User talk:Ultraexactzz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This archive includes edits to User talk:Ultraexactzz from December 2005 through Mid-January 2008.

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Ultraexactzz/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Nufy8 02:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hey there..I noticed that you're new here at Wikipedia, and you're looking for ways to get involved, but I'd like to suggest in the nicest way I can, that you might withdraw your nomination for the Arbitration Committee. It's very difficult to become an arbitrator, and users are usually well known across the community before being selected. Best wishes, -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting Results

I'm stashing this here, because it's a little embarassing - but, I know I don't want to have to search old election returns for the link if I ever want to refer to it for some nebulous purpose. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ultraexactzz. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

heroes.

hey! are you gonna fix the Hard Part episode article? I know what you'd say, "what can't you do it??". My answer is, because i have no clue what the exact order is, all i know is that it's wrong. dposse 13:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat - and my Tivo crapped out last night, so I need to watch the episode online to get the order right - and I can't do that from work. I've got the scenes split up, mostly, but I'll have to wait on a correct order. It'll be done today, I hope. ZZ 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the recognition. Have a good day. - Gilliam 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking your vote

Hello Ultraexactzz,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams

No problem. Unfortunately when a public person dies people converge to the article's or their talk pages and post tributes - and put in rest in peace messages. I was trying to make sure it didn't get out of hand like it did in the Chris Benoit and Steve Irwin articles. I'm sorry the person died, but we have to make it clear wikipedia is not meant to express that. Fighting for Justice 02:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for fixing this. I was following the instructions at Template:AfD in 3 steps. WHat went wrong? I had trouble with this yesterday. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars (disambiguation)

You need to understand that a disambiguation page is not like a normal list page. It is meant only for items that are commonly called by the name being disambiguated (if that's a word). In the case of that page, only a series called "Star Wars" should be listed. Neither of the "Clone Wars" series have gone under just the name "Star Wars" and, so, simply do not belong. At the present time, there is no other name than "Star Wars" for the live action series, which is why it is appropriate for it to be listed. Rhindle The Red 03:04, 29 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 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Afd fixes

Hey. The article is not yet posted to AfD. Give me a minute. I've edit conflicted twice with you two minutes after creating the nomination page:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem:-) I've done similar things in the past. BTW, I just edit conflicted again with you trying to get this outside the RFA box!--Fuhghettaboutit 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Orange Box

No problem man, I've been trying to tidy up a few infoboxes recently. Apologies if my edit initially seemed heavy-handed =) Fin©™ 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I have a bad habit of not explaining my edits. Plus I assumed no one was actually editing that page. Nice to know someone is. :-) Serendi^podous 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DON'T MERGE ARTICLE

The content of the other article is questionable and is based on false allegations (no proof was given by the person who changed the article and insisted in that way) so for that reason we have the authorization to build another article. This article is complete and full of references. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simorgh7007 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 November 2007

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearce (Australian soldier)

Hi, thanks for merging those, the result seems a lot more useful than all the separate articles. If a merger is done, the last step is (except in very special cases) to change the originating article into a redirect to the target article, not to delete it. This is to preserve the edit history, in order to stay compliant with GFDL. (Also, the titles would usually be something people might look for, so the redirects would be useful, but the qualifiers after the people's names make that one pretty irrelevant.) I did that so there's really nothing more to do here now, thanks. - Bobet 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cesar Abreu

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. --Coredesat 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oak Creek, Wisconsin

You've run into an old pal of mine, the banned user AntiCommieMike, whom I believe to now be writing as an IP or as OakCreekGuy. He is obsessed with communism and Frank Zeidler, and has decided that I am the living incarnation of same. Sorry; thanks for trying to moderate the discussion. --Orange Mike 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OakCreekGuy/AntiCommieMike is obsessed with Zeidler. I fear he is unlikely to accept any language that doesn't sufficiently demonize Frank as the eviiaallll expansionist. --Orange Mike 01:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Background: Milwaukee was like a lot of major cities post WW-2, slowly being surrounded by freshly-incorporated suburbs which had no real existence except as appannages of the main city. The mayor, moderate Milwaukee-style social democrat Frank Zeidler, was not going to allow his city to strangle in what he denounced as the "Iron Ring" of suburbs; so he developed an active city policy of annexation of urbanizing regions before they could incorporate. This policy was so successful that a legislative leader from Oak Creek changed the state statutes, passing what is known to Wisconsin history as the "Oak Creek Law," which allowed semi-rural areas like Oak Creek to incorporate, even though they did not meet the historical standards for incorporation, if and only if they bordered Milwaukee (Wisconsin's legislators have always liked to bash Milwaukee, especially when there was a Socialist in city hall). Oak Creek, of course, incorporated immediately, thus keeping the evil city at bay; but some will never forgive him for the city's annexing other areas despite the Oak Creek Law. --Orange Mike 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Theaters Against War

