User talk:Adashiel

This user may have left Wikipedia. Adashiel has not edited Wikipedia since 1 November 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

• 23 September 2005 to 13 January 2006

This user is a mutant or member of the brotherhood userboxes have dumb images man! Is there any cool pic of Magneto/Mystique/Toad/Wolverine/Apocalypse which I can add.

I added 4 funny religions(See my user page) JEdi,Sith,Britney Worship and Apocalypse's religion.I intend to add more.

Can you tell me if those images are allowed.I want to make those userboxes I added my own unique user brotherhood box on MY userpage. I guess thats allowed Batzarro 04:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through 100s of pics to see which were good. Good ones all have copyright probs man.Batzarro

But i guess its no big deal if i keep em on my user page. Why can't we add sith and jedi as funny religions. Did you see my user page?

I worship britney-thats funny so is lord apocalypse Batzarro 08:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say the above! -- Dragonfiend 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stole the format for my userboxes from your user page. Hope you don't mind - I was having a helluva time trying to stack them all vertically on the right side of the page without them going all berserk (finally abandoned using the Babel format). Thanks :) TKarrde 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm impressed. I knew it wasn't totally complete but I had no idea it was missing over a hundred entries. I ought to start copying some over to Comixpedia. Nifboy 04:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY WON'T DO IT AGAIN

BYEBYE

HANKS FOR LETTEN ME KNOW

SORRY MY BIG BROTHER GOT ON AND MESSED IT ALL UP SORRY ANYWAY

Cheers for the talk template reverts. Can't say I ever expected it to be vandalised much . . . Slac speak up! 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reported vendalism by user DengXiaoPing (or Peng - sorry I am forgetting the spelling)on the Eastern Front page twice today. I noticed on his talk page he had a warning about this page prior to my report.

You responded that this is a content dispute rather than a case of vandalism. I agree in part, but only in part. I think it began as a content dispute, but this has gone on for a couple months. User Deng posts the same edit over and over, and reverts those who delete it. I think it is worth noting that a bunch of other editors have removed his edits; it isn't just me. Users Michael Z and Ksenon have also reverted identical edits from deng several times. Deng hasn't got a clue what he is writing about, which makes it doubly difficult to reason with him. You can see the consensus of edits is against him.

I guess I don't know when a content dispute, over the same content over and over, becomes vandalism, but this guy is ruining the article. I appreciate anything you can do to either block him or explain to me how this can otherwise be sorted out. DMorpheus 19:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are welcome regarding a change to the character bios. Bo-Lingua

Hi,

You reverted an anonymous spelling correction from "blackcurrent" to "blackcurrant". I don't know why; the 'a' spelling was correct, and reverting it to "blackcurrent" was shockingly poor form. Fourohfour 10:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. My mistake. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 10:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question vandalized List of billionaires (2005) at least three times after your warning to stop vandalizing March 3. User has been warned about vandalism 9 times, each time by a different user (see User talk:217.23.167.59). I think a block may be in order - the warnings aren't doing anything. -Parallel or Together? 12:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like the IP had gone inactive, but given the history, I decided to block for 24 hours, anyway. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I saw on the block log that you dealt with it, but next time could you let me know on my talk page? I don't exactly have your talk page on my watch list ;) In all seriousness though, thanks for dealing with the vandal, and I hope he or she won't be back in another 24 hours. Oh well. | | ⊕ ⊥ ? (t-c-e) 13:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I seem to be getting this a lot lately... Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 15:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea why I might be blocked. Seeing how I primarialy use this website from my high school, I share an IP adress with the entire school. Well, I herd through the grape vine that a freshman changed Thomas Jefferson's name within the Thomas Jefferson article to something along Thomas "Jungle Fever" Jefferson. This is probably one of many things that the students have done. More than likely, they are holding a chat within the Matoaca High School article disscussion. As much as it hurts me to say this, I think our IP address should stay blocked. Knowing the delinquits in this school, the vandalism would only persist and get worse, like some sort of virus. If you know of any way to block the IP but allow certain persons to be unaffected within the IP, I would be grateful to hear them.

