User talk:Michaelas10/Archive/Archive 03

Portal:Philosophy of science
Hi, this is a test of the List of portal review volunteers. Please take a look at the Philosophy of Science Portal and share any tips on how it can be improved to Featured Portal status at its talk page. Thanks! Rfrisbietalk 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added my review.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pantera
Please see this. Nufy8 02:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Our university research committee approved the project.

Thanks, Corey 15:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Michaelas! Thank you for signing my autograph book. I like your sig. :-) | A ndonic O Talk 15:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of the template
what is the template you just put here? i find it useful for warning the vandals. respond at my talk page, please. West Brom 4ever 12:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   12:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i have vandal fighter and post warnings manually in the case antivandal or any other bot doesn't warn the user. thanks for your time. West Brom 4ever 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Michealas
Hey, I have seen you everywhere around here lately. You have many (strong) edits to many different namespaces. You are kind, civil and very smart. Would you if I nominated you for admin? Also is I noticed that you are one of the coordinators of the Wikipedia youth foundation, Is there anything I can do to help? Cheers, &mdash; Seadog  15:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered through email.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, until then :). Good luck! &mdash; Seadog Talk 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Editor review
Thanks very much for the editor review Michaelas! Since I am a Mac user, I cannot use vandalproof, which is too bad. Are there are any programs on Wikipedia that are for Mac vandal-reverters? Thanks, -- Gphoto talk  22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, not problem. As for vandal-reverting, I don't think so, but it seems that VandalProof will be compatible with Macintosh in future versions. You might want to request it on the suggestions page.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gosforth High School
Sorry, just making quite a few edits to the Wiki so things are all over the place for the moment - the content will come back at some point, I assure you. 86.142.155.187 17:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Disasters
Hey, I saw you were also on the list of portal reviewers, and I would appreciate it if you could give me some input on Portal:Disasters at the portal's talk page. Thanks for any help! =)  Nish kid 64  22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added my review.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Disasters Portal
Thanks for your input. I just have a few questions/requests: Even up columns at the "Selected quotes" section, the width of the quotes is bigger than the width of the title. I didn't really understand what you meant by this? Can you explain, or do it yourself? Also, can you change the colors or tell me how it looks right now? I have red-green color blindness and it's hard for me to know what colors are appropriate. I mean...I've gotten a lot of complaints over my sigs in the past lol. Thanks =).  Nish kid  64  00:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Answered.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   09:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

thank you
''Same for me, thanks a lot, I was away from the computer and I didn't notice it.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)''
 * You're welcome. Michael Slone (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy Portal collaboration
Hi, The Philosophy Portal is a new portal improvement collaboration. Please offer your advice for getting it to featured portal status at its talk page. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added my review.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rfrisbietalk 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which I have chosen to withdraw early at a final count of (10/8/3) as it was unlikely to gain consensus. I will do my best to improve in the areas that were cited as my weaknesses, and will reapply sometime in the future when I have gained more experience. Please always feel free to help me along with a suggestion on how I could improve, and if you ever need help, I am ever at your service. Best as always, Dar-Ape 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor review
Please can you please give me a review on my editor review at Editor review/SunStar Net 2 for me?? It would be much appreciated. --SunStar Nettalk 20:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added my review.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Fatal Accidents
Hey Michael - Firstly, thanks for the constructive critism on the list, much appreciated. Oh and of course supporting the list in it's FL nomination :-D.-- S kully Collins Edits 15:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict galore
Grrr...I think that must be the fifth time I've gotten into an edit conflict with you trying to warn the vandals...trying to take credit for the reverts eh? :p Gzkn 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's because I'm cheating really, VandalProof 1.3.1 is so damn fast.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   14:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image source
You said: "Yamla, I've noted that Image:C plus plus book.jpg, an image you uploaded (the first one actually), does not provide its source. Can you please add it under the image summary? I've tagged it with speedy deletion for now, I hope you can add it quickly. Thank you."


