User talk:Tijuana Brass

Current discussion

Archives March - April 2006 May - June 2006 July 2006 - February 2007 March - December 2007 January 2008 - Current Adminship Hi... I've been watching you in action, and I think you'd make a fine administrator if you were interested. Your edit count is a bit light for what people seem to want nowadays but it's growing. I'd be happy to nominate you either now, or later, if you were interested. What do you think? I'll watch here for your reply. (you gotta fix that album cover thingie though!) ++Lar: t/c 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Agh, I forgot all about the album cover. Gonna blank it for the time being until I figure out what to do, thanks for the reminder. Also, thanks for the vote of confidence in suggesting an RfA for me, I really appreciate that. I'd tossed around the possibility of accepting a nom someday if should someone asked, although I didn't expect it to be just yet — like you said, my edit count is still a little low (ahh! editcountitis!) For now, I'd better hold off for a motnh or so. I'm about to move out of state to start a new job (er, as soon as I find out where), so I would be hard to reach during an RfA. I could also use the time in between to get more involved with the projects I'm in and author a few more articles, which would probably help set minds at ease about my experience and ability. Again, I really appreciate your suggestion, thanks. Let me know if you've got any advice for things that you think would be good to do in the meantime, and check back in a month or so. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Well, I'm not an admin yet either so I may not be the best source for advice but I've been reading up on the stuff linked from the RfA page and seeking advice from more experienced 'pedians... my candidacy is likely to get going in about a week or so. I'll be watching, or just drop me a line when you're ready. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Will do, thanks. I'm looking forward to your nom, although I have to admit that I'll be biased in your favor... tons of common interest. I had no idea that there was a Lego WikiProject. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Did I say Lego? I meant BrickWiki. Dang. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) No worries. I'm not the top editor at BrickWiki any more but I was for a while I think. As for WP:LEGO, ya, I should make one soon (in my copious free time!), there are quite a few category:LEGO articles here. ++Lar: t/c 05:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) So then... let's get the process started. It can go live "whenever"... I'm working on creating the RfA page as we speak. It can percolate for a month or more, there's nothing wrong with that. ++Lar: t/c 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Just sort of a ping... it has been "about a month or so". No rush of course. I'm happy to work on this with you according to your timeline. Just let me know. Here is fine. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the note. I'm just moving into the new job right now, so I've actually got a little free time, as I don't formally start until the 30th. Perhaps it would be a good time to get this settled. I'm going to review the admin reading list one more time before answering the questions. If you're around, shouldn't take too long. Will drop you a line on your talk page when it's set. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) hey back from thewolfstar Tijuana, Thanks. I understand what you mean about not posting the Kapersky Trust unblock request on Jimbo's page and I won't do it again. Kapersky has been told to send an email to his block guard and is obviously extermely uncomfortable about that. He is aking that his comments be seen by all and is obviously scared. He knows what living in a Communist regime is like. He came here looking for freedom and instead has found more of the same oppression here. You and I have talked before, remember? We've had some good talks, too. At least, I enjoyed them a lot. I believe there was a level of honesty achieved there thanks, initially, to your kindness and consideration when I was stressed up. Can you help me help this guy now, the way you helped me? He needs our help. Thanks Tijuanna. peace Maggiethewolfstar 09:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) But of course I remember... I'm still looking forward to hearing more about humanistic anarchism. If he's concerned about openness, may I suggest that he carbon copies his email to the blocking admin to other addresses (perhaps yours?), so proof exists? I haven't checked to see who blocked him, but I should mention that 99% of the admins here are great people that have good reasons behind what they do. Let me know if you try that out, and keep me up to date on how you've been. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 09:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Hey Tijuanna, It's good to talk to you again. I'm gonna be honest because it's the only way I know how to be anymore. It hasn't been my experience that 99% of the admins are good people never mind great people. I have seen some great ones like Lord Valdemort and Pongo and Asbestos seems cool. I'm not always sure who is and itsn't an admin because I don't check that very often. This is mostly on account of I don't care if they are admins or not. People are people to me and if they cannot take an insult without weilding they're power..well then it shows a lot and is on them. Now, I expect I will get blocked for saying this and it will be called a personal attack. What I see here is a huge power game for controlling articles. What I see is admins secretly listening to spies or responding to requests to those who brown nose them. Double talk and double think are everywhere, not to mention double standards. People get hung up in rfc's to have rocks thrown at them. The policies are misused and abused. Wiki rules, written to protect the victims of witch hunts and to protect newcomers, are not followed. People are banished forever, never to be seen again. Sort of like Dubya does to his terror suspects which are guess who? You and I. The enemy combatant..The U.S. citizen. But I suppose what I just said will be considered a rant. I will go the way of so many others. Here it goes. Maggiethewolfstar 09:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Tijuana Brass, you there? thewolfstar 10:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Hi I'm new Hello I'm new to wikipedia. I like your user page. The League of Crazy Men 16:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC) User page redesign The initial redesign is now up. :) Please let me know if you want anything tweaked or changed (I couldn't manage to work in the light maroon :P). And as for the status icon, do you want the same images that Jude uses, or would you like something different? Thanks! Sango123 (e) 19:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC) The Best Two Years Hey, I noticed you tagged this article for cleanup. Could you specify what problems you think need resolving, so that they can be addressed? Thanks! --Hetar 07:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Hmm, I think that one was misplaced, actually... that's what happens when you have multiple tabs open, all on different articles. My mistake. Thanks for the heads up. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) time to vote Congrats on TIME 100 Congratulations Jimbo on being named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People.user:Felisberto2May2006(UTC) hey Yeah, I hear what you are saying. The only thing is this. I believe many people have it sort of the wrong way around. It's up to the veteran editor to be a power of example to the newcomer and follow the wiki ettiquette him or herself. It's up to the veteran editor to be a power of example to the newcomer and follow the rules him or herself rather than start yelling them at the newcomer, which happens incessantly. If this true civility was shown to the newcomer, I venture that a lot more civility would be shown back to the oldtimer or veteran user. If good faith was shown to the newcomer to begin with, and all too often it's not, the same trust and good faith would be had and shown by the newcomer, more often than not. It didn't take me long to learn the Wiki rules, or at least the ones that I have been accused of breaking so many times. I broke them most of the time, at least, because of the irony of the situation as I've explained above. Sometimes I broke the rules and yelled defensively and was rude. I've already aplogized to the people I was aware of. And they apologized to me. I have a hunch that the exact same situation happens to many newcomers. And you know what? I have seen for sure that this is what happens on a regular basis, not only to newcomers, but to anyone who comes up against the powers here. The cabal, the oligarchy whatever you want to call it. I hope you don't take offense at what I say to you, Tijuanna. I like you and would like to remain friendly with you. peace, Maggiethewolfstar 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC) discrimination at wikipedia??? why you told me to look at portuguese(you didnt expell well on my talk page) wikipedia?.is the english version only reserved for americans our english folks?.i dont think so as wikipedia is under GFDL amean anyone can edit or read.are you mad because i sent the link of times to vote on jimbo?if yes i dont think this is the way to react with racism and discrimination.my apologies if you dont like jimbo wales.may peace be with youuser:felisberto3May2006(UTC) No. I suggested that you look into the Portugeuse version of Wikipedia because it's your native language and you seem to still be learning both English and the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works; it may be an easier place to start. And if you're planning on accusing others of racism when they offer you advice, you're not going to have the most pleasant experience here. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 18:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) ok you know?now i fell ashamed. user:Felisberto22:22,3 May2006 Ahh, no, no, don't feel ashamed! I can understand misinterpreting my message as something rude, and forgive me if my tone made it sound that way. It was just a friendly suggestion. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Changes made I've completed all your requested changes (you have two three new subpages, btw). After you tweak your activity indicator to your liking, I'll add a tool written by Topaz to your monobook.js so you'll be able to update your status with one click. You don't have to use it, but it will save you the effort of having to edit your status page every time you log on, log off, or just happen to be around. :) Cheers, Sango123 (e) 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) May the Force be with you. Dear Tijuana Brass, Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your faith in me, and was overwhelmed by the positive response to my RFA; for it shows that at least I'm doing something right. :) I've started working to improve myself already, and I hope that next time, things run better, and maybe, just maybe, one day we can bask on the shores of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Bringer of Wiki Peace Award Hello Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ Of all the editors I see on Wikipedia, you deserve this award the most. You are a true bringer of peace, a voice of reason at Wikipedia, and a wonderful friendly person. Thanks for being a friend. Yours in peace and freedom Maggiethewolfstar 03:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC) hey Hey, Tijuanna, glad you like the award. You know I mean it sincerely. One thing people should know by now about me is I am honest. You are also honest, but seem to have acquired a gentler way of expressing stuff than I have. Uh, by the way, I didn't think you meant that kind of warm and tingly feeling..? hah. Anyway I know that due to your and Merecat's efforts that I would be Wikipedian history by now. At least..well maybe or maybe not..(be history). But I still appreciate some one who has the courage and integrity to go up against strong oppositon. I sure do know hard that can be. Did it my whole life and it's a hard road to trudge. Thanks for being who you are. peace Maggiethewolfstar 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Go Heels! I figured you were at Wake. I did my *h.* at UNC Chapel Hill and left the Southern Part of Heaven in 1999. Winston-Salem is a neat place. (Yeah, my profession is what you'd expect.) (Do you really count the anti-trinitarians as part of the flock? It seems to me that most of them would revel in being called heterodox by the established churches. In particular, the neo-Albigensians up there (yes, I mean in Durham) were delighted in calling all members of all churches "false Christian scum" and the like and hoping for nothing so much as another crusade of St. Louis against them, as they were also collecting guns.) Geogre 01:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Well, I... er... *cough cough* eh, I think I'm getting liberalized being here. I suppose that on a personal level, nah, I wouldn't really include them. But I tend to err on the inclusive side, I suppose; especially having spent five years as a Mormon, I've kind of fallen back on the "call them Christian if they call themselves Christian" definition. Yeah, it's sort of cheating, I know. And I had a feeling that I was working with someone who may have read a book or two (or three or four) more than me on the issue. Semi-pelagian? Hmm... I'm gonna do a study on you now. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC) I like to think that I'm as liberal as the next person (unless I'm in Cuba), but I don't think that a spirit of intolerance and an ability to define one's religion are synonymous. It's possible, I think, to say, "We are this" without saying "We will eliminate people who believe that." What has bothered me about liberal theology (or so-called liberal theology) is that it has mistaken a fuzziness of identity for tolerance at the same time that it has advocated wording changes without any adaptation of the concepts behind the words. Liberation Theology is frankly Marxisant, and yet it is definite, clear, and exclusive, so social justice and freedom can go hand in hand with powerfully identified theological principles; on the other hand, a lot of contemporary theology at, say Candler School of Theology, is based on the idea that God is a social construct that can be dispensed with or reshaped according to community (and then individual) need, and this leads to no way to say what it is that you believe. Once you can't say what you believe in, you cannot say that anything is outside of it. (Grumble.) I think 'liberal' theology is often not liberal, not liberating, and not left wing. Geogre 09:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, there really is a neo-Albigensian group in Durham. Steve Winter is based there, and he leads (?) a whole "network" of dualists who believe that true Christianity was preserved at Langudoc and was wiped out by the wicked and corrupt Catholic Church out to preserve its secrets. (I.e. the Albigensians were heirs to the holy grail, had the scions of Jesus, and were suppressed for knowing the truth.) Steve is a cantankerous fellow. Geogre 09:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) So... your school is still taking transfer applications, right? Why do I always end up meeting the professors whose theology and methodlogy I'm interested in online? Sigh... At any rate, I agree wholeheartedly. In some cases, at least here at Wake, I get the feeling that some liberation theologians are really just anti-conservative theologians. There's still some value in challenging traditional systems of belief in that manner, I suppose, but it's exactly as you've said — it's often not liberal, not liberating, and not left wing. Hmm, I've got to write that down. In any case, I stand corrected. Thanks for indulging my curiosity, by the way. It's been a pleasure reading what you've had to say, and I'll continue to do so. By the way, do you know offhand the name of that neo-Albigensian group? It'd be... interesting to check out. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Steve Winter runs something called PrimeNet, or he did. Let me check on Google. They recruit all around the place. I had the distinct impression that their starting point was Holy Blood, Holy Grail, although he denied it (while calling me fake Christian scum, etc.). They were hugely into online proselytizing way back. "Pastor" Steve Winter runs www.prime.org. Remember: I did warn you. Geogre 12:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you! Hello, Tijuana Brass, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC) E-butler Thanks for your message on possible speedy deletion of this article. Not asserting notability is grounds for deleting articles about people not products. Vanity is discouraged but not grounds for deletion. It is worthy of deletion and should be deleted in five days time when the Proposed Deletion process finishes. Subsequently, it can be speedy deleted as recreation of a previously deleted article. Regards Capitalistroadster 09:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Hello I'm back. Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 10:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Yes. I feel quite refreshed but I need to go back to work. Anonymous_anonymousHave a Nice Day 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC) would you give me an idea recently i published an article about notable survivors of abuse but was rejected due to copyrights issues then i asked the owner of the article about an authorization she gave me the authorization to publish.now i dont know what to do? yet i receive an email of the owner saying i can publish the article with a condition of stating wich website the article came from and a disclamer.i think her conditions are met. if i have a problem like this in the future which person to contact? since im new here not having many friends i remenber to contact you first i thank you whatever the outcome.21:25Felisberto7May2006 We don't need reproduction permission, or that is, not JUST reproduction permission, we need the article to be licensed to us under a free license such as WP:GFDL or CCSA because it needs to be forkable and sharable with our mirrors and shadows. There's boilerplate that is useful when seeking permission, did you use it when you asked? You may want to find that boilerplate and ask again. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC) The page with boilerplate is Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission... that page is linked in to other pages that have good discussion on the topic. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3 Administrator Coaching The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better. Recently, changes have been made to the requirements of coachees. Please review them before requesting this service. This would be something like the Welcoming Committee, but for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. Stressbusters The Stressbusters are a subset of Esperanza aiming to investigate the causes of stress. New eyes on the situation are always welcome! Note from the editor As always, MiszaBot handled this delivery. Thank you! Also, congratulations go to Pschemp, Titoxd and Freakofnurture for being elected in the last elections! An Esperanzial May to all of the readership! The last AC meeting (full log) Posting logs of the Esperanza IRC channel are explicitly banned anywhere. Violation of this rule results in deletion and a ban from the channel. A disclaimer is going to be added to the Esperanza main page. We are humans and, as such, are imperfect. Various revisions have been made to the Code of Conduct. Please see them, as the proposal is ready to be ratified by the community and enacted. All members will members to have to re-confirm their membership after accepting the Code of Conduct. Referendums are to be held on whether terms of AC members should be lengthened and whether we should abolish votes full stop. Admin Coaching reform is agreed upon. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, Pschemp and Freakofnurture 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Criticism of Mormonism I'll try to take a look, but won't be much use until tomorrow, as I'm trying to sort out the past few weeks of edits. Incidentally, your help could be used at Exmormonism. -Visorstuff 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Indefinite block proposal on WP:ANI Hi, TB. I was wondering if you might wish to share an opinion here. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC). Re: Esperanza Thanks for your comments on my talk page. As far as my involvement in Esperanza goes, I'm not sure. EWS23 had a lot of good things to say at WT:ESP, but it still seems to me in this addition that I was being asked to leave under the words, "I am getting pretty damn sick of all of you." Also, my leaving Esperanza was apparently the first in a wave of people leaving, and I can't help but wonder if I was the catalyst of some of that. I suppose I took Richardshusr's message too personally. Regardless, I'll give some consideration to returning, but that depends on whether I think I can add something to Esperanza. --Elkman - (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Talk:Exmormonism Flames Thanks TB! I was trying to find the right way to say that, I'm glad you did. - Reaverdrop 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) TTD Sorry I didn't get a chance today, but I had been terribly optimistic about how quickly I'd get done with my RL (for profit) tasks, so I hadn't time for anything more than a cursory glance. One way or another, I will be done with my end of term assessments tomorrow, while the sun is shining, so I'll take a look then and the LSD page. Geogre 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Ho ho ho, you said LSD. Anyway, there's been some progress in terms of some editors agreeing to look at it on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis; that's probably a more lengthy involvement than you have time for, but in any case, it'd be good to have your advice. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Re:User_talk:Reaverdrop#Exmormonism Likewise. Glad you liked it. I look forward to collaborating too. - Reaverdrop 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. So while I was here I went to check out your gallery of amusing vandals, and what did I find but a user named The Soul Reaver! Separated at wikibirth?! Thanks for the pointer. (The funniest vandal is Naughty Brigham.) - Reaverdrop 04:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Carbines RFA all wikipedians i am nominating for admin very soon and i would like your support. i have been a member of the anti vandilsm unit and community justice and i have done alot in my time to help keep wikipedia going at the best it can be. Your support would be much appreciated Carbine (soon to be adimin) i have helped stop many vandels in my time of great service i am also a memeber os esperanza which i have worked with to create a better place carbine (soon to be admin) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#carbines_RFA this is my nomination page check it out user carbine (RFA) You will never stop me you evil @#%$#%$& Epsiloon Did you use Wikipedia for a while before creating an account? I'm impressed by your understanding and editing ability. Also, would you be interested in joining the LDS Wikiproject? Could always use another editor. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 09:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC) The complement is greatly appreciated. I only made a few edits before getting an account, but I've been reading talk pages for a long time (I realise how odd that is). I've always been struck dumb at the sort of bickering you get on Wikipedia. I mean, it's like these people have a vested interest, as if there's some real world consequence to what happens here. I, for the life of me, can't see what it is, and that's part of the reason why I signed up. Moving on—if you'll excuse the preceding tangent—I haven't the slightest idea how a WikiProject is supposed to work. My gut feeling is that it's either an awesomely helpful tool for coordinating editors, or just another layer of hopeless bureaucracy. Am I hot or cold? Epsiloon 10:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Hot on both, really. It can be helpful, and it can be needless red tape (plenty of that on Wikipedia). The LDS Project isn't as active as some of the others here, but it's a good gathering point for editors with an interest in LDS related articles. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 10:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Template Fix No - problem - we may want to consider making the Welcome to Wikipedia not be indicated by the == since that makes it so if you click the section edits it takes you to edit the template being transcluded. Instead use a <h2> type marking which will make it large and bold but not have the section edit capability. Trödel 12:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Barnstar TY, I'll display it proudly. Computerjoe's talk 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC) RfA note Thanks for letting me know about this. Unfortunately, I think Zpb52 has just dug himself a bit deeper into the hole. I can't support an admin nom, when I (as a non-admin) have to point out the correct action to him. Tyrenius 04:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Important Note I would just like to point out that I hate you and I hope you die. Best regards, 60.227.174.236 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks Thank you, I hope I can improve myself and then re-apply. While I'm here, have a smile. ; ) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Highway Rainbow Sneakers has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and many feel they are also contagious! Spread the WikiLove by smiling to two other people, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:Hcs}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! Note: the template won't work properly without the subst. Rmrfstar's RfA I don't think this is just a matter of different priorities, but "well roundedness" or editing "diversity" are not valid criteria for RfAs. I fail to see how either of these qualities could help separate good admins from bad ones. If you trust me with the tools, then I should have them. Why? Because an administrator is just a user that can be trusted with tools that originally everyone' had. “ From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community, but should be a part of the community like anyone else only equipped with a few more tools to do some chores that would potentially be harmful if everyone was entrusted with them.[1] ” My history proves my good intentions and good practice in Wikipedia. If I suddenly can rollback, ban, etc., I'm not going to completely change and become "harmful". I'll still do everything I have been doing, but with increased ease. For the tools would be useful to me. There have been many times in the past where I couldn't move a page, or couldn't fix typos on the Main Page, but had to request them and wait.