Thanks Again

     OmniAngel

I was about to leave a warning on this user's talk page and I saw your warning. This user is continuing to vandalise, and I see you are an admin. Could you do the necessary please. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt action :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 17:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Appriciate it

OmniAngel 17:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little information- school starts at 7:30, ends at 1:45 (EST) OmniAngel 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a message won't work now that i think of it. Try leaving an edit in the Matoaca High page. They don't look at the IP page

Hello, an unknown person has done a copy/paste move in this page. Could you revert it please? Thanks.

• It looks like User:ShiningEyes beat me to it. That article is now a redirect to List of state mottos. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to my talk page are not justified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.70.185.49 (talk • contribs) .

• Context: There was a revert war over the talk page of this IP, and an appeal was made on WP:AIV. The user was removing warnings from the talk page, which is specifically defined as vandalism on WP:VAND. I did not believe the user's actions merited a block, but to maintain the integrity of the talk page, I felt semi-protection was necessary. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 10:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and looked at my userpage history, and noticed that it had been vandalized but you reverted it in December. Thank you for doing that; I never even noticed the vandalism. :) Sophy's Duckling 00:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:)Mikereichold 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adashiel, for your support of my RfA. If you ever need for anything, please contact me. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page, I guess that user was out for revenge after I reverted the same thing to other user pages. Thanks again! --Lightdarkness 23:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TFF redirected to star trek 5 before, so I just left it. 218.103.132.187 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake. I misread the history on the two articles. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid whoever this is from my school is at it again. I've written an e-mail to my sysadmin and I'm patiently awaiting a reply. I've got their contribs page bookmarked, hopefully in an effort to stem the vandalizations as quickly as possible. Other than a block, can you think of any other recourses? --^demon 17:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Abe, nice dovetailing at User talk:212.219.116.39, thanks very much! I hope we'll do such fine teamwork again some time. :-) P. S. I saw that "I" had "signed" one of the new vandal edits — very clever. The pasting of our template was a bit more sneaky than skilled, though. Bishonen | talk 18:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed that you gave a final warning to the user here: [1]. They've vandalized the strip club article, as I mentioned on the same page. Just thought you'd like to know. I guess this school needs to be followed around eh? --Tyciol 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry didnt know what i was doing:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.123.94 (talk • contribs)

ok thanks i'll read up just joking around man

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. --BadSeed 20:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what does it mean if i am blocked?64.178.244.37 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't sure how it worked, and then I realized that it was for everybody...I took it off upon realizing my mistake. please forgive me.

Oh will you, please sprotect User talk:216.185.128.200's page? — Moe ε 04:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's not the first IP address talk page I had requested be protected today. Can't we all just get along? :-( lol — Moe ε 04:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. While I respect your decision about keeping the block, it is probably impossible to get the network to track down those responsible. For a while, though, I thought I was the guilty vandal. Duinemerwen 21:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible for people to reverse the block on themselves anyways, on the Wikipedia Blocking Policy Page? Duinemerwen 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm doing this right (it's my first time). I wanted to thank you for your work. I saw that you took care of some vandalism in the 6th amendment article, and thought it might be nice to show my appreciation. Nazimkaraca

