User talk:Quadell/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Image:Fieldoftulips.jpg

Hi. You uploaded this image on April 20, 2004. This image was marked as a copyvio on November 7, 2005. The image description page gave the source URL as:

From http://geekphilosopher.com/bkg/flowerTulipsPinkishOrangeLR.htm

If you examine the licensing details closely on this page:

License: http://geekphilosopher.com/MainPage/bkgAbout.htm

You will read that this photo cannot be re-distributed. Therefore, I will be removing the image. RedWolf 03:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Reds and blues separated

Hi. I like what you did with the G Hotlist of missing articles, moving the blue links to the bottom. It made it eas for me to knock off 36 of them in about 45 minutes. I hope you continue to do that. Danny 11:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Anti-war project, push to get a featured article b4 Xmass

Here's hoping you find a job soon and come off you wiki vaction, in case you have; February 15, 2003 anti-war protest an article which is part of the WikiProject Anti-war, of which you are listed as a member, has been recently rated A-class by the Version 1.0 Editorial team (see here) This means that it is considered to be of good quality. The Anti-war project has yet to achieve a featured article but with a little pushing I feel we could get this article up to FA standards. To this end I have put the article up for peer review, if you could help make this a brilliant article that would be much appreciated. Please give your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive2 or on the articles talk page. Fingers crossed for a FA before Xmass.--JK the unwise 13:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board

Whenever you get a chance, I figure I might as well help advertise the bounty board as you seem to, attached to the signature...but can't find a Wiki; page dealing with how to actually alter one's signature. Any help would be appreciated. Sherurcij 19:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorganizing Wikipedia:Copyright

Howdy! Sorry to learn you're still without a job; I hope you'll be able to find an intellectually satisfying, well-paid job soon. (Hmm... how about applying to Jimbo for the post of the first paid professional editor of Wikipedia? :-) Wouldn't that be a dream job?)

I left the "research resource" box on WP:PD because that formerly was a redirect to Wikipedia:Public domain resources, and I didn't want to put off all the people who had only bookmarked that redirect. But I agree that by now we could remove it and turn it into a "see also".

On that copyright page: yeah, that needs a serious overhaul. Your proposed structure looks good, though maybe the section on copyvios could be moved up to #3 since we get so many of them. Shall we start out on a private page (like I did with the PD page; we can always merge histories over at Wikipedia:Copyright when it's ready to go live), or just edit that page piecemeal? Lupo 10:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 04:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Hosni Mubarak

hi there:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/737642.stm#leaders BBC:

"Mr Mubarak succeeded Anwar Sadat, who was assassinated in 1981. He is a great survivor, having escaped no fewer than six assassination attempts." People delete it! - I actually wonder if it's politically motivated. I wonder if you can help. Thanks in advance. Hosni Mubarak--The Brain 15:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

19th century now COTW

This article has been selected as the new Collaboration of the Week! Thanks for your support! — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-12 03:27

Alberto Gonzales

Is there a particular section you wanted to apply the unsourced tag to? There's a sizeable list of "external links" to serve as references at the end (though I haven't checked their quality or validity), and several in-line references sprinkled throughout, I believe. The Literate Engineer 16:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Article for Indonesian Civil War

Hey, this is the creator of the Indonesian Civil War article. Are you sure about the listing as a Quality Article? I feel that thus far it's not quite up-to-snuff, simply because it is lacking on key facts (who killed whom, when, and where). --Daniel 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reponse to this question, & since I've been acting as unofficial cat-herder for this category, I'd like to ask if these objections strong enough that we should delist this article? -- llywrch 20:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll wait to see how your discussion goes before doing anything. Thanks for the response -- & thanks for the help finding Good articles! -- llywrch 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

copyedit on EdwinHJ's RFA?

