thanx,i dont know wat a admin does anyway.but please dont block me.--Jayanthv86 14:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

+I withdraw. Hello everybody,thanks for opening my eyes.I am such a loser,I dont even know what a admin does and i have nominated myself.from now on,i will leave edit summaries.I am barely two months old in wiki and i was audacious enough to ask for adminship.Sorry for wasting your time.--Jayanthv86 15:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news. I'll admit I do get a kick out of learning about other people making good use out of our work. After all, I suspect that's a big reason why we do it in the first place. Law is often overly mystified and the wikipedia articles are a great step in putting some clarity in it and at least making it more accessible. Indeed, this is very promising news. I still hope for a day when there will be more participants joining in to help with the law articles so that there can more concentrated effort on making a more truly comprehensive legal resource. Here's to the good work so far! Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop editing out information on cindybin since you know nothing of yahoo trolling history or the importance of cindybin, and her legacy with yahoo forums and trolling.

Please sign comments. It's true I'm not familiar with Yahoo! trolling, but unless that stuff is referenced it looks like vanity. Please explain her importance to Yahoo! trolling. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then WHY ARE YOU EDITING IT? I posted why. you need to open your eyes and read. spend a day reading the posts on yahoo. the most frequent person mentioned is Cindybin. i will keep adding it back since it is VANDALISM for you to continue to remove a major inclusion of Yahoo Trolling.

Now why on Earth would you think that I would have any idea about Harry Potter related stuff??? ;-) Well, I scoped it out and it seemed pretty factually accurate. I am not positive that it needs its own article, and I may look into merging it somewhere, but the facts hold up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. A perfect example of how collaborative editing is supposed to work. Thank you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i removed a nonsense remark on the article on bush fires, why did u restore it?

Thanks, nice working with you too. I'll probably sign up...and you're right about that photo. I think every person who has been through Canadian High School has seen that photo enough...;) Habsfannova 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. I was wondering when I was going to get one of those. I joined WP to make a change on the Maxtone-Graham page (Brown is an Ivy League school) but you beat me to it by a few of minutes. So I do remember the name. Cheers. --JGGardiner 06:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. Where (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, already taken care of :) Thanks, though, and remember that WP:AN is a good place for these things.--Sean Black (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help - the nomination has been written. Adhall 08:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute ... got me ... Nfitz 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments, I appreciate it.Habsfannova 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing...should this be added to Distinct Society: "The main reason, however, for the need of a euphenism was the fact that in English Canada, the terms "nation" and "country" are very often considered synonyms, so that many people could interpret a clause recognizing "nationhood" as recognizing a soverign Quebec."Habsfannova 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a plan for adminship in Wikipedia and you can also support me for adminship. -- Australia boy 08:54 (UTC)

Why, thank you kindly! If I had my way, I'd put a large banner on the Main Page that said "PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ARTICLES ABOUT YOURSELF, UNLESS YOU ARE PARTICULARLY FAMOUS, AT WHICH POINT WE PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT YOU. THANKS." --Merovingian {T C @} 08:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2006 State of the Union address where Uncle G and Howcheng insist that such analysis is original research. KI 12:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the deleted article, it seems that none of the facts in the present article were contained in the original one, which mainly waxed lyrical about youth work and such like. The new article is not substantially identical in either its material or its subject to the one that went through AfD. It is, however, of marginal notabiltiy (2% of the vote!), and fairly obviously autobiographical judging from the history. -Splash^talk 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is certainly the claim to notability in the article. Whether it would be enough to survive AfD, I don't know. I'm not going to nominate it myself, though. -Splash^talk 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that...mixed my mind up with a different concept.Habsfannova 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any complaints if I speedy delete your RfA? You were the only non-bot contributor to the RfA. If you want to have it deleted, it can be. --Durin 16:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Durin's talk page. NoSeptember ^talk 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left another message there. Btw, you look like a good candidate when you're ready. NoSeptember ^talk 07:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and again (you're probably watching his page anyway ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, but then I never make a big issue with renoms, so my opinion won't tell you much. You might ask others. Check some of the recent renominations to see who opposes on that basis. With no votes, they may not count yours as a renomination. With the comment on his page, Durin may reply too when he comes online. In any case, make sure you are committed to relisting if you do it, another withdraw would look terrible, so take your time to decide and consult others if you need to. At some point, you just have to be WP:BOLD and let the chips fall, but plan your boldness well ;-) NoSeptember ^talk 10:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it. You can relist it, but first clean it up (update the date and the signatures etc.) Good luck! NoSeptember ^talk 11:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Have a pancake :)