Could you please delete everything off my WECoyote Userpage for me? I've throwed my hands up and I'm walking away. I have given up. I have had nothing but problems every since I first came to wikipedia. I will do all in my power to get others to avoid wikipedia. They don't need the hassle. --WECoyote 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not going to raise a big stink about this, but your closing of that AfD was a bit irregular. Three comments to keep, one by a user who created the article and admitted he was biased, and one of those keep comments your own, it really would have better to let someone else close it. Unless you were pretty sure what their decision would be... --W.marsh 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, like I said, I have no intention of pressing this anywhere beyond a simple discussion with you. I just think you need to reconsider closing AfDs like that in the future. How would it have looked if I'd closed it as a delete? It just isn't a good idea for people who've participated in an AfD and have a clear bias to be closing them. -W.marsh 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as far as I'm concerned you've just gained serious karma by trying to see my point of view and not being stubborn about it. I honestly hope I can be as graceful if somone comes to be with a problem over my admin behavior... it's never fun to get called out. --W.marsh 02:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply earlier,but thanks for the block. He was getting annoying.--Jay(Reply) 03:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your apology. The IP you blocked was the Australian Parliament, so goodness knows who else you blocked. There must be a more selective way of dealing with vandalism. Adam 14:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fighting vandals and blocking trouble users, but please be aware that blocking a massively shared IP address for anything more than 3 hours is not good as it affects lots of registered users. violet/riga (t) 14:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real solution of course is that anonymous persons should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Adam 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one you can block right now: 212.33.137.62 (see Franklin D. Roosevelt. Adam 14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're being treated unfairly 85.250.102.83 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I am not familiar enough with the Abramoff matter to make much comment, but I do urge you to bring your case to the link I provided on Kate's page. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did, but I highly doubt that it will do any good. The editors on the abramoff page and the admins that they have on their side want their say to be the ONLY SAY. So there is little chance we will get a fair shake on this. But since they have blocked the page any interested reader will be able to see that our edits were reasonable. And the fact that the page is blocked just shows how we were bullied by the blockers.62.0.142.2 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to revert[2] recent vandalism to my userpage :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, about your Wikipedia test on OKCupid. Does it, by design, never let anyone score higher than 75%, just in case we were feeling too secure in our wiki-skills? :) Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must've gotten it when it was feeling mean. I went back and cheated with the answer key after the first test, and still got 75%. If I were you, I'd come up with a story about how it's a moral lesson regarding human imperfection :x I got a kick out of the test, though ;)

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 11:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please let us have our fun, we're in a boring class and several students will get a kick out of seeing thomas 'humongus' jefferson

Will you please have my babies?

I noticed you had temp-blocked my school board NAT. Thanks. We've got some real losers (from the C++ class even! they're supposed to be smart people), and I for one don't contribute from school. Please go ahead and block us again as soon as someone starts vandalizing. (And if it's serious, please leave a note on my talk page, so I can ask the network people to ask the principal to chide whoever did it.) --Geoffrey 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, really? I could really get blocked? Are you sure? I think that you might be mistaken. That's not my interpretation of the WP blocking policy. Thanks!

Please, the Haitian Transportation Sensation exists for the good of mankind. Do not try to stop us.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Sorry I haven't replied for so long; I never even noticed it had changed :). Thanks again, -Xol 00:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for noticing. I just learned about the comic yesterday, and I'm not much of a Russian reader. I'll leave a note on the talk page. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-02-20 16:36 Z

No longer applies, as this comic's article has been deleted. Also, I am leaving Wikipedia. Why should I stay in a community that allows such a huge log of deletions to take place? It's not so much the deletion of the article (it only ever drew 30 hits, a sign that no one wants to bother coming here looking for webcomics), but the fact that this is going on with over a DOZEN other comic's articles, and how happy everyone seems to be over it. Congratulations, your community has lost another article writer and webcomic browser. I'm going to look at Comic Genesis or Comixpedia, now. After February 28, I will no longer come here. Apologies to Adashiel and any one else that might care. --Videowizard2006 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some heavy vandalism from him on Lay's.

His edit log

Basically he randomly put in example images as a form of vandalism.

--RobbieFal 19:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its right some webcomics are being deleted from wikipedia, I use wikipedia because it has raw information, who is deleting entries???

www.hugoballz.com

First, kudos for the edit summary using Newspeak. Second, I understand your issue with relisting, and although there's been some discussion of on the page since it was my prompting I though I might expand on it here a bit.

The last time I asked for a discussion to be extended^{[citation needed]} it went to a clear delete, which could be seen as me angling to get this deleted as well. But really, if extendig the debate gets that result, isn't that consensus a desirable outcome no matter what our personal feelings are? Even if the currect AfD goes to no consensus, it will be a more convincing no consensus, if that makes sense. Multiple nominations make for messy cases. An example: Elf Only Inn Afd 1 Afd 2 Afd 3

In a more radical vein, if something had gone to a certain number of participants and was still a "no consensus" I'd like to see an "intermission" where the arguments to date are summarised and the floor is opened again "fresh" as it were. Just thinking aloud, really, but we've already got CSD and PROD to help clear out the easy stuff, so we should be able to have better debates on the ones left over...

brenneman^{T}{L} 05:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks the vandals will be handaled thanks Betacommand 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holi greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2006. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to kindly give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abeil. How dare you accuse me of writing that profanity.

