Template:Personalissuesunspecified

Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Thanks for your show of support!  :) Gavin.collins (I'm sure you've encountered him before, with as many AFDs as you've voted on) is another "problem" deletionist. I really don't think he's got any sockpuppet issues or anything like that, but civility is a big issue for him; I and two other editors just warned him today on his talkpage for that. In fact, his talkpage archives are an exercise in people warning him about civility. *shrug* It doesn't seem like there's much we can do about that, because he ignores such warnings and no one has taken up any serious action against him about it. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that has done little or nothing about the civility issue. That RFC is too spread out and unfocused, and never led to any decisions. BOZ (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is big enough problem, there's always ANI or Arbitration. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. We'll see how it goes trying to work with him in a less severe manner. Sorry about the drama, just felt like venting.  :) BOZ (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article has been proposed for deletion. Maybe there is finally some common ground between us as to the boundaries of Wikipedia? Or would you argue to keep it? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 06:01, April 17, 2008

I redirected the article to Game Informer. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was so hoping you would not say and do something as wrong as that. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 18:26, April 17, 2008

See discussion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Btw, the already-existing consensus, counting User:Metros who prodded the page, as well as User:Bill, User:Krator, User:Quiddity and User:Strongsauce (all of whom commented in the discussion) and my humble self. The bottomline line is that I only wanted to demonstrate to both uf us that there can be some common ground between us regarding understanding of the non-negotiable fact that Wikipedia, in its primary quality of being an encyclopedic project, is not about everything. I'm afraid that was naive. You're now acting against both a consensus of editors and against policy. Not that I'd go anywhere else to pursue this matter. But, dude, what the heck?! I know you don't do that for a lack of good intentions or lack of intelligence. I've come across your comments often enough to know that neither is the case. But, the entire issue with that article aside: Why is it that you're so invariably determined to keep even stuff like that? Dorftrottel (criticise) 18:59, April 17, 2008

I agree that a single issue of a magazine is usually not notable enough for an individual article (some magazine issues may have achieved a degree of notability, but at this time, I do not believe this particular issue has); however, the article was created in good faith, is not libelous, is not a hoax, and can be reasonably redirected to the main magazine article lest its creator or any others with similar ideas come here looking for such information. So, as a compromise and to prevent a needless AfD and to preserve a good faith editor's contribution history, redirecting seemed the simplest and best choice. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the wrong choice. If anything, the completely unreferenced "material" should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines#Game Informer, as suggested by several users in that WikiProject discussion. The redirect as well as the editing history of that page are not to be kept. Nobody, and this is absolutely basic common sense, will ever enter Game Informer Issue 181: Gears of War 2 as a search term. Note that since there is varying capitalization of the words in the title, it would have to be entired exactly like that. Simply no, the answer is no. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:11, April 17, 2008

The amount of time you devote to minutiae such as this astounds me. Really, I am amazed by the lengths you have gone here...okay you win, feel better now? Why spend so much time ruminating on something you hate so much? Reminds me of the anti-porn crusader fixated on pornography. There are so much more positive things you could do. You know Dorftrottel, you do have considerable energy and command of the English language that could be of great use in improving many articles written with good intentions by non-english speakers - eg Władysław I the Elbow-high (great name that), or Plovdiv or Košice, I picked some notable ones which would are pretty notable, there are alot more less notable ones that are screaming for an eloquent English speaker. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your philosophy of respecting user contributions and also that you are a fellow dog lover. I was hoping you could advise me on this issue. I read the article on Christian terrorism and found it quite interesting. Shortly thereafter I read the article on Joe Scarborough and came to the part where he offered to defend the abortion doctor killer. It seemed to me the man mentioned (the killer, not Scarborough) fit the description of Christian terrorist and I added the term in front of his name. This stood for a long time and occasionally was deleted - I re-inserted it from time to time. But then recently it was deleted and labeled as vandalism. I understand it is not flattering to the subject of the article, but I think it is nonetheless accurate. Other references (external links) that I had added were also deleted without discussion. I will eventually let this issue drop but was wondering if you had an opinion or a perspective that you would be willing to share. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a killer of abortion doctors could be accurately described as a Christian terrorist (if convicted and not just accused), but the key is to discuss it with the editors on the article's talk page and with the anyone who reverts you. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent support of my RfA application. Regretfully, I withdrew my application in order to get some more experience as per advice from opposers. I look forward to hearing from you in the future. Regards, CycloneNimrod^talk? 20:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Best luck next time! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If time permits, can you take a look at this, can you explain to me why marking topics with {{notability}} without apparent notability is wrong? Thanks SunCreator (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it may have something to do with how subjective notability is. There are things that I have not heard of, but may very well be more "important" than other things that I am familiar with. The key is to discuss with those removing your tag and maybe open up a village pump discussion. If you believe those removing the tag are doing so unconstructively, you can always ask for a request for comment or seek administrator opinion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How or where do I ask for a request for comment or seek administrator opinion? SunCreator (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. SunCreator (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment on my talk page. Thanks for the pointers. However, I wish to solicit your assistance as I believe that I am now being singled out by some editors who seek to ignore the more stringent WP:BLP guidelines which guide the editing of that page. See here where I am now accused of being a sockpuppet and further threatened with banning. Ho Lee Cow (talk)

