So, my page isn't an attack. It's documenting a factual event, and its purpose is to warn others so that it may never happen again. I will put a disclaimer or something on the top if I have to.
== don't do that ==
do not delete stuff from my page. I can have whatever I want on my page as long as it is not an attack on another user, and I don't have anything like that.[[User:Altenhofen|Altenhofen]] ([[User talk:Altenhofen|talk]]) 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
:Actually per [[WP:OWN]], your userpage and all of its content belongs to the community (en.wikipedia) and as such should conform to Wikipedia's policies and should not serve the purpose of disrupting the project. I removed the content from your page because it went against [[WP:BEANS]] and was simply there to make a [[WP:POINT|point]]. Saying "I have been threatened to be blocked, but never have" is like saying "haha..I get away with shit, and only someone with balls will block me". If you are simply wanting to state that you have never been blocked, there is really no need as anyone can check you block log. I will not be removing the content again as I strictly fallow a 1RR rule, but I do ask that you rephrase the statement. Cheers, [[User:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#4E562C;font-weight:bold">Tiptoety</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Tiptoety|<span style="color:#FFDB58">talk</span>]]</sup> 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
====yea.====
1. don't swear, it isn't nice. 2. I put it there so if I ever put in an RFA people will know I am an honest wikipedian who has made some mistakes. 3. I have had a horrible weekend, please don't make it worse.[[User:Altenhofen|Altenhofen]] ([[User talk:Altenhofen|talk]]) 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just re-reading your comments under VanTucky's statement; there is one sure-fire way to see more of me at renames that I can think of . BTW, if you ever think about an RfB of your own, please make certain to let me know, so I can invest in Pepto :) -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:D And there is no way I will ever go up for a RfB (well probably never), I dont think all of that is for me, but who knows. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You do not want a few hundred people all over the world analyzing your every move? :-P -- Avi (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of interesting things that occur during an RfB, Ryan did switch his opinion, for which I personally am very grateful :) -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I must agree that it did make my oppose a bit more weak than it already was, but unfortunately for yourself I still stand by it. I respect Ryan's statement very much but still feel that bureaucratship is a big deal and there must be close to no concerns for me to support a candidate. Like I said before only someone completely crazy and with a deep dedication to the project would even go through a RfB and I respect you for that, and still wish you the best of luck. Sorta off topic question, was the passing percentage for RfB's ever changed? Tiptoetytalk03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I defiantly supported 80%, which you are past but only by a hair like you said. I have noticed though that it is slowly increasing, who knows.... Tiptoetytalk03:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If only it were that easy. The only "repeat" account is a netblock from a school. It would be a shame to block the whole school on account of one student. If it keeps up though, that may be what it takes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, schools are blocked for up to a year at times to stop disruptive editing. I agree it is too bad that the whole school has to suffer for one moron, but it is better than making every IP who comes to the article to find it protected. Tiptoetytalk18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the warning message. I'm pretty sure I haven't violated anything, as I reverted the edits three times yesterday and once today. Those who made the disruptive edits (User:CyberAnth and User:Cryptographic hash) engaged in WP:STALKING, and followed me from the Jeremiah Wright controversy page, where I had requested full protection to resolve disputes. The two users were angry with me for implementing content that had been discussed on the talk page, after they chose not to participate in the discussions. I was labeled many times as a "POV cherry-picker", etc. etc., so I responded, notifying them of my two major accomplishments: getting Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan to featured article status. CyberAnth went over and immediately smaked POV and unbalaned tags on the RR article, and made an unverifiable claim on NR's. So I took it to the Wikiquette alert page, but nothing has come of that as of now. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Happy, I am please that you left me a note with this information as I had never really heard the full story. I am simply warning you that continuing to edit war will result in a block but recognize that your current actions are not block worthy. If you contine to have issues with wiki-stalking and attacks upon you, I encourage you to head on over to WP:ANI or do as you did in the past and head on over to WP:WQA. Let me know if there is any way for me to help. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for your willingness to help. I'm going to stick with WQA for now, and hopefully I won't have to go to to ANI. But we'll see.... My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, but please keep in mind that just because you have not violated WP:3RR by making more than 3 reverts that has nothing do do with edit warring, which is about confrontational editing behavior. Be aware that you can still be blocked for edit warringwithout violating 3RR. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well your timing was perfect because I was right in the middle of filing a WP:SSP report, citing the WP:RFCU results. This will make it much easier to actually get things done at the Wright page. Thank you! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The COOKIE MONSTER ate the cow
FattyjwoodsPush my button has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! FattyjwoodsPush my button05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*munch, munch, munch, munch* Emm...yummy! Hey thanks for the cookie, and to be honest bull's milk does not sound all that great anyways. Thanks for trying though! :D Tiptoetytalk03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Tiptoety.