Howdy. Did you mean to remove the PROD tag from Jew (disambiguation)? It may not have been a well-formulated PROD request, but it was valid; that disambig page doesn't really disambig anything useful (see Talk:Jew#"Jew (Disambiguation)"), and I suspect it was created as a joke. I'd like to re-add the PROD tag if that's okay with you; technically I can't since it's been removed once. Thanks, android79 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in awe that you would accuse me of writing such profane items. My dog must have been typing while i was in the other room. Please apologize as I will see fit my dog gets whipped to a bloody pulp.—This unsigned comment is by Habe (talk • contribs) .

• [3], [4], and [5] were made from this account. In response, I issued a bv-n warning. If someone else hijacked the User:Habe account and made those edits, I recommend changing your password and never stay logged in to Wikipedia while your computer is unattended. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick action reverting vandalism on my Userpage! I greatly appreciate it. --TeaDrinker 02:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So there really are some people who care about the webcomics medium here!

I was so disappointed when I first logged on... I found so much resistance from people who seemed to not only "not care" about webcomics etc, but actually seemed to be AGAINST them...

I just checked your userpage, and it did give me some hope... I was thinking of only bothering with non-webcomics articles in the future, because of the whole attitude I saw here (my first edit involved the main "webcomics" article to include self-referential ones - at least Checkerboard Nightmare remained there, it's really an important comic even today, regardless of the fact that Straub updates it only "when there's something to say").

I just joined today, but I thought highly of wikipedia long before I did, and was disappointed with the community soon after I joined... At least now I know it's not everyone...

Still, I think I will be editing non-webcomics articles here from now on (there's always comixpedia), i just wanted to say thanks for "restoring my faith in mankind" for the day. BunnyDee 14:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Would you please block this guy again, he's been vandalizing. Thanks. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 10:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...whom you've blocked thrice has returned using 128.146.94.250 to vandalize Melissa Lafsky once again. What can we do against him? - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's Ohio State University? Or the State of Ohio? It's cool how you were able to trace that. The world of computer guts is unknown to me. It's strange, most vitriol directed in Lafsky's direction comes from laywers at NY firms which she ridicules, not from law school students.... Thank you very much. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another incarnation: 65.60.141.152. He's coming after Meegs, who reverted his vandalism. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 23:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

More goodies. 65.60.141.152, a twice-blocked twin of 128.146.94.227, is back at it. Thank you. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about, but as this IP is coming up as mine, I can say very clearly that I've never posted or edited on Wikipedia EVER, prior to this response. I find it very offensive to be looking up information and to suddenly be greeted with some kind of silly threat like this. And in fact this computer has not even been in operation for months. If you're going to be some assholish watchdog, be clear about who you're accusing. And for the record I don't have a wiki account because I don't post/edit/anything other than read articles.

(Reposted from Umlaut House Talk Page)

A previous (pretty much yeaterday) commucation with him (Author) says he is aware of the article.. does that count as permission to use the bios? if not maybe i Could Contact Allan Ecker and get permission so that Wikipedia could use the bios would that help?

From:      allan_ecker
To:     KaiAdin
Posted:         Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:45 pm
Subject:        Re: Umlaut House on Wikipedia   
I have not monitored the Wikipedia entry, but at last check the bios did not include any incorrect
information, although of course I know waaaaay more than is in there.

-- KaiAdin 10:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

KaiAdin 00:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 07:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Adashiel. You have marked the SopeGirls section, pointing out something I had never realized before. When I made the SopeGirls section, It was mainly because they have quite a fan listing for their site, and have hit several high ranks on webcomic listing sights. It accrued to me, that those who view the comics, or those who hear about the sope girls, may know nothing of the group at all, or how they got started. It would be very easy to say "Just Wikipedia sopegirls, you will find all the information you need." I am trying to keep the article with as much redolence to other articles on Wikipedia, keeping with the Wikipedia spirit and style. What is it about the article that needs to be added to keep it on Wikipedia? What do we need to make it? I checked all the articles you sent me, and quickly saw on the Web section, that the group is not "big time" But they are quickly grow in all skill, talent, and popularity.

Please let me know what I can do to keep this article up.