Uh, thanks! Just didn't have anything else to do tonight... -- ArglebargleIV 05:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Boneregrowth

I see your comments at the patrolled pages page as well and feel like this article is an example I am having with it - at the same time you nominated the article for speedy deletion the article was marked "patrolled" without the article being deleted. Assuming you did not mark the article for speedy deletion this article may have passed everyone by as a patrolled article and no one would've noticed it as it had been patrolled. Instead I am finding myself having to check every article irrelevant of if they have been patrolled or not. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD ofFaith Benson-McKnight

No problem. Thought I got them all, so I definitely agree with adding that one. Thanks for the catch.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

24 Deletions

Is there a way of re-listing them as one AFD?--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jun Mapili

Hello, Ultraexactzz ... I'd appreciate your feedback on my Deletion warnings protocol ... there is a thread here on my current talk page (click [show] on the green header) ... I just used the Warn-bio on Jun Mapili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and pinged the author, Johnsoul (talk · contribs) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.79.128 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re : AfD(s) for Ben Rudnick

Noted with thanks. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Nothing florid, nothing fancy. Just thanks: for the compliment, and for the support. I'll try to wield the Mop-and-Bucket with grace and humility. --Orange Mike 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cairo Opera Company

Hi. I'd love to help, but my Arabic is at the "cat sat on the mat" level, so translating the article is a bit beyond me. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arabic

No problem, I'm ready for any serves for Wikipedia, I have seen your message at my talk page at Arabic Wikipedia, you can leave a message there, I'm an active user ;)--OsamaK (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Spime

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Spime. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Artw (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vocelli's Pizza

Yeah, thanks, I don't know the tags to create the 'archived debate' enclosure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avruch (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA

Click show to open your card! → → →

Dear Ultraexactzz,

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which closed successfully with 22 supports, 1 oppose, and 2 neutrals. Whether you supported, opposed, stayed neutral or simply commented or asked a question, I would like to thank you for your time and for your comments. Special thanks must go to User:Lar and User:John, who not only conommed, but also devoted a large proportion of their time coaching me. I am sure that what I have learnt during the coaching process can be put to good use as an admin. As an admin, I will be willing to help out with anything I can so please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything I could help out with. I will also do my best to address any concerns raised during the RfA.

Thanks.
Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by User:Iridescent's and User:The Random Editor's RFA thanks which were both inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Thank you

For kind words. Don't think we've met before. I really appreciate the gesture. Durova^Charge! 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Other than the odd AfD or RfA, I hadn't really had occasion to interact with you on articles. But I was impressed with your answer to my question at the Arbcom election, so when I saw (ZOMG) drama involving you, I followed what was going on. Glad to see that I was able to help, if only a little - and I do hope to see you around whatever articles you end up editing in the mainspace. Just a quick look at your talk page should show how respected you still are - I am far from a minority. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hope to see more of you. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thank you for your questions. I have however decided to withdraw my nomination as I do not think I am ready. Thank you however for taking the time to ask me a questions. I'm glad to see you continued with the project beyond your nomination after your 13th edit! Thanks again. LordHarris (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs As Reliable Sources

Your statement that blogs are not reliable source is in direct contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines. Nowhere does it make such a blanket statement. I am a subject expert on media, with many published articles in various magazines and I was an editor in chief of two magazines, in addition to being a published author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.222.223 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded at your talk page and at Talk:Kitchen Nightmares. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Thanks for helping out with the moves. :) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz - Arbcom Elections 2007

Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ~~~~

I asked this question of all (or almost all) candidates in the 2007 ArbCom Elections, November 2007. I post it here for archival purposes. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

ACE2007 Comment Moving

(Moved these here on 16:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC). ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence )
==ArbCom Elections comments== Good morning. Regarding your recent comments on the candidate votes page for [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/CANDIDATE|CANDIDATE]]; unfortunately, the comments are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. The maximum length of comments on the voting page itself should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#Hard-line view on commentary|ArbCom Elections talk page]]. For your convenience, I have moved them appropriately, and have included a link from the vote page to the comment on the talk page - but feel free to edit my move to your preference. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, are best placed on the talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you. - ~~~~

