User talk:Seb26/Archive/12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Spebi. No further edits should be made to this page.

My message

Hello Spebi. Thank you for the suggestions. I didn't send those messages in bad faith. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I hope will we meet again in the future. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My report that was removed

I reported an IP address that has been vandalizing a page even after a warning. I'm wondering why action was not taken. Enigmaman (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you provided the IP that was removed, then I could possibly review the case and take action. Spebi 04:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the editor is referring to this reporting of two IPs (likely the same editor), one of which was blocked, and the article was semi-protected, so the report was removed for the second IP. Hope that gives some background! Ariel♥Gold 04:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ariel :) It appears that the first IP you reported was removed because it had already been blocked, and the next IP address that you reported was later removed due to the article being vandalised being semi-protected. Hopefully this makes things a bit clearer. Spebi 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the explanation. The reason I asked you about it is because you were the one to remove my report from the project page. Enigmaman (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Spebi, I hope you don't mind my butting into the conversation, lol. I just figured it would be helpful to give some diffs ;) Ariel♥Gold 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind at all. I wouldn't have been able to explain what I did to Enigmaman without your diffs. Thanks :) Spebi 05:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter

This newsletter is a monthly newsletter with details relating to events and happenings within the Australian Wikipedian community and WikiProject Australia. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, or receive it in a different format, relist your name appropriately at the subscription page. Delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

These Days: Live in Concert

Yo, Sebzorz...you own this DVD, right? I was wondering if you could find a few more sources/interviews/somethings - it's dangerously close to GA level. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's sitting on my shelf and I'm staring at it right now :) There's an interview with Jack McCoy that I haven't watched, I'll take a look and take down some notes, and there's also a couple of photo galleries. Go on gtalk, later :) Spebi 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the interview would be helpful. On gtalk now. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of diggeh

Hello. The deletion of diggeh I feel was unmerited. Multiple individuals took a hand in editing it. While there has been low activity with the site, it is undergoing enormous alterations as we speak and has been adopted by a major Iranian non-profit organization as instrumental in an outreach campaign. It just needs a little more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.249.147 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I deleted the page Diggeh under speedy deletion criteria A7 and G11. The article failed to assert the importance of the subject (A7), in this case, it failed to meet any of the criteria for inclusion outlined on Wikipedia:Notability (web), and the article appeared to me to be an advertisement (G11). If you are willing to rewrite the article, with an assertion of notability and writing it in a way that doesn't make it sound like an advertisement, I'd be happy to restore the page. Thank you, Spebi 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Spebi. Thanks for your comments in October in the peer review for North West England. I followed all your advice, and it recently achieved FPO status. I appreciate your willigness to involve yourself in portals, even when not necessarily having the time to do so. Thank you once again. Regards, — Rudget Contributions 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. The portal has improved for the better. Good work :) Spebi 05:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion - orphaning

I noticed you closed a few tfd discussions, but did not orphan the templates. If a template is still in use, it should be added to the "Completed discussions" at the bottom of the templates for deletion page. Thanks. --- RockMFR 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll remember it for next time :) Spebi 04:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acrassicauda

Are you the one who deleted Acrassicauda artcle? if yes can you please explain me why? the article can be found in sister wikipedias in other langauges[1][2]. Also Google search gives you at least 10000 search results.--Aziz1005 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Aziz1005's talk page.
Thanks for the respond. I think that band Acrassicauda did not fail to assert the significance of the subject, since it is the only known Iraqi heavy-metal band. and one of the few oriental metal bands that exist in the Middleast. the band is also mentioned in many reliable sources such as BBC, the Guardian,The independent,a documentary film has been made over the band and heavey metal in Iraq.Therefore I think the article worth keeping, what do you think then?--Aziz1005 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spebi. Could you please revert the deleted article in order to make it easier for me to edit and expand that article.--Aziz1005 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Spebi, No I'm not a member of the band and I am not related in any way to this band apart from being half Iraqi :) Thanks you for your quick respond and profissional way of dealing with the issue.--Aziz1005 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of your essay

Hi,

You deleted:

User:Spebi/Help desk, which is on Wikipedia:Help_desk/How_to_answer#See_also please could you consider recreating it or at least removing the link on the Help Desk?

