FloNight
Mr C part two
Flo I have been out of town and haven't had much time to contribute here lately but thank you kindly for the links and info on State physician impairment programs. I thought this sort of riff raff ended 10 years ago. Astonishing.
Also, I saw where you removed three reference books/links I added to the cult article. I am going to address that on the talk page there. Basically - why? :-)
Anyhow, thanks again Mr Christopher 04:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Flo, I wrote this enormous narrative at the cult talk page and then thought it might be more appropriate here. I am still trying to figure out some of the norms of where these conversations belong. Feel free to copy or move this to the talk page (or my own) if you think it belongs elsewhere.
Here goes:
- Flo, thanks for your reply and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And here is why - You wrote,
- "I know for example that many people go to AA under the threat of penality like losing MD/RN lic., court mandated diversion programs, or a condition for parole. This is not something that someone would expect to happen with a cult"
- Agreed. And that is not something that someone would expect to happen with a religion either. Yet in the 5 or so federal and state court cases where the religiosity and mandated attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous has been challenged, in each case A.A. has been found by the courts to be "a religion", "religious", and/or "religious movement" and thus ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The United States Supreme Court heard one of those contested cases and they too ruled for the plaintiff. Not exactly what one who goes to AA under the threat of penalty would expect. But the fact that the majority of people are not aware of this, and therefore would not expect it, does not mean it doesn't exist.
- So what people may expect might not necessarily reflect what actually has been proven. And I don't think the majority opinion (whether positive or negative) ought to silence the observations, research findings and conclusions (opinions) from those minority voices who have not reached the masses.
- And you said this article had sufficient cult/new religious movment cites, yet it does not have a single one related to popular recovery movements that are embraced by the masses. Movements that have been the subject of a significant body of work by legitimate researchers and even court cases. On the other hand, and correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't think anyone would object if I posted links to research regarding Scientology because popular opinion is not favorable towards Scientology. I think we live in a culture that is very uncomfortable at times examining "religious movements" that the majority perceives are benefitial. I think there is a resistance at times to examine these groups and the minority voice who has done the examination and posits conclusions that portray something other than widely held beliefs are viewed as negative. The negative "tag" is not based on the merits of the research done by the minority, but because the conclusions contradict the majority opinion and their expectations. As a Wiki reader, I am always interested in the ideas of both the majority and minority. That is how I reach my own conclusions and feel like I am making an informed decision.
- And we're talking about links here, not offensive or POV article content that tries to dog AA. So in my own mind I thought these cites were highly relevant.
- You know by now (or I hope you do) I have a good deal or respect for your opinion here and I have appreciated your input and support, but on this one you and I will have to agree to disagree. I am cool with that. :-) Mr Christopher 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
W.S. Gilbert
Right! Thanks for the help so far! I've checked the quotes I've used, and one MAY be in copyright, another definately is, but both of these seem to come under fair use, as they're short, to the point, and relatively far from the key reasons for getting the things they quote from anyway. The Quotes from La Viviandre are DEFINATELY out of copyright, since I got them from an ancient Victorian libretto I photocopied at the National Liberary of Scotland, and their author died in 1911. I've given my reasons for why I think the questionable quotes are fair use on the Discussion Page at that article. Have I done it correctly? Adam Cuerden 20:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Smith
It would be good for someone to take him in hand if you're willing to do it. He seems at least to be willing to listen if you feel like it. Best · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- The site at [1]] is run by United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians members. They have about a dozen folks they are mobilizing to vandalize that article. Just to let you know to expect vandalism and postings from several ranges from these folks. They have three active folks behaving as meatpuppets to vandalize the article. I tried to reason with them today (I doubt you folks speak Cherokee but I do and tried to restrain them) to no avail. The UKB Chief is apparently using this group for POV pushing to hide the embarrassments of the prosecutions and other materials. Just to to be a little bird and let you know what's up here. They are Cherokee so they won't stop. You need to go to indefinite blocks are it will just continue. 67.169.249.44 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Goethean is at it again
Neoplatonism and Gnosticism he has put the article up for delection AGAIN. How is deleting this article not retailation and censureship? LoveMonkey 01:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fresh action here. I thought we had been over this. --DanielCD 01:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
...is going about adding nonsense to people's userpages. I've never blocked an admin-level user before, so could you second my comments on his talk page if you agree? --DanielCD 02:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Some kind of April fools thing. These people are characters. --DanielCD 02:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I was looking through his contrib list, thinking he must be drunk, then it hit me April 1. --FloNight talk 02:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is bullshit. I ought to... well maybe I'll just go play a game.
