User talk:Eluchil404/Archive2

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia. With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you. (Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp laudare 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Winhunter's RfA thanks

Hi Eluchil404, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful today with a finaly tally of (56/0/3). I will be very careful at first to avoid any mistakes. Please feel free to leave a message in my talk page if you have any comments/suggestions about me in the future. Once again, thank you! --WinHunter (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Barny Boatman Good Article nomination

Hi, thanks for the time you took to review my GA nomination. I have added fair use rationales to the images used on the page. I have also added fair use rationales to the images contained within the pages on Ross Boatman and Ram Vaswani, who both are also in the queue of GA-nominated articles. I hope this helps. Essexmutant 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Article reviewing

Sorry to bother you, but I keep coming across articles which have been passed with no commentary on the talk page, and I keep seeing your name in the history saying "Looks good". We're having a bit of a problem now with reliability of reviews, especially on long articles, and many of us have been seeing long articles which have just had the tag slapped onto them even when their really quite bad articles, so could you please try to leave comments on the actual talk page when you pass articles, it's much harder to determine whether somebody has actually reviewed them according to the GA standards otherwise. Homestarmy 13:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just edited the comment thing, you can use the history to read what it said before, but basically all people needed to do was add some sort of comment onto the talk page itself about passing the article. It was sort of ambiguous, so you could technically just say "This is a Good Article", and you still can because, well, it is admittedly sort of weird to list all the criteria when there's nothing actually wrong with the article, but after that we put in parenthesis to maybe leave a helpful comment or two if people can. What I at least was expecting was that if an editor passes an article, they've probably examined it, and probably spotted one or two things that look wrong to him/her, so people would normally make a short suggestions or two. But it was just weird looking because you wern't leaving comments, and just anything will do, just something to let people know that the article was examined, maybe offer a few suggestions if you like, etc. etc.. Looking through the history to find who added the GA stamp is sometimes hard when nobody makes a new comment on the talk page :/. Homestarmy 15:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reviewing Technomancer Press and providing great comments. I've revised the article according to your suggestions, and have renominated it. You were so thorough last time, I'd love to have you look it over again. I think your reviewing skills are strong, and that's going to make the article the best it can be. Thanks again! Archer904 08:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

film notability

Hi. Congrats on the guideline. This is really good and is nice and simple when you compare it say to WP:BK (and I feel I can say that since I was very involved in writing that!). Anyhoo, you should probably try and give this proposal more exposure through the village pump. I feel like this particular guideline could actually receive swift approval from the community. Cheers. Pascal.Tesson 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, Eluchil404, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but I hope you will let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- Merope Talk 13:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

GA nom

Thanks for bringing my two noms into the light of day :) Judgesurreal777 02:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA

I would be honored to accept a nomination. However, I'm unsure about the potential for its success, as while I have participated in XfD debates regularly in the past, I have been busy with other things, and have not done so in quite sometime. I'm sure that this is only one of many factors, and if accepted, would vow to bring my XfD participation up to and beyond its previous levels. -- NORTH ^talk 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I am more than happy to accept a nomination. Finishing the to-do list on my user page that came about after WP:SRNC is my priority, but once I'm done with that in about a week or two, expect me to get back to XfD and other admin-type activities like there's no tomorrow. -- NORTH ^talk 03:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for setting it up. Unfortunately, I have to go offline for a moment. There's a small chance I'll answer the questions and whatnot in about 2-3 hours; if not, I'll do it tomorrow morning (Pacific time). -- NORTH ^talk 04:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

Mikhail Gorbachev

Thanks for the good article review of the above subject. I thought it might have a chance, but wasn't certain of it. And, for what little it's worth, the reason the entire early life had only one referenced source was that I had added virtually the entire section myself right before the nomination, having seen how lacking it was in that department. But, now with additional outside feedback, I can start to address improving it according to your suggestions. Thanks again for the review. Badbilltucker 15:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Narnia

I will take you up on that one line on the Narnia page, better a little late than never. 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Skandar Keynes

Hi. I didn't say that the subject is not notable to be an article in WP, but it is still not enough by only 2 sentences of his "notability" that he is an English actor, while the rest are trivia. Yes, it is short and length of an article is not a criterion in GA, but I have to say that the article is still a stub. Just expand the article, use WP:BIO notability test to get more coverage of the subject. If there is nothing to write about the subject yet, then maybe you have to wait for a while for the subject to gain his fame. I believe from the article, that he only acted in 1 published movie, isn't he? Well, then there are other millions of people did the same thing around the globe. ;-) Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You can always submit your objections to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

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. Thanks for considering me a good editor! ReyBrujo 21:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the entry

I received a well-worded message about someone from my ip address 'experimenting' with the New Mexico page. I'm reasonably certain I know who did this (My son is working on a project that involved New Mexico for school, so I have a pretty good guess here), and I'll definitely talk to him about it. I appreciate the tone of the message ('experimenting' hah! Chuckle... yes.), and thanks for fixing what my son appears to have done. It won't happen again.

Cheers!

Jvilhuber 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA (including your mistaken belief I already was one, that's always fun to hear), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Accountability

You said that I might be reluctant to punish admins/crats if needed. I don't recall implying this and I don't think that either are "above the law" or reason, nor would I be afraid to put limits/desysop them if needed. All user are accounted for what they do, and ones with titles should, if anything, be held slightly more accountable, as they have a better understanding of rules and procedures here.Voice-of-All 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not that I don't think AC cannot do cases where the issue is of consensus being breached or not, its that consensus is used a lot in policies here, but WP:Consensus is not that clear on whether we should tally votes, count "points not addressed/reasons given", or "use knowledge from other AfDs, polls, discussion to factor in the consensus as a whole". I can't just pick one as an arbitrator, thats for policy discussion to decide (heh, ironically, we need a consensus on what consensus is, a feedback loop). This is one of those policies that should have been layout out better from the beginning, like NPOV. To be honest, a huge poll at WT:Consensus may be the best way (polls may "be evil", but we need some way to avoid the feedback loop this one time). I'll try and start the dialogue sometime if I have to.Voice-of-All 06:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit count

Thanks for the help.

--Peregrine_^AY 11:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chase Headley

I think a few assertions of encyclopedic notability may have been added to that article - would you have the time to look again? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

keynes-dalton-darwin-wedgwood

It seems strange to me that you removed the connection between Francis Galton and Keynes-Darwin without even adding it into darwin-wedgwood article or perhaps the Galton Wikipedia article.

Now the connection doesn't appear anywhere! It was in fact one of Francis Galton's beliefs that talent was mainly hereditary. This is born out by the many remarkable links to great scientists, philosophers and the like - many more than people realize.

Since your apparent motivation for establishing the previously non highlighted keynes/darwin connection was because it was interesting, surely an additional connection adds even more interest!

I believe there are in fact even more remarkable connections to Keynes family to highlight and Galton was just the (well documented) beginning. ken 08:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)