Dalbury's RfA edit
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 10:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks edit
 |
I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Deckiller, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks for your support! edit
|
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Finally, I agree with your thought that I shared my nomination with many good candidates. Hopefully we will all help Wikipedia become slightly better than before. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 19:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Sydney Roosters FAC edit
Hi Deckiller. I've noticed that a number of editors have recommended you in the past to do copyedits for certain articles with much success. At the moment, the Sydney Roosters nomination for featured article status is frozen pending somebody to do a thorough revision of the article to remove a number of grammar and prose errors. It's pretty close to being perfect, but as one of the writers of the article I find it very tough to find my own mistakes. If you could do the task that would be very much appreciated. Thanks, and all the best. --mdmanser 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
|
The Minor Barnstar | |
| I award this Barnstar to Deckiller for his small, but essential edits of Sydney Roosters to bring the article's quality to, hopefully, a general consensus of featured status. Many thanks for being so quick to the task as well. --mdmanser 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC) |
- Thanks for all the work you've done on the article. I'll take your advice and go over the article one last time to check for mistakes. I'm glad you found the article interesting, and I wish you all the best in the future! Keep in touch, thanks, --mdmanser 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, thanks for everything you've done to the article. I really appreciate all the work that's been done in the past couple of days. I'm going away tomorrow and I'm assuming all the concerns other editors have had are fixed, but if anything comes up do you think you might be able to take care of it? I should be back on 1 December, 2006 in case something big comes up. Thanks, --mdmanser 02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Your Empires Development section concern edit
I think the meaning might have changed in the first part. I probably made one too many internal passes in trying to condense it. Thanks for catching it. — TKD::Talk 08:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Roosters edit
Hi there. Well, maybe, but it's a pretty boring topic, isn't it? It's at the stage now where (if the em dashes are fixed), I won't be stressed if it's promoted. There are so many other articles that you could have a bigger impact on! Tony 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Help edit
I accidentally double redirected Empires old FAC and now I can't get the new one working. I know what I'm going to write but I can't get the FAC itself up and running. What am I doing wrong?--Clyde Miller 14:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind I got it, but you may have a good laugh if you look at the history (I moved it like 5 times and tried to speedy delete it before I got it right.)--Clyde Miller 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Episode IV edit
No problem at all. I have a particular writing style that doesn't always fit well with others'. I think in C++ more freely than I do in English. Actually, The Filmaker had asked me to help with copyediting as well, and so ANH was inserted in my queue after Empires. — TKD::Talk 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I hear you. If you're not feeling well, take a well-deserved wikibreak, dude. I'll be going over the entire ANH article soon, but probably not until sometime tomorrow night. I'm visiting my parents for Thanksgiving, and editing Wikipedia from their computer is painful. — TKD::Talk 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so hard on yourself. It is still eleven and a half times better than what I wrote. ;) I appreciate everything you've done for the articles I've worked on. The article's I'm working on now. And I hope the articles I'm working on in the future. :) The Filmaker 03:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Mergist edit
Merging overall isn't that fun of a task, but it's gotta be done. Some are extremely easy, some are impossibly difficult without knowing what the heck the article is talking about. What I'm shocked about are some merge tags have been on articles for over a year. I just have been going through every article listed on the September month merge backlog one by one to see what to do (I got up to 'H' before I decided to go back and work on 'A','B', and 'C' in more detail). I'm glad I'm not the only person working at it, since it has taken me a month just to get this far! Radagast83 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Honorary Browncoat! edit
In addition, your note on my page was the first indication that we'd made FA, so that was very exciting, thanks!
your advice? edit
Hi Tyler
As an admin, you might know how to change the title of an article. The one at issue is Eye movements, which, grammatically, should be "eye movement" (singular agglomerative). Lots of researchers have wrongly used the plural in their papers, which is one of my pet hates. I'm posting a note on the discussion page, but I think that no one will care two hoots if the title is changed.
How to do it?
Tony 11:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tyler! Tony 06:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, since I can't marshal myself to write a couple of refereed journal articles on my findings, I thought it was time to do it here. It will no doubt have a much larger audience here, and will get a top rank on Google. I'd have put my whole dissertation on the Internet, except that my hard disk died in 2001, taking with it the whole electronic copy of the dissertation and ... no back-up. Duh. Tony 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyediting edit
Please be more careful when copyediting -- especially when copyediting something sitting off the main page -- not to change the meaning of the text completely. In this edit, you changed
- The battle to put out the fire is considered to have been won by two key factors: the strong east wind dropped, and the Tower of London garrison used gunpowder to create effective firebreaks, halting further spread eastward.
to
- The battle to quench the fire is considered to have been won by two key factors: a strong easterly wind, and the Tower of London garrison used gunpowder to create effective firebreaks, halting further spread eastward.
(Bolding mine). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about the three wording issues; only one of them was intentional (I thought that the "wind dropping" meant that the wind began gusting; perhaps a slight reword there is called for clarification), whereas the other two I failed to fully reword due to wireless issues forcing me to save in haste. Please don't act so aggressively though; accidents happen, and I felt a little shakened that someone like you would act so aggressively. — Deckiller 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I thought "the wind dropping" was a widely-known phrase; I still do. That was the only edit I had a problem with, as you entirely reversed the meaning, something I refuse to be cheerful about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks edit
For copyediting Gradius V way back in August, I never did thank you so there it is :) Combination 12:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply edit
Tyler
I like the relatively flat hierarchy in WP, and this extra level would bring with it complications, I'm sure. Apart from anything else, some applicants take objection to what I and others say about their prose, and we don't want that to spill into systemic resentment (personal is bad enough!). The solution, I feel, is to encourage more word-nerds into the room. If I were retired, I'd spend lots of time doing it; but the opposite situation applies—increasingly, my research consultancy is making it hard to provide sustained input to the FAC and FAR/C rooms. That's why we need more folks. Tony 03:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thedrunkendiale edit
- I am wondering of this site could be considered an internet phenomena or not. I know it is rather popular and extremely humorous. It features a guy who holds a weekly contest offering $100 via PayPal to the individual who leaves him he best Drunk dialing message on his voicemail.
- I did not add this site to this article yet for fear that people would think I am self-promoting. I have no affiliation with the site and can’t find any direct marketing used to purchase products. I just think it is very funny and well known around my area.
- I look forward to some objective input before I add, or do not add this site to the list. Take a look for yourself, you be the judge…
- Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. (Would this apply?)
Thanks, 69.167.102.181
P.S. I posted the same message on User_talk:Wavy_G for more opinions. Look forward to hearing from you...
- I doubt it. The relevant criterion is Wikipedia:Notability (web), and from what I can see, the drunken dialer does not meet it. --Gwern (contribs) 03:46 3 December 2006 (GMT)