Obli (Talk) 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CC< I'm not sure if you were asking me if I was resigning, or if you were alerting me to a problem Slim Virgin might be having. If the former, well no, not resigning, just trying to step well away from the more infuriating aspects of WP. If I was being too vague in my statements on my recent user page edit, I am sick and tired of being sick and tired. Building this encyclopedia could be easy! Its true! But it would take strong leadership and actual rules and policies that editors have to follow that are not transcended on whim and caprice and this would make WP a much less "fun" place for editors. I could live with that. The leadership of WP is less about merit, but who you have sucked up too in the past. There are exceptions to such a general statement, and let me assure you the preponderance of the work that I have done, and that I have watched others do has been very satisfying to me. But, (and you don't have to search for very long to find them) there is a vocal minority of so called "editors", who spend vast amounts of time, energy and rhetoric to defend activity that has nothing at all to do with addition to the project as a reference work. So in that sense Wikipedia becomes more like a model parliament (a very badly formed and maintained one) rather than an encyclopedia.

If you know of any trouble SV has been having, please feel free to let me know. Some resources are worth protecting. Slim very much so, in my opinion.

If I can ever assist you in any editing, or in any matter, please feel free to ask. You're a good editor, and an asset to the project as well. Regards! Hamster Sandwich 04:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, have you noticed the recent merges I've been working on? What do you think? Good, bad, should be modified? Deckiller 14:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I plan on getting a project and/or a solo effort together to reference things, rename things to their appropriate names, delete the unbeliveable amount of cruft (hey, I was guilty of it my first month here, back in July :) ), and other things. Thanks for the feedback. Deckiller 14:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I support you. DS 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot. I'm honoured to have your support. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not at all. Thanks for filling in the links for me and all. Much appreciated. --PullUpYourSocks 05:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CanadianCaesar, good thing that I visited your talk page!! Otherwise, I won't get the opportunity to support your RfA :D Best of luck -- based on the current vote -- I am sure you are a sure-in!! --Hurricane111 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article Same-sex marriage in Canada as a feature article. Ardenn 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it, from a whole 6 days ago! Wow, my first vandal. At least someone was on the ball ;) Thanks! Flowerparty■ 01:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I guess I should offer my congratulations in advance of your impending promotion. Well done, CC. Flowerparty■ 01:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 16:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much, and thanks to all the Wikipedians who voted for me! CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Mushroom (Talk) 16:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations. I am glad the little dust up about your RfA last week did not hamper your chances at all. :-) Obviously, the community loves you. NoSeptember ^talk 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well done! Maybe some fireworks are in order. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You are the first I've supported for admin. Congrats and good luck. -- JJay 17:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, me too :) Obli (Talk) 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Crap, I thought I was being original with that comment, being new to RfA and all that :) Congratulations! Obli (Talk) 17:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats! I should probably be handing out these "thank you" letters soon. -- WB 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A late congrats! Good luck on your new role. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats. I noticed from your talk that you're interested in legal theory. Lemme know if you want some help in that department. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- your block did override mine, but I unblocked and reblocked. This one is clearly a sockpuppet -- one of the first edits was to redirect an ArbCom page. And since I started writing this started another account: CriticOfArthritis.

