'''Archived talkpages'''
*/March_and_April_2005
*/May_and_June_2005
*/July_and_August_2005
*/September_and_October_2005
Welcome to my talkpage! New messages at the bottom please. Responses may be either here or on your talkpage. I am quite inconsistent. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
== White American AfD ==
Excellent call on that AfD. Some admins are kind of weenies when closing them, while others make it hard not to assume an agenda behind their decisions (even though I assume good faith). This was just a good, heads-up call on your part. Keep up the good work. Youngamerican 13:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the kind words! Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
== cassandra Trelawney ==
I noticed, but I approve Sandpiper 08:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
: Ah bother, I was hoping nobody would see it... Good to see that you approve anyway :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
==WikiProject Inclusion==
I'm usually not a fan of ignore all rules, and rarely, if ever, use it. However, this case seemed particularly appropriate.
* the project was a flagrant abuse of NPOV
* it was only "keep" because only the four or so people involved with the project were involved and no one else knew that the page even existed; the fact that the likes of Kappa and Tony Sidaway made no objection to its speedy deletion (nor, in fact, anyone that I've seen; no one has posted a comment on my talk page, WP:ANI, or anywhere else that I've seen) would seem to vindicate this
* it wasn't necessarily controversial; as even the most ardent inclusionists on Wikipedia seem to have avoided it
* I maintain that had they known many of the inclusionists, such as Tony, were likely to have voted delete on NPOV grounds
I'll wait for a response from you before re-deleting, but seeing as no one has complained, this does seem to be a clear-cut case of ignore all rules; the process led to a flagrantly absurd result (because no one else knew it was happening). With this in mind, I'd seriously appreciate if you could reconsider your attitude to this. Ambi 09:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
*FYI I saw that it had been listed for deletion, but I didn't vote keep because a consensus I agreed with had already been formed. Kappa 09:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
*Alright, I see. I don't think this thing should have been deleted, however I believe that this thing should be deleted, and have cast a delete vote as such. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
No worries. I deleted it for the reasons above, but as with all WP:IAR things, it is on the proviso that no one actually does object. I hadn't seen the VfU at the time I replied, and I hadn't actually seen anyone complaining about it anywhere else. Ambi 12:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
== thanks==
Could you do the same with Ammar_ibn_Yasir? Peace! --Striver 15:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
== RfA thanks ==
== School suggestion ==
I like your idea in principle, but it's highly impractical to check it, and it feels sort of unwikish. RadiantMeta:mergist 11:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
==CoW Greeks==
I will revert - if the debate was reopened just because of a premature close, it seems to me that discounting the votes already cast is the exact opposite of what's trying to be achieved. And though the article may have changed in a week, if the issues are issues that can be edited to and fro in a week, deletion is not an appropriate remedy - going to the page and changing it back to the preferred version is. And if the article was editable to quality, one shouldn't have voted delete, one should have edited it. :) Phil Sandifer 17:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
== My RFA ==
Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again! '''ALKIVAR'''™Image:Radioactive.png 07:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
== FireFox RFA ==
Image:WikiThanks.png
Thank-you for expressing your confidence in me at my recent Request for Adminship. The final result was 40/0/0, and my "superpowers" have now been activated. I look forward to helping out with the development of the encyclopedia. {{user|Physchim62}}
Image:Tournesol.png'''{{PAGENAME}}'''
----
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.
The final outcome was (96/2/0), so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any queries about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thanks!