- No harm done. But I wish they wouldn't do that. That could really start a fight. --DanielCD 02:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- The talk on his talk page seems to indicate he's been blocked. Since so much BS has been flying over the last 12 hours, I don't know if that's true or not. But whatever. He may have been blocked before this started, which make my momentary ideation of blocking him even more of a cute deal.
- These people are characters. --DanielCD, March 31
User:Aminto The Da Vinci Game
Hi FloNight, Many thanks for creating the article on The Da Vinci Game - I really appreciate it! I went to update the arbitration page, but couldn't find it. Did you remove it from there? If so, thanks again, I wasn't sure where to start the discussion and that seemed the most intuitive place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminto (talk • contribs)
- Sounds good! I don't have any preference myself on what happens with the article, but if there's a good stub to be made there, great, and nice comments to Aminto, too. (Though I have to admit I was tickled at the chance to make a statement on an RfAr from the other side!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
neoplatonism & gnosticism
I have had this article reviewed by professor Moore. I have the email. I can forwatd it to you. Professor Moore is part of the international neoplatonic society. I have not add more to article because I am corresponding with him. Please of members http://www.isns.us/directory/america-canada/index.htm http://www.isns.us/directory/europe/index.htm
This is the whos who of philosophy. Goethian is EVERYTHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE CRITIZED WIKIPEDIA ABOUT. Your poster posts new age groups in California as sources for ancient greek culture (Noetic). Not greek scholars. He is openly made fun of online and wikipedia indirecty because of him. See the falk blog as one of his own examples. Because of some of the ridiculous nonsense articles(see the historically incorrect nonsense article- Gnosticism and the New Testament- for pure shame and embarassment) also because of the embaressingly stupid fighting on wikipedia I can not get scholars to come and post here. This article as well as the made up theory posted under plotinus' bio are fantastic examples. I was able to get this scholar [|Professor Moore] out of the kindness of his heart to review an article that a new age @#$% is now suggesting be DELETED. LoveMonkey 04:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Deathtrap (play)
I'm sorry to bother you again, but I found a fantastically inappropriate redirect: [2] and don't know what to do. The linked article has no information on the play. Adam Cuerden 18:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
|
Hello FloNight, how are you? Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. I am very humbled by your comments and your vote of support. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 19:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OMG
Well Ms. Lolicon of 2006 is finally gone. What a long, tiring, distracting process. Unbe-freaken-lievable how many people think this image should be included who are not trolls or idiots. Fair-use activists wore me down on the IfD, but the overall problem is people who are like "Well in some cultures its OK to do such-and-such but not such-and-such, why should we delete this but not the Mohammed pictures, because after all who can say what's 'right' and 'wrong'?" (To which I feel like answering Um, how about people who have the moral sense that God gave sheep"). Not to mention political sense. Erg. Anyway, thanks for being there, it felt good to have you by my side. Herostratus 14:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry
I am sorry for adding nonsense to Wikipedia. I will use the sandbox in future. Jamie.
Charming.... a username block probably wouldn't have been contested, but it doesn't end up mattering, since all that account has been used for is vandalizing. Blocked. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair use images
I notice that you're using fair use images on User:FloNight/DanielCD. However, please note that fair use of copyrighted images cannot be claimed outside mainspace articles - please could you therefore remove these? Thanks, CLW 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Spooky! Thanks, CLW 10:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
re: links
Yes I understand what you're saying. No, I don't think that links to child porn should be included in articles. At Lolicon, I don't expect people to be reasonable about this. That leaves edit warring or an RfC. I think an RfC would be much the better path. True, you could lose, but if you can't win on an RfC from the whole community, you're sunk anyway. Here's what I drafted to post at talk:Lolicon. I didn't post it, awaiting your thoughts. If you want to post it in your words under your name, that would OK. More than OK really since, although I will surely support you, I don't especially want to be point man on this. But I'll post it myself if desired. If it is posted, my personal recommendation would be to wait a couple days for people to respond/blow of steam before beginning the RfC. Herostratus 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I'm thinking: the question of external links, not just in this article but in similar articles. Ought there not be a general standard or guideline about external links to objectionable material.
