Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 115

message: Should this be deleted? I would have opposed, but I wanted to avoid hell. I don't even believe in it, but still, this is pretty blatant POV pushing. J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. Thanks, Carribean H.Q.! J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)Tell me this is not a sock of the banned editor, User:Hornetman16? Has he, like, grown up  year and changed his sex?? - Alison ❤ 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I filed a RFCU (wrongly, I bet). Take a look, its Hornetman16_2. Avruchtalk 04:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, Alison, he must have. Acalamari 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You must not remember that gender is not genetic, it is a state of mind. the_undertow talk 04:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not! Unless Hornetman has moved as well as changed gender. And remember, we all should applaud her for coming out so spectacularly like that. Mind you, she's still banned :) - Alison ❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: PS - I'm going to hell! (Or not, Jews are exempt from stuff like that :-P). Avruchtalk 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would bet it's an impersonator, not a sock ... just my guess from looking at the (now deleted) RFA - Hornetman16 would know to capitalize God. --B (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Keep me a place, too, just in case. And if the Jewish G-d was the right one, please put in a good word for me. I'm nice really!! :) - Alison ❤ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hornetwoman17]] 

message: This is a self nomination for the user " Sahilm " to become an adminsitrator for the following reasons:
As we all know wikipedia is a place where we all like truthful information but there are people who like to vandilize the pages. As fast as our current administrators work, when we find a person who, as per looking up history, continues to vandilize after numerous warnings, we want them blocked from editing. As you may know it could take months for the request to be processed and because of that the perpitrator has already caused more damage.
I want to stop vandels and help Wikipedia!
Thank You
Sahilm (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you're desire, but it is with greatest sincerity that I ask you not to consider this. I've had a flick through your contributions, and it's okay but there are only 6. It may also be of use to advise you that requests go on here, but you'll have had to create it beforehand. Rudget. 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, as Rudget said above me, this isn't the place to request adminship. You're almost right, as this is the talk page, but you'll want to see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and the place to find the nomination forms is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. However, upon looking at your contributions, I don't believe you'll pass an RfA at this stage: I don't like to editcount, but you only have a small amount of edits: two are to sandboxes, one was a good-faith report to ANI which should have gone to WP:AIV instead, and few are to the mainspace. Before you request adminship, my suggestion is that you edit Wikipedia for a few months first, edit some articles to gain experience there (you can edit whatever subject interests you), participate in deletion discussions, familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, and continue to remove vandalism. You appear to be an editor who is willing and eager to learn and help out, and that's a good sign. I hope you'll find this advice helpful. Good luck. Acalamari 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Nomination: sahilm 

message: Has consensus ever been discussed on the numbering of "optional questions" on RfAs?  I've noticed some that have the 1,2,3, for the standards and then start at 1 again for the first "user question" while others start at 4.  Not trying to be petty, but it seems that some editors like to support or oppose based an a particular question's answer and they'll say "per A6" or "Per Q1", which of course can be ambiguous.  (Maybe this is coming out of my experience with WP:DPL, I don't know...)  So, is the fourth question #4, or is it #1?   Keeper  |  76 19:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be renumbered for clarity's sake, you're right. Unfortunately, speaking strictly for myself, I never thought to do that until just now. I'm not sure if it would make sense for there to be a section specifically requesting continuous numbering, but the proposal to have such certainly makes sense. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If I see it in the future (and I'll be watching you like a 3-eyed hawk, Avruch:-) I'll just change it without fuss, unless of course someone does exactly what you just said, which is say "Avruch's #4".  I won't be going around changing anyone's comments, and therefore, I won't be changing the numbering either.  A minor issue at best, but thanks for your response/confession!  Cheers, Keeper  |  76 19:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Keeper, that for clarity's sake, 4, 5, 6, and so on is preferred. Really, though, it is not a big deal. SorryGuy  Talk  03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question numbering in RfA 