You could request a checkuser of yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (someone who is not a sockpuppet would be unlikely to request a checkuser of his or herself). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude into the discussion, but if you read the list of "Unacceptable requests" at the top of WP:RFCU, you will see that "Checkuser on yourself to 'prove your innocence'" is one of them. Deor (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. Thanks for pointing it out! Perhaps another idea would be to enable an email and email those accusing him? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the Centurion (Scarrow Novel) page. It shouldn't be deleted :) Rigsy05 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now its been deleted but you continue to support it, thank you again for starting the deletion review! Mucho appreciado amigo. Rigsy05 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. While I could understand closing it as "no consensus," considering that editors were actively improving the article when it closed, a "delete" did not seem correct. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do I become a member of Wikiproject Games or whatever it's called? I really want to join, as I love video games and most of my edits are on video game articles. Thanks, Prepsear (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! To join, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank for helping me out with Wikipedia! When I first created a username, I was like "How am I supposed to do this?" But then you welcomed me to the site and helped me out A BUNCH! Now everything seems kinda easy to me. Thanks, Prepsear (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have helped!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate, which will remain open until the end of the month. Sincerely, --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll check it out. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Congratulations and good luck! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you made the above nomination. Please note that per the GFDL, we do not delete articles from which content was merged. Therefore, if what you are porposing is that all those articles be replaced by a list, then we would redirect the smaller articles to the list without deleting them. In other words, the discussion on the Singstar talk page is sufficient for such a move and the AfD is thus not necessary. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the list article (List of SingStar titles) was not merged from the other articles. It was created from scratch at User:Tntnnbltn/olddraft2 using only external sources, with the introduction based on material from SingStar. None of the content in List of SingStar titles originated from any of the articles being nominated for deletion, hence they do not need to be kept under GFDL. However I have already noted my mistake in listing the articles at AFD when what I was really proposing was a redirect. I am rarely involved with AFD and whatnot, so put it down to a novice mistake. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then if you are proposing a redirect, which you do not need AfD for, I recommend withdrawing and closing the AfD and just either being Bold or continuing the discussion on a normal talk page. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help!  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Los Minosos, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rwking2 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice! Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- Since you've involved yourself in the above article, perhaps you'd like to address my underlying disagreement with many of RAN's edits. I think my best articulation of this disagreement is here: User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion. Perhaps you'd care to respond to what I say there. If you have a response, it might be best placed on Talk:G. David Schine, but here or on my Talk page is fine with me too. As you can see, RAN's response is notable by its absence. RedSpruce (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two may want to seek formal mediation. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may, but since you've expressed an opinion on the above issue by reverting me, I thought you might also be willing to put that opinion into words. I'm asking you to justify your edit; is that too much to ask? RedSpruce (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a diff? I don't recall reverting you; I'm not saying I didn't, I just don't recall doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn; my mistake. It was User:Hiberniantears who RV'd me, and when I asked him about that he said that although he hadn't investigated the issue, he was "supporting another admin", apparently meaning you. I apologize. RedSpruce (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got to thinking last night, have you ever considered an attempt at adminship? From a personal standpoint, seeing your name attached to an AfD almost always puts me on edge. Your "no crappy article gets left behind" stance frankly makes me insane. However, you are also incredibly knowledgable, you know that system and how it works better than a whole lot of current admins and you have worked on dozens of articles to prove their notability when they otherwise probably would have been deleted. All in all, I think it would be a tough fight and one that probably would not be won, but all the same I would be willing to nominate or co-nominate you if you wanted to make that leap. A lot of people would oppose outright, but I think a lot of others would see that you would be a net-positive. Give it some thought. Trusilver 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trusilver, thank you for the note. While I do not wish to say "never" to such an idea, please see User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Account history. As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SingStar (PlayStation 2), my use of two alternate accounts that I never actually used in the same discussions as indicated on my user page and have since abandoned altogether are still incorrectly perceived by some as something more nefarious. At the time that I was blocked, editors incorrectly claimed various accounts were me (such as this editor), only to finally have a checkuser not turn up all these alleged accounts and accordingly after friendly email correspondences the only admin to have ever blocked me unblocked me. Anyway though, as you can also see from that SingStar discussion, I have managed to help identify maybe a half dozen or so sock farms with well over twenty total accounts involved in these groupings and not surprisingly I have been targetted by the sockpuppeteers and their socks in various discussions. I suspect that these editors (such as this one) and whatever reincarnations they might take would greatly disrupt any RfA I'd have. Moreover, becasue I approach AfDs as a discussion and not a vote as mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Discussion versus vote, certain accounts that have been blocked for civility issues tend to take offense at being engaged in discussion and sometimes cause the AfD to devolve into something less productive, even though, I consciously leave out insults and always sign my edits with "best," "sincerely," etc. I will give it some thought, but please also consider what I have written here as to why I might have reservations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You keep pointing to the Al Gore III AfD whenever the issue of inherited notability comes up. However, as I guess you are aware, the article still ended in a delete. So, out of interest, do you just like JamesMLane's opinion (although I see nothing special about it), or are you protesting against the deletion, or what is it? I am really puzzled, so I hope you can enlighten me. (Honest question.) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above!  :) I like his opinion and I think the deletion was incorrect. In the instance of spinoff or sub-articles for which sources are available, I believe notability is indeed inherited; nor do I think it a slippery slope, because we're generally talking about episodes or characters that we know not to be hoaxes and which there is consensus among a sizable segment of our community that they are notable at least in the sense of spinoff articles. I don't think anyone reasonably takes the argument to the exaggerated level that those who claim it is not inherited do, i.e. I would not argue an article on say Adama's desk on Battlestar Galactica should be kept, but I would argua that Bill Adama should be. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that helped. FWIW, I was neutral on the Gore article (and hence didn't vote) because my views on notability and quality cancelled each other out there. I am only concerned about quality when it comes to wikipedia; I don't really mind quality articles on nonnotable stuff since I am creating such articles myself. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly really agree about the various fiction articles needing additional sourcing and more non-plot out of universe sections. I just think that we spend way too much time in AfDs that could be spent finding these sources and expanding the articles. Please consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Yanehiro. Notice how the nominated article looked versus after I edited it. The nominator's concerns with the article were correct based on the article's appearance, which was followed up by an ultimately incorrect claim that she's "just some random business person who happened to write part of an unsuccessful book." I did some quick digging on the woman and discovered that she's actually considered a "broadcast pioneer," won major awards and recognitions (Emmys and others from the United Nations even), in fact authored multiple books, is the president of a company, on the boards of others, has acted, hosted, and produced films and television shows, etc. This article on a woman with clear real-world notability had been sitting around as a stub for nearly two years before in one hour I improved it to the point that the nominator wrote, "Given the additions to the article and the references cited, I concede that the article should remain as it is currently." Now imagine what I would be able to accomplish if I did not also have to go back and fourth with editors in AfDs or if some of the editors I go back and forth with helped me to improve the articles under question. Other examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Pumpkin Queen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4 (an article that was rated A-Class and is being assessed as a potential good article), or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Melting of Maggie Bean, as well as many others. Notice that these articles range from being about a real-world journalist to children's books to aspects of a video game. I would greatly prefer to just focus on improving these articles, but please notice that in these examples, while several editors did revisit their stances, several others just "voted" in the AfDs and never commented on the improvements one way or another. Consider for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy). By the end of the discussion, the article had undergone a significant sourcing revision that caused you to write, "Keep in its rewritten form It's not much but it is enough to avoid deletion." And yet it closed as delete! Several of those who argued delete had not commented on these improvements and two of the delete accounts turned out to be socks (User:Jack Merridew and User:AnteaterZot). Think of all that discussion wasted with sock accounts that could have been spent improving the article as was done by the end only too late for anyone to actually revisit their stance. Anyway, as you can also see at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, I have a little bit more variety of arguments than I think people realize in AfDs and I guess I just wish those advocating to delete (who also advocate to keep far less frequently than I argue to delete) and who approach AfDs as a vote without ever taking into account how discussion progresses or improvements made to the article during the discussion would just help out more in fixing some of these articles, because if I can improve them, I'm sure others can too. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2]