Hi Quadell, I just noticed your nomination of EdwinHJ on WP:RFA. You said "He's been here for a year and half now, most active for the last year and a half..." - did you mean to use the same period of time for both? Best, FreplySpang (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak

(deliberate, politically motivated ommissions) 14 December 2005 69.157.233.126 13 December 2005 69.157.233.126 Mr Mubarak has escaped no fewer than six assassination attempts.[1]

--The Brain 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject

Greetings Quadell, I'm trying to feel the ground for a new WikiProject specifically focusing on recent acts of terrorism (and depending on which users show an interest, and how they want to expand/narrow that field of view to include their own subgroups) - and hopefully getting valid, npov and exhaustive information about people like Satam al-Suqami who the average person doesn't know the name of. I know you're one of the key architects of many such articles, specifically surrounding the 9/11 hijackers. The page I linked is far from complete obviously, and just something I whipped up to give a general impression, so I could fish around a few key members to ask if they'd have any interest in such a project. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Much thanks, I figure part of the problem is that even when somebody googles "Mohamed Atta" because they do have some interest, they aren't then slapped in the face with a "Here are the other relevant people!", so this hopefully balances a bit. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Image:BobbyFischer.jpg

Hey! Please go to Image:BobbyFischer.jpg. I've just added the URL to that page. Adnghiem501 04:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Culture of Asia

Please reconsider your support of the expansion of the culture of Asia article and consider nominating it for deletion. There is nothing unifying about cultures as diverse as Israel, Lebanon, Pakistan, former Soviet Republics, China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, Nepal, Japan... many of these countries have very very little movement or information flow between them... the very idea of "Asia" doesn't even make sense geographically. It's something of a "not Europe, but on the same landmass as Europe..."

COTW: Culture of Sudan

This article is now the Collaboration of the Week! Thanks for your support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 21:33

Good Articles

I'm afraid I must hate you now for putting Template:GA on some of my favorite articles. -Silence 17:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid hate just isn't up to snuff yet. No references, no images, and no information on the history of hate. But I'll keep you in mind. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn. Well, I'll find some references and see if I can bring it up to snuff over the next few weeks, then re-nominate it. Thanks for your time.

... Hey, wait a minute.. -Silence 06:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for tagging Gowanus Canal as a good article. It has been quite some time since I've been really active at that article, but I do eventually see myself, at some time or another, trying to get it up to featured status. --Howrealisreal 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I hereby thank you for tagging Roman Republic as a good article. I "kind off" watch over it and strive for its improvement. When and how will it be a featured article? Flamarande 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Question; How to do dispute reselotion

Talk:Hosni Mubarak#7 Few facts answers all the questions. I wonder if some of the money/ media / corroption sould be incllluded in Gulf War of 1991 too Thanx --The Brain 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Adminship: EdwinHJ

Please review your nomination in the light of today's opposition.Phase1 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made a few comments as a result of yours, and would welcome an update from you.Phase1 21:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

MSF

Hi Quadell; since you seem to have an interest in Médecins Sans Frontières, could you go through what I have so far, and see if you think it's relevant/encyclopedic. I will be adding much more in the upcoming weeks, albeit slowly, to bring it up to featured status. --CDN99 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Roman Empire.png

Hi just out of curiosity, In the Roman empire map you created, why is the only national border on the map that of Northern Ireland?

Regards Superdude99 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Phoenix program

Hi, there's a question for you on the Phoenix Program page - I should be clear that am not suggesting for a second that you don't have a good source for what you have put there 213.78.82.220 16:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Hi - Can you be more specific about what claims are unsourced in Same-sex marriage? This is a long article that cites an awful lot of its sources and references, so it would be helpful to know what in particular you noticed that needs a citation. :-) Tim Pierce 17:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Appreciation & Merry Christmas

Thanks for the comment on Smedley Butler. Have a blessed Christmas. — ERcheck @ 08:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

{{copyrighted}}

What does this tag mean? Adnghiem501 08:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Shown below: {{copyrighted}}

I have nowiki-ed the template to avoid this page being listed as a copyvio by DumbBOT, which is, as the name suggests, not a very smart bot. Tizio 11:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Vandalism

Locked your userpage from anon edits due to persistent vandalism. EdwinHJ | Talk 03:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak

Hosni Mubarak article. My homepage; User:The Brain reads Convicted draft-dodger (1991), with pride. so they're preaching to the choir about who got paid and who sold off their armies as mercenaries to have their foreign debt (which they steal) forgiven. I'd like you to look at Talk:Hosni Mubarak#7 Few facts and see if you have any input or wording, I'll d the same, there has been a request for unprotection citing that there has been a reselution of cnflicts. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} is wondering if there has been a reselution because an anon asked for unprotection. Thanks.--The Brain 18:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Need help