message: Are editors allowed to close RfAs, not just admins? 
I recommend early closure of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BQZip01 per WP:SNOW. Simply south (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you do not have to be a bureaucrat or an administrator to close a SNOW RfA. However, it's courteous to let the candidate know why their RfA was closed early rather than just marking it as closed as SNOW and not informing them. Acalamari 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for obviously bad faith / bad idea RFAs (ie, a brand new user making an RFA so he can block his best friend), non-crats shouldn't be snowing them.  5-19 is overwhelming, but not so much so that a well-reasoned argument couldn't potentially turn it around.  There are occasionally RFAs where the "namespace balance" crowd starts opposing in bulk because someone only has 387 WP:space edits and 387 is below someone's magic number of 400.  In those, there is too much potential for it to turn around for a non-crat to make the decision. --B (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: there are some SNOW cases where it was best that a bureaucrat closed the RfA rather than an admin, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov 3. With disruptive RfAs, they are normally deleted. Acalamari 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How long do admin reqs run through before they are closed early? Simply south (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Although I feel a great amount of sympathy, I agree. Rudget. 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing 

message: I noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/aezook was created by User:aezook on the 15th, and has not been edited since. It is not linked to from any page, including the main RfA listing. I presume it is an error, edit or template test, or other mal-formed request, but wanted to bring the item here for further evaluation. Thanks, UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are additional RFA's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zook7792, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/zook1992, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aezook, none accepted. The Aezook RfA was created by User:Zook7792, but the questions were answered by User:aezook. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many pages like this. Sometimes people start RfA pages and then decide not to go through with the nomination. They don't cause any harm. Though, this particular person seems to be creating RfA pages frivalously. Epbr123 (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned RfA 

message: Stupid question perhaps - is it really necessary for WP:RFA to have the full text of each RfA instead of the link? I'm sure there was a reason for it initially, perhaps so that you could watchlist the page and get all the changes? I'm just not sure that is really enough reason to have a gigantic page, wouldn't it be easier just to have links to each individual active RfA? Avruchtalk 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Watchlisting the page only lets you know about the addition and removal of transcluded links, and of course any changes to the surrounding text.  I like the full text as well--it lets me scan through, pick RfAs to contribute to and watch others without having to formally watchlist individual RfAs.  I'm sure I would feel differently if I had a slower connection. Darkspots (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See, since I have a quick connection, I'd prefer the links to RfA's. нмŵוτнτ 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a quick connection, and I prefer all of the text in one place. I think it is just easier.   jj137 ♠ 01:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You can find links and status at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report. Many users transclude it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dood. That's srsly what the RfA page should look like. Good link. the_undertow talk 01:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've got the Tangobot report, I'm just not sure why the state of the RfA main page is necessary. Its huge, its slow for people with slow or medium size connections, and uh, why? But I guess some people do scroll through the whole thing, I'm surprised at that. Avruchtalk 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I have a relatively fast connection, and I guess personally, I don't need the entire thing there. Would there be a way to make the discussion section of an RfA it's own subpage transcluded onto the RfA itself, and also onto the main RfA page? Or the other way around, with the nomination statement and question/answer part transcluded, but I think that would be less useful. J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I use both Tangobot and the main page. Generally, if I am looking for RfAs which I am going to contribute to, I look at Tangobot (because I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question). However, I am also like to scroll through the entire list, even if they are RfAs that I do not plan on commenting on. SorryGuy  Talk  03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You lost me there. The purpose of commenting on "unanimous or near unanimous" RfAs is what exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorryguy said "I generally only comment on the unanimous or near unanimous RfAs if I actually know the user in question". I interpreted that as: If the outcome seems certain then I'm not going to spend time investigating the candidate, but I may comment if I already know the candidate and can give an informed opinion without investigating. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, personally, it seems fine as it is at the moment. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with  - WP:BN is the best way. Rudget. 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy with putting everything past the nom statement in noinclude tags. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion question 

message: I suggest that if you do not wish to receive thank you notes for casting !votes, that you use this page. If enough users use it, candidates will know just what it is for, without causing unnecessary nuisanse to RfA pages. NoSeptember 17:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding this to copy and paste is a lot of hassle to avoid unnecessary hassle. Candidates should realize when their thank-you messages are too devoid of any meaningful content to be worth spamming. –Pomte 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OH, I disagree that the thank yous are meaningless. I always enjoy them. The one's with pictures brighten up my talk page. Checking that list might be a bit cumbersome, though. When I sent out mine, I looked for a hint on the user's talk pages. If there were already thank you's and no message saying not to, I thanked. My civic involvement kind of made it a habit. (If a legislator or powerful member of the public granted us a boon, we were supposed to thank them seven times.)    Dlohcierekim  05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember guys, once you're sysopped you're allowed to piss people off. That's why you should give out these messages using a bot. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, DHMO, you amaze me with your constant ability to put things in perspective :) - Revolving Bugbear 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NoThanks|!NoThanks!]] 