I have reposted a checkuser request for Repartee and all the sockpuppets. I'm not sure what course of action can be taken, though. Block the school and IP from account creation, and perhaps affect other legitimate users? -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for reverting. But he's right. I couldn't get into a better law school, I have crummy job prospects, and I do have a boatload of debt :) lol - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 16:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast. Good revert. thanx.--Tomstoner 18:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time and consideration. I Will just have to wait a couple of years to see if they are still going, and if they are, and have won several rewards, Then I will try again, But until then, there is always room to go. At least they are not a dead comic. And thanks for the other site! I will deffanantly consider adding them to it.

I wanted to say that your name drifts across my watchlist with admirable regularity. The edits that you make on tracking with the webcomics project is good solid wikiwork. Thanks for taking on the thankless tasks, and doing a great job at. - brenneman^{L} 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that the comic is too young, that's fine and I won't add any more and allow it to be deleted. I will add it to the Comixpedia, and perhaps when it's a bit more established I'll put it back here ;o) Teraspawn 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on my user page. It took that guy long enough to come after me. I blocked him way back in January. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 23:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That guy really didn't like you... =) -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 17:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adashiel, I recently discovered that Tick Acey is on his 20th comic. I think you should update the deletion reason now, for he has at least twenty comics. Thanks, Comic Master.

• 20 episodes is still a tiny number. Most of the webcomics we do have articles for have hundreds and even thousands of strips. In any case, it's not just the number of strips, it's also about how well-known it is. Do a Google search on "Tick Acey" and exclude Wikipedia results and you get five returns. See WP:WEB for our notability guidelines to get an idea of what it takes to make it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article 'Blademaster' which was deleted had seven comics, not one. 'The Bldaemaster' is either a completely different character, placing it, not Blademaster, at one, and if it is the same character, placing him at eight.

• Why didn't you bring this up in the AfD itself? You could've done that, you know. It still wouldn't have enough to meet our WP:WEB guidelines, which is orders of magnitude more important than the number of strips. However, if you want to try resurrecting the article on WP:DRV, you can. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page itself saying that is was either a continuation, or a completely different character to 'The Blademaster'. Will try resurect.

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

You deleted my creation! Something that was actual and factual!!!U Un-delete it of prepare to face my wrath!

Sorry I was so mad. But why did you delete my page that took me 5 days to complete. And I read your webcomics page and we are not included. In 2 weeks I will remake the page and If you delete it I will contact that other anti vandalism guy.

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 14:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I don't know how to move it back to "Super Toad". And if you did can you change it so it meets the standards?

AD, but what of the low Alexa rank (273,809)? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an undelete request Here. I propose to give this article another chance at life. P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 00:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, dear Adashiel, but could you please block User:Sang0123 as impostor of User:Sango123? You're the first admin I see online, so please, again, sorry to bother you over this. Cheers, User:Phaedriel - 18:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thx Adashiel :) Have a nice day! User:Phaedriel- 18:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am still new to many of the features of Wikipedia, I am not totally sure if I am writing this message in the correct place. I persume this is the right place to write the message, but I apologise if it is not.

I have recently been given a message stating that I have been adding "nonsense" to Wikipedia. I depend upon Wikipedia as a useful tool to research certain topics, and to generally browse. I may edit certain pages, especially to correct mistakes and update information on pages regarding soon-to-be-released albums; however I would never delierately vandalize a page, I despise people who carry out this unhelpful act, and I completely resent the fact that I am an accused of being a perpetrator.

I understand that I may have received a message that did not apply to me, due to the sharing or changing of IP adresses; and if this is the case, I apologise for the angry tone of this message. I have created an account, in order to avoid such a misunderstanding. However if this is not the case, I would like please more details regarding the alledged vandalism, in order to therefore edit any unintentional "nonsense", and resolve the issue.

I appreciate Wikipedia, and also the work that you put into making it a reliable source of information.

Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rabbibri (talk • contribs) .