FireFox 18:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
== THANK YOU! ==
Thank you so much for voting in my RfA, and especially thank you for supporting me. I really appreciate it, and will wield the mop and bucket the best way I know how. I, like RoboCop, promise four things:
#Serve the public trust
#Protect the innocent
#Uphold the law
#'''''Classified'''''
I hope to do all those things and, even if I can't keep my fourth classified, will do all I can to be a great admin. I appreciate your comment about me being a good contributor, it really warms my heart and soul to get a compliment like that ;). Stop by my talk page, or on article pages; I look forward to working with you. A belated thanks again, User:Mys'''''e'''''kurity|MysekurityBut when it's all hysterical language and bluster, I let myself get sucked in. Boo. But, hey, thanks for the message!
brenneman(t)(c) 09:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC) :Yeah, you're right "deletionist" really is "a lot worse" than "jerk". Please.--Nicodemus75 09:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC) ::Sigh. If you have something to say to me, use '''''my''''' talk page.
brenneman(t)(c) 09:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC) ::Exactly when "deletionist" become a cuss word? I joined the only association which specifically says I am ''not'' a deletionist, but I don't consider it a swear word. Let's see, some of the things I ''like'' about deletionists: they are concerned with quality, they usually write pretty good articles and they usually behave responsibly. Some of the things I like about inclusionists: They like to make information accessible to everyone, they are usually tolerant of newbies who write articles on non-mainstream subjects. I don't endorse the view of Conservativism either, but it just is an opposing viewpoint. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC) :::Just so you understand the context here, Sjakkalle, about a month ago, Aaron put forward a block request against me because he felt that when I referred to him as a deletionist, that it was a personal attack. I agree with your statements completely.--Nicodemus75 09:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC) == User 212.85.15.86 == The vandalism continues. Please put an end to this -- thanks! BeteNoir 10:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC) :I blocked them, then regretted slightly. I will be keeping an eye on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC) == Understood but disgruntled == I understood why folks had referred to another page, but, as I'm sure you know from my own user page, it's antithetical to my philosophy on VfD/AfD. I personally (and thunderously, sometimes) reject the idea that there are blanket decisions or blanket reasonings. Because I believe that it is the ''article'' and not the ''topic'' that is '''ever''' to be debated on VfD, I don't believe that anyone should use shorthand. If it means retyping until our fingers fall off or until war breaks out again, then so be it, but I think we ''must'' visit every single article and judge it as an article, not as a possible article. This particular article, for example, could have been speedy deleted as a substub, IMO. It didn't say anything. However, it invoked the old arguments -- arguments that belong on an RfC for the subject -- instead of a consideration of whether ''this particular article'' should be deleted. Did ''it'' establish the importance/significance/need for an article? Did ''it'' pursue NPOV? Did ''it'' fail to advertise? Etc. I do understand that part of the judgment in the past is a decision on "notability," and the various school arguments are about that, but that's merely one criterion among many. For what it's worth, I agree that merging is sensible. I would not have a problem with school district article, nor city schools articles. To me, those would be logical, as well as significant and ''useful.'' We need to be considering "useful" more than "pleasurable for the author" more, IMO. Geogre 13:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC) ==Johann Wolfgang's RfA== left Thank you for your support on my RfA. If my RfA passes I will use my new abilities with the common interest in mind. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Johann Wolfgang
Image:Blue_flowers.jpg
Hi Sjakkalle,
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 13:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
== GraemeL's RFA ==
Image:Tournesol.png
Hi Sjakkalle,
I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support and kind words on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. --GraemeL (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
== Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grimlick ==
Hi, you deleted Grimlick after the AfD debate, but there were two additional articles lumped in the same AfD nomination. Could you take care of those too? They are: Joust_More and Tag_Team_Transformer_Pretenders. Thanks. --howcheng [ t c w '''''e''''' ] 17:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:Oops, soory. OK, they're gone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
== Ianblair23's RfA ==
Image:Tournesol.png
G'day MarkGallagher,
I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It closed with the final tally of 57/0/0. I can only hope I can live up to the expectations that this wonderful community of ours demands from each of its administrators. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
== MONGO RfA ==
I really appreciate your support vote on my RfA. I will do the best job I can to ensure you know you made the right choice. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you!--MONGO 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
== Appomattox Basin ==
I think that was a good call. Thanks. Mark in Historic_Triangle_of_Virginia aka Vaoverland 08:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
:You're welcome, :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
== Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Progressive_Bloggers ==
I have to say I'm cranky about this one. I'd firstly like to say that it would have been gratifying to see a slightly longer closing comment. I went and parsed out the discussion on the talk page, and yes it is indeed a no consensus ''vote''. If Tito had said "delete" and W.marsh had come back, that would have made the magic 66% that is "allowed".