 * I believe the image does identify the source and copyright holder. It is a picture of the C++ Programming Language by Stroustrup.  I do not specifically list the publisher, mind you.  Note that although I routinely patrol images for source and license, I commonly accept book covers and album images provided only this much information is listed.  For album covers, I'm happy if the image itself shows the name of the album.  As such, I may be missing what specific information you are looking for.  If you could let me know what else you need other than the author of the book and the book title (which were there from the beginning), I'd appreciate it.  Note also that this image was uploaded before detailed fair-use rationales needed to be given.  --Yamla 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You said: "I think you misunderstand what I meant by "missing source", it means that the image does not provide where the image itself came from, rather than its content. Did you scan it? Or did you copy it from some random website? I would like to see more information. Please reply on my talk page."


 * The particular source is not relevant. I can not recall where I grabbed this image from but regardless, this would not change who owns the copyright.  Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others.  Sufficient information is presented so that the copyright status of this particular image can be verified.  Regardless of whether I took this photograph (I did not) or someone else scanned the book cover, the copyright status would not be altered.  Copyright would remain with the publisher or author.  --Yamla 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Wish you merry christmas and a happy new year 2007. Have a great christmas. -- Amartyabag   (Talk)  04:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Award
Could i ask you to conclude the discussion award? Or should i introduce some more images first?

Simply south 12:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added my opinion.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay but I'm sorry but i do not have a sophisticated programme to design barnstars. Simply south 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on List of volcanoes in Indonesia
Hi, thanks for your copyediting the article. I noticed you left some comments. I have answered them in the article's talk page. Thanks again. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 16:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

BalzacLFS and Taxwoman
Balzac has been around since at least "13:15, 27 December 2005" (and was heavily involved in the last AFD), while Taxwoman has been around since "20:18, 9 August 2005". Therefore concern about "newbies" and "single purpose accounts" is demonstrably verifiably factually objectively out of place. AnonMoos 02:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the AfD header templates wasn't added only for them, it's a common practice to add this template once the AfD is advertised somewhere. The invitations, although were directed to certain users, where seen by public and probably drew many website viewers which weren't very experienced on Wikipedia.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, sneaking in and readding your little POV header just before the AFD closes does not mean that it is sancrosanct for all time -- especially since the header is completely irrelevant once the AFD has closed. Meanwhile, I'm getting really tired of constantly being accused of "advertising", when in fact I did NOT "advertise" in any sense which would be relevant to the Wikipedia template. There's no point in trying to continue the alleged "discussion"[sic] above on this page (since you insisted on deleting a significant chunk of my remarks before condescending to reply to them), but since you haven't presented the slightest concrete evidence that any "newbie" or "single purpose" accounts participated in the AFD, I'm having a certain amount of difficulty in coming up with any explanation of your repeated insistence on accusing me of "advertising" (something which I didn't do), besides some degree of malice on your part. AnonMoos 12:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, noticing other users on a public Wiki is advertising as the rest of the public might see these messeges as well. Even if that kind of advertising wasn't intentioned, it's my responsibility to add this template on the top of the discussion for those who come following the messege. That template has nothing to do with those who already expressed their opinion on the discussion but rather for those who would like to participate and it might prevent them from violating policy. Please note WP:NPA and remain civil.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Personal attack removed --

Portal Peer Review
Hey, Michaelas10! Check out Portal peer review! You may want to request a portal to be reviewed or review some portals there! —sd3141 5   (sign here)  17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter films cast members
Thanks so much for recognizing my work. I've added a comment to the FLC discussion page. (Also, a thanks for the heads-up on my talk page; I'm on vacation and wouldn't have noticed -- just barely checking Wikipedia as I'm on a bad internet connection.) Cheers! --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 05:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

List of volcanoes in Indonesia
Hi Michaelas10. Since your comments in the article's WP:FLC, there are other reviewers complaining the article's prose. I've been trying to improve it, but it seems that I've never satisfied them. I've also created many stubs for the redlinks, that now almost all links are available. Could you please help me to look into the article again and point me where the bad prose is? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indon (talk • contribs)
 * I've added a messege.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something I found
Adding the template to your userpage gives you your edit count and edit summary usage!!! Sr13 (T|C) 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yao Ziyuan's RfA
I would appreciate it if you could review your decision at Yao Ziyuan's RfA. You voted oppose because of his block, but I just wanted to inform you that Yao was incorrectly blocked, and the block went against WP:BLOCK policy. The user had apologized after finding out the bot was illegal. The block was either a mistake, or an apparent punitive block (which shouldn't have happened).  Nish kid 64  02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the vote to neutral, thank you for noticing me.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Editor review/Michaelas10 (2), where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

mOM
Hi, my mom is having twins, would you please vote for names and spread the word? Thanks, heres the link User:Shaericell/Name for mom's twins. --SHAERICELL!!!!! (is slightly crazy)  Talker to! 20:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added my suggestion, but please try not to spam user talk pages, especially for non-Wikipedia related purposes. Take a look at User_talk.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