• I'm afraid without more context, I can't comment on this message. I would need to know the specific IP address you were using when you saw the warning message. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TIN_The_Incompetent_Ninja -- I believe these are both unreferenced vanity articles, and merging them together won't fix that. -- Dragonfiend 03:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably speedy the page, the author of the article has voted it to be deleted, and you are the only other significant contributor. It should fall under CSD G7. - Hahnchen 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I thought about it and will recommend a speedy, but since I'm the nominator it's best if another admin actually closes it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love and Marriage - 00:03, 24 May 2006 Aaron Brenneman (Closed - delete)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion - 00:12, 24 May 2006 Adashiel (→Deletion - Love and Marriage deleted)
This is yet another in my series of notes appreciating the work that you do. And quickly, too! - brenneman ^{L} 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted the Bench 37 article. I can understand your claims that it is nothing but a vanity article, but would like to dispute that. I simply like to keep a running summary of the comics history in an easily readable, editable, and accessable format. Wikipedia is all that and more. Yes, I am the comic's author, but I have tried my hardest to write from a neutral point of view. I would like to assure you that writing this article was not an attempt to make myself a Greg Dean or Scott R. or Brian Clevinger. If you would like to continue this discussion, please write back. If you still want to delete the article, I will grudgingly accept your decision. You are an admin, and you must be an admin for a reason. I just wanted to make every effort possible to work something out in a mature fashion before it came to something like that.

oh, I know WP Vanity isn't an insult. besides, i am rather vain. However, I took no offense to your opinion of the article. I'll continue in the more official fashion you've provided. thanks.

Thanks for sorting out that vandal... you saved me the effort of listing him for intervention. -- Chris Lester ^talk 18:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a problem. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comment on my talk page. It's always nice to see that big orange banner saying I have a new messag eon my talk page, and not have it be personal attacks because I voted to delete an article! -- Dragonfiend 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've e-mailed the author looking for mentions in reliabel sources. - brenneman ^{L} 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just make it up? Give me a reference. Where, in any article about WP policy or guidelines, is this distinction made? Sbharris 21:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. By your own definition (which you still have not given me a reference for) WP:V and WP:RS are what you call mainspace articles. Perhaps you're confused by the

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut WP:RS

box or the similar one for "policy"? Anybody can delete these, or put similar ones in any Wiki. It does not mean that all that appears there is automatically policy or guideline. It just means what appears there is whatever a bunch of people have gotten used to, and nobody is left who is willing to get into an edit war over anything substantially diffenent. There is no official statement from Wikipedia on either of these matters. That's in your imagination, sorry. Feel free to prove me wrong. I'd like to see it, of course. Sbharris 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am now educated on the various spaces of WP. However, my point I'm afraid still stands. WHO decided that policy on wikis should apply only to n.0 wikis, and no others? We have no verifiable reference for it. Perhaps when the policy was crafted, it was meant to exempt Talk and User papers and nobody thought about n.4 material-- epecially material which is treated exactly like main Wikis, as witness the redirect. We don't know, and THAT is the problem which I'm tying to get addressed. But being blocked by you. I'm asking you to give it more thought.

The main problem is there is no way of knowing where eny given Wiki policy or guideline comes from. Too often, policies are assumed to eminate from Wales himself, but I find after checking that this is almost never the case. A standard of verifiability on policy and guideline wikis would clear such things up. Thus, the {citation} tag on WP:V is fully appropriate, and I ask you return it. It makes people think, and that is its purpose. Perhaps you yourself have never thought about the exact origin of specific Wiki policies and guidelines, and are just now doing so? Sbharris 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a pass on this one. You've got some good points, but learning to live with the chaos that is Wikipedia is just part of getting the job done. Wikipedia is not unlike a giant herd of cats, and quite a few of them are rabid, so a fluid and highly malleable framework is pretty much the only way to do things. Policies and guidelines pop into existence seemingly from out of nowhere all the time. If they work, we run with them. If they don't, we run over them. It's just not something you can pin down with citations. We leave that for the content itself. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I quote you the next time somebody reverts one of my edits on the basis of some statement in a Wiki on a policy or a guideline, which is being taken as Holy Scripture? Really, exactly what you just said above needs to be stated somewhere in WP:RULES. So why not be bold and insert it? I like it. Sbharris 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm basically just paraphrasing WP:IAR. That's not to say we don't have persistent rules, some of which are very stringent, but tracking their progress and documenting them thoroughly? I can't imagine how you'd do it. I can't imagine why you'd do it. I mean, I let Fluffy out at night and when she comes home, there she is, but lord knows where she's been. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out WP:IAR. I feel much better.Sbharris 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right this article needs work. After taking a look at this and trying to think about how to best rewrite it, I'm leaning towards merging it (cutting most of it) and redirecting it to Svetlana Chmakova . I'd rather have one decent article than two stubs that are redundant. What do you think about this strategy in this case in particular and in general? -- Dragonfiend 02:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like we're in general agreement. Though, obviously, it would be a bad idea to merge all webcomics sub-stubs into one single article on Minor webcomics. Not that it hasn't crossed my mind on some days. ;) -- Dragonfiend 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the webcomics project. It's good to see. I notice that webcomics articles are problematic with regard to notability. I have made a suggestion on the project talk page. Probably unworkable... But, anyway. Regards SilkTork 08:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your policy against Red Links on this List, but you deleted my entry before I could even submit an article about Dungeon Crawl Inc. I've sent it in now, so the link shouldn't be red for much longer. Thanks Mirage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.234.100.106 (talk • contribs) .

