User talk:Tim!/Archive of doom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see User talk:TimPope/Archive1.47 for archived discussions.

1 GraemeL's RFA
2 Sean Black RfA
3 RfC
4 My RfC
5 My RfC - another thread
6 Synopses
7 BD2412's RFA
8 My failed RFA :)
9 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church
10 Category:Terrorists
11 Have I got news for you cats
12 Doctor Who audio releases
13 Hey...
14 Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Ar - Az)
15 Congratulations!

[edit] GraemeL's RFA

Hi TimPope,

I am now an administrator and would like to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was very surprised at the number of votes and amount of and kind comments that I gathered. Please don't hesitate to contact me if I mess up in the use of my new powers. Hope the HTML in this isn't messed up. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Bla ck 08:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I'll have a closer look over the weekend. It looks all right so far, but I'm sure there's more examples. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Similarly it looks good to me as well. It's worth noting that the user has also made a personal attack on me, though certainly not to the extent that Khaosworks seems to have received. I'm referring to his referring to me as a raving lunatic on his own talk page. However I do not know if someone placing an editorial comment of that nature on his own talk page violates a rule. I'll give it another look when I have the chance. 23skidoo 16:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Two points:

The above, about calling someone a lunatic, is a basic human right, regardless of WP policy.
I personally don't feel that addition of spec to articles is a ground for RfC. I don't do it to be disruptive - I honestly feel that it is interesting. 3RR, I still think I'm right, but that's your decision.

Yours with copious amounts of respect, humility, civility, but not copious amounts of reverts within 24hrs,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 16:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

All the above ignored, as a further comment to Tim, I note there is a reference to an image or something being created as a personal attack upon Khaosworks. I'm not familiar with this aspect of the situation, and I think for the purposes of RFC it might be helpful to include the image in question (which I take it was some sort of alteration of Khaosworks' userpage image). Has anyone archived it as evidence? 23skidoo 16:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

- Images can't be undeleted like pages. However, the comments about it are on AN/I somewhere, or IFD, I believe. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I signed it in the "other users" column as, to be fair, most of my "contribution" to this situation is pointing out what I feel to be bad behavior on his part. I can't claim to have tried to resolve the situation as Khaosworks et al have done. I see that the "raving lunatic" quote regarding me has been located. I'm tempted to add something about him adding a hidden message of sorts to my talk page, but I really don't know which category covers that. 23skidoo 23:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've approved the RfC. Sorry I couldn't chime in before it "went live"; I've just gotten home from Thanksgiving with my family out-of-state, and had only sporadic net access while I was away. I'm looking around to see if there is anything else that ought to be put on the RfC or its discussion page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfC

Take a glance at the expansion of my response here, please. Thanks,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfC - another thread

Cc: Khaosworks, Sean Black, Josiah Rowe, Snowspinner, 23skidoo

I know I'm not quite ready for an RfA yet, but since my RfC has been up for five days now, should it come down (especially since I'm away all weekend anyway).--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read Khaosworks' message on my talkpage (right above yours) you'll see he said about a week. Since it hasn't been edited for two days, I thought it could be shortened to 5 days. Also, I meant RfA as in adminship, it was an obscure literary technique called:

...a joke!--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 18:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synopses

Watching a Tom story a day is hard work, but someone's got to do it. ;) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BD2412's RFA

Thank you, TimPope, for your support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note green sig exchanged for new "admin gold" sig :-D}

[edit] My failed RFA :)

Dear TimPope,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomasine Church

You voted delete. See Saint Thomas Christians. Clinkophonist 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Terrorists

Hi Tim. You may be interested to note that Category:Terrorists is up for deletion here. Now might be a time to revive your proposed recategorisation into "prescribed groups" and "persons convicted of terrorism". Palmiro | Talk 04:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have I got news for you cats

Hi, I have asked for these to be listified on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 18 as I don't think it is practical to have categories for every tv/radio programme or film people may have appeared on. Thanks Arniep 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who audio releases

I wondered how long it would take the Doctor Who group on Wikipedia to assimilate my little contribution there. Oh, dang it, wrong sci-fi series reference. But "cyber-conversion" just doesn't have the same ring to it I'm afraid. :) --JohnDBuell 01:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If it were as easy as just "borging" (or cyber-converting) everyone though, we wouldn't NEED Wikipedia.... :) --JohnDBuell 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey...

Merry Christmas! I hope you're holiday is a good one, Tim, and I'm terribly glad that I get to see this the day after (I can thank the CBC for that one). Anyways, do be happy tommorrow and the days following.--Sean|Bla ck 07:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Ar - Az)

This article is part of a 43-page series and is clearly included in a sub-category of philately that fully explains what the purpose of all 43 articles is. Why have you added this one article in the series to the vast context category that even Wikipedia is complaining about? The context is in the title itself. It is a compendium of information about stamp issuers and as this page is Ar-Az, that would strongly hint that there are many more (42 more in fact).

I am removing your context category and I trust that in future when you decide to glance at something you don't understand and are not particularly interested in, you will look a little deeper before you waste other people's time. --Jack 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, this is not a bad idea but I wish you had written to me in the first place. I am receptive to suggestions but I hate have to deal with these Template:Xyz routines. No matter. I've added to each of the compendium pages the following introductory paragraph:

Each "article" in this category is in fact a collection of entries about several stamp issuers, presented in alphabetical order. The entries themselves are formulated on the micro model and so provide summary information about all known issuers. See the Category:Compendium of postage stamp issuers page for details of the project.

I think you're right that this does improve the articles and provides both an overview and a point of reference. Thanks very much for the idea. --Jack 07:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 21:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming an admin! -- Jbamb 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Man, I need to check RfA more often; I would've wanted to vote for ya. Oh, well... at least you're an admin anyways. Blackcap (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --King of All the Franks 13:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and all the best. --Bhadani 14:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Congratulations! Wish you the best!--ViolinGirl^♪ 15:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)