But that's what makes me cranky. These are meant to be discussions, but they aren't. There was nothing cited here that demonstrated that this had any impact outside blogland. The "references" all were either about people whom are on the blog or were in other blogs. There is really ''nothing'' there. And my standards aren't ''that'' high, really.
But I can't imagine what would happen to the admin who did the arguably correct thing and deleted or re-directed this. I know I would have, but it probably would not have stuck, unless I did a really good job explaining it. Bugger. It's really not you I'm cranky with, of course, so forgive me.
brenneman(t)(c) 11:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Remember, Aaron, that these are supposed to be discussions on whether to delete an article, not whether to keep it. If the delete proponents don't ensure that their reasons are adequately discussed, we can't very well delete an article anyway. An article doesn't need to justify its existence. I've never understood why you're so mad keen to ''remove'' articles from Wikipedia, anyhow. It's almost as if you had decided that our task here was to ''unwrite'' an encyclopedia! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC) :Ah yes, the Progressive Bloggers AFD... things really get amusing when the outside world learns of one of our AFD debates, doesn't it? Remember, when you become an admin Aaron, ''you'' will be facing that kind of AFD to close. :-) :Well, to business, I must admit that when I closed the debate I didn't take out a sheet of sheet of paper, draw up two columns and start entering the names to make a careful tally. Rather I took a glance at the votes, saw that there were a number of dubious votes on ''both'' sides of the debate and decided to review it based on the comments. :One thing which struck me when closing the debate was that this was the second AFD on the article with the first nomination only some weeks old, and that there were really no new reasons provided to delete it this time around, when it had not been deleted the last time around. It looked like the typical "Delete it's not notable. Keep, it is notable" kind of debate, which towards the end degenerated into a kind of meta-debate, with people voting based on external factors (i.e. the nominator's motive) rather than the article itself. There was little else to go on. Considering that this second AFD debate looked remarkably similar to the first debate, I decided to let it get a remarkably similar result, I felt that nothing had changed since the first debate and that the vote count was probably a rough tie anyway. I am glad that Aaron's vote-count confirmed a less than two-thirds majority so that it is no consensus based ''both'' on vote count and comments, actually I'm a bit surprised that it was that close. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC) == RfA thanks == I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA, and the compliment. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC) == Cheers == I'm here too to express my thanks at your support on my RFA, and I hope I continue to be a good contributor! Steve block talk 09:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC) == Thank you for your support! == Hi, Sjakkalle. I just want to thank you very much for supporting my RfA, and to say also that I hope I'll make a good job of it. I'm supposed to be working on an assignment at the moment, and had delayed thanking people, but I'm finding the new rollback button so easy to use that I'm just keeping Wikipedia open on my browser while working on other things, and I thought I'd like to thank at least a few of my supporters while I'm here. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC) == Chess players == Hi there. I just spent much of the last few weeks reorganizing the Sportspeople categories so that all athletes have an entry under (nationality/sport), like Category:Finnish_sport_wrestlers. Pretty much every athlete is now off the main page of both the sport and the nationality. However, I don't have the knowledge to do that to Category:Chess_players, and I'm guessing you do. There's a weirdness with that page, in that players seem to be on that page for a quality they ''don't'' possess, that of grandmaster status. Is there an easy way to get them onto their natioanlity page only, or is it even desirable to do so? The chess category now sticks out among the rest of the sportspeople categories, but I guess I could live with that if there's a good reason. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker 03:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC) :Good question. One thought has been that most chess players worthy of their own article are grandmasters, and therefore the category specifies that the player has that status. You might want to talk to Quale who made most of those categories. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC) == Sexual Slang confrontation == Even though the AfD vote on Sexual_slang (formerly "List of sexual slang") was to keep, the opposition (User:The_Literate_Engineer and User:Voice_of_All(MTG)) deleted it anyways (though it was still in the history). I've written a long letter pointing out their bogus plan, revealing them for the frauds they are. I've taken the bold move of reverting the list to BEFORE they started their hack job on it (Nov 15). If you want that list retained, you better get over there and help with the reversion war that is likely to result. I can't do it alone. Bend over 17:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC) == The assault on the List_of_sexual_slang == Two users in particular The Literate Engineer & Voice of All(MTG) have apparently made it their duty to get rid of the list and they have been using underhanded tactics in an attempt to do so in any way they can. But word is getting out, and supporters of the list are starting to rally against them and protect the list (via rerverting vandalism, countering their tactics, etc.). === The results of the 18 October AfD: === *'''Keep & clean =''' 3 *'''Keep, no clean =''' 11 *'''Delete =''' 2 === The anonymous clean-up notice === The following anonymous clean-up notice was posted to the list on November 1st: 23:44, 1 November 2005 68.17.227.41 The notice was placed without group consensus, and there was no edit comment. Pretty sneaky. This was the user's '''''only''''' edit. Nothing before or after. A sock-puppet. === The results of the 10 November Afd === *'''Keep & clean up ='''3 votes *'''Keep, with no mention of clean up ='''7 votes *'''Delete = 4 votes (including the nomination) That's 10 votes to keep, out of which 3 voted to clean up. Seven out of ten clearly voiced their desire to retain the list without deleting its entries. === Dishonest report of Afd results === Voice of All(MTG) reported the results as " ", and he and The Literate Engineer used that as the basis to erase the content of the list, which they did in successive edits. === Non-consensual list move === During the 10 November AfD discussion, Voice of All(MTG) moved the list to the new article name Sexual_slang, citing the introduction at the top of the list as the basis for the move ("it is more than a list"). Several users then used the article title as an argument against including any list entries. When an article is moved, the change history is moved with it, and a redirect is placed under the original article's title. If the redirect is edited, then the article cannot be moved back. That is exactly what has happened to the list. See Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages for more information. === The current situation === The change history of the list is currently stranded as the change history of Sexual_slang. The content of the list itself has been restored to List_of_sexual_slang, where it was originally. This preserves the spirit of the results of the two AfD discussions mentioned above. === To summarize: === #On Oct 18 the list was nominated for AfD (article for deletion), but this attempt to delete failed, and the vote was overwhelmingly to Keep. #An anonymous sock-puppet placed a clean-up notice on the list. It has been used as a justification to delete entries. #On Nov 10, The Literate Engineer made an AfD attempt against the list and it failed too. #Then Voice of All(MTG) underhandedly moved the list to the non-list name Sexual_slang, while the AfD was still underway. #Voice of All(MTG)reported false results for the 10 November AfD vote, and he and The Literate Engineer edited out the entire list. #I posted a rebuttal to the above antics on the Talk_page_for_sexual_slang, and reverted the Sexual_slang article to the November 15 version in the article's change history (the complete list). My username ("Bend over") was banned as inappropriate or offensive. #Some editors stated that an article is not the place for a list, and used that as a justification to keep list entries. #So I replaced the redirect at List_of_sexual_slang with the actual content of the entire list. Unfortunately, the change history for the list is still part of the change history for the article Sexual_slang. #An attempt is being made to protect the list against vandalism at its original location: List_of_sexual_slang. Remember, the three reversion limit does not apply when reverting vandalism. Only if enough concerned users participate will this be successful. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Red Rover 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC) :Keep in mu\ind that a "keep" or "no consensus" result on an AFD is not synonymous with keeping the article as it is. It just means that it cannot be deleted from the history. The article may still be moved, merged, trimmed, completely rewritten and so on. I see that an RFC on this article is up, so it's best to participate there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC) == User:72.10.122.69 == I saw you placed a LVL4 on his talk page. The vandalism seems to continue. User:72.10.122.69 Chelman 13:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC) :I see s/he has stopped again so I am not blocking it right now. I'm not even sure if it is the same person or multiple people (probably schoolchidren) using a shared IP. But thanks for letting me know and adding another warning! Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC) == Exicornt AfD == Thanks for closing out this ugly AfD! FreplySpang (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC) :You're welcome. After reading the debate thoroughly, the result was quite easy. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC) == AFD == Had you deleted United_States_House_of_Representatives,_California_District_51? I am creating pages for the many congressional districts. This is not a minor project, and other people will be helping me in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Congress. Furthermore, I had put a note on the discussion page. --{{User-c-name|Markles|Mark_Adler}} 14:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC) :It's OK to create articles on congressional districts, but they have to be articles. What I deleted consisted of :#A stub template :#A template for the congressional districts :#Categories :Without any real content whatsoever ''about'' the district, the page meets at least two speedy deletion criteria, A1 for no context and A3 for no content whatsoever. If we don't have an article, we don't have it. Just having some templates and categories at the page is worse than having a redlink, since it confuses the readers into believing we have an article when we don't. Feel free to write these articles, but make sure that there is some real content and flesh in them. Good luck in your endeavors! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC) ::Hmmmm… good point. I'll keep at it, then, with only articles that are complete. --{{User-c-name|Markles|Mark_Adler}} 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC) == Britney_Spears article == There is not a lot we can do I'm afraid, just keep an eye out and revert as needed. The good thing is that there are more of us than there is of him, and he will get bored and go away eventually. Just take time away from the wack-a-mole game any time you get tired, and don't let it burn you out. Otherwise, it's just keep up the good work :) -- sannse (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC) :I've protected the page for the night anyway - if he doesn't change pages, that will at least give it all a break for a while -- sannse (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks. End of recess at their school seems to have solved the problem. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC) ==New user box== Hello Sjakkalle, It's SWD316. Im giving you the user box for your user page called Template:User_Member. It's a user box that says your a member of the AWWDMBJ.... Hope you like it! SWD316 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC) :Thanks, I'll see if I can fit it in on my userpage eventually. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC) ==Durmus Kumdereli== I was rather expecting this AfD to be relisted for further comment, as I've seen happen to several AfDs that attracted few votes. In the end we had a single delete (mine), and a single keep, which while not explicitly conditional, carried the caveat that the subject should be shown to have received Turkish media attention, which didn't happen. Not that I'm bitter over the irony of having saved the article (at least I saved the German AfDers the trouble), mind you, I rather like translating things :-) --Last Malthusian 15:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC) ==Arbitration accepted== Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC) === Webcomics RfA === Hi. I was the first anonymous user you mentioned in your Evidence at the RfA. I'd actually edited from a couple of other IP addresses occasionally, and only created this account subsequently. Still only about 20-25 edits total, mostly minor. Do you think this should be mentioned in the Evidence and should I mention it? J•A•K 09:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC) Am I wrong to find this the most disturbing thing to come out so far? The implication that we'll have to just ''take the word'' of someone surely couldn't be made a finding of fact, could it? Then again, now that I think about it and review the Able Baker AfD, that's really all that this has been about. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC) === About the spam === So that you don't think ill of me: I had placed a notice at pump, Tito recomended "keep" after I notified him of the Able Baker AfD, and Nendesuka and I ''often'' disagree. I respect all of their opinions regardless, and the phrasing of my request was fairly neutral. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC) :OK, great! Add a comment on that in the workshop. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC) :*Err, no thanks. I really don't want to enter into the fray there, see my recent edit. :*I'm less concerned about ArbCom outcomes than I am my general reputation, and I'm pretty sure that the ugly factor will go up exponentially
Image:Tim_tam.jpg
Sjakkalle,
Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts; and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim_Tam as a token of my gratitude. Cnwb 22:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
== Merge decision on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Octagon_Press_-_Idries_Shah - well done! ==
I thought I'd drop you a line to say well done! I think that far too few people go around saying nice things to each other in talk pages, and I was impressed with your interpretation of the vote towards merge. 2 deletes and 2 merges could have gone either way, but I think that merge is the diplomatic thing to do in such a situation, so well done (after all, it can easily be deleted if a dispute arises, while an undeletion is a bit more difficult). I was quite impressed with the decision, so well done. :) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
