Hey Xaosflux, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page by User:Comment34343 today. I spotted the vandalism to the talk page because of the new message note, but by the time I checked the user page, you guys had already reverted it, thanks! Regards, Canley 06:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anytime! xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember me? Prepare to be taken down, you are first on my hitlist. -Wikihelper9002006--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihelper9002006 (talk • contribs)

Forgive me whilst I yawn. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed on the recent TfD you said "This is a very useful template, if for nothing else to use as a subst: starting point for people making their own personalized welcome templates." I'd like to make my own version of the welcome template - specifically, I think six links at once is overwhelming, so would like to add a brief description of each one's use and emphasise that they can always ask me or someone else instead of scouring them - but are personalized welcome templates allowed in template space - I've already made the mistake of creating an inappropriate template fork - or do they have to be copied and pasted from outside? I notice there are already 4 different wordings of the welcome message. --Malthusian (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Making more templat forks of this in Template: space might not be helpful to the project, what many editors (myself included) is make a sub userpage for a personal welcome message, subst:'ing it in to others when needed e.g. {{subst:User:Xaosflux/welcome}} ~~~~. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Malthusian (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the mood for nominating someone for adminship. May I nominate you? Just give me a yes or a no :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a question. NSLE _(T+C) 05:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good luck wishes. :). I was already answering when you pinged my talk page. You aren't doing bad on your RFA either! :D Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I had been looking for question #4 and #5, and never thought to look for a 1.1, etc, mixed into the existing questions. Sorry for the delay in answering. I'll get to them. - TexasAndroid 07:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, looks like nomination's going well :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, changing that word made a *lot* of difference. I was trying to think of what you meant by changing list to article, since in a way lists are already articles. I'll get to the revised question sometime this weekend, as I said. - TexasAndroid 18:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The author of this article has removed the AfD notice on the article. I didn't notice your official withdrawal of AfD-ness on that article, but I'm hesitant to replace it in interest of not biting the newcomers. Would you check it out? Thanks, Makemi 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just withdrew the AFD, thanks for the note. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey... did you look at the changes I made to the Maranatha article? They were not experimental at all. There was restructuring involved. You removed a lot of good content... could you bring it back? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.242.65 (talk • contribs)

I rereverted to your version, then merged in the sections you removed, marekd it as inuse by you as well. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's about time the world know about RadioNickos.com. Why flag it for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpincho (talk • contribs)

reply on your page xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux!

Thank you for posting on my RfA - I must say that I totally agree with your comment about admins being available via email. I did not really think about it at the time, but I 100% agree and have editted my preferences accordingly. Please let me know if there are any other things I might consider doing in order to improve my application - any input in greatfully received!

Regards, DJR (Talk) 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I've moved by oppose to neutral pending further review for possible support. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 20:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We must be having caching issues, I was off that list earlier "2006-02-17 01:10:15 NoSeptember (→5,000+ edits - Xaosflux is now admin)"xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why you didn't block 207.200.116.70. This user has 4 other warnings on their talk page. How many times do we have to warn a vandal before something is done? Warnings do no good if it's not followed up by action. At least User:Loren blocked them.Rlevse 03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I obviously don't agree. I don't care if the IP is dynamic nor not currently active for a few minutes. A vandal is a scumbag and a repeat offender needs to be blocked, not warned repeatedly with no action taken. Dynamic IPs are more fodder for my argument that everyone on wiki should be required to have an account linked to an active email address, then we could track these pests better and be more effective at stopping them, which means us good users like you and I would have more time to do things like improve articles vice chasing scumbag vandals. Rlevse 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, xaosflux. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your mop and broom! NSLE _(T+C) 01:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations!! Mushroom (Talk) 01:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations and you're welcome. --Dakota ~ ° 04:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have received your message. Best wish for your adminship.--Jusjih 04:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• May I add my congrats as well? I can? Great! :-P. Good job well deserved! KnowledgeOfSelf 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats! — TheKMan^talk 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats! You'll be great. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you passed your RFA, now I have this list of vandals I want blocked....... :) :) :) :) :) - Trysha ^(talk) 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congratuations, Xaosflux --Ugur Basak 08:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats from me, too. 98/2/0 is a great score and - though we don't always see 100% eye to eye - I think you'll be a fine admin. Grutness...wha? 08:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Congrats! You will be a fine admin. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• More congratulations! :D--Shanel 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• And more yet! May you use the mop with grace and equanimity...15:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

basically its a redirect like {{disambig}}. indeed, we are not a dictionary. however, some people use wikipedia as a first reference, even thinking of it as a dictionary. anyway, these dictionary pages are segregated from the normal articles for good information management. it can even help to build wiktionary more quickly and avoid these dictionary pages from cropping up. -- Zondor 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[1] -- Zondor 07:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish to appeal against your deletion of the redirect for the category Animal Diseases to Animal diseases. The original content of that article was a # REDIRECT [[Animal diseases]] to cover a common spelling mistake. And if I can make that mistake, anyone can. Could you please either reinstate the redirect or alternatively, explain to me why it was deleted? Thank you. Thor Malmjursson 17:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Thor's pet yack

Reply on your talk page. (Restored, with notes re: fucntionality) xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope it doesn't cause too much of a ruckus. I also wanted to mention that I've proposed a similar-looking box at MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext for that (I actually made two proposals, but I prefer the single line version). Let me know what you think. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The current colors are the standardized talk page box colors (someplace in the Wikipedia namespace these colors are documented) which is why I went with those. Though, for the sake of discussion, you might want to check out User:Locke Cole/Sandbox#MediaWiki:Talkpagetext for some of my color scheme ideas (I'm thinking this message would work with the green or blue color set since it's purely informational). If you like green/blue (let me know which) I'll propose it on MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext as an alternate to the single line talk-page-color standardized one I have there now. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention, I modified User:Xaosflux/Infobox briefly (and then reverted it) to something you might consider as an alternative to straight HTML. Not that using HTML is bad of course, but it might be easier to maintain for you. =) (I also forgot to include the includeonly tags in my brief edit, so if you do decide to go with it, you'll need to re-add those). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Database Project, that you had earlier put up for afd, now has a big discussion on the subject and I was hoping to get your opinion... Thanks! --JamieHari 19:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it has recently been brought my attention that user: 198.20.32.254 has been blocked for vandalism. The problem is that this IP belongs to a school board with more than 50 Schools, I believe it is unacceptable to block entire school boards from editing. When I looked at this IP edit summary there were a lot of useful contributions Wikipedia. There is no doubt that this IP was responsible for some vandalism, this is what you would expect from a IP that represents thousands of Public computers. It is in the best interest of the wiki community that these students be allowed to contribute. It would obviously be acceptable if this IP was blocked for a hour at a time when it is responsible for vandalism, but not for extended periods of time. Thanks Mjal 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This IP has a history of vandalism, and blocks - most which are for 24 hours or less, consistent with Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find even one instance of an edit made from this IP that hasn't been vandalism. Yankees76 20:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

--MatthewUND^(talk) 05:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)