User talk:Extreme Unction/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I put a big green coloured barnstar on your user page for patience in the line of fire so don't think it was vandalized because it is not all that pretty but it fits well. Thank you again for your comments.--Dakota t e 23:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Congratulations on the RfA, glad to see that another good Wikipedian made it : ). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 19:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Terracotta Army / Tomb[edit]

Thanks for the move. Jimaginator 13:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Congratulations on the successful adminship as you certainly deserve it. I was very pleased to learn about non-admins being able to close obvious keep AfD noms. :) howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Walters[edit]

You write: "Mr. Sidaway is currently in a state of ongoing conflict with the admin who initially speedily deleted the page under consideration." Thanks. I had to go to the deletion log to see who it was you were talking about. It does look a bit like a grudge thing, although in fact the undeletion had nothing to do with the person who deleted the article. It's was just a rather obviously bad speedy made, as far as I was concerned, by a person unknown who had misread CSD A7. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Hermione Granger[edit]

The concentration of phoenixes (phoenices?) on this talk page is detrimental to Wikipedia, and must clearly be stopped. Soon everyone will be infected.Ξxtreme Phoenix {yakłblah} 18:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Death of Phoenix. Resistance is futile. --Deathphoenix 18:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, from EddieSegoura[edit]

Thanks for keeping the page User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt. Don't forget to keep in touch. Eddie 22:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

removed your AfD[edit]

I removed your AfD tag at What is SmartWorks ? and replaced with a speedy delete tag- blatant vandalism does not need to go through full AFD procedures (and this particular article has been deleted 4 times already!, this guy is persistant!). Just wanted to let you know. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • from User Talk:Lanoitarus:My bad. I deleted the page initially, then I looked at CSD and didn't see "Spam" as a valid reason for a CSD. So I restored the article, removed the CSD tag, and listed it in AfD. Then after your note, I looked to see if spam was one of the definitions of vandalism. And lo, it is. So the page is gone. Thanks for the sanity check. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Haha, you stare at these screens long enough and who knows what youll start seeing :) -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 04:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Manual of Style[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to drop the note in my User Page regarding the above-mentioned matter. Very thoughtful of you. Mukluk_Kanuck (on IRC) aka Barry Wells 20:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My recent rfa[edit]


Dear Extreme Unction, I wanted to thank you for your support during my recent RfA. :)

--Syrthiss 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of good admin work![edit]

Wow, you really are taking off every 'Zig' in this admin job :-) Kudos! - Haukur 22:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC ?[edit]

For some reason today I can't connect to . Is something up (down) or is it just me? Hmmmm. FreplySpang (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

FEPA legislation[edit]

Hi, thanks for the link. Eventually, I'm sure there will be a "criticism" section, where the link could be used as a reference. Ill keep looking at it. Jacoplane 00:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Hi Extreme Unction, and thanks for welcoming me.

Today was my first day on Wilkipedia and I was baffled to see my first article wizzing around the either almost as soon as I finished typing it. I've read all the things that you suggested, but saw more how to advice rather than when two things are one subject advice. I thought that an article about role playing and an article about novels (even if they are based on the same setting) would be two different things. The List of Forgotten Realms novels (which I based my article on) certainly seems to be a separate thing.

How do you work this sort of thing out? I'd be interested to know so that I can decide what to do in the future.

Big Mac 05:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

One good turn[edit]

I just edited your RC Patrol link to point to "RC patrol" to save Wilkipedia having to redirect any clicks from your page. (grin)

Big Mac 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks, but no worries. As we say around here, "Redirects are cheap." =) → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for backing me up when I was blocked for nearly (but not actually) breaking the 3RR rule. I think it's been sorted out now. -R. fiend 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Glad to hear it's been sorted out. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 16:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs[edit]

Thanks for the reminder. I actually did that the first time I relisted the AfDs on Dec 7, but I saw on other days that you hadn't relisted them (must have been early in your adminship) so I didn't think it was required. User:Johnleemk then contacted me about it and I resumed doing it on Dec 11. As for adminship itself, my stance on it has been if someone wants to nominate me, then I'd be happy to accept, but because I didn't actually need the tools for what I've been doing, I wasn't going to self-nom. Actually, User:Aranda56 has generously offered to nominate me, despite me having voted against him in his last RfA. I suppose I'll accept. :) howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 08:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mfd bottom[edit]

Umm.... what was that? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sunspots. Remain calm. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak

Closing AfDs[edit]

I actually replied on my own talk page to your note, but I'll quote myself here since I can't expect you to be looking at my talk page:

Makes sense. Best to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Will do.