• When the article gets created, it can be re-added to the list. However, to keep the list manageable, we remove red links on sight, no exceptions. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 15:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, and if you want to get rid of it, I demand a proper AfD vote. --Kitch 12:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all the information and made it a stub, what is wrong with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JTMILLER (talk • contribs) .

Also as i responded to you on my talk page i had the permission of the creator of the site as he is my friend! --JTMILLER 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a webcomic or a flash animation or both. It's been deleted already, but I wasn't sure if it should be in the webcomics project's archive of deleted articles or not. Thoughts? -- Dragonfiend 05:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this protection! This is a webcomic that has many readers (just check out the forums for the comic (http://forum.explosm.net/) and should have an article on it, like many webcomics do. The archived CfD on this article showed that it was voted for deletion due to lack of "unique google hits", which has absolutely NO basis for creating new articles. bernlin2000 ∞ 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have brought this article to deletion review (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Cyanide_and_Happiness) I would appreciate support to at least allow the article a chance to be written, I don't understand the animosity towards the strip, it seems personal. bernlin2000 ∞ 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a number of webcomic author articles that don't cite any sources. I'm tagging them for verification. I know you take an interest in webcomic articles... is there a wikiproject for these articles? I'm not trying to get these deleted... I just want to see them sourced. I honestly am not overly interested in the topic, so if there is a group who is more knowledgable and can source these, I'd like to make them aware of the problem.--Isotope23 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks!--Isotope23 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think we're actually in agreement that only the most significant comics should be covered by wikipedia. It may be true that your ideas for inclusion covers maybe 5% of all webcomics and mine covers only 4%, or that your "Big league" encompasses quite a bit of my "minor league." As I'm sure you know well by now, I think the best way to make this encyclopedia useful and spam-free is to require that articles be based on reliable sources. I don't want to assume that the comics i read are important just becuase they are important to me or my firends. Sometimes I feel like your inclusion criteria is based more on feelings than facts, and this occasioanlly frustrates me. You do lots of other plainly great work here, but some of your AfD comments about what you "feel to be a notable subject" and how you "believe a subject is sufficiently important for an article" just seems to encourage the atmosphere of "Keep, I love this comic" we see from others. I don't know, does that make sense? I mean, like with the more minor webcomics on Keenspot, I see no reason why Wikipedia needs to host their lengthy character bios and episode guides if no reliable publication has ever even mentioned them. -- Dragonfiend 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict identification and resolution on Wikipedia as an administrator we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=201962477432 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time. Parc wiki researcher 01:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] PARC User Interface Research Group

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cyanide and Happiness. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

SqueakBox was blocked in August 22 until September 28, 2006. It can be found in his block log. As can be seen here, SqueakBox is accessing the Wikipedia after his ban from the address 63.245.13.229, that he claimed to be his real IP address before being blocked (here The 'SB' there means SqueakBox as it's easy to see). Hagiographer 06:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's been already solved. Hagiographer 07:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the original reason for deletion, but my suggestion and argument is that the original article didn't contain completely accurate or complete information, and shouldn't have been listed as a webcomic at all. I've made a more detailed explanation here: Talk:Pon_And_Zi (with relevant reference links). Just to be clear I'm not spamming, I'm letting you know that I'm also leaving this exact same message with King of Hearts, another admin involved in the Pon And Zi deletion.

