User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards/Archive1

This is a subpage of Pharaoh of the Wizards's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Tool

What tool are you using to pull detailed editing stats? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the Kate winslet edit

I did not write that edit about Kate Winslet. I find it insulting that i would be blamed for it since i have enough intelligence to spell correctly. Good day to you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.1 (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your cookies provoked my appetite)

Thanks!) Gorod nad volnoi Nevoi (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

An illegally recreated article you voted to delete [1] is again up for AfD. here Regards, Wikid ^as© 13:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA and evaluating candidates

I was really surprised to read this comment you made. Opinions regarding whether a candidate is competent or suited for adminship are absolutely on-topic and appropriate for RFA. I can't quite understand what you think RFA is supposed to be about, if such opinions are not to be expressed. Friday (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Make sure that this article is not deleted!!!

Dear Pharaoh of the Wizards, Someone wants to delete my article Eureka (airship) please fix it!!! Thanks, Gimelthedog (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see u back on wiki..

...Welcome back! -- Tinu Cherian - 10:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Pharaoh of the Wizards ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Naknek, AK edit reversal

Hi, I've never edited a Wikipedia page before, and so far I'm finding the whole process a tad confusing. Frankly, I'm not sure you're even the person who reversed my edit, but I suppose I'll tell you why I'm contacting you anyways, just in case. When I tried to correct a page about Naknek, Alaska my edit was reversed as "vandalism". The information I deleted from this article was about the town being destroyed in 1964 by a Tsunami. Having lived there for over 18 years I can assure you this is not true in the slightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.31.3.195 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it to a stable version.My apologies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

I see that you reverted my edit to Valparaiso University School of Law, when I was attempting to get things back to the talk page's consensus on the article. The version I reverted to was being worked on by several editors, who had come to a consensus that the older, longer version was pretty much unsalvageable from a PoV standpoint. I would hope that a quick look at the history would confirm this, but I'm new and I'd really like to do things right. If you could stop by my talk page and give a more detailed explanation of how this stuff should work, I'd really appreciate it. 67.160.77.37 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]