It could be argued that linking to websites of discussion forums and amateur art is not, in general, the function of an encyclopedia. While in many cases perhaps this can be either waived or, if controversial, discussed and decided by the editors involved in the article, on this page I'm not so sure. WP:EL provides some material but not a definitive answer. The talk page at WP:EL indicates that links to any fansites etc. at all is controversial at least.
Therefore I think that the question of disputable links should be taken to an RfC, not in any way with intent to be confrontational, but simply to get an advisory opinion from the larger community.
- Update: User:Steve block - I think he's doing penance for having argued so effectively against a copyvio disallowance of The Image - removed the link function, keeping it as text only, per this message from Jimbo. I'm not sure what to think about that. Herostratus 08:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Paulus RFAr
I certainly understand the case load, but we've been through two polls and a mediation already. I've offered several compromises and have bent over backwards many, many times as can clearly be seen in the talk pages -- I've continually conceded and redone my suggestions in the hopes that something would finally be accessible to them. But nothing will, and they are clearly not willing to compromise on the issue because every single "suggestion" they offer is a rewrite of the same paragraph that locks the point of the debate out over and over. They act as if they run the Aiken page because they feel they do. The POV is rampant and has crossed the line of reason. I certainly have no plans on dropping it, regardless of that being their ultimate goal. So I don't see a solution possible without intervention. Possibility of rejection or not, I can only hope that the admins realize that nearly a month of having a page protected and the pages upon pages of stuff in the talk show there's a problem that can't be handled between us. I just want this to be over with and short of leaving the debate (which I'm not going to do) I don't think it's ever going to end. - mixvio 03:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I followed all the outlines in the dispute resolution guideline, so I can't think of any steps I missed. This issue has been going on for over a month and during all this time I've tried very hard to manage the issue on my own. I'm not the only person arguing my position - not by a long shot, and if I were I'd let it go. But I'm the most prolific and it's immensely frustrating that the issue's been hijacked by people who run out to grab their friends and leave messages on forums to harass me. In response to your questions:
- What are you trying to accomplish with the RFAr?
- I'm trying to have the debate ended fully and completely. Note, that I don't want it ended with my side in-tact and victorious, I just want the issue decided. I feel that those of us in the debate are incapable of coming to an agreement on our own. I have placed a request for comments and some people took the chance to leave some; I will note in this that most of the ones who came to leave comments left comments in my favor. But regardless, whether my viewpoint is chosen or not, I don't think a solution is going to work without non-appellate intervention. I realize that the admins typically weigh-in on people conflicts, but I can't see any other process to decide content disputes. If it's not settled and taken out of our hands we'll be editing back and forth until we explode.
- Are there other methods of dispute resolution that are more appropriate?
- I tried all of the steps in the dispute resolution process, and after the failed mediation, the opinion of the mediator was the issue was damaged and not likely to be fixed by us. He suggested the admins.
- Will the parties to the dispute be willing to listen to input from the wider Wikipedian community?
- This is where I am unsure. I opened the issue to comments from others by posting the request but not as many people came as I hoped they would. I made the request because I feel if the consensus were clearer or there were a stronger majority one way or the other it would make the issue easier to deal with. Unfortunately it's split nearly down the middle. Regardless, while they claim that they'd listen to outsider input, I don't know if I believe they would. The main antagonists in the debate have an almost god-like, religious reverence and I think this issue has transcended into something much, much worse and deeper for them. As I said once, a neutral party would think that Paulus was accusing each of them of having unprotected sex with them with the way they act as if his allegations are a personal attack against themselves.
- If yes, do you think a content Rfc is appropriate?
- If a clearer consensus came out, or at least a supermajority, I would personally drop my dispute if the consensus/majority showed the view was strongly on their side. If they agreed to the same, there'd be no need for intervention, but unfortunately this hasn't happened.
- If no, do you think a behavior Rfc is appropriate for the person not willing to listen to the opinion of the wider community?
- If they refused to listen to the majority/consensus if it ruled against them, then ofcourse outside help would be necessary. - mixvio 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course you can email me. I don't know why email isn't active from my user page; I thought I had registered it.
No, I didn't see your comments on the email list yet, it's hard keeping up with everything.
