User talk:Enigmaman/Archives/2009/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year!

Dear Enigmaman,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

1964 Gabon

I won't. Why did you remind me? Are you planning on reviewing the article? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted User:Politizer and asked him to verify the French books, though it doesn't look like it's going so well. The way this is shaping up, we might be headed for an FAC around the time of the 50th anniversery! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Red-link categories

Hi, User:Kbdank71 saw our conversation about the red-linked categories and he suggested you look at Special:WantedCategories. It shows category names that are red-linked and how many articles contain the red-link. I never knew it existed but it could probably work for what you're wanting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take a look at it. Enigma^msg 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A pleasant surprise

Hey Enigmaman,

I put Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 on my watchlist a while back so that I would know if you were nominated to be an administrator again. Then I forgot about it. Imagine my surprise when the page turned up on my watchlist today :-D Good luck, I hope you succeed this time! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to do it eventually! Enigma^msg 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 05:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Enigma^msg 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And from me

I have commented briefly at your RFA - good luck my friend.--VS ^talk 05:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cease reverting

I would like you to stop reverting and removing User:AdirondackMan from the list of missing Wikipedians. I got word he has chosen to leave the project for reasons unstated to me. After I send you this I am reversing your revert. Cease and desist from overturning me again. 68.236.154.4 (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would that be because you are AdirondackMan? Just curious. Enigma^msg 07:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a neighborhood friend, here in the city. He's stepped aside because of family problems that are piled higher than his stack of college textbooks. So please stop it and leave him on the list, or we can take this up with higher authority. 68.236.154.4 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see he/you already took it up with Jimbo. It doesn't really matter what the reason for his/your departure was. Please read the guidelines for WP:MISS and please stop using "cease and desist" because it's one of my favorite phrases. Enigma^msg 07:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He didn't have that many edits from what I have seen, but he did do some good in my own opinion. He's no saint, but no one is either sir. So I think he does merit being on the list. As to Mr. Wales, I'll ask him if he merits being there, the normal rules or yourself notwithstanding. 68.236.154.4 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with Enigma on this one. AdirondackMan had sub-200 edits and edited earlier today. According to the guidelines, an editor should have a minimum of about 1000 edits and should have stopped edited for two weeks (if they left a goodbye message) or a month (if they simply stopped editing). AdirondackMan meets neither criteria at present. Useight (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow up. AdirondackMan returned quickly after he left. Enigma^msg 08:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just the persuasiveness of wikipedia multiplied by a comment at Jimbo's page. It's a well known fact that this always causes some our best retired contributors to return poste haste.--VS ^talk 08:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

On hold?

Watching and will await your return before further comment/support as appropriate etc?--VS ^talk 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to do. I guess I could e-mail Deskana? Enigma^msg 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen it by now, but the situation is developing on your RFA's talk page and you may want to take care of it as soon as possible. Useight (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see you posted there the very same minute I mentioned it here. Useight (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to take one of the two options - option 2 preferably?--VS ^talk 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew it... you're the person who vandalized my talk page! Ok, on a serious note, I hope that this gets resolved quickly.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have provided an alternative solution at the talk page - without the need to provide your IP.--VS ^talk 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am now offline as I need to be up at stupid o'clock for a meeting in London and will be unlikely to be online for 24 hours unless I can get my very, very bad T-Mobile stick to workfor 3G access. However I do wish to offer my full support. If you did make some silly edits (and I don't know if you did or not) don't worry - it happens - and I'd urge you to put your hands up. If you didn't, then we can resolve it. Either way I still respect you. Best. Pedro : Chat 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that we'll be losing your calming voice of reason during these turbulent times. I'll have it worked out soon, hopefully. Enigma^msg 22:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Enigmaman, you do realize that as soon as the contents of the offending messages are posted it will be trivial to search the wiki to determine what IP made them? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the reason for my hesitation here. I can't seem to get Deskana to reply to my e-mails, so I'm in a bit of a quandary. Enigma^msg 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete the revisions, then post the content. –xeno (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would perhaps paraphrasing the contents of the edits be enough to keep people from finding the original comments while simultaneously divulging something close enough to what was said? Useight (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I had that thought earlier as well - although for transparency Deskana could paraphrase.--VS ^talk 22:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am putting the content on pastebin. Enigma^msg 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note I'm almost finished. Please allow 10 more minutes. Thanks for being so patient with me. Enigma^msg 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good man, Enigmaman