==[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/CANDIDATE]]== Good morning. I have indented your vote on [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/CANDIDATE|CANDIDATE'S]] voting page in the Arbitration Committee Election. In order to vote, editors must have [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#Process|150 mainspace edits]] as of 1 November 2007. Per your User Contributions, you had fewer than that number. Accordingly, your vote is removed from the count - though, I note that it remains on record as a statement of your position. Please feel free to post any questions you may have at my talk page, or at the talk page for the election. Thank you for your interest in participating in this year's election. Best, ~~~~

Mining in South Africa

Thanks I was the one who added this missing article to the list ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On 3 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mining in South Africa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was a shocker all right. One of just many ones Wildlife of Brazil was also missing!! . In plays a huge role not only in South African but in the African economy too. Diamonds and gold pretty much affect markets across the world. Good start anyway. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Chelsea Tory

Hi - to vote in the ArbCom elections, users need to have 150 mainspace edits, not total edits. If you look at the link I gave on Giano's page, Chelsea Tory only has 88 (and only had 79 on the cut-off date of 1 November). Thanks, BLACKKITE 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections - Request

Please direct me to the appropriate Wikipedia Rule which states I cannot vote. It seems we are being disenfranchised, regardless of how long we've been around. Chelsea Tory 17:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi - nothing personal, but unfortunately you aren't qualified to vote in these elections. If you read this page you will see that it specifies that "In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007.". At this date, you had only 79 mainspace edits. No conflict of interest involved - I have been checking all the candidate's votes to check this, regardless of who I voted for. BLACKKITE 18:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reformating

If you follow the links from the talk page, you will see that I expected the move. No problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Giano II Vote talk page

Hi there - I see you just put a "resolved" ticky on it. I think Giano had asked for that section to be archived. If that isn't possible, do you think you could put in one of those show/hide boxes? In a weak bid to hide my technical incompetence, I will rely on the fact that I have voted and wish to keep the page as impartial as possible. Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a star! Yes, I agree that an archive isn't appropriate. Risker (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's lovely - great choice on the colour scheme, it looks impressive but not pompous. Risker (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan

Frankly I don't mind either way :) >Radiant< 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• With respect to those offensive posts, I didn't touch them myself since I'm not a monitor, but what I would do in your case is adding those "collapsing archive" tags around them ({{hat}}, {{hab}}) and add a brief note that links to the block log. >Radiant< 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainspace Edits

According to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate I have 155 mainspace edits. Why did you say I had less than 150? Yaksar (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Arbcom Elections

I already voted too. :) So if you move my comment, that's okay by me. I just want people to see it & think. -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I assume you are an Admin, if so, could you check my talkpage and tell me if my Giano banner is breaking any rules? Thanks (Sarah777 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks - I thought you were officiating at the election! With judgement like that when you go for Adminship you can count on my vote -:) (Sarah777 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for verifying the indented votes. I have left a message for Giano on his personal talk page about them, as I did an independent check as well. I note that a couple of them appear to be indented for possible "sockpuppet" reasons and I will leave it to him, as the candidate, to let me know how he wishes to address that issue. Given the current sensitive climate when it comes to sockpuppets, I am leaving you this message here rather than on the vote talk page; I hope you don't mind. Risker (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

vandalism- skank

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from skank. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 76.188.26.92 (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (unintentional removal of content)

My edit was actually a revert - as seen here. I've responded on your talk page. Thanks, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't know what happened, but when I was viewing your edit it showed the other users. Now it looks fine. If you want, I will remove the above notice. *Embarrassed grin* -76.188.26.92 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging comments. --Michael Greiner 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ultraexactzz/Voting2008

Looks great! - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the processing - I think things got a bit too heated for me to work on the committee, at least this year. Maybe at some future time, not immediately after a case. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arb question

As promised - q.31 for you. Hope it's up to the same standard as others! :)

Best, and thanks!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Username abbreviation

In your signature's abbreviation, are you aware that, phonetically, it means dick in French? I mean, I'm not asking you to change it, just thought you should be aware of it. Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. And yes, I will definitely avoid any use of tools on situations where I have been personally involved. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! --Elonka 07:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).

  jj137 ^♠ 01:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Allan Berube

Thanks so much for creating the entry on my dear friend Allan Berube. I have added to it and asked other to keep adding, editing, and improving it, so that it becomes the most complete source of info on Allan's life and accomplishments. I am rather new at editing Wikipedia entries so I am learning on the job. Again, thanks. Jonathan Ned Katz jnkatz1@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by jnkatz1 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Dear Ultraexactzz, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E ^talk 12:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances

I thought it was a pretty clear case of WP:SNOW; but didn't overtly cite that. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophical section titles