If anyone raises any objections in the RfA, I'll just have to chalk it up to being a n00b at closing AfDs. Thanks for the warning. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Dan100 and Template:AfD[edit]

I think he's just expermenting, trying to make the template look better. Unfortunately, the CSS/JavaScript that does the [show]/[hide] button is very fragile. (After your revert, he broke it again with something as small as adding a "*" at the start of a line...) I've put a note on the template talk page explaining the fragility. Please let me know if you think it's too stronly worded - I don't want to bite any newbies (or non-newbies). Jamie (talk/contribs) 12:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And this on my last night before a wikibreak...  :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 13:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Take heart that if this is the worst thing that happens to you today, you're doing pretty good. =) → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks. Feel free to reword if it's unclear. But the point is correct - if an article is speedily deleted for whatever reason, then recreated, then the admin should make sure that the article-as-it-is-now still fits some other speedy criterion (because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a substantial recreation). Come to think of it it's probably best to strike this sentence, it's confusing and redundant. Radiant_>|< 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


The discussion from which it resulted is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive4#Some thoughts on the G4 criterion and following sections. The recent so-called decrufting broke several of the CSDs, including this one, as on-the-spot blitzs are prone to. It is insufficient to not mention the speedy aspect of things, since it causes uncertainty on a fairly regular basis implying, as it does, that merely being speedied once is grounds for re-deletion. The sentence reminds admins that it must still be a speedy. It originally read

A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy. Note that:
  1. Administrators faced with a recreation of previously speedily deleted content must determine that it did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion and had been appropriately deleted, before they delete it again; and,
  2. This does not apply to content in userspace or to content undeleted according to the undeletion policy.

Which is better, clearer and simpler than the version it has morphed into. (Not to mention agreed to previously.) I'd be quite happy seeing the version above reappear. -Splashtalk 19:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I have just read your message on Radiant's talk page. That is the precise meaning of the sentence: G4 does not apply by itself. If you are speedying an article that has not been AfD's, but has been speedied before it must satisfy some other CSD — G4 does not apply directly. Hence the phrasing of the paragraph above. -Splashtalk 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There isn't anything tautological in saying "Administrators faced with a recreation of previously speedily deleted content must determine that it did in fact meet a criterion for speedy deletion". Substantial identicality need not apply to a speedy; you don't get to keep an article by the title "Elephant nostril problems" which originally had the title "zOMG PWNED" by recreating with "MGOz OWNED AND PWNED". That's because, in both cases, it's a nonsense speedy. I suppose some carefully phrased wording that restricts its ambit to xFD only could be constructed if you like. What you would suggest? -Splashtalk 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I've rather lost patience with that spate of edits to the CSDs, and reversed the lot of them. They don't need editing for one person's clarity since we all undersand/understood them as they were. Those experienced admins who profess otherwise are/were being disingenuous. That is not to say that I am not open to amendment, but I do not think that suddent 'copyedits' are the right way. To your suggestion for G4, how about this, slightly tighter wording:
A substantially identical copy under any title of a page deleted, according to the deletion policy, by one of the regular deletion processes. Pages which have never gone through one of these deletion discussions must not be speedied with this criterion.
I think that says it all, and captures what G4 can and cannot do. A bit heavy on the word deletion in the first sentence, but then we're not writing a novel. -Splashtalk 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be a profoundly miseducated editor who actually tried to defend such a position — regular round here emphatically never means speedy. But call it a regular deletion 'discussion' if you like, or talk about "never been listed for discussion on the relevant deletion process".-Splashtalk 00:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the sound of that. It's cleanly phrased and gets the two key points across. -Splashtalk 13:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


