User talk:SorryGuy/Archive 4

Neutral question at my RFA
I've replied. I was under the impression the neutral was regarding the actual co-nominations. Feel free to remove, but all I'm stating currently is that I turned DHMO down as a co-nom. (Added back after the co-nom was removed). Best regards, Rudget . 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. Addendum: I will be removing it, no matter what the outcome. Regards, Rudget . 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So would you advise me to remove it? I–as already said on the RFA–have been advised to remove prior to your comment. If so, it seems consensus would want to remove it. And as you say, it'll always exist. Rudget . 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say that it would be best to get rid of it. It's not a big deal that it did happen, just a big deal if it continues to. SorryGuy Talk  23:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * No problem ;). It is nice to see that, for a change. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Double RfA vote
Hi! Thanks for pointing this out to me. I hope not to make the same mistake again! -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
Dear SorryGuy, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 15:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello SorryGuy, I've granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a look through some of your recent contributions, I believe you will use rollback for its intended use of vandalism-reverting, and that you won't use it abusively by edit-warring or reverting good-faith edits. If you don't want rollback, let me know and I'll remove it. Thanks. Acalamari 20:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for going ahead and granting me rollback. I am generally happy with old fashioned reverting, but had thought about looking into it whenever I had the time, which was probably going to be this very weekend. Warm regards, and happy editing. SorryGuy Talk  01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) I'm sure you will put it to good use. Best wishes. Acalamari 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Indian Valley Public Library
Well, the first footnote ("Coffey") refers back to the text seven different times, to give information that I don't think anyone would say is not significant/substantial. I mean, it's all over the place -- budgets, population, number of card holders, significant recent history of expansion. WP:ORG says that's all you need -- get one independent, reliable source giving substantial coverage and you're there. If it's a question of just wanting to make sure that that's what the article says and that I've accurately reported it in the Wikipedia article, I can copy it and email it to you. I think this would be considered personal copying under copyright law and nothing's wrong with it. If you really think that a second nontrival source is absolutely necessary, please look at Melada, Geoffrey, "Professor's at it again ", article in The Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 15, 2002 (and you don't need to get behind a subscription wall to see that one), which is a protest aimed at the library. The source addresses the controversy in detail. Sources are supposed to provide a certain depth of coverage to be considered for notability purposes, but they can certainly focus on one aspect of a library -- this source focuses on the balance the library used for a speakers series. Your email function seems to be working, so I'll email some copies to you. Noroton (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Top morpheus m.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Top morpheus m.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Altair(Assasin's Creed)
An editor has nominated Altair(Assasin's Creed), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

uw-vandalism4
was already broken (someone told me on IRC), I was trying to fix it, and ultimately failed to do so. —Random832 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! I see you've done a repair on one of the user warning templates. Since it's probably not the only one needing a fix with the new parser preprocessor in use, you might want to bring the topic up at WikiProject user warnings. Thanks! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Testing the other ones, it appears to me as though they are in working order. I'm not really sure what happened with vandal4, to be honest, but everything would appear to be resolved. SorryGuy Talk  05:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, very good then. Thanks! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)