message: Have there been discussions in the past related to possibly limiting the number of active RfAs at one time (or rather, preventing the introduction of new RfAs once a certain threshold has been passed)? It seems to me difficult to get the adequate attention of the community on any one RfA when it is divided 16 (now 19) ways... Avruchtalk 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to limit the number of RfAs at one time. Most people don't focus on all the RfAs, and those that do won't be pu off by the fact their are 16+. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 16 is a small amount any way, during October/nOvember '07 is was runnning well over 20 for a couple of weeks. Gnangarra 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An easy way to handle this--if it is in fact a problem--would be to reduce the length of an RfA.  Going to six days instead of seven would almost always trim off a couple.  Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could get over that stupid canvassing rule and bring more attention to RfAs. Lara❤Love 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: An entire week allows editors plenty of time to read through the RfAs at hand. A day may come in a year or two when the number of RfAs increases to a point that becomes unmanageable. At that point I suggest not limiting the number of RfAs but increasing the RfA nomination period from 7 days to 9 days, giving editors more time to read and decide on the RfAs at hand. Kingturtle (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I ran, I was the only one. I think fewer at a time is better, actually. Useight (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why should we limit nominations? If an editor finds that there are multiple suitable candidates, then by all means the editor should be allowed to nominate all of them. —Kurykh 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We can handle that number, though we may have to stop transcluding the separate pages. We might also consider using a rather more efficient process. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Until that actually occurs, your proposal may be a solution looking for a problem, and is hence unneeded, at least at the present time. —Kurykh 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, ok. —Kurykh 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two nominations running right now, Jauerback and Stormtracker94, but we just lost User:Rudget and User: Rlevse to retirement, so I'm just trying to make up for that. :) Useight (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope Rlevse and Rudget get things cleared up and make their way back to wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whats your pass/fail rate? Avruchtalk 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 23 of 28 before January, it's taken a nosedive of late. Wizardman 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 current RfAs 

message: The new summary table is nice in principle, but it is a bit ginormous and currently obscures the table of contents.  Would it be possible to have a smaller table on the right side of the page, and a table of contents that's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA.  Do others agree? --JayHenry (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit smaller. Rudget. 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you, a few days ago it sat nicely at the top before the flood. Simply south (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Obscures the table of contents"? What do you mean? It shows up fine on my computer... One sits right atop the other. Are they interfering with each other on your's? нмŵוτнτ 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reduce the width of your browser window. –Pomte 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually just meant that I have to scroll through this enormous numerical table to get to the table of contents.  Why can't we put the summary table on the right side of the TOC, like at WP:BN?   Or at least put the TOC above the numbers so that it's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA?   --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it on a lot of user pages (mine included). In some cases, it's behind a show/hide link, and that might be appropriate here - it's hidden for those who don't want it here, but can be expanded for those who do. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's too big an issue, but I did move the  box above the archive section; that should kill at least a little bit of space. Personally, I'd be happy to see the scoreboard go, but that's because I get that information elsewhere, and don't come here for the stats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: Have there been discussions in the past related to possibly limiting the number of active RfAs at one time (or rather, preventing the introduction of new RfAs once a certain threshold has been passed)? It seems to me difficult to get the adequate attention of the community on any one RfA when it is divided 16 (now 19) ways... Avruchtalk 14:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to limit the number of RfAs at one time. Most people don't focus on all the RfAs, and those that do won't be pu off by the fact their are 16+. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 16 is a small amount any way, during October/nOvember '07 is was runnning well over 20 for a couple of weeks. Gnangarra 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An easy way to handle this--if it is in fact a problem--would be to reduce the length of an RfA.  Going to six days instead of seven would almost always trim off a couple.  Darkspots (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could get over that stupid canvassing rule and bring more attention to RfAs. Lara❤Love 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: An entire week allows editors plenty of time to read through the RfAs at hand. A day may come in a year or two when the number of RfAs increases to a point that becomes unmanageable. At that point I suggest not limiting the number of RfAs but increasing the RfA nomination period from 7 days to 9 days, giving editors more time to read and decide on the RfAs at hand. Kingturtle (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I ran, I was the only one. I think fewer at a time is better, actually. Useight (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why should we limit nominations? If an editor finds that there are multiple suitable candidates, then by all means the editor should be allowed to nominate all of them. —Kurykh 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We can handle that number, though we may have to stop transcluding the separate pages. We might also consider using a rather more efficient process. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Until that actually occurs, your proposal may be a solution looking for a problem, and is hence unneeded, at least at the present time. —Kurykh 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, ok. —Kurykh 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have two nominations running right now, Jauerback and Stormtracker94, but we just lost User:Rudget and User: Rlevse to retirement, so I'm just trying to make up for that. :) Useight (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope Rlevse and Rudget get things cleared up and make their way back to wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whats your pass/fail rate? Avruchtalk 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 23 of 28 before January, it's taken a nosedive of late. Wizardman 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 current RfAs 

