| Revision as of 21:54, 16 January 2008 editHalfShadow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,876 editsm Says the IP with the single edit. Not brave enough to log on?← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:08, 16 January 2008 edit undo68.244.78.95 (talk) →Your RfA: Additude issues after unsuccessful RfA attempt by HalfShadow (note previous edits this page)Next edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| This is just to say that I hope that you bounce back from this and come back as an even stronger candidate next time round. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing you at work around the 'pedia and please do let me know if I can be of any assistance, or if you see me making mistakes. With very best wishes, ]] 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | This is just to say that I hope that you bounce back from this and come back as an even stronger candidate next time round. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing you at work around the 'pedia and please do let me know if I can be of any assistance, or if you see me making mistakes. With very best wishes, ]] 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Your RfA == | |||
| Unfortunately unable to log on at this location, and using what I believe is a dynamic IP. I do offer the following: | |||
| # Your edit summary ] here is not what would be expected of an Admin. I restate, when you understand this (which you do not at this time) you will be ready for Adminship. | |||
| # Your revert of my comment is fair. Your edit summary here is again inappropriate. If replying to a Troll, you would be taunting the subject and surly opening up the project to further harm. If replying to an established editor, you are just plain uncivil. | |||
| # Your actions reflect credit on the RfA process in filtereing out those that are unsuitable for the mop.] (]) 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:08, 16 January 2008
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 02 days are automatically archived to User talk:HalfShadow/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
George W. Bush talk page edit summary
Classic. You have my respect. 
Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Cookie
Per your request on my talk page. An admin aims to please. (Someone else will have to handle the chocolate milk, though.) User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward5b
Sheridan College
And according to this, which I only just found, it is the second largest. But, what the Hell is that even based on? I am so confused!!! http://www-acad.sheridanc.on.ca/BUSM25315/bruzzeda/indexj.htm
Sheridan College Followup
Ah, don't worry about it. Thanks, all the same!
Smile!
This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions
Huh?
Are you really claiming that this is your edit? Corvus cornixtalk 05:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I knew that wasn't you. I'll retract my comments. Corvus cornixtalk 05:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
One of my edit summaries earlier tonight was "wtf?" :) Corvus cornixtalk 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page will be or has been created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/HalfShadow . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.Let me know when you've answered the questions on your RfA page and I'll get the nomination started. Try to make your answers as thorough as possible. You can see how others have answered them at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. Good luck. Epbr123 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Traycee King
You sure about this? They look like good faith edits to me. Jfire (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Crap...
Man, I missed it! :) Jmlk17 09:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Prods
Hi there - Misplaced Pages:PROD#Conflicts says that once a prod notice has been removed, even in bad faith, it shouldn't be readded: instead, the article should be taken to AfD. Once an AfD notice is on the article, it must stay there and repeatedly removing an AfD notice can lead to a block (as I noted when declining to block the user in question earlier). I suggest you change your prod to an AFD. Regards, Bencherlite 10:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Err, there isn't. {{uw-afd1}} etc are warning notices for removing {{Afd}} notices from articles, not prods. I'm surprised you didn't know / didn't spot the difference. Bencherlite 10:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
This is just to say that I hope that you bounce back from this and come back as an even stronger candidate next time round. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing you at work around the 'pedia and please do let me know if I can be of any assistance, or if you see me making mistakes. With very best wishes, Bencherlite 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
Unfortunately unable to log on at this location, and using what I believe is a dynamic IP. I do offer the following:
- Your edit summary ] here is not what would be expected of an Admin. I restate, when you understand this (which you do not at this time) you will be ready for Adminship.
- Your revert of my comment is fair. Your edit summary here is again inappropriate. If replying to a Troll, you would be taunting the subject and surly opening up the project to further harm. If replying to an established editor, you are just plain uncivil.
- Your actions reflect credit on the RfA process in filtereing out those that are unsuitable for the mop.68.244.78.95 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)