Interesting, no? BOZ (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, I noticed you revert vandalism, occasionally, but correctly. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to help make vandalism-reverting easier for you? Acalamari 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted. :) Just remember it's only for reverting vandalism, and not for reverting good-faith edits or use in revert-wars. For practice and additional information, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 01:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Merci!  :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Acalamari 01:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.

Unfortunately, wp is not so simple as "edit this page." Bcdea (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! If I can ever help, just let me know. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend, I am not new to the Wikipedia. Yet I am not familiar with everything here. I learned it the hard way about using the same computer by two different users. I was banned from editing. --NoMagicHarry (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} To whom it may concern, I just received word that my ten year old basset hound (the one pictured on my userpage) had one of the tumors being removed during surgery literally burst. So, as I am likely to be a) busy with that and b) possibly out of it if she doesn't pull through this weekend, could someone please place an appropriate busy/away tag on my user and talk pages indicating as much. I do not have time for obvious reasons to search myself and as I have been discussing with editors recently on various project pages, I do not want anyone to think I am deliberately ignoring them by not replying further. Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is OK Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your bassett. I hope everything works out for the best, Le Grande. As the proud companion of a perfect beagle myself, I can only imagine the stress you are going through. I wish you all the best, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand, my thoughts are with you. My dog went through surgery a while ago and I sincerely empathize with you. I too wish you all the best and I do look forward to your return. --Pixelface (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]