The DuPont page has gone through massive changes since you added this:

diff In a report submitted by Saddam Hussein to the United Nations shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was revealed that DuPont had participated in Iraq's nuclear weapons program. (Though the U.S. attempted to redact the names of all U.S. companies involved, an uncensored copy was leaked to the press.)

unfortunatly, your edit was deleted, along with the entire criticism section. I need your help, please find the reference to this section, and add it back, cited.Travb 20:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Quadell to the rescue! Damn I am so glad I contacted you. Your edits were incredible and breath taking--what a great idea to make a new article! Thank you so much for taking the time to edit this article.Travb 21:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

I have now made the nomination "live". I do indeed wish you luck, but you won't need it! EdwinHJ | Talk 05:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Quadell, I have added Q4 and Q5 from the revised template. Q4 is the same as asked of Linuxbeak, and Q5 is for you and future b'crats. Good luck on your candidacy. -- Cecropia 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia explains it all

Quadell wrote Cecropia:

Greetings. I think I may be misinterpreting the question a bit. I don't make promises lightly, and I hold to them very legalistically when I do. I'd like to ask you a few questions to maybe clear things up.

Situation 1: A user asks me, in private, a general question about promotions. Do you feel it would be inappropriate for me to respond?

You can always respond.

Situation 2: After I decline to promote someone, a user accuses me of having a grudge against this person, confusing me with a person of a similar user name. Do you feel it would be inappropriate for me to respond to clear up the confusion?

It would be appropriate. If the complaint was substantive, even if wrong, it would be better to put it on RfA Talk, so everyone could see the grievance and your response.

Situation 3: A user asks me in private to please promote someone who does not have consensus, due to the user, say, dying of cancer and making a dying wish. Do you feel it would be inappropriate for me to respond, saying "I cannot take that into consideration."?

It would be appropriate to respond in that manner, certainly. In that kind of emotional situation, though, it would be better to reveal that conversation, at least to other bureaucrats, since the person is still interfering in the process out of public view.

I'm guessing none of these are what was meant by the question, but for my peace of mind, could you, er, explain it all? :) Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In general, my concern is simple. When deciding on a promotion, keep your own counsel only or that of other bureaucrats. During the decision process, no one should go to a bureaucrat in a hidden fashion (IRC, email, telephone, smoke signal) with a comment on the nomination. We recently had the case of Linuxbeak's bureaucrat nomination where he had an enormous early support vote because his candidacy was mentioned on IRC. If this fact hadn't been revealed, other voters wouldn't have known about this possible taint on the nomination. If someone wants to contact a bureaucrat, it should be done either in RfA itself (preferred) on the bureaucrat's talk page (not preferred but at least out in the open). Cheers, Cecropia 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will (Nomination)

Back in June, you wrote on Image talk:1936NurembergRally.jpg that "After 1976, Leni Riefenstahl sued in England for copyright of Triumph des Willens, and a judge ruled against her." I was wondering if you could give me a reference, since I'm editing the article. Also (and this is more important), if you're not too busy, can you help me determine the copyright status of some of the images on there? Palm_Dogg 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Media:Hugorm-Ravnsholt-Kattehale-040424.jpg

It has no license, but it has the following text in danish:

Kopieret, med tilladelse fra Alf Blume, fra nyhedsgruppen dk.binear. Emne: "Alle fem danske krybdyrarter på en dag...hugorm"

This translates to Copied with permission from Alf Blume, from the Newsgroup dk.binear. Subject: "All five danish <I'm not sure of a good english word, but lizards and snakes and so on> in one day...Viper"

Thus, I think we've got permission from the copyright holder to use this image.