		The Special Barnstar
		For standing up to the slings and arrows of outrageous Wikipedia drama with a maturity and serenity that deserves to be respected. You are a special member of this community. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind and it means a lot to me. Enigma^msg 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just think Enigma, when they talk about major screw ups at RfA's yours is going to be right up there with DHMO 3's! Congratulations! ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If I:

Get nominated by Balloonman.
Wind up with 299 supports.

I'm going to consider that a win. Where do I sign? Enigma^msg 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

BUT, 299 supports and still have to withdraw because you nominator was a prick, stabbed you in the back, and the tide was turning ugly.... you can't leave out the exciting parts my friend.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

After yesterday, I'm trying to focus on the positives. Please respect that. ;) Enigma^msg 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a lame attempt, but I'm trying to remind you that whatever happens in this RfA, it is not the end of the world... worse, much worse, has occurred on WP/RfA... and people have survived... and while I know that there are probably people who will never for me for my mistake, on the whole I think they have. Solid work, positive attitude, dedication, and the support of people here on WP helped me weather the storm I faced. I believe that if you keep doing what you've been doing, this too shall pass. After all, while it may not feel like it right now, this is small potatoes compared to that. Have faith my friend and keep your spirits up.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you agree that I should keep the RfA open? What are your thoughts? Enigma^msg 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented below... leave it open... let people get their frustration out... people are much more willing to forgive after they've gotten it off their chest. That being said, you are ultimately in control. If it gets to be too much for you, then by all means shut it down. Don't let it go on so long that it affects you negatively.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Response to your question

(Ok, bad title) For what it's worth, I plan to support once it starts again/over. I do think Deskana was right in freezing the RfA as soon as possible (he was in an impossible position), but the matter could have been settled privately afterwards. The wiki-crowd would probably have hated that though (everything has to be resolved in a heartbeat here...). I'm very sorry the thing derailed like that (the edits, for what I've seen, are regrettable but not something bad enough for people to reclaim your head on a pike). Good luck! -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Enigma^msg 17:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know

I've reopened your RfA. Sorry, didn't even occur to me to let you know, this is such an unprecedented situation. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the assistance and moving the discussion. Enigma^msg 17:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't thank me too much; I pushed the RfA back the twenty hours it was on hold, so you've still got a few more days of this mess to deal with. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew it had to be done, but I was still dreading it. :( Enigma^msg 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Dude, where is an explanation of the IP socking? I indented my support !vote but didn't remove it. Is a thorough explanation forthcoming? If silence is going to be your tactic here, I will personally have no choice but to take that as it's own explanation and oppose. Tan | 39 18:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just woke up. I haven't been editing for 15 hours. I thought I explained it on the talk page of the RfA, but maybe it wasn't good enough or perhaps you missed it. It was a small mistake compounded into a much larger one by sheer stupidity. The initial edit by the vote was logged out intentionally because I didn't want to get involved. Stupid, I know. The edit to the article and the ensuing mess occurred because I was not aware I was still logged out. When I got a warning, I then realized I must've made the edit while logged out, and you know what ensued. It was a massive screw-up, and whether or not my RfA passes (I frankly don't expect it to), I pledge to never do this again. I will change my Wikipedia skin so I become aware when I'm logged out. Enigma^msg 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Restoring support. Tan | 39 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually quite disappointed that I wasn't able to support your RfA; whilst that incident alone may have not been good enough reason to oppose by itself, in corroboration with the events I have already discussed on the RfA, it only compounded my sense that this maybe isn't the right time. I can remember many instances where you have been kind to me indeed, especially after my own little incident back in late January last year (I'm sure I don't have to go into too much detail for you to remember it) – I know what it's like on that side of the fence, but hopefully I can support next time round. Good luck nevertheless. Caulde 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I still consider you a friend and you've been kind to me in the past as well. Enigma^msg 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't withdraw the nomination. I believe (and so do many others that you handled the case to the best of your abilities. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tan, perhaps you could re-affirm your support? I'm not sure how this is all going to be considered at the end, but I think initial supports will be given more weight if they're re-affirmed, showing that the editor was aware of what happened after he/she commented. Enigma^msg 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My Support