The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've removed the link now. Spebi 04:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page

JERRY talk contribs 23:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis COTW

Hi, you mentioned on the WikiProject Alternative Music COTW page that you'd be interested in formatting the links on Oasis (band). If you're still interested, that'd be much appreciated. Also, remove any dodgy refs you might come across (there looks to be a few). I'm handling the print sourcing. If we keep it up, we might be able to nominate the article at GAC by the time this week's collaboration ends on Thursday morning. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Spebi 04:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser APEC

A good source for The Chaser APEC pranks#International recognition which is currently a little brief. And don't throw {{sofixit}} at me :) Cheers, DB.

Thanks for your note.

I'm sorry about that. I saw the "3" in the time stamp as a "5" and KnowledgeOfSelf's warning was one minute before. I apologize and will be more careful in the future. Thank you very much for your note. --SimpleParadox 23:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report Removed

Hello. Just curious... I recently added a report at WP: Administrator intervention against vandalism. The subject was User:Sawyer curd. Your edit summary said 'format'. Just curious, what was it about the format that was sub-par? Guldenat (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy. I will keep any future reports concise and in proper format. Guldenat (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continious personal attacks

OK, I'm gonna chill. But I have a right to revert personal attacks. I do not want this person on my talk page. I do not want people to bully my hard efforts, this is distressing for me, all the hard work i've done for this site. Alientraveller (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I know that you deleted page 2 of my userpage without even me noticing. (Read hidden comment: ***Hey! Why are you editing my page? You better not change anything or I will spill milk on your pretty dress! >:-(*** --> )  iXela  talk  00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page

Powderfinger discography

Yo, S, any ideas on the following:

  1. How'd we get the #4 figure for Double Allergic
    Came with the article (lol), ask Linca if he remembers where he got most of the charting stuff when he created the article. Spebi 08:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why're we using this for NZ charts when we could use this (although it aint much)
    yes Spebi 08:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, OK? I'm gonna replace it anyways...— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Where oh where can I get chart information for Double Allergic and Parables? :(
    Parables didn't chart. Spebi 08:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but DA did apparently. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

loldongs

no moar nonsens on mi pg pls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riana (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp on Riana's Talk Page

Thanks! :) I am not sure why me "nowiki-ing" that one section goofed up when she put ~~~~. Oddness. Take Care and Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer T:C 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Thomas

Hi. Long ago an article I created about another TWN person was deleted. However, that was because the person was no longer an on-call producer on the TWN site, so the source was no longer avalible. However, I never got notified about this prod, and didn't know the article got deleted until now. Could you show me the reason and contents of the prod? Also, could someone notify me when one of my articles is put up for prod? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD reason given was "Non notable weather presenter", and the tag was placed by Nuttah (talk · contribs) on December 2, 2007. When I deleted the article, the proposed deletion time had expired and there were no contests to the deletion. If you want, I can temporarily restore the page if you have a need for a particular part of it, or provide you the whole contents as they were when they were deleted by e-mail, but to have the page restored back to normal, you will have to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the methods there. As for the lack of notification, it's a necessary step for the proposing editor, as it would seem unfair to the author not to have a say in it, however, I'm not really sure that a notice of deletion is usually handed out. Cheers, Spebi 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Why is this particular article non-notable? I've created other articles about TWN broadcasters, but that was only because some of the other broadcasters already had articles. So, I created the new ones. If the overall topic of TWN broadcasters were not notable enough, why did the original ones get the articles in the first place? Do the broadcasters all have to have some major achivement, and is that something this person in particular doesn't have? Is it only because this article had been deleted more than once previously, and someone watching it that had seen it previously deleted saw it pop up again, and said it was unnotable? The article for Michelle Jobin which was previously deleted was deleted because the only reference had expired. Should the articles have a source other than just their TWN page to ensure their notability? Also, I'm rather new to deletion review, but I'll go see what it's about. I've heard rumours that it doesn't work, but I'll go see what it is anyway. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 14:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I was not involved in proposing the deletion at all, but I did make the deletion when it was time for it to be made, but when I checked up on it, no apparent attempts to contest the proposal had been made. I strongly suggest talking to Nuttah further about this matter rather than myself. If you do decide to reincarnate the article through Deletion review, I suggest you create the page in a user subpage to move into the main namespace if consensus is to overturn the deletion and rewrite the article. This also allows people who comment in the debate to see what the article will look like and will it differ from the old deleted version. If you do decide to do this, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and its criteria to see if Natalie Thomas does satisfy it, and if she does, the article must state it. This is quite an important stage in rewriting deleted articles as you need to convince those in the debate that an article on Natalie Thomas is needed in Wikipedia. Spebi 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks :) Spebi 09:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to make use of it at all? It recently hasn't really been working for me.... :( -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried last night and it said that delete.cs couldn't be found and some other type of error... I don't think I followed the instructions correctly though, so mistake on my part :) Spebi 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see... you have to save the delete notepad file as a .cs file beforehand, you do have to specify, try that.... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I did that, there wasn't a delete.txt in there... there's definitely a delete.cs, I'll have another look in a minute. Spebi 22:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrugalReader page...