--Vidarlo 20:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

Semiprotected your user page due to vandalism. Why do the vandals pick on you? EdwinHJ | Talk 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Lee Smith (baseball), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to see you've withdrawn. I hope you'll try again, because you'd be great. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems it may have been a hoax. [2] I hope so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What I don't seem to understand is why the hoax was reverted. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it fooled me too since it looked like Danny was the one relaying the message. It otherwise looks like it is going quite well from the occasional anon user trying to mess it up. -- MicahMN | μ 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Qur'an photo

Could you please help explain to User:Zora why it's bad to upload a crop of your gfdl/cc-by-sa-2.0 photo with a pd-self tag? I've tried to do so at User talk:Zora/2005archive6#Image:Big Quran page.jpg (her response is at User talk:Cryptic#Big quran page). —Cryptic (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

Alright, I finally remembered my old idea, and got that new Wikiproject off the ground. If my last talk-comment counted as an invitation, consider this an FYI. If it didn't, then consider this the invitation :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Regards, Arno 09:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

B-crat

I was also disappointed, and frankly I'm baffled by a lot of the reasons given for either opposition or neutrality, not only on your nom but on the others as well. You're a "good-un" too; keep up the excellent work. Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was quite suprised when you weren't promoted. In fact, until your message, I was sure that you had been promoted. I still stand by my comments though: you were a large portion of why I decided to stay involved with Wikipedia. Most other Internet communities, newbies are usually bitten, or sometimes ignored. Your polite answers to my simple questions encouraged me that Wikipedia was a place where most everyone could contribute, if, of course, they followed the rules. Thank you so much for all the great work you've done here. If you ever decide to run again, please let me know. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think You should participate on Voting on RfA candidates a bit more often if You wish to become bureaucrat in the future, since bureaucrats determine who get promoted from normal user to sysop. -- Eddie 08:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Quadell: The trouble is, to be blunt, I don't enjoy voting for people's RfAs or RfBs because I'm usually not comfortable making personal judgments about people . . .

Well, in order to be promoted to bureaucrat, You need to participate in RfA voting since as a bureaucrat You'd be determining whether or not the nominee gets a promotion or not. That's why I opposed, because potential bureaucrats help decide whether or not users get promoted by casting votes on RfA nominations. -- Eddie 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I had to oppose, but I agree with Eddie here. That is one of the reasons that a I voted for Francs2000, because he was not only well trusted, but he votes in RfA, so he is qualified. You were well qualified in all but that one key aspect. That is the main BCrat function, so I had to oppose. Otherwise, I would have supported. Also, we don't need many BCrats more for now, so that may have been why some opposed. I may support 1 more candidacy after Francs2000, but after that, unless there is an opening, I will just automatically oppose no matter how good s/he is.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was disappointed to find out you didn't get b'crat. : ( You're "one of the good-uns" yourself! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Platonic love

When you have a moment, perhaps you could drop by Platonic love to let me know whether you have any other reservations. Haiduc 00:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad Mossaddegh

Hi, I noticed that you have reverted my edits to Mohammad Mossadegh several times, without giving any reason. My changes have been referenced and accurate and therefore I would like to ask you to either refrain from reverting or clarify your point of view. Shervink 13:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)shervink

Bureaucrat and Focus of the week.

Quadell, I am also surprised and disappointed that you were not appointed as a bureaucrat. I also did not find out about it until I came upon your webpage. It appeared to be one of those things where it would be an easy choice (I did vote for you), but I guess those opposing had their reasons.

Anyway, the reason that I am writing was because of this edit. I wanted to make sure that we are on the same page as far as the weekly focus. My impression was that when a letter was selected, the percentage complete was based on all of the subpages for the focus not the first letter, otherwise pages like "S3" would be chosen. While there might be some confusion because the template link points to a single page, because there is no main "S" page, I would argue that most people understand that the focus is for the entire letter. If only a single page is selected a separate completion percentage would need to be calculated only for the template because completion is done letter by letter and not subpage by subpage (which is why I have been busy merging and deleting pages). While I prefer using all subpages for calucation, I am not wedded to it. I just wanted to make sure that we are on the same page so that we are not "correcting" the other's edits. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Any luck in the job search?