List of volcanoes
Thank you. I thought that nobody bothers with userpages anymore. :-) Pheew, it's really a worthy hard work. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

List of New Brunswick general elections
Per your sugegstion at Featured list candidates/List of New Brunswick general elections, there is a section at the end of the intro for List of New Brunswick general elections stating clearly the article refers to the province not the colony. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner - I got sidetracked somewhat.... Tompw (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. I've now changed my vote to support.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Immune system
Thanks for your careful review of DNA, could I ask you to have a look over one of the other FA candidates I've been rewriting a lot recently? Immune system went into the process in rather a poor shape, but has been improved a lot. Do you have any suggestions or feedback? It's candidacy page is here (link). Thanks. TimVickers 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewed.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Barnstar(1).png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barnstar(1).png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU ≈ talk 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the speedy deletion tag to the image, this is an unused archive of a removed barnstar proposal, and should've probably been removed earlier.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Award again
If someone closes it soon, would i be able to renominate it if i produced a better image? Actually i had an idea for an image but i cannot perform it. The idea is to turn a barnstar into a speech bubble. Do you know who could design this? Simply south 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

From Caglarkoca
I want to vandalize the page in a different way, FYI I write this here instead of talk page just because of what you wrote above:) How can I join the portal reviewers? There has been a great deal of time since I haven't contributed significantly to the wiki and it is time to start something useful. Thanks Caglarkoca 19:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:WYF
Oh well...WYF is gone...I give my condolences. Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
May I humbly ask you to review me at WP:ER? Sr13 (T|C) Editor review 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

List to take a look at
Hey Michaelas I noticed you review alot of featured list candidates so I though I would try to get the opinion of a few normal reviewers before I submitted it. I made alot of lists before but never tried to get one featured so I'm not real familiar with the particulars of what you guys are looking for, anyway if you have a sec and don't mind to take a look List of United States Navy ratings thanks. -- Wils Bad Karma ( Talk / Contribs ) 14:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've given it a full review.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review ill get to working on your suggestions, also I have been working on a new table to use for this list. A kind of veration of the table used for TV episodes. Anyway do you mind just taking a look and telling me which one you think is better. Here is the link to the workpage I'm storing it on. User:Wilsbadkarma/workpage4 -- Wils Bad Karma ( Talk / Contribs ) 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey man, again thanks for the help I'm making the changes and should be done with them in a day or so. I have one question though. Everthing you said made perfect sense except the last part of one sentence. I have read it propably 20 times and I still can't figure out what your meaning. "All the images need to provide the URL which they where found on to confirm their copyright status. Although it is optional, you might also add a better summary which includes linking and an explanation of this list where it is used." I get the first part and the part about the better summary but the last part "which includes linking and an explanation of this list where it is used" I don't understand. If you don't mind could you elaborate a little. -- Wils Bad Karma ( Talk / Contribs ) 13:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By that I meant it should provide an explanation of the list and its use on it. For instance, "it is used on the List of United States Navy ratings as a rating insignia", but that would really be unnecessary with the new summaries you added.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

by thew way I put it up for featured and thanks for the reply.-- Wils Bad Karma ( Talk / Contribs ) 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD of Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad
Please stay involved. It seems that you are the only unbiased person on the page. Agha Nader 23:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
 * I'm afraid I had to change my argument to keep per the evidence provided by The Behnam. I didn't note those news earlier, by they indeed help pass the first criteria of WP:BIO.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Slayer
Hey, i was hoping you could help me out with Slayer. In the lead it says they're influential and defined the genre etc and nothing about it is mentioned in the body (someone brought it up at the Peer review). Should a new section be created? or incorporate their influences in the body. Aside from that it just needs a copy-edit, which I'm kind of working on. thx M3tal H3ad 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh just changed a few things in the lead. I did a big copy edit today, article has more flow and removed a lot of 'cheesy' words like 'upon' 'being' 'also' etc with Tony1s exercises..i think it's almost ready. If you get some spare time i would appreciate it if you could give it a look over, esp the lead. Thanks M3tal H3ad 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Slayer GAC
Slayer - talk page comments added - cheers! --PopUpPirate 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning in film article
Just to let you know: according to the style guidelines on WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, the structure of the plot in a film article is the following sequence: premise, spoiler warning, plot details. Best regards, Ilse@ 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