-- 68.79.49.40 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you sent that vandalism message to the wrong person. I have not visited any WWI article, much less even edited any article in the last 4 months. If I wished to edit anything, I would have logged on as my account Nerion. I'm not pointing fingers, but please be sure you have the right person before you send off a vandalism note. --66.109.234.187 Nerion 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no mistake. The warning message dates back to October of last year and at the time it was indeed vandalizing. No doubt the IP address has cycled to a different computer since then. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know alot of people avoid editing others user pages, but i wanted to say thanks for taking the time to do so! --Quadraxis 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Verifiability asserted in the second post from Ghastly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have proccessed the AfD with a withdrawn verdict. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you close this AfD early? The nominator had changed his mind, but several other users had voted to delete and had not changed theirs. This was out of order; early closures should be reserved for cases where there is near unanimity and where it is obvious what the outcome will be, which clearly was not the case here. It is also somewhat impolite to close a debate that you yourself had participated in. Please do not do this again: arbitrarily deciding that the voices of many of those participating in a discussion shall not be heard is hardly in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. — Haeleth Talk 10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator withdrew the AfD and provided links as to why he didn't feel the discussion should continue. In such cases it is customary to end the AfD. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Just letting you know that I've prodded Reprographics. If you feel that the comic does indeed meet the web content notability guidelines (WP:WEB), please add the necessary information to the article. Thanks! --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've just prodded A Modest Destiny as it doesn't seem to meet the web content notability guidelines. If you could take a look at it, that would be awesome. Thanks! --Brad Beattie (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if Twisted Kaiju Theater could be upgraded from having a "Start" level tagged to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shin-Goji (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I understand why some of the paragraphs might be deleted, but I feel the one there now deserves to stay. It has a credible citation and is entirely factual and proven. The reason I used a forum as a citation for the other was because it was concerning that forum, though I understand the deletion.

Also, it's probably worth adding that my IP has been banned from the CAD forums since I made those edits, despite the fact I've never even had an account there <.<

Regards,
Gordon - SouperAwesome 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

I sincerely apologize for AfDing Ghastly's Ghastly Comic without checking for notability. If that were done, I would have not done the AfD, and everyone would be happy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dude I'm in a network i have not edited anything. geez. stupid new admins. when i edit i use my account because i am also an administrator. For longer than you have been.

what i supposedly vandalized

• Apparently you are posting anonymously from a shared IP address. Therefore you will see warnings meant for other people. Why are you contacting me about this, though? The last time I left a warning for this IP address was over a year ago. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just took it, scored 96%. Wonder where I lost four marks, seeing as the questions were all very simple and I've been here longer than you have. ;) You probably want to add more esoteric questions to it next, like asking what the Arbcom is or what certain TLAs stand for. (IAR would be a good start.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adashiel. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adashiel, unfortunately I need to ask you for some guidance on the Ctrl+Alt+Del talk page. Recently a few editors, apparently working as a team, have been attempting to add the same "criticism" issues which have plagued the page for months now, with the same old forum-post sources, which I believe violate both WP:V and WP:BLP. I have attempted to remove the links which were previously ruled by SGGH as unsuitable, and have also attempted to discuss this issue with the editors, both on the article talk page, and on their individual talk pages. Now however it has gone past a content dispute, and one user in particular, Alphus Omegus, has openly accused me of bad faith, both on the talk page and on my personal talk page. I certainly do not intend to edit the page in bad faith, only with the intention to make sure that the information conforms to WP:BLP, especially considering the extremely serious nature of the accusations. I feel it is of the utmost importance that something like that be backed up with proper sources. If you could provide me with some advice on how to handle it, or a review of the situation, I would very much appreciate it. Thrindel (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Emily Horne has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Emotionally disturbed sex worker whose main press coverage comes from serial bigamy. Fails WP:PORNBIO and specialized guidelines generally; while there is press coverage, fails the GNG under WP:NOTNEWS. Many BLP issues.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You edited this in the past. What is your opinion of the AfD? Bearian (talk)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ctrl+Alt+Del. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tim Buckley (artist). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Buckley (artist) (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jerkcity. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerkcity (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 16:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2011#September 2011

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno^talk 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elf Life, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Life until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bruno the Bandit, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno the Bandit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]