-- Rmrfstar 12:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Hi Rmr. Thanks for moving your concerns here; I appreciate it. Also, I apologize that I haven't replied to you before; I've been in the middle of out-of-town job interviews, limiting my time on Wikipedia. However, most of what I could tell you has already been said on your RfA page. I'm not sure what else you want to hear from me... of course well-rounded and diverse contributions will improve an editor, as they'll be able to better understand the different approaches taken to different types of articles. For example, many of my edits are to religiously based articles, which have their own types of controversies and editing approaches... but I also try to edit those related to social effects (i.e. damage from Hurricane Katrina to the U.S. Gulf Coast), which have another type of style. As an admin, you'll need to be able to understand those styles in resolving disputes, AfDs, and so on. Speaking of AfDs, that was another concern. Admins need to be able to close some, speedy delete some, end some early, and so on. Without much participation in them previously, you wouldn't have the experience necessary to do that job well. Same goes for other parts of the Wikipedia namespace that you haven't been a part of yet... but, if you do involve yourself in them more, I have the expectation that in time you will be proficient enough to win my vote. But right now, I just don't see you being capable of handling admin tools. Time alone at Wikipedia, even as a skilled editor (which you are), is not enough to automatically "merit" adminship. Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts is evidence of that. The last thing I'd add, although it's really too late, is a suggestion that you hold off on debating oppose votes. RfAs can seem personal at times, and for some, I suppose they are (which is wrong, of course). I believe that your intent is to better understand opposing votes, but it's coming off as being argumentative, which is a surefire way to pile more of them on. When an editor gives ample reason (which I have done long ago, although I'm willing to discuss it at length with you), that should be sufficient. If it's an extenuating circumstance, dropping a line on their talk page would be fine. But seeing an RfA filled with criticism of oppose votes, especially when it comes from the candidate, is a big red flag for me and many others. Best of luck on your future edits. I'll look for another RfA for you in the coming months, and hope to change my vote to a strong support at that time. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 05:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Hi Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! Community Justice Newsletter Community Justice Newsletter Welcome Previously, various notices regarding Community Justice have gone out to our members; though this is the first actual newsletter. This issue will contain information regarding decisions made on the first meeting, our new council, and more...! If you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Community Justice/Do Not Spam. New Council Following our first elections, a new council has been elected.Computerjoe and Ian13 remain as chairman and chief executive (respectively); while Eddieh, Wiki alf and Xchrisblackx are replaced as councillors by Ilyanep, Osbus and Covington. The Giant Puffin and Pureblade remain as councillors. Member Conduct In the last meeting, the conduct of 4 members was discussed. Ethnopunk will be put on probation, supervised by Ian13, if he/she is incivil during this probation, he/she will be expelled from WP:CJ; the same was decided for Misza13 (voluntarily), and his probation will be supervised by Computerjoe. No action will be taken against Computerjoe. Barnstar The Civility Barnstar which our members have designed has been sent to Barnstar and award proposals. We'd appreciate your feedback! Also, we are planning to make a Community Justice barnstar to give to hard-working CJ members. If you're a budding designer, consider trying to make it, then post your proposal to WT:CJ! Name and logo change There has been no consensus reached regarding changing our name and/or logo neither at WT:CJ nor at WT:CJ/M/1. While suggestions are still welcome, no action will be taken at this time. Programs We are going to try to create programs to more actively involve our members. If you have any ideas, please drop a line at WT:CJ. We will try to work with WP:ESP on one of these programs, at some point in the future. Thanks! Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CJ or come into our IRC channel [2]. Computerjoe wishes to extend his thanks to User:Robchurch, a non-member who assisted in making {{tracker}} redundant, as well as Misza13 for his continued support and to the whole of this and the previous council. This newsletter was delivered by CJBot, written by Computerjoe, with technical help from Misza13. Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Too bad It's too bad that you changed your mind on my RfA. I mean, honest mistakes happen (especially with VandalProof and one of its known bugs), and I reverted all of those immediately. --Zpb52 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Sukh's RFA - Thanks! Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Re: Renovation No problem, Tijuana; your page was pleasure to redesign. :) I like the improvements you've made to it as well! Enjoy your wikihiatus, and I'll be here to answer any questions you may have. Take care, Sango123 (e) 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC) *poke* Hey there. I don't really have any particular reason for bothering you, just wanted to check up on my old friends. >_< Master of Puppets That's hot. 01:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC) I'm fine, thanks. Coming back for a while to do some editing while I wait to start a new job, and finally getting around to accepting a month old RfA nom. Thanks for the note, let me know how you are and if there's any article help you need from me... always glad to peer review, cleanup, or whatever. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Awesome, and I know the new job will go well for you! I mysefl am fine... just lounging around helping out with RfA and such. Cheers, Master of Puppets That's hot. 01:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Your RfA I've added two questions to your RfA. When you have a minute, I'd appreciate if you would take a look. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Will do, thanks for the notice. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 02:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your comments on my page. I have only had a chance to look at about half a dozen of your pages so far. I suspect I'll be able to change my vote when I find the time to look at more. Good luck with your vote! Ted 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of on-screen deaths (by actor) Are you sure about your vote here? I think the authors rather bold intention is to actually create a list of characters who die in films, not actors who accidentally get killed on set. Nice one, Deizio talk 01:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC) You're right, thanks for the correction. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Criticism of Mormonism Article Brass, I know you were active on this article in the past; however, I would ask you to take a look again. There is a need for nonMormons to assist in making sure that we Mormons are meeting NPOV standards and to further facilitate some of nonmormon editors. Also, I think I have come to the point where I think it impossible to keep this article substantially different from Mormonism and Christianity or what is covered in Anti-Mormonism. I find that it is more of a redundant article. I have asked whether it should be deleted; I know we talked about that in the past. I can't remember where you were on the vote. Regardless, if you have some time, please visit the article again. Thanks. (btw, I am actually trying to not tweak any noses...ok at least today I am not.) Storm Rider (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Will be glad to return to the discussion within a day or so. We'll see if I get accused of being a closet Mormon again as I was at Anti-Mormonism. I also tend to agree with you on the duplicated efforts in the Criticism article; I proposed a merge around a month ago, but didn't find much support for it and subsequently withdrew the proposal. And you have yet to tweak my nose. Given that I have a head cold at the moment, you probably wouldn't want to, either. Tijuana BrassE@ 07:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Community Justice It looks like all upheaval is over if u wish to rejoin Cicero Dog 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your note and invite, but my concern is not limited to the recent discussion over the "government" of CJ. Rather, it's about the tendency of the group to focus its time organizing, then reorganizing, then reorganizing again instead of doing much of anything meaningful. Newsletters and elections are nice, and sometimes necessary, but I have yet to see anything truly productive come out of CJ since the the creation of a couple of templates (and even that was a minor thing). Now, don't get me wrong. I believe there could be potential for the project, I really do. And I believe those involved have good intentions, and appreciate that. But for the past few weeks, there's been repeated statements of "Hey, let's do a project"... yet nothing materializes. I waited to see if the editors who were selected to lead the group would take the proper initiative to create some meaningful goals, and when that didn't pan out, I proposed both a means to help plan and a goal of my own (which had some intentional vagueness to it, intended to spark discussion). But the conversation once again turned towards organizational issues — or, rather, never turned away from them — which is a sign to me that this group isn't on the right track. To give an example from my personal life, I spent two years as a missionary in Venezuela when I was a Mormon. It was a tremendous place to work; at the time, it was one of the highest-baptizing areas for the LDS Church. Tons of people wanted to hear what the missionaries had to say, and we all had our hands full trying to figure out how to use our time best to reach as many potential members as possible. I learned quickly that the most effective missionaries were the ones who spent a short time planning, using techniques that they knew worked, and then focused the rest of their time on putting it to use instead of tweaking it endlessly to find the "perfect way" to reach the unchurched. There were flashier ways to present the gospel, more elaborate methods than those used by the ones who really grinded away, but they ended up using so much time to plan and organize that it lost its effectiveness. Of course, the techniques were still refined from time to time, but it was secondary to hard, dedicated work. That's the ethic which has carried successful groups here at Wikipedia, like Esperanza. I'm still not decided if Community Justice is wholly necessary as a unique group, or if it would do better merged into another one, but I know that the same ethic would make that clear, and serve the intentions of the editors who have joined CJ. In any case, until I see a shift from endless planning to actual work, I'm staying out — but my name is only crossed out, as opposed to being removed altogether, because I believe that it may eventually happen. Tijuana BrassE@ 22:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)