...like these mean that people can (if they feel the need!) refer to #Section 1 and #Section 1' distinctly. Otherwise, only the first Section 1 would be referencable in this way. Splash - tk 13:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it - that makes perfect sense. I hadn't thought of that concern beyond "Support" and "Oppose"; with the sections split, that's really the only way to do it properly. I didn't catch that all four oppose sections had an ' until after I commented; before that, I figured someone hit the ' when they hit enter. Thanks for the heads up, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Posted on user's talk

Apostrophes

You're right, that is why I added them. Just letting you know :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:06, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I see someone else told you -- but hey, you get some credit anyway :) Equazcion •✗/C • 14:13, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'm a quick study. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The project spawned from Betacommand's thread

For your consideration: WP:TODAY. Lawrence Cohen 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACE2008

Hey ZZ! I saw your comment. I think that Penwhale meant that the 2008 Elections page should be made in April 2008, but the elections still held in December. If the page is created in April, it gives us six months to organize, notify, and change the process, in time to start the nominations in October-November. What do you think? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, and I think 6 months of discussion would solve any questions about whether the election rules had consensus. My timeline assumed a worst case scenario of an early midterm election, and the fact that - even with a shorter timeline - we'd still have enough time to do such an election properly. April works well for me, too, since I'm all kinds of busy right now. Welcome back, BTW. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Republic of China

Hi Ultraexactzz, the following guidelines on the version I have constantly reverted to has been established by several, if not many, past discussions and by MoS guideline:

=====================================================================
=====================================================================
=============== REPUBLIC OF CHINA ARTICLE GUIDELINES ================
=====================================================================
=====================================================================

Note 1: Simplified Chinese shall remain in the introductory sentence per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)#Simplified and Traditional]]

Note 2: Please do not add Simplified and Hanyu Pinyin to the infobox.

Note 3: Please refrain from adding flags to the dablinks.

Note 4: Please refrain from adding " (Taiwan) " everywhere, as it is misleading and is also poor form.

The anon. has been unresponsive in the past to the requests for discussion, as well as willing to act with the intent to disrupt and violate WP:NPOV. nat.utoronto 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-free book cover

A book cover cannot adequately be "describing the book's contents in the context of the author's life and career", as mentioned in the non-free use rationale for Image:AudacityofHope.jpg, it can only show the book's cover. Therefore the current non-free use rationale for the use of Image:AudacityofHope.jpg in the Barack Obama article is unsatisfactory. – Ilse@ 18:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Warlordjohncarter‎

Yes, it was of course meant as a joke. The nominee has five times more talkspace edits than I have edits altogether! I would have thought it was obvious, but never mind. Thanks for moving it back! Lankiveil (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

It looks good, but...

I was not aware that the FUR had to be templated. I know that makes it easier on the bots, but is that a requirement of the policy? Other than that question, it looks fine to me. Bellwether ^B_C 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when the image was "commented out", I did some investigating at the talk page for the image. That's where I found the discussion as to fair use. I moved the relevant portion of it to the main page of the image to support reinserting it into the article. Bellwether ^B_C 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for the notes, and I apologize if my edit summary seemed snarky at all. We've been having some relatively spirited discussions at both the Obama and Clinton pages, and I'm afraid I may have come across too strong in my summary. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 18:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Your interested in a RFA, you do great work around the project, and would make an excellent admin. Thanks Secret ^account 04:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TWWPK

OK, have racked my brains, but can't see the link between the acronym above and the Show Preview button...what am I missing? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 14:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. At least I wasn't being thick, then, and missing something obvious! Thanks for clearing that up. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 14:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Heh, heh. :) I'm glad you're putting the rollback tool to its proper use. Good luck. Acalamari 17:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricxster

Well, I am sorry if I feel insulted when my integrity and career is attacked when it has been my raison d'etre for the last 11 years. I wager you would be to. Is it unreasonable to demand apology when such rampant untruth and hypocrisy is in play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When all that is required to rectify and forget this defamation is an apology. I think I am entitled to such when the attack was so direct, core and monumentally insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks (2)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.

Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ohmpandya's RFA

Hello. Thanks for the comment of "oppose" on my RFA. However, I have already gone threw admin coaching. Would you like a link to it? Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) (Yes JJ was very nice and cooperative) Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Thought I should ask you this question. Someone on my RFA wrote, that I could promote burnout, because I'm doing over 5000 edits a month?! Is that a reason for anything (support;oppose or neutral)? Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would have made much of a difference anyway. I hope you will support when I run on the Ides of March! Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 00:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite probably. I'd hope that two months would work where two weeks did not... As I said, you'll be a good admin. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks (3)

Hi Ultraexactzz - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)