No worries -- BCorr|Брайен 17:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock her, she didn't mean any harm. Let Arthritis Critic return! --Katrina Whitmare 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and they start vandalizing, huh? Don't worry about it. By the way, I forgot to congratulate you for your recent RfA! :D Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned at all. I only expressed any concerns as a passive reply to those that may oppose you for similar grounds. Keep up the good work. youngamerican (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what great news! Congrats! I know you'll use your new privileges to good ends. I appreciate the offer for assistance. I am certain I will take you up on it one of these days. Cheers! -PullUpYourSocks 03:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seconded - congratulations and good luck! Proto||type 11:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations --Ugur Basak 12:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so stop! 69.179.75.234 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine i will leave other people user pages alone if get away from me!

my bad about the lord zon thing i was just messing about with a friend, was gonna delete it after but you're right it was inappropriate.

... for the welcoming ;). Of course I'll stay, I'm addcited allready. Mau 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoooops. Let us never speak of this again. Thanks for catching that... --W.marsh 17:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

♥ Happy Valentines Day! ♥ May your days be filled with Wikilove! - Quadell

Hmm...I just checked my inbox, but I didn't get anything. I also checked the junk mail, and there was nothing there too. It must have been lost or something. Try sending it again perhaps? --HappyCamper 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must have been lost to the digital aether again. I sent you one instead...did you get it? --HappyCamper 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I got something now. I'll take the time to reply :-) --HappyCamper 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got a chance to read it. I was on the road and my internet connection stopped working when I opened it. Not a big deal at all, we're cool :-) --HappyCamper 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. I noticed you didn't like my delete on this entry. I also note from your talk page that you don't appear to like deleting anything much. I do wonder whether you believe that every kindergarten and junior school in the world requires or should have an entry in Wikipedia. If you do, then we clearly can't agree. However, if you don't. what is your criteria for inclusion? Cheers, Henry Maustrauser 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who this is, some kind of troll or vandal, I imagine. I re-edited my photo and I will suggest it be deleted as it is redundant. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Alex756 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made exactly the right call. Personal attacks are prohibited, so calling yourself personal attack would be equally forbidden. Also, falls in line with the "no using highly recognizable Wikipedia pages as a username" deal (i.e., User:NPOV, User:ArbCom, etc.) Happy editing! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 00:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I saw your question to Essjay and discussion with BD2412. It is not a problem blocking a brand new registered user with no (or only vandal) contributions. They can always register a new name. And "Personalattack" is an easy call - block it. It is the IP addresses that you never want to block indefinate, a month for the worst offenders should be the max. Of course, you have to make sure its not AOL. Your block log looks very good IMO. NoSeptember ^talk 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking...your page is suspiciously void of barnstars...personally, I think the minor barnstar is more special than the original one. There are fewer of them around :-) --HappyCamper 13:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, this guy is still vandalizing, even after you blocked him... perhaps you should try blocking again? —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just realized banned users can still edit their own talk page. —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad in the way that it's sad that Tim Hortons increased their coffee prices by 10 cent a few months ago. ;) -PullUpYourSocks 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry yourself at all about it. The list will be fine as it is and I appreciate the effort you did to re-organize it. Cheers. --PullUpYourSocks 02:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think I'm about to lower it soon.

What FCY_Travis was thinking was the problem was

1. Web designer does a website
2. Web designer doesn't get paid
3. Web designer sues
4. Web designer creates page as "revenge"
5. IP blanks
6. User notices blank and reverts
7. User starts making threats and community doesn't take it too well, user doesn't seem to want to listen to requests to discuss and simply makes more legal threats
8. Wikistress++