I don't participate at RfD, and don't feel qualified to comment there. I would caution, strongly, against dumping the text into the page. Transclusion makes it much easier to edit the page, and reduces the agony of an edit conflict on what is often a longish page. -Splashtalk 22:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


I've thought long and hard about what the benefit of logging rfd in an afd style. Perhaps a line-item oriented framing box with no (or minimal) margins/padding would be better. So whenever a redirect is speedily deleted or kept, just box around it on the main page so people will leave it alone. Then when one of the days is all boxed in, cut-n-paste said day to the monthly log page? That would seem easiest to me. It wouldn't preserve easy access to comment authorship, but, hell, that's the way it is with user_talk: page archives. In any case, please don't make three sentences discussing a bad redirect take up an entire screen. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:42, Dec. 21, 2005

To wit, maybe something more like this:

October 22, 2017[edit]

  • RemovethisnowCyberBunker - attempted page deletion, I suppose. User:C3BR0B claims that Wikipedia "no longer has permission to use their trademarks", but that's neither here nor there. --Zetawoof 21:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I Like Anime[edit]

Yeah I was a bit hasty on that one, and also assumed that "groups" meant "clubs" - obviously it didn't. I've restored it and put it up for AfD. FireFox 14:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Rugby Hooligans[edit]

You are up your own arse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girvan Dempsey (talkcontribs) 11:55, December 22, 2005 (UTC)

That explains why it's so dark. To say nothing of the smell. Note to self: Eat fewer beans, drink less beer. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RFD archival...[edit]

whatever template you're using might be better without the "padding: 0 10px 0 10px;" in it. that's 20 px wasted screenspace between every two entries. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:34, Dec. 22, 2005

Ah-HAH! I was wondering how to rid myself of that. Thanks. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It takes the form "left, top, right, bottom;" I'd recommend no more than 2px gap, if any. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:42, Dec. 22, 2005
You were WROGN MISTAR SMARETYMNA! It was the "margin" bit that added the gap between entries, not the "padding" bit. Padding is internal to the box, apparently. I reduced the "margin" to 0.5em instead of 2em, and that seems to have solved the problem nicely. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Lo mai kai[edit]

Thanks very much. In fact you've pointed out the main issue - it is disputed. User:Alanmak moved it when there was no consensus [1], and user:SchmuckyTheCat made a minor edit and made it impossible to be restored [2]. IMHO it should be undone until consensus is reached. — Instantnood 20:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

W.marsh's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (30/2/0). I will do my best at the position I now am in. Thanks again! --W.marsh 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!![edit]

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Extreme Unction/Archive 2! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Howcheng's RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship as well as the advice dispensed during the voting period. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello, EU. Before I start with the year stuff, I just want to get distracted for a section to let you know that you have one of the best usernames I've seen on Wikipedia.

Anyway, regarding the de-wikilinking of years in beer (and other places), the Wikipedia style regarding stand-alone years is to not link them, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic of the article, in this case, beer. Hope that clears things up. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 16:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hello, EU. I, for one, don't care one way or the other about whether or not years are linked, and would have been perfectly happy yto leave beer with fully intact year-links. However, it tends to be easiest to go with policy, especially when the stakes are too small to be worth the effort of a policy fight.
Also, I see that you're a City of Heroes player. I had an empathy defender on champion server who I loved, at least until the whole ED thing came down. Now I can't bear to play: it's just too annoying. – ClockworkSoul 16:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Former CoH player. CoH issue 4 tanks were the Platonic Ideal of the MMORPG tank, and I loved playing mine. Then they nerfed the hell out of Tanks in Issue 5 and I lost interest. Shame. Most fun I've had playing an MMORPG in some time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 17:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Useless to reason a man..."[edit]

By the way, I found the original source of that aphorism on your user page:

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.Jonathan Swift
Excellent. I've always wondered what the source was. Thanks for finding that. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
No problem. I only knew it because I had it listed as a quote on my user page for a long time. – ClockworkSoul 16:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

British embassy[edit]

the page has reached its reversion limit, please leave it alone until the mtter is resolved by an administrator. PeterZed 20:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Big thanks[edit]