message: The new summary table is nice in principle, but it is a bit ginormous and currently obscures the table of contents.  Would it be possible to have a smaller table on the right side of the page, and a table of contents that's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA.  Do others agree? --JayHenry (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit smaller. Rudget. 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you, a few days ago it sat nicely at the top before the flood. Simply south (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Obscures the table of contents"? What do you mean? It shows up fine on my computer... One sits right atop the other. Are they interfering with each other on your's? нмŵוτнτ 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reduce the width of your browser window. –Pomte 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually just meant that I have to scroll through this enormous numerical table to get to the table of contents.  Why can't we put the summary table on the right side of the TOC, like at WP:BN?   Or at least put the TOC above the numbers so that it's visible the moment you click on WT:RFA?   --JayHenry (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it on a lot of user pages (mine included). In some cases, it's behind a show/hide link, and that might be appropriate here - it's hidden for those who don't want it here, but can be expanded for those who do. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's too big an issue, but I did move the  box above the archive section; that should kill at least a little bit of space. Personally, I'd be happy to see the scoreboard go, but that's because I get that information elsewhere, and don't come here for the stats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: have any of you people looked at the page for seth daloane and have any of you tried to put him on the ballot for adminship that is why i think that i should put the link up here so that you people will notice a great canidate for adminship Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seth Dalorane  Ryan M  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth dalorane (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems unlikely, at present, that your request will be successful. I also note that the history function of the wiki indicates that almost every edit on the page, including 5 support !votes, one neutral, and one oppose, were all made by you. I don't think it's disruptive, but it does look rather silly, don't you think? UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit, however, seems ill-advised, as admin candidates who threaten to destroy the wiki are usually unsuccessful. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Only slightly. ;) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note for the record Seth dalorane's indef block for vandalism, which will put a bit of a dampener on his admin aspirations. BencherliteTalk 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  seth dalorane 

