User talk:Swatjester/oldstylee

Archives Archive 1, Archive 2 Archive 3, Archive 4 (last old-style archive) Note: Archives are made every 30 or so posts for ease of searching. Note: change number!!! Current status I am in. Inbox Comments Go Here I am here when you need me; you have but to call... --Mhking 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC) I like the talk page, I'll take it! Gray background, Maroon boxes, and blue links please :D . I'll keep my userpage as-is, I prefer my upfront information about myself. But this is nice, quick links if someone just checks the Talk. As to your RfA, sorry it didn't pass. But hey, you saw what happened with CSCWEM! Thanks for your support for me. Teke 04:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, and square edges instead of rounded. I'm demanding like that. Teke 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Even better, green links to tie into my sig. Now I'm all excited... Teke 04:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Er, I don't know how to change the borders to square. As for the link colors, I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to. If you're talking about something that automatically makes all links on the page a certain color I don't know how to do that. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC) You still know more about it than me. Just the original proposal will be fine, much appreciation for the work! Teke 03:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Coughs I vandalised you :D Teke 05:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Meh, I left a good summary, it got fixed, and I talked to Curps. I laughed, which is all I wanted to do. I claim no noteriaty, but I think users know I'm not a sock. Teke 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC) and till this moment , no wikipedia adminstrator moved his butt to fix this problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Meunier , when we would have a better adminstration board :( Solitary Copt 18:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Your RFA Sorry to hear about your RFA. Trust me, in time, you will make admin. About me leaving, yes, and its my final decision. I am glad that I was seen as a "role model" to some Wikipedians. I'll be on Wikipedia to answer new messages I get but only until Monday when I stop answering these new messages. If you need me afterwards you can try e-mailing me. Good talking to you Swatjester.. -- Moe ε 01:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Thank you for the thanks. I am also sorry to hear about your rfa. Next time will be great, don't worry. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Hey Swat, the RfA was going great when I saw it in the early stages, sorry it didn't work out... I think you can take comfort that most of the oppose votes gave guidance on how to make good, no "lost cause" here in anyone's mind. Nice one, Deizio 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry to hear this. I am in the same boat as you, I have failed (two) RfAs. I know the feeling, but if it makes you feel better mine failed on my birthday! Computerjoe's talk 19:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC) That must have felt nice, the appreciation. But the rejection seemed awful :( Computerjoe's talk 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC) It's just a wiki. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry it didn't work out. Better luck with your next one. If you need a nominator let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) To be honest when I saw your RfA I thought it'd be an easy support but after reading the oppose reasons, and examining them carefully I didn't feel able to this time. I'm sure though by taking the comments on board and doing all you can to fix the issues raised you'll be a great candidate next time- I look forward to being able to support you then. Cheers, Petros471 19:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC) You handled the pressures of the RfA well, Swatjester; that's a good sign for the future. I'm sure you'll try again and make it next time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry your RfA didn't reach consensus. I'll be there in support the next time around. You will make a good admin. Best, Gwernol 23:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC) As I said in my neutral vote (in different words), you are an Admin in the making. It is only a question of a little more experience (which basically means time) and keeping up the good work. In a few more months, I'm confident you'll get it. Cheers, Redux 23:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC) You'll make it, you're a good editor...the new page is awesome! •Jim62sch• 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Stubs The French Navy in the 21st Century Black Swamp Percussion Amedi Tomoko Fusé Dick Marty Vangiones Jack Mueller (telecommunications) Kurmanji Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iraq Arbil Sulaymaniyah Hegra fortress Temburong Coffy Khoy IPO Model Hajji Tal Afar USS Pivot (AM-276) Cleanup Portuguese Army Pre-game Mark Williams (actor) Merge Reston Town Center Khalid El-Masri Reston, Virginia Add Sources Reagan Doctrine Tanzim Mosul Wikify SystemVerilog Assertions Japanese Infantry weapons in Chinese-Japanese conflict List of Armours in use for Japanese Army in Chinese-Japanese conflict Expand Bard College Nintendo N-Game Street food SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Your RfA Please don't take my neutral vote as any criticism of you, at all. It's only a matter of your length of time here. I would strongly support you in maybe three more months. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Keep me on your notif list next time you're up for Admin -- I will vote yes, and am sorry I didn't see the nom this time. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Keep up your better work and you will still have my support.--Jusjih 13:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC) This is Moe Hello Swatjestor, just thought I would let you know that I was leaving Wikipedia, but before I left, I finally got a picture of thyself onto Wikipedia. (I know great timing for me to post a picture of myself, right?) This is my final gift to my friends. Later! PS. Try not to laugh to hard at my ugly mug ok? Moe ε 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC) A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks) Hey, Swatjester/oldstylee, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Good luck for your next RFA. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination) You are invited to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC) May the Force be with you. Dear Swatjester/oldstylee, 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-_ 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Fred Carama You voted to delete this article in its last AfD nomination. A user using different IPs is trying to expand the article using origional research and no citations. I reverting his edits back to my own which ask for citations for each of his claims. I am thinking about putting it up for deletion again because it's clearly a violation of WP:NOR and the OR is the only thing really establishing notability. What do you think? --Strothra 01:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC) I'd vote for deletion again. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Okay, I put it back up. Here's hoping. --Strothra 06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Exmormonism Howdy. Wondering if you can add Exmormonism to your watch list and weigh in as you can to build consensus. You have a level head, and your work at Joseph Smith, Jr. was much appreciated by all involved. We've been trying to get sources added into the page, but it seems very ancedotal, and some new editors still have the "us versus them" attitude. Lastly, they equate Mormonism with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and academically, they are very different things. I think we've made good progress on an outline, but need exterior help to guide discussion. Your help on controversial issues is great, and your help in this case would be appreciated. I'll pick back up editing next week (have a number of sources I will get info from to add in this weekend), but thought a few more eyes from those outside the Latter Day Saint movement would be a good idea. Thanks, as always. -Visorstuff 00:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Will do. May take some time before I actually weigh in. Keep me informed. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Requesting a third opinion. Hey, could I get your opinion on this dispute? Thanks. -Objectivist-C 06:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Will take a look. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Yeah that was pretty cut and dry..webforums are a no no per WP:RS and WP:ES sections 9 and 10. Further addign to the no no factor are that he states that it's HIS forum, thus violating the vanity clause to WP:ES (note to section 9). There are some exceptions, but generally very few, and only for major forums: the kind that have their own articles about them on wikipedia. For example, on an article about internet memes, fark.com or somethingawful.com forums would be an appropriate link, because a huge number of internet memes spawn there, they're directly relevant, and have a huge following, enough to the point that they meet WP:WEB guidelines and warrant their own article. Thus, they'd probably be ok to put on an article for internet memes. Just about ANYTHING at ezboard.com isn't going to be notable. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Need an outside opinion Swat, when you get a chance, would you head over to Criticism of Mormonism and take a look at some changes I've made? The article's got some POV issues from both sides; I took a crack at about half the article last night and made some progress, but another editor disagreed and reverted me. You've been pretty good at looking at things from an unbiased standpoint before, and would like to hear from you what you think worked well and what didn't. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 23:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)