I have strengthened my support (on the basis this is not a vote). The RFA is precarious. I shall be disapointed if there is a pile-on of opposes due to the IP thing. I hope not. Whatever the outcome I respect the way you handled this - I understand your frustrations and the anon edits and I understand the privacy concerns. The anon edits were silly, don't get me wrong, but many many admins (including myself) have done far worse yet still have the bit. That's not a good thing but it's reality and it takes into account human nature. Meantime hold on in there, and see where this leads. If you withdraw early on this RFA I'd almost guarantee you won't be able to get adminship for at least a year - and that harms Wikipedia. Pedro : Chat 20:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The pile on has already happened. The question is whether it continues and to what extent. I highly value your opinion and VirtualSteve also told me to hang in there with it and see where it goes, so I'm deferring to the two of you. I thank you for all the time you've spent on this curious case. I didn't mean to be so much trouble. :) Enigma^msg 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the Pedro and VS... let people get it out of their system. I think this was handled poorly, but you did an admirable job considering the circumstances.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec by BM!)If RFA was simple we'd have to delete WT:RFA! :) Seriously, hang on - see how it goes - I know how much the opposes hurt but at least let it ride for now. I wish I could add more input at the RFA itself but my credibility is fairly shot due to my recent frustrations (read gross incivilitly). See what the next 24 hours brings. Pedro : Chat 20:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The ridiculus pile on at your RfA has all but guaranteed that this will be my last ever participation in a RfA. You are a fine editor and one mistake/moment of sillyness has caused most of the opposers there to ignore all your hard work and good edits. It has become quite clear that too many wikipedians expect robotic qualities from their sysops. I hope you continue your fine work here Enigma, it'd be a real shame if we lost you over all this nonsense. I really hope you're not put off by this! Good luck, happy editing and cheers! :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Though I do not believe this RfA or any future RfA would pass, I am heartened by the fact that some do still support me. Considering there are those that approve of me as an editor, I do not plan to leave anytime soon. If you can find it in your heart to forgive, it's the least I can do. Enigma^msg 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Even those who oppose you are doing so in part due to high emotions... because of the way this was handled, there may always be some who will oppose you, but I really don't think those edits were enough to hold a long term grudge. It would have been different if you were logged on, logged off just to make rude/crass comments, then logged back on. With the exception of the comments to Catgut, I can see all of them being made by a user in good faith.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)EDIT: I said this in part because of my own experience. In the first few days after my blunder, I heard a ton of negativity... people were calling for my head, I was told never to show my face at RfA again, that anybody who accepted me as a nominator would get an automatic oppose, that I should just leave WP. VERY VERY hostile. A week or two after the dust settled, many of those same people came back (both privately and publically) and asked for forgiveness. They said they got caught up in the moment. Again, what you did was nothing compared to that.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

...and because of the way you've handled this over the course of today, it actually looks like support is rallying back to your side. If I was betting on it right now, I'd say this will pass. (Hope I'm not jinxing...) Good luck. Townlake (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much more enjoyable without admin buttons. Easy to say, harder to believe when you don't have them I realize. You deserve to at least try them out. I hope the RFA works out, and as Townlake just stated above, things are looking a bit better. It's hard to say "trust the crats" right now as far as closing it properly, but meh. Life's too short. Keep your chin up. Keeper ǀ 76 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

+1. Admin buttons have all but m:Namespace shifted me and keeper off this rock =) –xeno (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And if Keeper can't rouse your spirits, try Judy Garland: [1] :) Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(<- EC) I concur with Keeper. Adminship isn't worth much. It's generally a hassle. I enjoy it when I need a break from content work, and it's handy when I need something done. But don't be too down about the lack of tools if this ... sigh ... unfortunate event and the ... deep breath ... inappropriate (though not surprising in the least) behavior from some editors manages to tank your request. In such a case, you can always use my talk page as your personal AN/I. I think WP:AN/K has been tagged historical, so that just leaves me, I suppose. :/ لenna vecia 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Typing this while listening to Judy Garland. I'm not sure if thanks would be the right response to that video, Eco. :) Anyway, while I listen to her warble, I wanted to say that I think I created WP:AN/K if I remember correctly, after a comment on Keeper's talk. Anyway, I'm signing off for an hour or so because I'm getting yet another headache from this RfA. Enigma^msg 03:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: returning