I admit I might be biased in nominating that article for deletion, I'm just fed up with these legal threats and nothing that the party has not run a candidate nor is legally registered with Elections Canada it might be something that would be easier for Wikipedia to simply delete. Tawker 08:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the website wasn't anything to do with Wikipedia, I think it was his party website or something. His line "THIS CONTENT, re: Raymond Samuels, APPEARS ALSO TO BE FRAUDULENTLY POSTED BY SOMEONE WHO IS NAMED NANCY SHAVER, WHO ALSO MAKES FRAUDULENT CLAIMS TO BE APROFESSIONAL GRAPHIC DESIGNER, BUT WHO HAS NO APPARENT FORMAL RELATED TRAINING, OR REQUIRED ACADEMIC ACCREDITATION, re: www.attentionseekers.ca." really makes me think he wasn't happy with a web design bill. I kind of find it funny, I'm not aware of a "required academic accreditation" for freelance web design. Tawker 08:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit history, you're familiar with Canadian law. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and create some appropriate image tags for images produced by the Canadian government? My impression is that so form of Crown copyright exists, but I'm clueless on the details.

Thanks Dethomas 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceaser, please consider leaving the page there. Merging the articles is not possible because the content in one violates Wikipedia:Reliable source unless its in its own article because it refers to a bulletin board and mailing list and cannot be used as a primary or secondary source. Thanks. Waya sahoni 08:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. I joined the Wikipedia, because it gave me a lot of knowledges, and also it was really helpful for my school works :D Thus I want to return the favors, and share my knowledges with other people!
Once again, thank you for the welcome! (S.Koreana 22:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Good call on the speedy keep, even if you weren't familiar with him. Though his work isn't to my taste, he is a VERY well-respected science fiction author, and the AfD was, uh, aggressive to say the least. Fan1967 03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the speedy deletion tag, I was mis-remembering the deletion debate on Susie Derkins, also started by that user. Feezo (Talk) 04:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???

Are you? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Pretty troll like to dodge a question like that, is it not?

Thank you! Hi CanadianCaesar/archive the second, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hail Caesar,

Your comments in the debate were quite good natured, yes. There is no reason to assume that the creator of this article was/is racist -- perhaps they are just naive. The material now present is quite, quite bad. There is no consensus among scholars, AFAIK, regarding the "skin color" of the Indo-Europeans: Empirically, they are only a linguistic hypothetical, and all other suggestions about them are speculations built on speculations. Since Semitic, Indian, and ("white") European languages all derived from them, their skin color is simply unknown.

Also of note in passing... since you are (presumably) Canadian, you may be unaware that the prejudices of the American South once were so extensive in scope such that "Southern Europeans", the "swarthy" Spaniards, Greeks, and Southern Italians, were considered mulatto. Of course, classical Romans and Greeks "must have been" white, but the subsequent "interbreeding" of the people was given as a reason for the decline of those empires, and as a reason segregation was necessary to "prevent" a similar decline in the South. By the strictest racist definition, even Ancient Romans (whom we now know to have been as "swarthy" as their modern descendants) were not "white" -- transport an Ancient Roman to nineteenth-century Virginia, and it is quite possible he could end up enslaved. To talk of a history of "white" people, one must figure out who these people are; tricky enough nowadays with living people, much less the long dead. Am I white? I don't know. I could probably pass, if I tried hard enough. The Human Stain handles this question nicely.

Anyway, if I were to vote there, I'd vote "Userfy"... Let the fellow try. If he can solve this conundrum, or at least come to a well-sourced compromise, hooray for him. The chances of that happening are very close to zero, in my opinion, but good luck to him. What he has, even his section headers, seems like the beginning of a garbage dump. Following his failure, I suggest a redirect to race would be in order.

As you see, I'm still around... I edit anonymously nowadays, and that reduces headaches. --Xoloz

Two questions for you: 1. How does one go about disputing the neutrality of an article. I believe the article on Yahoo Answers is becoming increasingly skewed. In fact, it seems to me that Yahoo folks may be doing some guerilla tactics. That last point is speculation, but none-the-less, it seems that the article has lost neutrality.

2. Was the article on Yahoo Trolling deleted? If so, why? I realize you probably did not do the deleting yourself, but how does that process work? Why was that article deleted, but "Slashdot trolling phenomena" (for example) not deleted?