Hey, thanks for taking the initiative and trying to get this date linking thing sorted out once and for all! lets hope that whatever the outcome we can at least have a firm guidline. thanks again Martin 14:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. Whatever else happens, we will at least know that the issue has received wide distribution. One of the things you find in Wikipedia is that people only regularly read the pages which hold strong interest for them, so there is a strong self-selection bias. I recently proposed some changes to WP:RFD, and they received very little discussion because very few people care enough about RFD to watch the page. So the decisions tend to be made by the very few people who do. I suspect something similar has taken place with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), so it seems prudent to air the issue in a larger forum. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, good move. Martin 17:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert on template:Deletiontools[edit]

Thanks for reverting . I was just about to do it. I could no longer read that on my monitor. Adrian Buehlmann 19:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 19:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll on years of birth/death[edit]

Hi, you may want to participate in the poll at Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style (dates and numbers) # "Should the year of birth/year of death be linked in biographies?" -- User:Docu

Speedy-keeping redirects[edit]

I'd be a bit leary of speedy-keeping redirects that aren't nominated in obvious bad faith (...which would be pretty hard to identify for a redirect, I'd think). Just tacking on your own "**Keep, redirects which stem from reasonable alternative capitalizations are 100% in accordance with redirect policy. ~~~~" would both forestall any accusations of unilateralism and provide an avenue for change of policy. It is, after all, supposed to be policy that's built out of day-to-day consensus, not vice-versa. (As an aside, thank you for proving my doubts about your readiness for adminship to be so decisively wrong.) —Cryptic (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and what do you think of reversing the order on WP:RFD, so that new requests are placed at the top? It was kept the way it was mostly because Jnc preferred it that way, and he was doing all the work; putting new entries on top emulates CFD, TFD, SFD, and MFD, and also allows {{rfd}} to provide an edit link directly to today's section (like {{mfd}} does). —Cryptic (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. As you have been one of the admins I've tried to emulate, that's a powerful compliment indeed. =)
My reasoning behind the speedy keeps is that it is trivially easy to play spoiler in RFD, given the general lack of participation. A redirect that is in accordance with redirect policy could get one or two "delete" votes (either well-intentioned or otherwise), and no other votes at all, and then the closing admin would be faced with the proposition of either deleting a redirect that has no reason to be deleted or unilaterally ignoring the delete votes and keeping the redirect in spite of them. And if given a choice between speedy keeping a fresh nomination or going all Tony Sidaway and keeping a redirect where the discussion (however minimal) has indicated "delete", the former seems to be the lesser of two evils. It generates less acrimony while still serving the same purpose.
Additionally, the policy of speedy keeping redirects that are in accordance with Wikipedia:Redirect is plainly stated under the "Guiding Principles of RFD" section for all to see, and has been there about two weeks. As someone (I believe it was you, in fact) once told me: "Consensus is what everybody can live with." Given the overall lack of interest with the RFD process (as evidenced by the lack of participation on RFD's talk page), this is particularly true for RFD. So far, it seems that everybody (or, at least, that subset of "everybody" which bothers with RFD) can live with this addition, as you are the first person to comment on it at all since it was added on December 21.
As for the date order, I have no strong feelings on it one way or the other, and could easily accomodate a change to have the newest entries go at the top if that would make things easier on others.
All the best.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hrm. I missed that change to guiding principles entirely. I'll take it to the talk page, then. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


I assumed the two had mucked up in to one giant vote due to Tony's hissy fit. You can just count my vote for both. Sorry, these past few days have been trying...karmafist 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship[edit]

Hey, thanks for voting in my RfA, I got it! :) If you need anything, just give me a shout. See you on irc... - FrancisTyers 00:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Just wanted to thank you for the great progress you've made with WP:RFD over the last few weeks and offer my help to help keep Wikipedia clean from bad redirects (though I am not an admin, I'd be happy to do what I can). Again, good work. --Renesis13 01:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified protection of an article[edit]

I would like to get an explanation as to why the article Bulgarian vocabulary was blocked by you after User:Peter Isotalo repeatedly moved the content of the article Bulgarian lexis to the new name, Bulgarian vocabulary, without justification and without giving a plausible reason for that. Let's look at the meanings of the two words in the first online dictionary I came upon (it happened to be wordreference [ ]):

  • Vocabulary: (1) a language user's knowledge of words. (2) the system of techniques or symbols serving as a means of expression (as in arts or crafts); "he introduced a wide vocabulary of techniques. (3) a listing of the words used in some enterprise
  • Lexis: (1) all of the words in a language. (2) all word forms having meaning or grammatical function:

As the article refers to the whole body of words in the Bulgarian language, I would like to ask you: which word refers better to the meaning of the article, vocabulary or lexis? Don't tell me - because the dictionary has already stated it explicitly, it is lexis!!!

