User talk:Backslash Forwardslash

Congratulations...

.... new admin! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 12:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just missed... :P Congrats btw -- Tinu Cherian - 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Gah! I tried to tag an article with a speedy and was shocked to see I had deleted it! :D Thanks. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

May be fastest person to apply the buttons just after the RFA :P ,Dweller we are waiting your declaration here :D -- Tinu Cherian - 13:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Backslash, you'll do well :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, mate, you thoroughly earned the position. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the ranks of admins

Hello. Please forgive the tortoiselike speed of the arrival of this message. It seems I'm having to crank the internet by hand.

I've closed your RfA as successful at 110/8/6. Congratulations on receiving your shiny new mop and a "good reason" place in WP:100.

I'm tempted to patronise you by suggesting some reading you might like to do, but I assume that like most of us, you read a fair number of manual pages before your RfA. If you find your memory rusty, while you can of course resort to reading the guides again, I can also strongly recommend asking for help from other admins experienced in that area. An idea some find helpful is asking another admin to review some of your tooluse early on, either before or after you press the button.

Anyway, thank you for offering to help and running the gauntlet a second time. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like there is quite a bit of reading on the road ahead. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Congrats! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

\o/ - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Just missed !voting :( Shubinator (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 03:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just don't go crazy with the tools! Although I'm sure you won't! ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for earning your new mop! Use it diligently, and no deleting the main page (wink)! Royalbroil 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Have we ever had an admin do such a thing? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDIOT :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Aren't some clever! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccination

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hope you fare better than the last kid who got vaccinated :/ Benders Game 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done

Congratulations BF - nice to see you get through your RfA and gain the buttons. Looking forward to seeing you on the track.--VS ^talk 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow

I am surprised that you gave my brother, User: Joe Cool 72 another chance (I just found out what he did). If he ever puts up articles about patent nonsense again, do not hesitate to block him.

Hcps-hoytca (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Maybe you can convince him to edit constructively? :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

is from many resources and not a presonal opinion

you better edit it with your correct information rather than deleting it. right ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdthegreat (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to delete it, I have placed it up for community input using a process called Articles for Deletion. Other users will then discuss whether the article should be deleted, or decide that the article is worth keeping and improve it. Rather than leaving a note to me, provide input at the discussion here. Also, you might want to stop adding {{hangon}} to the article. The article isn't nominated for speedy deletion and by adding that tag you are re-adding it to the queue. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Since your successful RfA you've been all over my radar blocking vandals, deleting attack pages and generally just helping keep Wikipedia free of junk. You are much appreciated! t'shael mindmeld 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thankyou. I'm slowly getting used to this adminship business. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sysop icon

Sorry you didn't agree with the icon on your page. I took a chance hoping you wouldn't mind, but if you don't want it there I won't put it back. Have fun. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care, just I don't find those icons that attractive. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Think Spirits

Hi: you declined my speedy tagging of this with the comment "no advertising here". For what it's worth, and for the record, I had tagged it as A7 ("an article about a company that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject") - not as G11 (promotional). I wasn't say the page was advertising, but when I tagged it the article said only "A liquor distribution company located in Australia. Imports the following brands PAMA Pomegranate Liqueur and Sagatiba Pura Cachaça", and I didn't see any assertion of importance there. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I had gotten it confused with the previous tag placed on the now deleted version of the article, and the creator had left a message of that vein on the talk page. Apologies for my selective reading. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries! I'll have a trawl around for sources and see whether notability looks plausible for this one. Thanks for the quick reply. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-adding a speedy tag

Hi \ /, Congrats on your RFA. I noticed in your note on Wikiwikikid's talk page, you said "... while there isn't anything 'wrong' with readding a contested speedy ...". I could have sworn the db templates or WP:CSD specifically said the tags are not to be re-added, but I can't find that wording now. Either it's been changed, or my memory is faulty. The best I can find is the WP:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion: "Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions." (emphasis mine). Just curious if you know whether this has been changed relatively recently to be less black and white or not. In practice, I was fairly sure re-adding a disputed speedy tag is actively discouraged. Anyway, glad you agreed with my inital declines, and let me know if you have any additional insight into whether this used to be more formal or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Certainly discouraged, but it's not absolute 'don't do it' and there may be a time where it is fine to re-add a speedy tag. PROD is the tag which is 100% don't re-add, but speedy is discouraged. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking at old versions of WP:CSD and {{db}} from last year, and even back then they don't say what I thought they said, so it appears my memory is the problem after all. Maybe you're right, I might be confusing this with PROD. Anyway, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dan Benayer

I nom'd Dan Benayer for CSD as a G10, which you declined with a comment of "not negative tone and sourced."

Firstly, I think that given the article's statements about the subject's drug abuse, his links to "organised crime and prostitution," and accusations of sexual assault and theft... well, imo, they do cause the subject to appear in a negative light. Secondly, if you'd looked at the references, you'd see that none of them backed up the accusations--in fact, some of them never even mention him.

Anyhow, this is just to say that I've sent it to AFD, where I expect it will go away, just later rather than sooner. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I declined because the article wasn't entirely negatively sourced, only the controversies section was 'tainted'. (Blame it on my poor edit summary) I did search the resources and couldn't find a mention of his name, and cut it down to a stub removing the negative aspects. This subject may have been notable, so I kept up the bio stub with a notability tag so that his notability could be 'investigated'. Sorry for the confusion, I didn't explain myself as well as I could've with that edit summary. :\ \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel like declining an unblock request?

If so, please see user talk:Bookbros. ;) t'shael ^mindmeld 23:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. VirtualSteve has just done so. Thanks anyway, though. :) t'shael ^mindmeld 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for deleting my subpages. Thankyou. --Srinivas G Phani 06:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And mine. :) t'shael ^mindmeld 22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Which parts of Black Rock Congregational Church do you consider to be non-neutral? All my information is cited in the citations given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crixxx (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crixxx. If you read the template, it says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." I don't have time to go through the article and check for neutrality, but that tag is there to inform readers of your conflict of interest, and to notify other editors that the article needs checking. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors seem to have plenty of time finding fault with the article and slapping critical banners on it but little interest to actually do anything about it, as they have failed to do in the past. I, however, do have such an interest, as the originator of the article and will make the changes you advise, as I have done recently.