Yeah, the email list is good. I suppose eventually it'll start collecting trolls too, although maybe not since it's moderated.
Yeah I wanted to make a statement on the email list in the next couple days re pedophilia and pedophilia POV on Wikipedia, and maybe point out the existance of the project in case any editors wanted to help out. My statement is not necessarily going to be to your liking, since we don't see eye-to-eye about everything, but that's OK.Herostratus 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where is this email list at? I've never seen it. What is it, do they post the emails we send to each other? --DanielCD 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2
|
|
Hello Thebainer : ) Thank- you for switching the article name and cleaning up the article. I thought about doing that myself. Much better for you to do it. Hope the unsourced information stays out. --FloNight talk 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it seemed like the most sensible solution. I'll be watching the article closely from now on too. --bainer (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Me too FloNight, don't worry about it. Herostratus 01:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. --FloNight talk 14:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are ya'll going to do a series on the raids that have taken place over the last six years or so? It would be a good source of information for ppl doing research to have a list of KP raids that have happened, as there have been quite a few. --DanielCD 15:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I see some stuff at Category:Child pornography crackdowns, but what about the Candyman raid? --DanielCD 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Chad Smith and Johnc1
Hi KateFan0, User:Johnc1 is back and posted defamation in the article again. You may want to take a look at his edits. Sint Holo 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- FloNight: by way of background, you may find this thread from the "blog" informative: http://www.network54.com/Forum/237458/message/1144111446/Chad+Smith+Re-election+Supporters+Needed -- talks_to_birds 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"city hick"?
Hi FloNight, did you mean to reinsert "city hick" at White trash#Similar terms? Are you sure it's a real term? --Allen 21:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I figured it had to be something like that. --Allen 00:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
n&g
THANK YOU! So very very very much..You and danielCD are very unappreciated the guys are the best.. LoveMonkey 03:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for the help in the Aiken page situation. I've been sitting at your and Will's feet metaphorically for a couple of weeks now. Unfortunately, the PAW project hits a little too close to home for me, so I doubt I could be helpful often. Still, I'm learning by observing. Thanks also for a rv you just made that I didn't dare make, and, if you think it warrants it, there was an accidental deletion here [3]. I appreciate the positive modeling. -Jmh123 03:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I look forward to more time for other Wikipedia projects myself. Went to Katefan's page to leave a note of thanks, and saw your comment, so I included a brief addition there. Thanks again! -Jmh123 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Copying note to you that I also placed on Katefan's page. I'm staying away from Sex scandal--I regret getting involved this morning. Just FYI, most of the sources Rabinid cites did not mention Paulus by name, or make any sort of specific reference other than to "gossip". I believe the only one on his list that does use Paulus' name is the NY Post Page Six (enough said). Thanks again and again. -Jmh123 19:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
County flowers
Following the AfD debate, you may wish to join in a discussion taking place at Talk:Plantlife. SP-KP 18:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Got your message...
...I'll definitely keep an eye on him. Thanks for letting me know! · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Take Three Reminder: Dana Reeve
4/10/06 Just a friendly reminder for you to revisit the Dana Reeve page as you said you would and re-add the stuff that I put in (under both IP's) that you judge to be ok for the profile.
Your fellow Wikipedians are terrible. They scold me in the Talk thing for trying to slip in a reminder to your To Do list in your profile. If you guys are not tolerable to somebody slipping anything in, as minor as it was, then lock your profiles so that nobody else but yourselves can make changes to it so that if others like myself even think of wanting to add anything in it are not able to because it would be closed to outsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.154.35 (talk)
- It's not technically wrong, it's just better not to alter ppl's userpages because that's considered their space. --DanielCD 20:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
DreamGuy, I'm doing a major rewrite/expansion to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not revert my edits for the next 24 hours. I think you will be pleased with the final product.
