User talk:John254/Archive 11

good statement about notnews

in the afd for SuccessTech Academy shooting; ,but could you please email me about the current deletion review. DGG (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:12.149.50.2#IDG Books Good catch BTW Travb (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisting the Stanley Dunin AfD

Guidelines for relisting state that relisting should be done if enough discussion has not been generated to determine the outcome. The clear consensus for this debate is pretty much delete. Discussion has been extensive. Could you revert your changes? We shouldn't drag on an AfD when the consensus is clear. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 3 remains transcluded into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 19; any administrator is welcome to close the discussion at any time. By no means does my relisting oblige administrators to wait an additional five days before closing the discussion. However, since Stanley Dunin was the subject of two prior AFD discussions, both of which were closed as "no consensus", and one of which was closed less than a month ago, the current discussion might benefit from some additional scrutiny. John254 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks. As long as the debate is not extended when a clear consensus has been reached, thats fine. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin closed AFDs listed at DRV

This is just a note to let you know that per discussion at WP:AN, I've relisted some of the AFDs you closed here. shoy 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• John, I'd strongly recommend that you avoid closing AFDs that are controversial, as mentioned at WP:DPR#NAC. Closing an AFD with a keep result when there has been a majority of delete "votes" is going to be controversial by definition, and I would recommend leaving that to admins in future. Thanks for your help. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• John, I will second Stifle's opinion. You appear to be targeting murder topics at AfD for non-admin closing without concern that the AfD discussions have ambiguous result. Helping admins close AfDs is one thing. When you target specific topics for a non-admin close and the discussion results are ambiguous, the shows a conflict of interest in the topic and Non-administrators closing discussions is clear that you should not be closing such discussion. Trust in the process since it seems to come out with the right answers in the end. -- Jreferee t/c 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Thank you! Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number :-(, but I'll just have to fudge the next vote about me. Adminship feels slightly august but not particularily exalted, so I shall endeavour to consider it a toolkit and make sincere efforts to know what I'm doing before using it. If you later on have something to say or want to ask for -- MESSAGE EATEN BY BEARS --Kizor 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ramona Moore. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chanel Petro-Nixon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Justine Ezarik. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV Notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SuccessTech Academy shooting. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--- Jreferee t/c 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate reports from WP:AIV

My report concerning 66.66.27.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) should not have been removed [1] [2]. I issued a final warning to 66.66.27.134 on 22:01, 27 October 2007; the user subsequently engaged in additional vandalism on 22:11, 27 October 2007. John254 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, the user did vandalize after the final warning, but the history was a bit clouded due to your later removal of a redundant warning - so I missed it...sorry about that! I saw a new vandal edit but was beaten to the block by another admin. Dreadstar † 22:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this Barnstar for having to repost, and repost to AIV again, and again, and again! Dreadstar † 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

But I did get the sock you reported..! Dreadstar † 23:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi! Thank you for preventing vandalism on my User talk-page. Much appreciated. --Ilyushka88 17:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan Tribune

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan Tribune

The below is mostly a cut-n-paste from deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 29.

John254 -
While I heartily support anyone with the requisite experiance closing XfDs, you've made an error in my opinion in this one. Of course, I was the proponent for deletion so I might be biased, however:

• Several clear policy reasons were given for it's deletion,
• The keep arguments not only explicitly invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they
• Failed utterly to provide sources supporting the article, and finally
• You provided no commentary in your close as to why core policies should be ignored.

CygnetSaIad 05:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successful. I'll do my best to justify the confidence you've placed in me! Dppowell 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Click "show" to see my message. What is meant to be and what is not... Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia. If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided. All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. lincalinca 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Page for deltion

You put it up for deletion? It's my sub page. Finale Wiki Geek 22:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The page was in the main namespace at the time it was created. John254 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Montreal

Oops. Thanks for fixing. I think it's time for sleep. --Dweller 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:27, 11/4/2007

arbcom election

The "question" you purport to ask is patently obvious on its face: a single arbitrator cannot impose a sanction without a majority of support from the other arbitrators. The question seems much more like a justification to bring up the Miskin and Schmucky events, in a way that appears to me to be inaccurate. Respectfully, I would request that you withdraw the question. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment regarding this issue here John254 15:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

		My RFA
		Hey John! Thanks for being the critical first support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you need any help or opinions! GlassCobra 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

endorsements

I notice you have an ACE07 endorsement section up. In case you missed it, Misza13 is now a candidate. (This is me trying to mend fences here, just thought I'd let you know). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Henrik's RfA thanks!

Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik•talk 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you bunches!

Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you! (Esprit15d 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your support.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigmanwhat?/trail 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Some more thankyou spam, glorious spam

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 14:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)