In view of the above, could I get an explanation as to why, you, in your capacity of administrator, have sided with an editor in order to institutionalise a wrongful edit? I would like to ask you to remove the protection of the article or give me a very reasonable explanation as to why this protection has been effected in the first place and as to why, since it institutionalised a wrongful edit, which wreaks damage to the overall understanding of the article, continues to be in place. I don't think it is proper and adequate of an administrator to side with an user and I will contact other administrators so that measures compliant with Wikipedia policies can be taken against the wrongful steps taken by you and User:Peter Isotalo. VMORO 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template redirects[edit]

I've replied on my talk page so others can see the reply. Jamesday 23:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A fine reference[edit]

Not too many Airplane! references these days. --Syrthiss 13:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is always gratifying when people get your jokes. =) Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Syrthiss, I hope you don't mind that I changed your link to the movie Airplane!. Lady Aleena | Talk 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hat tip[edit]

Stumbled on your excellent sig and instructions[3] on creating it and wanted to drop you a note of thanks. I was so impressed I restyled my own - consider it an homage. :-) AUTiger ʃ talk/work 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that I agree with your closing of the RfD for the WP:RFC/... redirects. There were simply too many editors in favour of keeping the redirects, including some that I respect a lot. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: sig: aaaaagh! :) FreplySpang (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I can do better than that - I even have sources - [4] [5] I've never even heard of this pseudo malt stuff, not that that proves it doesn't exist in UK. I wonder why it is like that in the US - are spirits licenced different to beer? (the old beerhouse distinction maybe?) Morwen - Talk 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Do you need not a license to just sell beer, then, or is it just much easier to get? Morwen - Talk 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My Bad there[edit]

I misinterpreted the current Bounty Source page as a recreation of the currently closed AfD for the article. Looking at it though, good call on reversing me. (Though, someone'll need to update the AfD to reflect the change). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. I think your approach is sound and I have no qualms about you reopenning the AfD if the article page has been created as something other than a copyright violation. All the best, Johntex\talk 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the unblocking of the article (Bulgarian vocabulary). I hope this doesn't come too late - but I don't come here so often any more. Regards and have a good weekend! VMORO 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeking opinion[edit]

This looks like an afd [6] put up by an ip with only two edits both on it (has no talk page entries). It might redirect here [[7]] though. Can do either. What are your thoughts if you have time.--Dakota ~ ε 22:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Never had heard it either. AfD it is. Thank you.--Dakota ~ ε 23:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Did it[[8]] right I hope.--Dakota ~ ε 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A note about my Rfa[edit]

I was sorry to read that you misunderstood my position on Dunc's Rfc, and hope it will not adversely affect our future interactions. I have been made an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) and if there is ever anything I can do to assist you in that capacity, please let me know. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?[edit]

Are my contributions somehow more worthy of deletion than your own secular appologetics?!--OnwardsCS 15:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't understand why you won't reply to me dircetly--OnwardsCS 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Extreme Unction. I have compiled a petition to send to Mr. Wales with respect to my views on bullying on Wikipedia, which I think is a very grave problem on Wikipedia that Mr. Wales needs to address: User:Benapgar/Bullying. Please sign it if you agree, and if you can think of other people who might agree please let them know about it too. --Ben 02:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ca$h (rapper)[edit]

I found this [9] and afd'ed it[10] and when I tried to form the afd page at article entry I found this [11]. It was closed with a concencus to delete December 30th.It was recreated on January 14th. I can not form the article entry page. You are the wise one what can I do? If you have time. It needs to go.Thank you.--Dakota ~ ε 17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


If you ever need help anytime, you've got it.--Dakota ~ ε 21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)