I was actually going to stay off until about February, but I am of the opinion that rewards should be given to those who work hard. All B's was a result of hard work, and so I came back early. I am not all the way back though; its still touch and go. I think I will be beack in the groove in a few weeks, maybe a month (school permitting). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for blocking 193.63.160.253

Hehe, a part of the answer is "for the lulz" to be honest :D. Nah, the real reasoning behind it is that we often get to block schools at the beginning of terms, and I noticed that for example we ended blocking some IPs every September. The idea was to lengthen the block a bit so its expiration does not coincide with an other boredom period, nor some date that is easy to remember. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Eastside, Paterson

I notice that you tagged the subject article "not notable." If so, then should not the other Paterson, NJ neighborhoods be noted as such? Sandy Hill, People's Park, Eastside Park and the Manor Section.

Alternately, Wikipedia has many neighborhood articles outside Paterson, so what makes Paterson's neighborhoods not notable?

Gjs238 (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

unsigned votes

In the future, instead of removing an unsigned !vote, take the time to go back into the edit history and find out who left his/her !vote unsigned. Either contact that editor about it or add the signature for them. Time consuming sometimes, but it's a good practice. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a basic guideline, but I wouldn't call this a rule. I won't go back through and look for somebody's signature if it's not in the last few edits, it is their responsibility to check their !votes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What is this referring to? Enigma^msg 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is in reference to your 2 Dec edit in an Arbitration Committee Election page. Not a big deal. Kingturtle (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Even then, the vote was not removed, it was indented. I'm not going to defend my edits from then, because they were wrong, but I don't believe I removed any votes. However, you are correct. It's best to try and find who made them or allow someone else to figure it out before indenting and/or striking. Enigma^msg 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not accusing you of anything. You did nothing wrong in the edit. I'm just giving a friendly suggestion on a different course of action. Happy editing, and cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It's possible I'm overly defensive after the last two days. Regards, Enigma^msg 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

100 people think you deserve the bit. I guess that qualifies you for the 100 club, whether or not you get the bit this go-around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Enigma^msg 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You scored more support votes than my RfA. No matter what, I have already considered you as victorious. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have garnered more supports than I did, too. Topping both your nominators has got to count for something. But unfortunately it's looking like my streak of unsuccessful nominations is going to extend to five (and that includes very well-known names, like Wisdom89 and yourself). Useight (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've met you, and I think you would make a fantastic admin. Unfortunately, a lot of people like to flex what little power they wield in life (even if it's just voting on Wikipedia issues), and you are not being treated particularly fairly, in my opinion. Sorry about that, E. --David Shankbone 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, congrats back at ya! Thanks for welcoming me back and enjoy the new tools. All those neat little tabs atop the page...beautiful thing. It's an honor to work with such a wonderful crew and I am absolutely certain you're going to make a fine admin. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 50 opposes, most of them because of the IP edits is very worrying, but the support !votes have given me back some of my confidence in RfA. I just hope that the closing crat will discount opposes like 44! However this RfA ends, you'll certainly remain a respected editor of this project. Hope you're keeping your spirits up in what must be one of the most stressful weeks of your wiki-life! Good luck and happy editing :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Hey, it isn't all bad. Maybe I can make history by being in the top 10 of supports of RfAs being closed as unsuccessful (record appears to be 201, according to WP:100). Obscure statistics make the world go round. Anyway, everyone have a good weekend. Enigma out. Enigma^msg 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, if anyone wants to add the Rfa notice to my user or talk page, feel free. I know the code for the regular one, but I forgot how you modify it to direct you to RfA 2. Enigma^msg 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I placed it on your talk page, just copy it to your userpage if you want it there, too. Useight (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't help you there, Enigma, but I can give you another Judy Garland video that is laced with highly cogent advice: [2]. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Redlinked categories