South Park
I've changed the images because I had put these on weeks ago but they were then removed. The new images are more specific in my eyes and make it easier to tell what episode is what. As for the captions, I'm working on them if you'll give me a chance. I haven't used them much and am still confused with where they go. Don't replace the images though it took me nearly half an hour to sort them.

Mr. Garrison •my userpage• my talk• my contributions•

Christmas Card
 Wishing you a happy and safe Christmas season, and a blessed new year. Enjoy where you are, and who your with. Merry Christmas! From, Defrag and Jilly.

Third attempt
You are the one who really needs to explain things to me, since you have so far offered up nothing more than vague bland platitudes about purely hypothetical speculative possibilities as an explanation for your apparent grim humorless fanatical determination to keep a now-irrelevant tag in a closed AFD, which will have the effect of branding me into indefinite futurity as one who allegedly "advertised"[sic] an AFD. Is there any appeal process by which one might contest the presence of keeping a now-irrelevant tag in a closed AFD which will have the effect of branding me into indefinite futurity as one who allegedly "advertised"[sic] an AFD? Do I have any due-process rights with respect to the presence of keeping a now-irrelevant tag in a closed AFD which will have the effect of branding me into indefinite futurity as one who allegedly "advertised"[sic] an AFD, or can anyone add such a tag, where it will necessarily remain in perpetuity, having the effect of branding me into indefinite futurity as one who allegedly "advertised"[sic] an AFD? The facts that you never bothered to meaningfully reply to my remarks of "22:21, 22 December 2006" in the AFD; that you've never stated that you don't hold me guilty of "advertising"[sic]; and that you've never done anything to point to concrete factual evidence of participation in the AFD by "newbies" or "single-purpose" accounts (but instead always retreat to bland indefinitie generalities about speculative hypothetical possibilities), have all together done very little to persuade me of your "good faith". And it would be nice if you didn't insist on deleting portions of my remarks before replying to them, so that the discussions on this topic could be in one place in your talk page (instead of several different places). AnonMoos 13:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the messege was seen by public, even if you indeed weren't advertising. It was intended for those who come from Wipipedia and are yet to understand our policies so it might be useful to notice them that it isn't a vote and they are not allowed to create sockpuppets or such. Even if an AfD is closed, such messeges should stay primarly for historical reason, just like the AfD discussion. As for the messege I removed, it was a personal attack, and I've already replied about the messege removal on your talk page. I also removed your irrelevant accussion of 3RR as I already replied your concerns, but instead you made the reverts without further discussion with me.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, did you even bother to read what I wrote??? You haven't addressed ANY of my concerns.  You still haven't said that you don't consider me guilty of "advertising"[sic], you still haven't offered any specific concrete factual evidence of any "newbies" or "single-purpose accounts" participating in the AFD, and you still haven't offered me any method whereby I can clear my name from the stigma of the accusation of having "advertised"[sic] an AFD (but rather are still insisting that I must just bear this stigma uncomplainingly down into the indefinite future).  The fact that you never have addressed ANY of my concerns is the reason why my remarks have occasionally been a little heated.


