This talk page is automatically archived by... um, someone. apparently Shadowbot3. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Random832/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I, Deon555, award Random832 with this Da Vinci Barsntar, for his awesome monobook work. He helped me solve a nice little script issue I was having, fixed the lot, and it works awesomely. Thanks heaps, and keep up the good work! — Deon555talkdesksign here!03:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7000: I probably miscounted when I was clicking "older 500" in the history. Don't worry much, I don't think I will influence on the outcome of your voting `'Míkka>t02:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Random, first off, congratulations. I hope you find the tools useful. I also have a small favor to ask. You might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over the last two weeks, this was partly spurred by the threat of IPs being allowed to create new pages, but also has a more general objective. This other reason was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I think that the best way of dealing with this idea is to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.
Since you have now passed the selection, would it be possible for you in turn select and nominate some people you trust? I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins from a wide variety of backgrounds and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome and I'm glad to see you succeeded in your RfA. Don't forget to try out your new tools at the New Admin School. Happy editing! Lradrama17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! That's good. So there's no need for worry unless some sneaky person starts adding timestamps as a sneaky way to avoid discussion and having the subpage disappear into the archives. Chergles (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annie Nightingale Image
Thanks for your note. No, not yet but then the entertainment industry in UK is somewhat haphazard and they won't regard this as a priority, more of a nuisance. I doubt if Annie or Ed will sue us. Meanwhile I am trying to source a free image from Flickr. Perhaps this time tomorrow we could look at this again? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay of this response. When I typed b, it looks more like "b". Anyways, you seem to have solved the whole thing by now. By the way, congratulations for your successful request for adminship. Happy editing, ♠TomasBat23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your clean-up of the Gary Forrester article. I noticed that there is an errant #11 that survived the knife. I was going to take care of it, but then thought it best to leave it to you, as you may have had a reason to keep it. Cheers,--Samuel.harding (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK
OK - I'll just remove the redundant #11 (there is another #11 that you inserted that is correct, a little later on). By the way, you did a good job on this - it was a mess before you worked on it. --Samuel.harding (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you deleted this page. Please explain. Sarah is one of less than 100 principal ballet dancers in the United States and Wikipedia has a section for Ballet dancers' bios. There are lots of bios already in the section - many with less performing experience and achievement than Sarah. Thanks for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimvanpat (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to work on the article, but how can I when it has been so quickly deleted? Also, ballet is a very specialized field. I suggest you take a look at the other ballet dancer bios for reference. Or google "Sarah van patten" to get a sense of her prominence in the field. Should I include dance reviews in the article? That seems too much to me.