Question on Arbcom/medcom

Hi, I'm curious why you think it's not permissible to be on both arbcom and medcom -- are you worried about concentration of power, conflict of interest, not enough time to do both, or the possible need to recuse? I honestly don't think any of these should be reasons, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. --Improv 06:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• (response to reply on my userpage) That's not bad reasoning. I'll think about it. --Improv 15:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Quadell, I have revised my candidacy statement. If you revisit my candidacy statement, you may find it to your interest. --Improv 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate questions

...are replied to. (Hm, I've been ending a lot of sentences with prepositions today...) Tell me if you have any comments or further questions. Truth is, I've been kind of disappointed that the question page wasn't more of a dialogue, instead of just form questions to all the candidates that are never followed up on. Good to get a personalized one. :) Dmcdevit·t 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The big picture

Your photography skills were perfectly good, and you demonstrated your good photographic judgment by choosing to place a person in the picture in order to allow the picture to fully express the size of the folio. As you say, photographing objects behind glass is tough, and a glare is an oh-so-common war-wound from that struggle. Bottom line: please don't take any of the comments from that thread personally, all the negative ones had to do with the "Big Issues" at play, and nothing at all to do with you and your wife. On the other hand, the positive ones ("an excellent picture", "really shows the scale", "really shows how remarkable the calligraphy is", et cetera), are all genuine tributes to your skill. Thanks for thinking of Wikipedia and uploading your pictures. We've all learned a lesson from this, and now know to "err on the side of men" when taking pictures of Islamic artifacts. :-) Cheers, Babajobu 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom userbox

Thank you very much, sir! --King of All the Franks 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Quadell. I've added it to my page. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 05:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ditto :). Be well. --Svartalf 15:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Also thanks. I used it on my page.--Edivorce 18:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran

Quadell, thanks for your note. It means a lot coming from you, and I'll definitely consider a wikibreak rather than leaving entirely. As for the image, Zereshk and I have tried explaining the copyright situation regarding Iran to Gmaxwell, but it makes no difference. In addition, I was told by a director of an Iranian heritage group that there was no copyright on the specific image inside Iran either. Regardless, Gmaxwell keeps disputing it, and now because of the doubt, Zscout has deleted it. [3] Even if only fair use could be claimed, the image was a collage of images from different periods in Iranian culture, and was being used in Culture of Iran, which seemed appropriate. However, images are not my strong point and perhaps there is good reason for the legal concerns. As always, I very much appreciate your help and kind words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

SV omits the part where she has aparently refused to email her the above mentioned copyright clearance to the Foundation. But in any case, I'm not sure it matters... You have some very odd views of copyright law, and ... a week ago if I'd been asked if I thought there would ever be an issue with an admin refusing to obey our copyright policy, I would have guess that it would be with you not her. But I guess things seldom turn out how anyone expects. --Gmaxwell 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, should this be references some time in the future: I've had numerous run ins in the past where he has posted both questionable and obvious copyright violations on Wikipedia and the commons. For example [4] and [5]. Although there haven't been many run-ins recently because I've been largely focusing on orphaned images, I would be shocked if there were not more in the future. I will be really saddened if, at such an event, I'm forced to put up with the same claims of a vendetta that SV is subjecting me to today. --Gmaxwell 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Request (moved from User talk:Gmaxwell)

Please refrain from being rude. It isn't helpful. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, I'm sorry if I've offended.. I am honestly not trying to be rude. It is quite difficult to maintain unexcited words when I have a user accusing me of causing dire harm, reverting my edits to unrelated pages, etc... But reviewing my comment on your talk page, which I can only assume is what you're talking about, I simply can not find where I was rude to you. Can you help me? --Gmaxwell 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments struck me as rude, that's all. I don't have any desire to convince you. If you weren't being rude, and I misinterpreted your comments, then I apologize. If you were being rude but didn't know it, then you ought to take a hard look at how you say things. If you were being rude and you know it, and you're just playing innocent, then I'd advise you to quit. Either way, "it ain't none of my never-mind", as they say in Kentucky. Best regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I did not intend to be rude. If you are unable to provide an objective basis for your criticism I must ask you to provide a full and unreserved retraction. Without such an explination your words are, in effect, a personal attack because they are not constructive. I'd like to work with you constructively, but I can not if you are going to make vague allegations about my behavior. --Gmaxwell 17:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Thanks for making this and for letting me know. I'm not a big userbox user, and it might seem like campaigning, but I'll mull it over. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Me, I appreciate it -- a small, quiet way simply to state my candidacy on my user page. Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think I'll pass on the box, but thanks for the notice. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)