the day to be semi-protected; this takes care of newbies, without prohibiting established non-admins (like yourself, at least for the moment) from making improvements. You might want to refine that. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I take it you're referring to the title itself? Sure, I can change that if you think it's unclear. Kafziel Talk 18:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Wow, your RfA finished at 14:12 GMT and no one has appeared to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools yet or to wish you well? I'd say that 81% support is the majority! I'm sure that a Bureaucrat will be along in the not-too-distant future to upgrade the tabs at the top of the page. If you have any questions about using the tools then don't feel afraid to ask, as I would love to find the answers out myself! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like it's not as clear-cut as that just yet. It still remains to be seen whether it will pass or fail, but thanks for your support and encouragement in any event. No matter what the outcome is, this RfA was certainly a much better experience than my first one. Kafziel Talk 13:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you got the tools, but it's very, very close. Yank sox  17:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with the finish time on your RfA. When I said 'well done' above it was mere hours away from successful completion. Now it seems to have failed. I'm sorry about that. Perhaps you will succeed in the New Year? Regards, (aeropagitica) 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the sorry. This was an irregular close. Please do apply again in a few months, and note that you would have been confirmed with 81% support had the RfA closed on a standard schedule. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix, Arizona
Did I do something wrong? The edit I just did was removed???

Thanks, Manny (User:Daltnpapi4u)
 * You'll need to cite a source for the population change you made. It can be as simple as a link to a reliable source on the Internet, like the appropriate page at the Census Bureau, but it's important to make sure all of our information is verifiable and accurate. If you need help formatting, just let me know the source and I'll be happy to put it in for you. Kafziel Talk 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship nomination
Your nomination for adminship was not successful on this occasion, as no consensus was reached. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and consider standing for adminship again in future. Remember, a majority of users were in favour of your nomination, and in particular, many mentioned that they now had more confidence in you than on your previous nomination. Keep up the good work, Warofdreams talk 03:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad about that, it was very close indeed. Try again in a couple of months, I am sure you will get through. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll see how things go. For now, I'm looking forward to getting back to business! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted my thoughts on my userpage and on WT:RFA. My condolences about the way you were treated. But you should keep your head up about it, with an eye towards your third RfA... - crz crztalk 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry that the nomination failed. For what is worth, you can count on my support vote when you run for adminship next time. --RedZebra 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not know much about you before the RfA. I'm now very impressed -- count on me as a strong supporter in the future. Semper squid, --A. B. 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Can I invite you to get involved with WikiProject Spam? From looking at your interactions with Cirm, I think you'd be a real boost to our little informal group's efforts.
 * Sure thing! That's a WikiProject I can definitely get behind! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, I hope your RfA SNAFU didn't put you off - you have my strong support in the future, and I would be happy to co-nominate when you try again. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and all that. -- Ars Scriptor  14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It actually turned out pretty much as I predicted when crz first suggested it, so I'm not too bummed out. I appreciate the offer! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please drop me a line if you try again. Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are taking the irregualarity in your RfA much better than some admins are, keep up the good attititude. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand both sides (I agree with crz that most RfAs will degenerate into "no consensus" if given enough time) but I really believe in the importance of consensus and compelling input over voting and percentages, so I was more than willing to wait the extra time. An interesting experiment, at any rate. Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mess, and you seem to be taking it well (better than most would), so congratulations on that. You have my support in a future RfA. riana_dzasta 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am certain your next RfA will pass overwhelmingly. You are an excellent, knowledgeable editor who feels an admirable passion for Wikipedia. I think your passion may sometimes lead you into stressful situations in dealing with the less skilled and the less knowledgeable. If you continue to display patience and urbanity, I will be happy to support. I look forward to your next RfA.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I'll do my best to keep a level head as time goes on. Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir, given the strength of support which you have received above, and the "irregularity" of the opposition to your adminship, it seems to me that I may have been at least a bit hasty in expressing any opposition to your candidacy, and that I may have been swayed by less than well informed opinion myself. If that is the case, you have my profoundest apologies. As I stated there, I have better cause than most to have reservations about combativeness, and I am beginning to recognize that I may have been perhaps less studious than I should have been before voicing my opposition. I realize that this may be very small consolation to you, however. Should you ever choose to run again, and based on the response above I hope that you at least consider it, I shall try to make a greater effort on my own part to be a bit less hasty to judgement, and will with luck keep silent when I am less than certain of my own opinions. Thank you for having both the courage to seek adminship twice, and for having been an active contributor for all that time. I hope that my own possibly rash actions, and those of possibly others as well, do not prevent you from continuing to be the fine editor that you very clearly are. Badbilltucker 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, you have nothing to apologize for. I know that one objection often starts an avalanche, and your comments were more insightful than a simple "object". I appreciate the note, though, and I assure you the results of the RfA won't affect my participation at all. I'm here to stay! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What everyone else has said rings true: Your grace in accepting the outcome may have cemented your success next time (and I do hope there's a next time). Keep up the positive outlook and I am sure you'll have my support (if not my nomination). Remember that several people switched from oppose to neutral/support just in these seven days, and that you were very close to the 'rough consensus' limit in any case. Let me know if there's anything I can help with, and I'll keep my eye out for Requests for adminship/Kafziel 3. -- nae'blis 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maybe that link will turn blue sometime next year. I don't think I'll get unanimous support like some people around here, but I'll do my best. :) Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I voted oppose per incivility concerns, but I know if you just polish up a bit, you can guarantee that you'll get my support in your next RfA! Best of luck, =)  Nish kid 64  01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: My RfA
Don't get too bummed out man. Your RfA was extremely close (almost 80%, which would have been enough), and I'm sure the third time will be the charm. =) —Lantoka ( talk 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha, that's what I told Crazy Russian a few days ago! Thanks! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA

 * I like users like you. You remind me of User:RickK. It almost worries me that if Rick ran for admin now, he probably wouldn't make it. In any case, I'm terribly amused by your message, and I will certainly lend my support if you run again. Good luck, and happy editing. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it, and I'm flattered to be mentioned in the same sentence as RickK. Thanks again for the support, and I'll see you in Round Three! Kafziel Talk 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
With a few more months to put this behind you, you'll make it to adminship in no time. Just try & stay civil, because other than that, there was nothing keeping you from making it. Your article edits are all great & you no doubt have contributed to Wikipedia a lot. So I apologise for opposing, but I certainly will support you in the future if you keep up a good demeanor & continue your great edits... :) Thanks, Spawn Man 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You know you are on the right track when many of the people who opposed you are encouraging you to run again later. Including me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to you...
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I didn't realize that your RfA was closed in this manner. It might be advantageous that events unfolded this way - I've noticed that Wikipedians confirmed as administrators with a wider, unambiguous margin of support tend to have it easier in the long term when carrying out administrative tasks. When you feel ready to apply again, be sure to let me know. I'm convinced you will be able to make good use of the additional autonomy that comes with having the sysop bit. Give it a bit of time - it looks to me that more people from the community are realising the genuine value of putting confidence in you. Stay measured as you have consistently done, and I'm sure the more positive side of your contributions will shine through tremendously.

By the way, if nobody has told you yet, I'm sure you know: you're definitely one of the good guys around :-) - Cheers, --HappyCamper 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfAs...
Thanks for your congratulations, and I was truly sorry to see the outcome of your RfA. I spent quite a bit of time going over your questions and contributions and the concerns of the editors who voted oppose -- and I am sure you'd be just what we need as an administrator. I'm also sure you'll do fine whenever you decide to go again (or someone else decides for you), and you'll definitely have my support! You handled the matter with a great attitude, by the way. Good luck in the future! -- Renesis (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility
I didn't discover your RfA until too late, but I sympathize with your difficulties regarding "civility". The code of conduct on Wikipedia is seriously warped if an otherwise perfect contributor can be denied adminship because of failure to conform with a phony, condescending, legalistic writing style. This little fantasy world is succeeding in spite of itself, on the backs of people like you. Better luck next time. Haber 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)