message: I think the time has come to end the use of the term "!Vote".  It is silly and inaccurate.  It makes sentences awkward and disguises the real meaning.  Instead, I think we should start using the term "!!Vote", pronounced, "Not-not-vote".  It's NOT not-a-vote.  This is more accurate because, as we all know, while RFA and AFD and ...FD are not a vote, we also know that they are not NOT a vote.  Clarity is something we strive for at Wikipedia, and I think this is the obvious next step toward that goal.  We might also want to create a task-force to enforce use of the term, user warning templates for those that choose to rebel against this move for the greater good, and an administrator panel to determine whether each future application of the term fits within the given guidelines. Renesis (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just use the word vote to mean what we mean when we say vote, !vote, or even !!vote. People end up sounding really awkward when they avoid or mutate the word. Just document the etymology somewhere so everyone is on the same page. –Pomte 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "!vote" is also employed sort of ironically, because of what you (Renesis) have just pointed out. - Revolving Bugbear 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this is a joke. RFA is a vote, and people should just use vote. Instead of making things complicated. Majorly (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the term ¡vote, metaphysically signifying its simultaneous existence as vote, and not-vote.  Or, in cases where you really feel strongly about your ¡vote, you can call it a "¡vote!"  ¿Bueno?--barneca (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I !just !shot !diet !Mountain !Dew !out !my !nose.  !Thanks a !lot, R. Baley.  Keeper  |  76 22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's all here! Pedro :  Chat   22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Honestly, the RfA process much more resembles caucusing than voting. - Revolving Bugbear 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Your argument would carry so much weight if you could point to even one example where a candidate passed RfA with less the 50% of the votes. As it is, it's just fiddling with the deck chairs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Malleus. Chuck me the diff where I mentioned the 50% thing will you? Athenian Deomcracy and voting aren't the same you know !  Pedro :  Chat   23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that you did mention the 50% thing. I'm just making the rather obvious point that this pretence of !voting is simply that, a pretence. Being a closing bureaucrat on RfA's is not exactly a very taxing job I'd suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the comment I was to make here to you talk page, as this is clearly not the place for personal disagreements. Pedro :  Chat   00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've lost me there. In what sense was my disagreement with what you said personal? Did I make any personal remarks? As I note that you have now done on my talk page, rather disappointingly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good. And all these debates about vote/not vote are really getting old.  — Rlevse • Talk •  00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Deskana, for being !narrow minded.  Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean NARROW minded? --Deskana (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: !NO, course not. ;D.  Malinaccier (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Two words... Electoral College. *ducks* UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  04:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Now it's time for the cabal to rise and the popular vote to be discounted! bibliomaniac15 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: !yoicks! That was !rude!.   Dlohcierekim  05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, I'm confused, does that mean it wasn't actually rude? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was !very rude. ! :D --Hdt83    Chat 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only person in this talk page who isn't mindlessly intoxicated...? — DarkFalls talk 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. By the way, I agree with Deskana. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: O yeah. That's a given. the_undertow talk 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with DHMO and Deskana. Anyone who has been around long enough to tale part in these discussions learns pretty fast that it is not a simple matter of talying votes, that it is a discussion. However, tradition, going back to changing VfD to AfD is against us.    Dlohcierekim  05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; AfD (or VfD) doesn't have a vote counter (or tally, or #, or anything), so there's a greater justification for that rename. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If that were true, then you would be able to provide at least one example where a candidate has been promoted with less than 50% of the vote, or not promoted with 100% of the vote. Can you? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: AHH, good point and good night.05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: <reading out loud>Who... doesn't... not... give... not a .... not shit?  Quadruple negative, good job! -- Renesis (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  !!Vote 

message: Anybody who speaks Latin know what the following paragraph means?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
It comes from . --Hdt83    Chat 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lorem ipsum. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore DHMO's link. The exact translation is as follows;
"And it came to pass that the editor did seek adminship. For it was rumoured that this would bring great gains and fulfilment, and a status exalted above all others save for the mythical beast of 'crat. But the editor had not heeded well words of wisdom. He had mady a dodgy CSD A7 call but twenty seven moons before. And thus his request was rejected by his brethren, and great was his shame and ignomny."
Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat   08:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I have to change my shirt because I just shot coffee out my nose. !Nice.  Didn't know the deadlanguages had a turn of phrase that equals CSD A7...  Keeper  |  76 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "CSD A7" was a rather free translation. The phrase Pedro was rendering by "CSD A7", "cillum [...] eu fugiat", literally translates as "the 'zillas will purge it", viz., burn it with fire. In the usage of ancient lexicographers, that phrase referred to a practice more akin to salting than to mere speedy deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, thanks for !clearing that up....  :-)Keeper  |  76 16:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Pedro :  Chat   16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Now I have to clean up the milk I was drinking...it's all over the wall...(pretty good distance through your nose, though...) — BQZip01 — talk 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Gesundheit!   Dlohcierekim  23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you mean !Gesundheit.  JERRY talk contribs 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For the love of spurting Coca-Cola out my nose (which is not a good experience), no. bibliomaniac15 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is why I only drink water at my computer. :) Captain panda 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather curious