== Wonderful comments on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_day_dictators page ==
I thought that I'd write again to say how impressed I was by the eloquence of your arguments on this page, in what was a very difficult topic to decide on. I am personally of the view that topics such as that one will always be no consensus decisions, but that is what makes them encyclopaedic. We just have to be very careful of WP:NPOV over such things. I thought that you were very diplomatic and I am sure that your comments and decision helped all of the people who commented. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for the kind words! They are always appreciated. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
== Help ==
Damn I still don't get those AFD instructions. This is my 3rd time trying to nominate a page for AFD and it hasn't worked any time. I nominated Lighthouse_(chat_site) for deletion. I created the page, its a sub stub, and I am the only contributor, and my research has determined that I will be unable to ever make an actual article out of it, and besides which its not actually sufficiently notable so I thought I'd like to just delete it. Does it qualify for speedy delete under those circumstances? If so, I'd also like to delete Crossroads_(chat_site) and Ncohafmuta for the same reason (although those two I did get some info on, I am no longer convinced that they are sufficiently notable for their own page). Nobody else has contributed to any of the 3 articles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
*Yes any page which you are the sole author too is speedy deletable if you request it and can reasonably document that it was a mistake. I am deleting all three of them now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
**Thanks. I was asking for the same thing for Crystal_Palace_(chat_site) for the same reasons, but it seems that some anon editors came along to edit it recently, so it has to go through the AFD process. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
==Thanks==
But do you think they'd want me? Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:The ArbCom should represent the community, and if the community wants you... yes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
::Me and Tony S; everybody's dream ticket. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:::We'll see... Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
==Matthew 7:3==
I have to confess that I was a terrible Catholic and had to cheat by looking up the exact reference, though I'd remembered the quote: it's the one about Jesus saying that you shouldn't be worrying about the mote in your brother's eye when you've got a beam in your own. Considering the bad behavior of the complainant in the posts I skimmed, I thought it was more than a wee bit hypocritical for him to be whinging about someone else's behavior. --Calton | Talk 13:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks! Yes, I also thought the complaint on ANI to be a bit suspicious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
== Gracias ==
{{Award|image=WikiThanks.png}}For reventing vandalism on "David Miller (singer)" Rosameliamartinez 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
== Thank you so much! ==
Wow, that was awesome of you to revert the vandalism on my user page (this). I know, it wasn't really the most impressive vandalism ever, but still, that was just a cool thing. Thanks.
How'd you come across my page anyway? Matt Yeager 06:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Most likely I caught it on RC patrol. Anons making edits to userpages is always a red flag which calls for attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
== BDAbramson's RFA ==
Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Thank you, Sjakkelle, for your support and your kind comments - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. ''BDAbramson'' '''T''' 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
== My RfA ==
Image:WikiThanks.png
Sjakkalle, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket (now I can go check some vandals). Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
== My failed RFA :) ==
Image:Tournesol.png
Dear Sjakkalle,
I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
== Impersonator? ==
See {{User|Skalle}}. {{User:Freakofnurture/sig}} 14:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
:We'll see. If it's a vandal or someone trying to impersonate me it will have to be blocked some time, but if the edits are legitimate I am not too worried about the name "Skalle". The two users I have blocked for names too similar to, or insulting, mine are User:Sjakkale and User:Sjakkallehasamilf. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
== Semi-protection ==
I saw you just reverted vandalism on George_W._Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy, and weigh in (there's something of a large discussion page, so be prepared. For a quick run-through of what's been said and done, see #rehashing) Hope to see you there. -Mys'''''e'''''kurity(have you seen this?) 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
==Bonehead here==
Hi Brookie here - how do you post a talk page link in your signing signature - my attempts in preferences haven't worked! Thanks Bonehead :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
On the preferences screen I enter
: