For comments/questions regarding my AMA advocacy cases please see that respective page:

Netoholic Advocacy Instantnood Advocacy

If you want to reach me right away you can do so by emailing me

Thank you for your point of view regarding the King Abdullah II article. I have created a user and would like to continue the process. I feel strongly that the information that the link points to should stay in the external links section. What can I do since the link is continually removed. Dominick is now editing the wording of the link, changing the word Peacemaker to Antichrist which is not accurate. Now he is removing my comments from the discussion section. Thank you for your time. Whatif

Hello Wgfinley, Thank you for your help on this matter. A quick update, Dominic has stated that he will continue to remove all links to www.truthroom.com that I post. It does not seem to matter on which article I post the external link. He even removes them from articles that I thought should have no opposition like the "rapture" article. Since his position is to completly censor any link to truthroom I wonder if I should go to arbitration now ? Can you please advise me on what to do. Thank you. Whatif

Good call- that pic of the dead victim needs to be removed, it is not a free image as you pointed out, and is actually in poor taste from the surviving families point of view. Thanks! Ashley Payne 08:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem to have calmed down for now, but you never know. I'll keep you in mind if things start up again. Thanks. googuse 08:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, kudos to you for taking on the ACORN article. I was still in the middle of my once-over, but I'll leave it to you for the moment. Your edits are a lot bolder, anyway. - Nat Krause 08:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribs to the ACORN article. LegCircus 16:14, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I thought you did a good job condensing the 1975-1980 section. For responses to your controversies section see Talk:ACORN. LegCircus 00:22, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I put in a couple of edits on ACORN last month, but I'm way too distracted to keep it up. VeryVerily 00:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the vast "right wing conspiracy" VV. Want some similar fun, come check out ACORN. Wgfinley

LegCircus 16:45, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

on replacing the Ike picture. It WAS a travesty for it to be absent for so long. Sfahey 02:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read the opening para of my User page. Adam 01:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that Adam, didn't see that on your User page. Will handle it from here. --Wgfinley 05:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your great work securing permission from the Associated Press to use Image:TrangBang.jpg.

The image is a phenomenal one which adds a LOT to a good number of articles. The project is certainly improved by being able to use it. Thanks again for your work. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much! My very first Barnstar! I really appreciate it and will put it on my page! --Wgfinley 17:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm an active advocate-- though something of a silent partner. I just wanted to acknowledge your post on the AMA talk page by welcoming you to AMA. Please let me know if there is anything that you need, and I'll see what I can do or refer you to someone who can do it better. :) -JCarriker 23:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

RE Ap photos: "I am a strong believer" I dont know wether to read that AP notice as a permission slip, (like they would say no) or a warning notice for all and any AP photos held under fair use. -SV|t|th 03:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noticing me. How can I help! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

I didn't mean to revert. It was one of the best known state funerals. The best known was that of JFK. user talk:SNIyer12

Thank you for your message user talk: SNIyer12

Thanks for your help up until this point. I did try to find you on IRC, especially last night when I id finally meet up with Kim Bruning. Sorry you feel I didn't respond quickly enough, because I really wasn't ignoring you, it was justa matter of timing I guess. -- Netoholic @ 22:48, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any email from you, which may explain the miscommunication. If you are free, we can meet up on IRC. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA. So how much did I owe you again? ;-) In any case, I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got your message, though I was a little confused by you saying I was experimenting on the site. I wasn't; I removed the picture because my browser was showing a picture of a mule instead of a picture of Benedict XVI. Perhaps, it might have been an old version of the page my computer cached. I apologize for doing that. I should have paid more attention. I would not have done so unless it was to remove some inappropriate image. dcgb7f

Your arbitrary addition of tags to images will be reported. —Cantus…☎ 03:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary, if you are claiming fair use you need to give a reason, you have not and have called the tags "idiotic" feel free to report it. --Wgfinley 03:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cardinal_Joseph_Ratzinger_1965.jpg is from a Chilean site. Read this tag:

Template:Chile-Educational-Use

Why do you keep vandalizing this page? —Cantus…☎ 03:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm going to bed. I probably won't be back till next week. —Cantus…☎ 03:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

And it clearly states fragments of a work, you've taken the entire photo. That is probably the only photo you have any argument on, the others are blatant infringements on news agency images. --Wgfinley 03:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have removed all images from the article, as they are all most likely copyvios. Vatican pics are very much copyrighted. See your yourself at http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/ph_index_eng.html —Cantus…☎ 04:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

So now the community decides what's fair use and what's not? I don't think so. Vatican.va says their images are copyrighted. End of story. We can't use them. —Cantus…☎ 04:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

You claim this image: Image:Popebenedictxvi firsttimeonthrone.jpg to be from the Vatican, yet there is no information on its source. It could well be from a news agency. I have removed the vatican tag, please don't keep adding it until you have a source. —Cantus…☎ 04:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

On the images I uploaded you added copyvio tags, but on that other image from another user you didn't add any copyvio tags, you just contacted the user. —Cantus…☎ 04:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your calm head in all of that. Certian users were very hard to deal with. In any event, please take a look at this: [1]. It appears the copyvio tag was simply removed. Is this a good image? It looks likes it from associated press and could be a copyright problem. Thanks for your help. -Husnock 05:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im at last done for the evening. When I saw what was going on at Benedict XVI, I swore I would not get involved with that article. Guess I got sucked in anyway. The last Pope came about when I was 3 years old, this is the first one Ive got to see coming in as an adult. Pretty interesting. Thanks again for teh cool head. I'm gone. -Husnock 07:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI - I really liked the new Pope Infobox so I have proposed that it be used for all religious leades on Infobox policy. There have been no objections so far (since Friday). If that continues I plan on helping to update the articles for the new Infobox. If you have comments, concerns please discuss there Trödel|talk 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't really feel singled out; I feel that RickK is overstepping his bounds and violating deletion policy. --SPUI (talk) 03:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may need some help with a case that I'm working right now. Can you drop me a line at my talk space or by e-mail at kc9cqj(at)aol(dot)com? KC9CQJ 02:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I love this idea, I really do, but if the only "out" for either side is functionally a full ban, then I'm not sure what choice I ever really had. The "back-up plan" restrictions should stand on there own - that is, they should be appropriate to the situation without the mentorship under consideration. I am considering withdrawing my support for the mentorship idea until a reasonable Remedy #2 is hashed out. Much more troublesome users than I have had less punitive measures taken against them. -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I changed this photo to a .png and moved it to Commons and it is now listed at WP:IFD. Regards, Thuresson 11:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved a few more Watergate-related photos to Commons (see WP:IFD). I also discovered that Image:Nixon 30-0122a.gif that you uploaded is not used by any article. Regards, Thuresson 05:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what is being requested in the form of mediation? I am reluctant to proceed if the issue is essentially a political issue being claimed as a true issue for content mediation. If this is related to the complaints of Sam Spade, I am not sure if mediation is the issue at this point. He has engaged in a series of political attacks on me as a progressive for several months on several pages. I originally suggested mediation to him on the Political correctness page, and then he engaged in a series of maneuvers that I felt were not proper, and then sought mediation as if it was his idea. --Cberlet 02:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I do not seem to be able to get you to respond to the specifics of this matter as to the pages or complainant, I think it best to wait to see if there is an move to ask for official mediation. Forgive me, but I do not think that a libertarian is the proper person to mediate a dispute between a libertarian/rightist and a progressive like myself. On both the Christian right page and the Political correctness page there now are constructive attempts to find collective editing solutions. --Cberlet 03:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had already listed both pages for outside comment, and now that there are more people participating, the editing process is much more civil. For two months Sam Spade reverted every attempt I made to edit the Political correctness article, and he did so without engaging in a serious discussion. He refused to provide cites for his position. He belittled my views. More recently he inserted a new lead based on the work of Michael Lind. This lead was highly POV, written in a virtually incoherent manner, and not properly cited. When I suggested he avoid the issue of plagiarism and properly cite the paragraph, he had a fit and total melt down. He also followed me to the Christian right page and began to insert opinion and right-wing prose bashing liberals and the left. Also not properly cited. If you want to monitor these two pages to see if there is a continuing problem, please do so. I do not believe there is anything to mediate here. I had already proposed formal mediation when he tried a side step. If the issue is not content, the only issue that remains is the ability of Sam Spade to edit in a civil and appropriate manner according to Wicki policies. If the issue is the plagiarism, it is a matter of record on the Political correctness page. Feel free to read the history pages. After that, please explain what you think informal mediation would actually accomplish. I think participating in editing these two pages would be a much more practical and useful activity.--Cberlet 13:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the AMA meeting. Did you archive it? I haven't checked to see if you've posted it. It is also always possible to get my via the email link on my user page. Thanks for taking the initiative, IMHO it really isn't a problem to do things under the AMA name as long as it is in the spirit of democratic involvement. — © Alex756 18:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I invite your vote at the George Bush article [[2]]--MONGO 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your ongoing work as an advocate. I have seen what you deal with as an advocate and I think most of us can see what a thankless task it is. Here's a small message to help tip the balance towards it being a "thankful" task. I am specifically looking at the work you have started with America's Army but I believe there is more to do on that page (FYI... your NPOV tag was removed almost immediately). Cheers! –DeweyQ 03:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a thankless job for you. There's an intense, yet productive discussion active on my talk page at User talk:Xiong#NOOB. Radiant and I are involved, with a comment or two from others; plus the topic has drifted, becoming less confrontational and, I hope, more productive.

Will you consider lending an impartial hand in refactoring this section, perhaps splitting it in two? It's getting impenetrable, unmanageable, and diffcult to follow, but I don't want to mess with it myself, as Radiant and I are to some degree on opposite sides of the table. I'm sure you understand that I don't want prior approval of your refactoring.

Actually, I will thank you for it, but I have to admit it's a dull job any way you look at it. But would be much appreciated. — Xiong熊talk* 03:47, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Despite your wikibreak you might be interested in this, since on March 9, 2005, you added the disputed statements (with references) to the article on John Dean. Lupo 12:33, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I am involved in a dispute with csloat on two pages: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and 2003 invasion of Iraq. In both cases, he claims my entries are not relevant to the page. I view his deletions as simple vandalism in an attempt to keep wikipedia members from reading all the facts. My goal is to get the "Disputed" label removed from the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page. The label should not be removed until all the relevant information is there. Our discussion can be found on the Talk pages and on my User page. Since I am new to wikipedia, I do not know the dispute resolution process. I think it would be helpful to have an objective third party read the entries and the Talk pages. Do you have time to help us talk it out? -RonCram 15:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to the AMA request for advice on speculation in the Game Boy line article (recently moved from "Game Boy"). Since I posted the request, the user has not come back and re-posted the information, so maybe it's moot. -- Plutor 12:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could have stated which case you are referring to. If you mean the case of FDuffy (talk · contribs), this is actually months ago, and I wonder why it has taken you so long to respond. I do think that one should be able to give additional information to requests for assistance if this request appears to be a misrepresentation. JFW | T@lk 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you responded to the AMA request concerning assistance in the dispute over external links in the Abdullah II of Jordan pages, would you mind arbitrating the situation? As you can see (and I responded to your statement concerning the debate), I have attempted to go through all proper channels in seeking resolution. I believe you will be fair and balanced and am anxious for closer in this matter. - Cybjorg 06:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is addressed here. - Cybjorg 16:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though never tried and convicted a war criminal for these acts, once acute interest decreases in the era, future historians will become increasingly candid and revealing in their findings about Eisenhower.

How would you put it then? He's a Kriegsverbrecher and should have been tried in Nuremberg. The only problem is, I can't picture him sitting next to any of the men that were put on trial. He does not deserve such honors.

I wouldn't editorialize or attempt to see the future inside an article that is supposed to be NPOV and encyclopedic. --Wgfinley 03:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, glad to see you back! There's at least four new cases waiting for the Cabal - take your pick! Dan100 (Talk) 16:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, i would appreciate your help, if you are available of course, on Doctor Hwang Woo Suk article because recently, that article has been target of media, and of course from pov's and biased comments. I havent contribuited on text, but i did with images featured on the article, i have posted photos and a graphic (which all are different) and each of them are properly cited, captioned: explaining on detailed way why i feel they fall on fair use doctrine and why i putted there, but as soon as i uploaded those images, they were target of harassment, prosecution and so on from user:Bwithh [3] which removed some of them by saying they were "boring" and accusing they caused clipping and so on, he finnaly leaved the article after i stated why those images should be there.

But after this i was accussed by user:Wikibob of dubious fair use claims after he tagged Image:Korean-donating-egg.jpg and Image:Korean-line-up.jpg of suspicious copyright issue and accusing Image:Cloning-diagram.PNG of copyright violation, even when the original purpose was to explain readers how this lab technique works, i tried to find some help contacting User:David Johnson but, he says there is some sort of excess on images on that article and he said Image:Dr-hwang-seminar.jpg,Image:Dr-hwang-athis-office.jpg,Image:Cloning-cell.jpg,Image:Doctor-hwang-reporters.PNG,Image:Doctor-hwang-surroundedbyreporters.jpg, they should and could be deleted and i quote "don't add anything to the article".

I believe each image featured on Dr. Hwang Woo Suk article gives a substancial information regarding upon his life, research and fate; on the other hand i am not sure if there exists some sort of Wikipedia rule about if an article should had a number-limit for images featured in there, but i know there exists an advocate rule on wikipedia that says about ignoring all the rules, About Image:Dr-hwang-athis-office.jpg, Image:Dr-hwang-seminar.jpg, both of them illustrate the statement bellow Doctor's Lifestyle subsection, on how his life was before his resignation, both show him as a busy scientist on his office (dressed him as doctor) and giving lectures explaining his research to the public, and i feel this gives readers an idea about this part of his life. Image:Cloning-cell.jpg focuses on explaining readers how Somatic cell nuclear transfer is seen under the microscope and is placed below a diagram over how this technique words, i feel this illustrates better that point. About Image:Doctor-hwang-reporters.PNG gives readers an idea how controversies over his scientific research started, and good way to illustrate better that point was after doctor's improvised press conference upon his arrival at incheon airport on May 20 2005, finally Image:Doctor-hwang-surroundedbyreporters.jpg gives a visual concept about what happened after doctor's resignation, and it focuses to explain readers he was cherished professor to his students, and until today many of them want him back. As far as i know, those images are properly cited and they are candidates for fair use doctrine at wikipedia.en , each of them explains different aspects of doctor's life, i am not sure about what should i do?, should i give up and just leave the article?, i wish you can give me a wise advice and help, thank you for reading :) --HappyApple 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you offer still stands, I'd appreciate some help with User:Cberlet. Perhaps due to the fact that our arbitration was somewhat inconclusive, we have been butting heads. I have had concerns about his actions ([4]), and he has had concerns about mine ([5],[6]). Mediation has failed in the past, as has arbitration essentially, so... I'm looking for some assisted dialogue and/or advice. Sam Spade 03:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments at my RFA, I will look at all of the images that I have uploaded and re-assess each of the fair use claims. I shall try to be more careful with this in future. --TimPope 10:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what do you think you're doing? you've been registered since 2004? that means the "clueless" newbie card won't cut it. stop your vandalism

Your marking of template:User GWB for speedy, while possibly not vandalism, comes close. Please stop. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam on unrelated articles?

don't do that either, also, you made about 5 different reverts on that mess, shouldn't you be blocked by now?--63.22.76.119 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, thanks for answering.

Perhaps the first thing to point out if you are not familiar with Biblical studies is that the term "Biblical criticism" means the academic study of the bible as an historic document, and does not mean "attacking the Bible". Now onto the main problem:

There seems to be a great resistance amongst many sections of Wikipedia to including information from rigourously academic sources. Many editors, predominantly Jayjg, Jdwolff, Codex Sinaiticus, and Izak, seem to prefer articles to contain only the views of religious individuals whose theology and literalism (i.e. that the bible is fundamentally and entirely true) dictate their interpretations, rather than allowing articles to contain any reasonable measure of academic studies.

For example, a major bone of contention is the documentary hypothesis, which is a theory concerning how the torah (first 5 books of the bible) came about, and it is supported by over 90% of bible scholars. As it affects the composition of the torah intricately, so it affects each story in the torah, and has a lot to say about their original composition. However, Jdwolff and company refuse to allow it to enter articles, and are particularly resistant to allowing it to enter more obviously important subjects such as Ten Commandments.

Academic bible studies don't automatically assume the bible is 100% true, and conclude the same, that would, essentially, be defeating the point of studying it. Hence it is not uncommon that major theories are put forward in the field, often gaining majority support, which are critical of the accuracy that religious groups believe the text has. Likewise it is frequently the case that many stories demand, in academic eyes, strong re-interpretation.

This resistance to academia seems to be part of a general anti-intellectual trend in the subject throughout wikipedia;

for example User:Yoninah today caused an article (A wife confused for a sister) to be put up for deletion because in his/her view "it is based entirely on Biblical criticism", i.e. entirely based on academic treatment of the subject rather than pious guessing, which somehow Yoninah views as a situation which is bad.

Yoninah then went around several editors known for their clear and obvious pro-Jewish religious bias (Izak, Jdwolff, Jayjg) complaining that the article was based on biblical criticism, i.e. effectively tried to create a wrecking mob.

What I am after from the AMA is simply some direct support in asserting that NPOV requires academic views to be represented as well as the pious literalist religious ones. In particular, as the religious ones are predominantly (for obvious reasons) based on religious motivation, the academic views are the ones which should be regarded as the more reliable. The collective academic views are inherently NPOV as they are simply the views of people analysing the text without making pre-suppositions. Not every academic view criticises the bible, and many are apologetic.

It would be helpful if the AMA were able to somehow persuade these religiously biased editors (Izak, Jdwolff, Jayjg, Codex Sinaiticus) that the inclusion of major academic views is required in all the articles owing to the principle of NPOV.

Maybe its wishful thinking, but it would be even more helpful if the AMA were able to pursuade them to themselves find and include the academic views on the subject they are so clearly interested in, whether or not it agrees with their own personal opinion.

--User talk:FDuffy 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

Part of the problem is that they are notable, and the reason they are notable is precisely due to their editing behaviour. They have achieved notability without managing to comprehend NPOV.

Only today (the 3rd), User:Eliezer, went around the talk pages of users he felt would be sympathetic to his bias in order to round up votes to swing the balance back to his side. Each of the voters he collected voted delete immediately, stating that they might change their mind if sources were given, somehow completely neglecting to see that sources were given several times in the AFD itself, and on the article. I.e. they voted without even investigating the topic - sheep bias-based votes.

One of them stated that it was based on outdated 19th century research, completely neglecting the fact that 1992, 1983, and 2002 (the dates of 4 of the major references) are nowhere near 19th century, and that the references are from extremely well respected scholars (Richard Elliott Friedman, Robin Lane Fox, Israel Finkelstein). --User talk:FDuffy 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I've left a question for you on your nomination page: bottom of the page in case you don't see it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Don't worry: the wrangling over images hasn't crept into it at all. In fact, I had posted my query to you before I saw you had posted to the image page. But anyway, I don't shift goalposts. I'm minded to ask you another question to try to pin you down a bit more, but I don't want to overdo it, so I may not. Will give it some more thought. Thank you very much for your response so far. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the Association of Members' Advocates. There is a poll being held at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. Izehar 22:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I e-mail you please regarding an AMA matter? my e-mail is ChazzWiki@aol.com

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. And thanks for checking every edit ;) you must know how bad my typing is sometimes now ;) --Alf ^melmac 10:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk's RFA

---

Thanks for your contribution to my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments. I hope that I can prove myself worthy of the Admin facilities and your concerns as to my suitability dissipate, however if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 12:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]