 * Instead you merely offered your usual vague platitudes about hypothetical speculations (not backed up by any solid evidence) about what might could should would maybe have happened (though you don't know for a fact that it actually did happen), along with some tangential inaccuracies which have long since been refuted (BalzacLFS and Taxwoman are not "from" Wipipedia, since they are also Wikipedia users, and have been for about a year and a half before the AFD process started). The addition of the template to the AFD page was disputed before the AFD closed, and the fact that you slipped in at the last moment and re-added it just before the AFD was closed doesn't count for very much.  I'm also not too impressed with your philosophy whereby you're allowed to delete my remarks on your talk page, but I'm supposedly not allowed to delete your remakrs on my talk page. AnonMoos 14:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The template was not targeted at those who already participated in the discussion, so I don't think there is any point in proving that newbies and sockpuppets participated in it. No, you can't remove the stigma of the accusation of advertising as the discussion is closed. Your remark was a personal attack, and I'm allowed to remove them.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   14:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The template is not targeted at anyone in theory, but in the actual context of the AFD page, it was and remains clearly targeted directly at me, and its official-looking presence at the top of the page appears to give the impression of an official endorsement of the accusations against me. But thank you for dropping the mask of your usual vague generalizxed platitudes, and finally admitting that in your view any single user can whimsically add a template which accuses someone else, and there's not even any need to gather any evidence for this accusation -- but the person who is accused doesn't have any rights whatsoever to try to clear his name.  It certainly throws a clear light on your ideas of justice -- and not a positive light.


 * If there were any actual evidence that actual "newbies" or "single-purpose accounts" actually participated in the AFD, then of course the template should remain, but as things now stand, your grim dogged determination to leave the unsupported accusation in the page seems to go some way beyond any normal devotion to archival accuracy, and it's hard not to see some kind of vindictiveness in it... By the way, I've removed your earlier remarks from my talk page because they were full of pompous condescending patronizing platititudes about abstract hypothetical speculations on counterfactuals, but did not address ANY of my concerns (see above). 14:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If this debate is made because the template at the top of the AfD page looks like an accusation against you, there is no point in continuing it. I've added it right after I first saw links pointing to the AfD from an other website which might bring visitors to it. My messeges on your talk page were simply an attempt to remind you of the discussion before making the edits, and you aren't allowed to remove them as long as they are good-faith messeges, which they were.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   14:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You were the one who made the template into an accusation against me by your remarks on the AFD page. The template may have originally been added in good faith, but your stubborn attempts to keep it there after the invasion of newbies and single-purpose accounts conspicuously did not materialize is starting to look remarkably like "bad faith"... AnonMoos 15:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They weren't "against you", they were just a good-faith attempt to protect the AfD discussion from such interruptions.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Dude, if you were to put remarks on my talk page which were NOT merely pompous condescending patronizing platititudes about abstract hypothetical speculations on counterfactuals, but instead were to actually address ANY of my concerns in a concrete factual manner, then I would not delete such comments from my talk page. I'm looking forward to that future time with anticipation... AnonMoos 14:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They were a reminder to avoid getting into a reversion war without discussion, and a warning about removing messeges, which isn't allowed.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's another thing
Adding the "3RR" template to my user talk page when I haven't been guilty of violating the 3RR policy does absolutely nothing to convince me of your good faith. Or if there's some obscure sub-clause to a sub-paragraph somewhere which I have in fact violated, then you would appear to be just as guilty as me.

Since you haven't presented any alternative method to me by which I might clear my name, but instead appear determined to permanently brand me with the supposed stigma and guilt of being one who allegedly "advertised"[sic] an AFD, then taking direct action would appear to be the only course of action open to me to ensure that I am not branded with this stigma. In itself, this is not "edit warring", of course -- it takes two to "edit war". AnonMoos 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've warned for 3RR violation because you made two reverts in the last 24 hours without perior discussion, once in 00:47 and once in 12:59, in which cases is usually given.   Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, the is NOT in fact automatically or quite commonly added to the pages of people who make two reverts, and since I had not violated the 3RR rule, and you had very good reason to suspect that I was fully aware of the existence of the 3RR rule, your addition of the template to my page could be viewed as rather pedantically officious, or even as a rather crude attempt to intimidate with official-sounding bureaucratese -- and furthermore, it was somewhat hypocritical on your part, since you committed exactly as many reverts as I did.  And I notice that you still haven't offered me any alternative method whereby I can clear my name from the perpetual standing accusation of having "advertised"[sic] an AFD... 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And what's this "without prior discussion" nonsense? What is our rather unsatisfactory interactions of the last week -- chopped liver?? AnonMoos 14:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at the warning templates, is usually given after two reverts and  is given after three. I don't believe I was violating this policy as the messeges on my talk page remained unaswered, and these rather seemed like a bad-faith attempt to bypass discussion.   Michaelas10   (Talk)   14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if you look at the edit summary of the AFD, you'll see that you added the template at 16:22, 22 December 2006 (with the rather deceptive edit summary "+Comment" [sic]). I then waited over five days to see whether any invasion of newbies, "single-purpose accounts", or anonymous IP's would occur. When such an invasion conspicuously failed to occur, I then very properly removed the template on 02:53, 28 December 2006. If any improbable last-minute invasion had occurred in the closing hours of the RFD, then I wouldn't have opposed the re-addition of the template on that grounds -- but I most definitely opposed the re-addition of the template WITHOUT adducing any evidence that such an invasion had occurred, and of course even more so after the AFD closed, when the whole issue became utterly irrelevant.

Furthermore, if your grim fanatical humorless determination to keep the template in the AFD archive springs from any other motive than to brand me into indefinite futurity with the shameful stigma of supposedly having "advertised"[sic] an AFD, then you have certainly never presented the slightest comprehensible explanation of it (other than your usual metaphysical abstract hypothetical speculations on counterfactuals, which do not convey anything concrete and graspable to my mind, and certainly have never had the slightest effect of persuading or convincing me of anything whatsoever). AnonMoos 16:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop it. It has nothing to do with those who already participated in the discussion nor is an accusation against you, you've been told that many times. The template is intended to avoid WP:ILIKEIT messages by newcomers or creation of sockpuppets, which might or might not be those who you wanted the message to see. It was added by a good-faith, and your motives are irrelevant, even you indeed weren't advertising.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Hinduism
I believe I have fixed most of your objections, I did not however add images to the Selected quotes as it looked pretty bad. Also what did you mean about the topics section? Cheers! Arjun 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the position of the image depends on the format of the section. Take a look the quotes section in the United States Navy portal, it uses a different format which makes the image go above the text without creating empty space. What I meant about the topics section is that each article is a topic by definition, and we should only list the main ones to avoid confusion.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have met your objections, I have added the images, but some of them I couldn't for obvious reasons. Cheers and if I missed something let me know :) Arjun  00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal Peer review
Hi Michaelas, Could you please have a look at Portal:Military of Greece as it is up for peer review. Thanks. Kyriakos 00:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewed.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:China
I fixed the one last problem you mentioned in Portal:China in the featured portal candidate page. My computer was acting weird, and did not saved previous changes. The Did you know section is now fixed as according to your suggestion. Can you check again to see if there's any other problems? Very much appreciated, cheers!

PS: I cannot find the spacing issue your referring to. "Did you know..." have no spacings? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for replying via. Email, I have replied to it also. I think "now" the objections are met...but we will just have to see ;). Cheers! Arjun  22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiGnome award
Hi Michaelas10 - You recently opposed my WikiGnome award for reasons that included the award not resembling anything close to a barnstar or an award. I placed additional comments on the proposal page here that I would appreciate your reviewing in hopes that you would change your position. Also, I am open to suggestions as to how I can make the award more look like existing personal user awards. Thanks. -- Jreferee 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello and thanks for the welcome message on my IP talk page. I don't often choose to edit Wikipedia, but I frequently browse its articles. Additionally, I am very fascinated with Wikipedia itself, and I consider myself somewhat familiar with its policies, including OR and 3RR. I'm sorry that we seem to disagree over the Return of Chef article, but I felt strongly about the information that was removed and was compelled to act. You seem like a well-intentioned Wikipedian and I respect your efforts to help improve Wikipedia. 129.59.97.165 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, it seems as though my IP address is not static. I have a username, User:Austboss, that I rarely use, but feel free to contact me there. 129.59.97.165 01:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
...how do you find out how many reverts you have done? ~ Arjun  00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I use the built-in counter of VandalProof.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   01:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed RFA Nomination
  Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) to accept or decline the nomination. Please Note: I have not nominated you yet, please contact me to accept or decline the nomination here.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, that was exactly what I was coming here to do :)! I'll definitely support you, though. Jor co ga  Hi! 01:39, Tuesday, January 30 2007

Hey
Thanks for the welcome back! :) I'm going to be busy over the next few days settling back in, but after that, full speed ahead :) Interesting note above mine, lemme know if you go through with it! riana_dzasta 13:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)