The image at the top of the article can not stay there. Magazine covers should not be used in this manner. We can use it if it is moved lower on the page next to text about her hometown. We need to make reference to the magazine article about her. Of course, I plan to put a different image at the top of the page. After I find some images, I will let other editors choose their favorite for the top of the page. : ) regards, FloNight talk 17:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- I just got done asking you to give details on what you wanted to do before you did it, and you ignored it. Also, the image at the top of the article most certainly CAN stay there. You don;t understand how Fair Use works if you make that claim. DreamGuy 17:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- DreamGuy, the following policy/guidelines and discussions explain the reason that the current image at the top of Patricia Cornwell does not meet Wikipedia image use policy/guidelines. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria Wikipedia: fair use#Images Template:Fair use in Template talk:Magazinecover
- Also see a sample of the changes that I plan to make to Patricia Cornwell here. regards FloNight talk 12:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- You know, you would have more credibility if, instead of just listing off a bunch of policies, you actually READ them. There's absolutely nothing at all about your claim that a magazine cover at the top of the page "cannot be used" and magically can be used if lower down on the page. At this point you are just throwing policies out hoping you sound like you know what you are talking about. For the record, I am specifically pretty well educated on copyright laws, so your attempt to BS me isn't going to work. DreamGuy 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Especially under the circumstances, I gotta hand it to your sticking with it FloNight. Kudos 2 U. Herostratus 09:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Flonight, I'm too new to know if I'm doing this right, but thanks for the welcome and info.
Thanks, but no thanks...
For adding the "welcome" to my talk page, and the talk page itself.
I don't want a talk page, but I do appreciate the sentiment. I will keep it empty, and as soon as I can figure out how to delete it, I will do that (you could do me a favor and delete it for me, since you created it).
The animated graphic at the top of yours is interesting - it reminds me of my dissertation topic. It was about a problem in collaborative computer-mediated user interface technology. I hope you catch my drift.
There is plenty of collaboration in Wikipedia without me having a talk page. I value my privacy, and I prefer to balance it against my comments in this forum.
So, thanks, but no thanks.
Peace and love to you, Flo.
- JohnOneOne, you can remove my welcome as you choose. Some people keep them, some remove them. But I think everyone at Wikipedia needs to have a user talk page. You can expect to get plenty of messages if you are activley editing Wikipedia. It is the method that editors use to communicate with each other. Some of the messages, like behavior warning, are suppose to stay visible.
- If having a talk page is a big concern, I can refer you to someone else for their opinion. regards, FloNight talk 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Making pages for the newcomers again (shaking head back and forth). Man we need to get a leash on you before you do some real damage. --DanielCD 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm noticing that. --DanielCD 03:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- How dare you welcome users. Amongst the tribes of the N'kutu Islands, in the 13th century, new users were welcomed by writing "FUCK YOU!!!!!" across their talk pages in large font. Your failure to do this, and instead use Victorian-era nicey-nice so-called "welcome" messages just shows your cultural bias. Herostratus 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Don't mind me. You might find this interesting: WP:NOT EVIL. How badly will it be rejected, I wonder. 3-1? 4-1? Maybe I should start a pool. Herostratus 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- How dare you welcome users. Amongst the tribes of the N'kutu Islands, in the 13th century, new users were welcomed by writing "FUCK YOU!!!!!" across their talk pages in large font. Your failure to do this, and instead use Victorian-era nicey-nice so-called "welcome" messages just shows your cultural bias. Herostratus 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm noticing that. --DanielCD 03:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I need your help
Hi Flo, I have been working in harmony with Rjensen to ferret out the Progressivism template and we agreed on discussion - consensus agreement and then adding material. Will Beback has come along and interrupted this process; and refuses to follow our arrangements. What am I to do here? - God, can't that guy leave me alone for once or AGF and discuss with us. --Northmeister 00:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- FloNight, thanks for being a peacemaker. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Now hiring deletion?
Why did you delete my (and others') comments? --Kickstart70-T-C 18:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ryan4 and NPA
You beat me to it. I am losing count of how many times that's happened. I'm thinking next time I feel someone needs an NPA warning, I'll just check Special:Contributions/FloNight instead. (This is my back-handed way of saying Good job! Kudos! etc.) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Gracias
Thanks for your support. You can count on it being mutual.--Rockero 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for joining WikiProject Kentucky.
SCOTW
| File:Chemistry-stub.png | As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Week, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is Ammonia. You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name! |
Comment?
Hi FloNight. I wrote this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch#The downside of term expansionism. Does that change your thinking any, I was wondering.Herostratus 17:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Just another RFA thank you note
|
Dear Flo, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC) |
My RfA
|
Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk |
Roses for you
Nice meeting and talking to you. Please have some roses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/FloNight --Bhadani 07:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
rfa
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)