I noticed you asking about a way to find redlinked categories on Good Olfactory's talk page so that you could go remove them from articles. I had this same idea awhile ago and implemented a bot to do it, and then caught a tremendous amount of shit for it and had the edits reverted. I forget exactly the reasoning that people used, but consensus was clearly against removing redlinked categories from articles at the time. If you still do want to go ahead with this task, definitely solicit some discussion at the village pump first. --Cyde Weys 22:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. That's too bad. I recently saw someone using categories for vandalism (putting BLPs in fake defamatory categories). I figured maybe I (or a bot) could go through the red links and remove them. I guess people would be upset about a bot, but maybe I'll try doing it by hand. It was very upsetting to see defamatory categories stick on a BLP for weeks. I'm hoping to look if other marginally-notable BLPs have the same problem. Enigma^msg 23:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem, I now remember, is that most redlinked categories are redlinked because something was screwed up elsewhere. For instance, the category is renamed, but a bot error doesn't touch some of the pages (or maybe they're protected). Or someone tries to do it manually and messes up. The correct answer in most circumstances with a redlinked category is to figure out what it's going for and find the actual category in the category structure that it should be. This isn't something a bot can do until the invention of strong AI, unfortunately. --Cyde Weys 23:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA Help

Yes, please tell me. Raggon ix 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for this! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA finally closed

I'm sorry, but I've closed your RfA as No Consensus... though it was certainly a tough call to make. Please read my closing statement (it certainly took long enough to write, oy vey...), and please know that I honestly think you've got a solid chance to pass another RfA in a few months' time.

I hope this whole situation doesn't sour you on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so too... I think some people were caught up in the emotion... not the reality of the situation... and letting this run, while probably hard on you, let people get it out of their system.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

haha Enigma^msg 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A good fight fought with "grace under fire"

Bad luck my friend - and with almost 200 !voters and plenty of support at your RfA. Keep up all of your brilliant editing at wikipedia we need you here; and in the not too distant future let's see if all of those not just now !voters will come to your party.--VS ^talk 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Firmly seconding this view. Wikidrama is evil. Orderinchaos 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Enigma^msg 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment It was interesting to see this. Enigma^msg 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Both interesting and concerning in terms of influence and numbers.--VS ^talk 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind

(I posted this at the wrong place, so I'm double-posting) Many of us think how you were treated was bullshit, and 70% of the community wanted to see you have the mop and bucket. If you can take solace in anything, it's that your RfA is helping many people show how asinine the RfA voting operation is becoming. Stick around, don't let it get to you, and know you're an amazing contributor, and the overwhelming majority feel that way. --David Shankbone 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

eh, I'm sure you're a shoe-in next go around. –xeno (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Enigma^msg 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I supported. 2. User:Dank55/Admins#Advice after close but failed RFAs 3. My reading of the opposition is that you've got an easy shot at the mop in 3 months. I understand how brutal RFA can feel even when everything goes right, so this is the wrong time to say "no harm no foul" ... but after you've had a chance to recover, please re-read all the nice comments and take comfort from the support. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

last reply: interesting advice. I took it before I knew it was there. :) Bye for now, Enigma^msg 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I was intending on taking one whether or not this RfA passed. I'll be back on Monday at the latest. It's possible I'll return sooner. As I posted on the talk page of the RfA, my sincere thanks to all who participated in the RfA in good faith. I'm not surprised how it was closed, because I don't think any bureaucrat was going to be able to close it as successful. It would've caused a lot more drama. The original mistake was mine, and mine alone. However, I am extremely disappointed in a few editors and their behavior. I'm not going to call people out here because I'm leaving and I'm not interested in arguing with anyone. These are my feelings. Nothing more, nothing less. So goodbye, and see you soon! Enigma^msg 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Iamawesome800 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Sorry for the oppose, but if you run again guaranteed you've got my vote.--Iamawesome800 23:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. Enigma^msg 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comments left on my talk page.