Two threads merged (see diff); see original pagesection 1 and 2

The FrugalReader page has been deleted and forced from being recreated, even though it was only deleted once. I feel that this page should be undeleted and back to the state it was before deletion.

  • It is much like PaperBackSwap, which has been online for the same amount of time.
  • It has been offering Author Spotlights, which is not offered by any other book trading site (to my knowledge).
  • It is fairly well known, with about 2,000 members.

I ask you to revert the page back to its original state before deletion.

Thank you.

Ksax (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted FrugalReader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because the article failed to assert the importance of the subject, in other words, the article didn't say why the the subject met our notability guidelines for web content, Wikipedia:Notability (web). I urge you to read this page as it contains important guidelines for articles about web content and though the website may merit inclusion in Wikipedia, the article needs to state why. And for the record, the page was deleted three times before previously before I had deleted it recently (see deletion log), and so I protected it from recreation, although I can remove the protection so you can rewrite the article up to standard with Wikipedia:Notability (web) and hopefully not have it deleted again. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. Spebi 03:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new FrugalReader page under my username. If this is OK, please unblock the page and I will move this page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ksax/FrugalReader Thanks! Ksax (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy with other things recently and my Internet connection hasn't been the best so I apologise for my lateness. Spebi 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the lateness in my response to your query. I have viewed User:Ksax/FrugalReader and come to the conclusion that from the information and sources provided in it may not satisfy notability criteria. The article provides two sources, the first is this article from SmartMoney; which explains some of the basic details of FrugalReader. A criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but this excludes sources that state "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" – quote from Wikipedia:Notability (web). The second source provided, an article about online book sharing from USATODAY.com, contains merely a quote from FrugalReader's CEO. I'm afraid that it does not appear that the FrugalReader site is notable, but if it is, the article in your subpage does not state if it is, and why. Spebi 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Portal:Powderfinger

Hello Spebi, I personally don't know anything about Powderfinger, so my comments could be somewhat limited to portal aspects.

Have you tried adding more articles? You can add the remaining GAs that you haven't added. As for pictures, you can definetely try commons:Category:Powderfinger and at least double the # of what you have currently.

I am planning to revamp the featured portal candidates which will effective starting 2008. If you wish to nominate this portal, you should do so now or wait until 2008 to avoid the confusion caused during the transition. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that could be okay, I can see a heap that we can use. As for nominating it, I think I'll wait until next year, I don't really want to rush the whole thing. Thanks for your insight, though Spebi 08:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you still need the help, I could give you some thoughts–nothing brilliant mind. :) Rt. 12:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

hi there Spebi. I propose we start an interview section each month where we interview an Aussie Wikipedian, preferably an obscure person who has done a lot of work but is not well known or famous, so that everyone can get to know them. First off, I would propose Phanto282 (talk · contribs) a cricket editor that is not well known outside WP:CRIC but has done a lot of work. He has written (basically by himself): Donald Bradman, Alan Kippax, Lindsay Hassett, chuck Fleetwood-Smith, Ian Chappell and Greg Chappell (or under his IP) and probably a few others as well. Seeing as I already know his work it might be better if you did this interview, else my ramblings might make it a bit too detailed for the non cricket tragics. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea :) I'll see if I can get in touch with him over the next few days. Spebi 08:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could alternate and do one like that and then a bigshot, like Blnguyen *ducks* :) Daniel 12:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see us interview some bigshots too - they sometimes have an interesting perspective to give. For the not-so-wellknown users, I can't really think of any (any I do, you'll already know as you wikistalk me so much!)...but if we look through some of the new GA logs etc. I'm sure we could pick up some of the quality contributors from there. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving featured portals candicacy

