User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Golf Portal

Hi Joe
That sounds good to me. As I haven't had much experience with portals you can do what you want with the selected pictures and articles, as I just thought they needed updating and copyed/pasted, and I will learn from you techniques. Feel free to join Wikiproject Golf as it may be a better base to improving the portal, and we may be able to get more users aware about it. Also the wikiproject is not very active at the moment despite my efforts so it may be a good project to work on. Thanks for the messages, and thanks for your interest.
Grover 07:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for the support of my RfA. It was a very humbling yet surprisingly gratifying experience. I am grateful for all the constructive comments that will undoubtedly make me a better contributer, and hopefully a stronger candidate in the future. Grika 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Exstreamer

Hey Joe, thanks for the message. Rather than consider whether you were too busy or too lazy, to use your terms, to evaluate the article, I'd prefer to focus on the fact that you put enough of an emphasis on courtesy that you overcame your business/sloth to leave me a thoughtful note. In short: kudos. Regarding the tag: I think that there's an unfortunately common misconception among some editors/CSD taggers that an article about a product or service is somehow inherently spam (a sentiment which, happily, you apparently do not share). Anyway, I am in full agreement with the conclusions you expressed on my talk page about the article. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

RHSVictoria

Thanks for attention to my embarrassing stub Royal Historical Society of Victoria. The bit about Victoria was to Dab the queen and the state. A likely confusion resolved at Victoria. Should I use the header template or something? Fred 08:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at your user page reveals you are an 'american cousin'. You may not be aware that there was a queen of England "Victoria" and that is how she is known (no titles). There is a state in Australia (different hemisphere) that is also called Victoria (probably after her by colonial subjects). I felt like this might cause confusion to those outside Australia esp. with 'royal' in title. Seasons greetings Fred

Thanks

Lol, you scared me there for a second. Thanks, Joe. =) Nishkid64 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Joe. I have fixed it up to 22-year-old. =) Nishkid64 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

From Aeropagitica's talk page...

Sorry, still had him watched from some comments this morning and saw your note. Certainly an admin closure of an RFA that appears doomed is not beyond the pale according to User:NoSeptember/List_of_failed_RfAs_(Chronological), where there are at least a couple a month. In any case, just thought I would toss that up in aeropagitica's defense. Early closure can spare the RFA-ee from overly harsh negative commentary. I haven't looked at this one in particular, though...so my comments can be taken as always with a grain of salt. Syrthiss 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't closed any RfAs where the consensus hasn't been in doubt. The RfAs that I do close all consist of editors who have several hundred edits or less and have been active for either a) a short time or b) been around for a while but not made any significant contributions. In these cases I have reviewed the evidence in their edit histories and looked at the opinions cast in their RfA and have then chosen to close it before the five day deadline using Occam's Razor - there's no need to multiply examples for each editor to read the same advice over and over. Crawfordknights, Memmke, Rat235478683 and Fu kinell are all recent examples of my decisions. You can also level your your enquiry at Nishkid64, Rje and Steel359, who have all performed the same action for the same reason. I participate in equivocal RfAs in the same manner as other editors and admins, giving my opinion based upon evidence and leaving the matter to a Bureaucrat in order to finish the process. Regards, (aeropagitica) 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Basball Portal

I saw your comments on my discussion page, and all I will briefly say is there is no hatchet to bury. There is no quarrel. There is a fundemental difference in beliefs. Opposition is not quarrelsome, opposition helps make this encyclopedia better. I'm glad you can at least see where I am coming from. Take solace that I can do the same in reguards to your position. My only addition would be to look at the featured portals. See how truly collective contributions can have a positive outcome. Than take a look at portals you have seized, and take note of the differences. That's all I can suggest at this point. Wxthewx99 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Joe...

(That's the name of a song) - anyway, I'm trying to help with your suggestion about the Wikipedia:Reference desk/RD header but have run into a problem getting "out of the box". I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Help desk#Help getting out of the box and so we'll see. What I did was to set the current header in place and then I hoped to set in place an editable version below it so that all could see the "side by side" (well, you know what I mean).  ;-) --hydnjo talk 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your attitude

While other editors maybe very aggressive in Wikipedia, you seem to be WP:Civil. Thank you. --Jones2 08:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and thnx for the Welcome Template. --Jones2 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fisking

Hey, thanks for your comment on my RFA. You taught me something, i.e. Fisking, that I shall look forward to using in the future! For what it's worth, I've learned several lessons so far in this process, including some possibly unwritten rules. It should put me in good stead for the future. Thanks again for your interest, all the best. Budgiekiller 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit war

Mmm, I saw your comment on my RfC. You endorsed the statement where it said that I "edit-warred" on Barrington Hall. In case you check the history of the article, one removal dates back to November, the others are a week apart during December. Only two were intentional, one was a mistake made in good faith. Also, the definition of "edit-warring" is some-what different. I have made a statement with regard to that on the page. Would you like to reconsider? — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Nick's talk page Link added upon archiving. Joe 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

I'd like to thank you particularly for giving careful and appropriate consideration before adding your opinion, along with your kind comments. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Guitars

Are you aware that non-admins are supposed to close unambiguous keep discussions only? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Heritage Guitars. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sorry, I don't like doing it, but this one had to be done. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 14:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Screw it, I'll just run it through AfD again. Sorry for the hassles, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continued at D.B's talk page. Link added when archiving Joe 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Was a deletion review done or was one not done? I don't understand what's going on. Respectfully, SamBlob 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will comply. I have put it on my watchlist now Respectfully, SamBlob 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi! I was delighted that you took the time to comment about my take on the case. Appreciate the feedback. Take care, FloNight 22:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)