Thanks for your message, and I appreciate your comments. It's things like that that make me feel like I'm not completely dead here on Wikipedia... lol. Anyway, although I'd certainly like to come back to Wikipedia, the problem I had still stands today: I just don't have anything to work on, nor can I find something that I would be interested in working on. Part of this has to do with some of my changing interests, and a little bit of everything else, it seems. I'd certainly like to come back to Wikipedia at this point, but as for trying for adminship again... I think that would have to wait until I've spent another month or so actively editing, at least. I didn't really have a fair shot at RfA, that's true, but I'll need to be active to try again.

I appreciate your comments and your thoughts ;-) and I'll take a look again, see if anything makes me want to become active again. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. Enigma^msg 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you! Yes, you! :P

Keep in mind what I told you. Don't lose sight of what you want to accomplish. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Enigma^msg 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Basildon

Hello, I'm a relatively inexperienced contributor and it would be helpful if I could know why you removed my contribution to the Basildon article. I assume it was because you believed it was either in the wrong context or in the wrong place or both.

I have rewritten it and included it in the history section.

I hope this is ok.

Terryjoyce (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it when I find the time. Enigma^msg 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ACK!

Hi dear! I just found the email you sent, it was put into my "spam" folder for some stupid reason, and I wanted to say I'm so very sorry for not replying, had I seen it, I would certainly have replied! I just took a quick peek at the RfA, and oy! I'm so sorry it went the way it did, that's most unfortunate. But I'm sure that after some time passes, with all the supports you had, your next one will be successful. I'm so sorry I wasn't aware of it, and I hope that you can move on, learn from it what you will, and don't let it get to you. You're awesome, and Wikipedia would be worse off if you weren't here, in any capacity. ~*Big hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Any response is a good response! Thanks for saying such nice things about me. :) Enigma^msg 02:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

After an appropriate amount of time has passed, assuming no issues in the meantime, I would anticipate you will have no problems, so when the time comes, let me know and I'll take a look at Co-Nom. Note that I've never nominated, or co-nominated anyone, so I'm not 100% sure I'd be confident enough to do that, lol. I'd have to consider it carefully. :) ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm notabily irrational

Re: your recent edit: If I ever create an episode of Sesame Street, it will be brought to you by the numbers e and π. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What is inappropriate about the links I created?

Kindly tell me why these links are inappropriate or spam. I could care less about search engine rankings of Wikipedia's relationship with them. The links I created are highly relevant and lead to well-thought-out views on these exact topics, written by highly-regarded writers. These are not commercial sites, they are relevant, they are civil, they are appropriate, and I am not a spammer. Your vague blanket accusation gives no details whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PineScented (talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Severe Tire Damage not notable?

Thanks for your cleanup of the Severe Tire Damage page. I am curious to know why you doubt their notability. Articles have been written about them many times, and just recently, Wired magazine credited them with being responsible for some of today's technology (see the Wired magazine citation in the article).

I also noticed that you removed some useful pieces of information, such as the date of the Rolling Stones performance that they "opened" for.

How can we resolve these issues? Thanks. strubin (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I performed a lot more cleanup on the article, which still needs a lot of work. I removed the notability tag because you are right, it has been covered by several independent sources. Enigma^msg 06:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Are you up for a copyedit? Any specific type of article you prefer? Gary King (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It would need to be an American focused article as he doesn't know the difference between correct [British] English and American English... Audience boo's at the low blow... Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Let me have it. I actually have a lot of experience with British English articles. Scarian is just upset I haven't started to use it yet in my personal speech. ;) Enigma^msg 03:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an album article? All Hope Is Gone. It should be close to ready for FAC, but could use some more copyediting so that it makes more sense. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Icos? It's up for peer review, and this sock could use some help. Icos was a biotech company (the article isn't as boring as most company articles though). Shubinator (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of edits

Why have you gone through pages I have significantly altered and reverted them? I think the stuff I’d added in to the Coatbridge and Kincora Boys’ Home pages was referenced, accurate and also made the pages look a good bit better. There is no reason provided for reverting other than they could not be ‘salvaged’. I also note a page I made, Coatbridge irish, seems to have zapped altogether! Cheers.

Ref links on article talk pages

Can you point me to the guideline where it says it's unacceptable to put ref links on article talk pages? Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009