Hi Spebi, Thanks for archiving Ireland portal's featured candicacy. But, I would like to say that, it could be better, once you ensure that each and every single comment has been properly addressed. I added three comments, but was addressed one. It takes long time to review the portal and add a comment, how it can be improved. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 10:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see where I messed up... I agree with you on the fact that it does take a long time to review, and I don't think that this process should be one to be rushed or have measures in place to speed it up. I can either re-open the candicacy for you and close it after those particular comments have been addressed and rejudge the consensus, or I can leave it and remember this for next time (it'll stick in my head and scream quite loud when I'm closing it). For the record, your note about the portal's category header had been fixed, the Did you know image fixed, and the image enlargement may have something to do with this discussion. Thanks for the advice, though, I really won't forget it for next time. Spebi 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spebi, Thanks for your reply. I do not think, this would be better to reopen this discussion. Anyhow, the concensus will reach to get the Featured portal status. Please take care of all the issues listed there, if possible. Thanks again, Shyam (T/C) 05:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Spebi 05:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P:NT

You removed this without asking. The Nortel Portal group, is developing many new pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammondJr (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was inactive and didn't see the use of having an unused shortcut to an inactive page when it could be used elsewhere, but it appears that you are still developing the page. I didn't realise this, and so I went and redirected the page to a portal I was working on. I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused. Spebi 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning 141.197.10.180

The final warning was given yesterday, not today. Is this warning invalid? Postoak (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this particular warning isn't invalid, however, since the vandal you reported edited over half an hour before you reported, we cannot take action on the report. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is a noticeboard not for silly old vandals, but for active vandals. The information under the header "Important - please read" is there to be read, not to be ignored, and is to help users by informing them of when to report and when to not. In turn, this helps everyone working on the board. Thanks. Spebi 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't ignored. If you don't want to take action, fine. However there should be a definition of what is considered active with respect to these reports because it isn't clearly defined at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Are they no longer active after 10 minutes? 20 minutes? This user has been vandalizing the article for several days now. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Active as in the past few minutes, and I will define this in the header in a moment. IP addresses, unless static, almost always reassign themselves to another user so placing blocks on vandals who haven't edited for several days, for example, would be a damaging method instead of a preventative method, which is what it is intended to be. If the user you are encountering vandalises again after the final warning (which was at 21:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)), make another report and I'm sure that the user will be blocked. I'll be watching the user's contributions closely over the next few hours to see if they do decide to return. Spebi 22:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new flavor of SALT

Hello, I'm dropping you a note because you are listed on Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin as an admin that is maintaining a personal SALT page. Recent software updates now allow deleted pages to be protected just like other pages. Please consider migrating any pages on your personal list to normal protections, and clearing them off of your list. There still may be situations where a personal list may be the best way to handle a page though. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will do. Spebi 02:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And  Done. Spebi 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"all vandalism account"

Do we have to play semantics? This person logged on and all of his/her edits were vandalism. That, to me, is an all-vandalism account. If you have a better term for it, please share. If you want to protect it, be my guest. But I wasn't suggesting an indef block, just one to slow the kid down. At the moment it appears to be moot, so it's all good. Unless he comes back. CheersTvoz |talk 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly missing the point here. The user you reported was an IP address, not a registered account, and to use the term "vandalism only account" or similar is misleading and incorrect. Although it seems like just a term, it really isn't, as the blocks placed on accounts and blocks placed on IP addresses strongly differ; most IP addresses aren't static and are often reassigned to different users, and so a long (for example, indefinite block) block will most likely not affect the intended user indefinitely. Accounts are intended to be for one person, and will never be reassigned to other people, and so the blocks can be indefinite. As for the report you made, it appears that the user had not vandalised after a final warning as there wasn't one, and so cannot be blocked due to being unsufficiently warned. And blocks are meant to be used as preventative methods, not those to punish users. Cheers, Spebi 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am completely aware that it was not a registered account, and as I said above I wasn't suggesting an indefinite block, just a short-term block to interrupt the repeated vandalism that had been going on this evening, clearly by one person, after reverts and warnings. And I realized afterward that Nlu was correct that I had given a level 3 not 4 as I thought, as I said on his talk page, although the warning after mine should have been a level 4 because there were 4 more vandalisms after my level 3 warning, and at that time it wasn't clear that the vandal was finished. I was not trying to punish, I was hoping to prevent further damage to the articles he was attacking at that time. As I said - it's all good, assuming he doesn't come back. Tvoz |talk —Preceding comment was added at 08:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Dear Seb26/Archive, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF

Thanks for updating the link on the ACOTF template, much appreciated! --Canley (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Spebi 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the protection

Appreciate your efficiency in this matter! --CobraGeek (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames for admin attention

I'll add it to my toolbox. No one else has pointed that out to me yet. Thanks. BrokenSphereMsg me 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Spebi! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T:UE-R1

The redirect T:UE-R1 has been nominated for deletion. --- RockMFR 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seb26/Archive/12&oldid=1143295290"