As promised, I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. We discussed your continued opposition, and I respect your opinions, although I may disagree with them :) I hope we continue to run across (not over) each other in wikispace, most liklely around rfA's :) Thanks again. -- Avi (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I appreciate the fact that you answered, though like you said I was not impressed with the answer. (I have been known to be a bit harsh on admin candidates, so do not take it personal) Either way you are surely going to be granted the mop and bucket so do not worry too much. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking anything for granted (although it is unlikely that a flood of opposes ruins my week). I won't take it personally, just thought I'd point out I don't plan to be at RPP often, if at all. Thanks for the question anyways =D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I caught my mistake and made the correction. As for the other two, Ronald Joyis not a DYK, and the other one....I see no reason to state that you helped to promote the article when you did non of the writing yourself. It would be like saying, look at all these articles I successfully nominated for deletion. Tiptoetytalk01:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err...oops my bad. I guess I did not see it when I looked at the talk page. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have cause, but I still ask you to keep them off your userpage as they are misleading. Tiptoetytalk01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it shouldn't be a DYK, it fails the DYK criteria.
“
The article must not be marked as a stub; DYK features no stubs.
Wow, more users in the support section mentioning my name. "Support to piss Wisdom89 off." And another soon after that. That's comforting. Sigh. What's wrong with opposing about diminutive article and article talk participation? Wisdom89(T / C)03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess it might be "playing", but you can imagine how it can be frustrating for me. I mean, I have my own reasons for opossing and supporting, which I feel are vastly far removed from some of the more contentious rationales I've seen in both the support and oppose sections. I'll AGF though. Thanks for the diff. I commented of course : ) Wisdom89(T / C)03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can understand how that might get under ones skin, but you just cant let it happen to you otherwise you will go crazy. Just in the next RfA you participate in give the best rational you have ever given in you wiki career and show them! :D And you are welcome for the diff, I just happened to stumble across it. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addshore's RFA
Maybe I have a different view on how to resolve disputes, but I don't like your view on Q5 for Addshore. When you have an edit war going on for 4 days between 10 editors, you can be really sure something serious is happening that desperately needs to stop and needs discussion. I've found that blocking for 3RR is sometimes useful, but is often times ineffectual; people just go back to edit warring. If you block those who don't take place in talk page discussion, they will simply wait out the block and go back to reverting after that. Instead, especially when there are multiple users trying to resolve the dispute, protection and personal administrative mediation is best to get all parties to debate in the talk page. Only then can a compromise be satisfactorily reached. bibliomaniac1503:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protection should only be used when blocking is not an option, and when a few of the users have clearly violated 3RR and the others can be blocked for edit warring allowing the constructive editors to continue to discuss the content dispute on the talk without needing to make editprotected requests every 10 minutes and allowing the active constructive users not even taking part in the dispute to continue to edit. You are right, do we know if blocking will work? No, but we will not know until we have tried. And sure of that fails and a edit war continues time to lock her up, like I stated in my oppose: "Protection should only be used when blocking is ineffective (eg. large amounts of vandalism, BLP issues, or when the edit war is so out of hand blocking would not work)". Or just block the disruptive users for longer. I think that everyone has different ways to handle content disputes, but personally I feel that wikipedia is "The free encyclopedia, anyone can edit" and to me that is very important. Thanks for the note! Cheers, Tiptoetytalk03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also have an issue with that question. Do you really believe blocking ten editors for an edit war is a better solution that a full protection? If an edit war between ten editors over four days is not the type of edit war provided for in the protection policy, the what is? I'm getting the impression that you believe that short of having dozens of editors for an edit war for weeks, full protection should never be used. I can understand why if it were one or two editors, blocking would be better. seresin ( ¡? )04:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would blocking 10 users be un-reasonable? (And might I add, the question stated that some of those user had began to participate in a discussion on the talk page). Blocking 6-10 user will do no more harm than locking a whole article if not far less. The users who refused to participate would be blocked, and if they came back and continued to edit war would be blocked for a longer duration, while the others would be given a final warn. And yes, full protection should never be used short of an all out vandalism sockpuppet mayday, or a content dispute so large that blocking would stop half of wikipedia from editing. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A hit-and-run comment: I agree with Tiptoety, and it should be noted that quite a few admins hold this view as well. If editors cannot edit productively on an article and are causing disruption to the normal wiki processes, they should be blocked. It is unfair to fully protect an article simply because certain editors can't act appropriately. This is a wiki, after all, a site dedicated to the notion that anyone can edit. Punishing other users for the bad acts of a few is not a good idea when there are alternatives. Of course, a line must be drawn somewhere, however, if it's clear that ten editors are disrupting the wiki process for thousands, block 'em, and don't think twice about it. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that no-one has raised any concerns with me regarding my oppose, but really, that's what the RFA talk page is for, and personally, I agree with Tiptoety's reasoning for opposing, merely the fact that fully protecting an article, should be when no other option is conceivable, not as a first measure. If the issue can be resolved another way other than protection, then, that should be done. Steve Crossin(talk)(review)05:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aufs deletion
Hi, sorry for the annoyance, but you've just deleted the aufs article, my first one ;) I'm relativly new to Wikipedia EN, just a French editor. I understand that you did this in respect of the, deletion process as no one has opposed to this since a user applied the "PROD tag"... But I did spend time to greatly improve the article since the tag was implied. I had only not understood that I had also to remove the tag myself :( Could you give back to life to this article, since I think it is not only a dictionary article as it was once ? If no, please tell me why. Regards, SRombauts (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on my userpage, I will generally not restore content directly to article space, but I would be more than happy to copy deleted content to a sub-page of yours. It can be found here. Do to the deletion being a PROD, you are more than welcome to recreate the article on you feel the concerns have been dealt with. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk14:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right mate, I'll keep that in mind. Sorry for making a mistake on my first day... we all do it, right? (P.S. You may be interested to know I've changed my view on protection and editwars since your question.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tiptoety, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead infobox photos at the Automobile project discussion page
Hello,
I understand that you are an administrator. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for awhile (for how long, I don't know). There is a discussion concerning lead articles used for automobiles going on about a really stupid subject. Instead of rehashing what has been said, I invite you to read, as if you don't have enough going on. Is this what Wikipedia is like? Please Advise. (Dddike (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Hi there, simply do to the fact that I am unaware to what page/discussion you are referring to (as I am not involved in the Automobile project), I was wondering if you could provide me a link so I can better help you. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk22:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link, I hope. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles then lead article photos. It is somewhat lengthy. The biggest issue I am currently experiencing is not the topic of discussion at this point. It is what I see as strident assertions, of which I have participated. After reading the discussion, you'll see what I mean. Thanks (Dddike (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks, that made it easier to find. First off, wikipedia uses consensus, not voting to make important decisions (or decisions of any kind for that matter) as clearly stated here: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Now, understand that if you feel a clear consensus has been made and you feel there is no longer a point to discussing the topic than apply WP:BOLD and make the changed. I would like to also note that User:842U has been blocked for blatant sock puppetry and abusing multiple accounts, meaning that any of his contributions are likely to be reverted. Tiptoetytalk22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please help. Does consensus at Wikipedia mean the same thing as consensus in a dictionary? It seems that at the beginning of this discussion, my opinion was asked. But now I'm being asked to "shut up". What do you suggest?
I am not sure what you mean by Does consensus at Wikipedia mean the same thing as consensus in a dictionary? But all I can say is that you may want to request mediation. Tiptoetytalk04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiptoety;
I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tiptoety - I don't know, in the last month there were something like 42 edits, all but 6 or 7 clarify of which were bogus vandalizing edits, mostly kids putting their own names or the names of their friends into the article, and the 6 or 7 were reverts of the other 37. Seems to me to warrant semi protection for a while, but whatever you think. Cheers Tvoz/talk05:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understand that while there was a high amount of vandalism it did not appear to be moving at a very fast rate, the article looked like it was only getting hit one out of every three days and sa such not really requiring protection. You are more than welcome to relist or drop me a note if it gets worse. Tiptoetytalk14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tiptoety. There was no checkuser for that user, I blocked him as an obvious sock after noticing one of User:Polscience's most evident signs on his editing. I can later send you an e-mail revealing what that pattern consists of. Of course, there's always the tiny chance of this user being the victim of an unfortunate coincidence. So I was going to ask you if you could ask Alison to run a quick checkuser on him just to verify if he is a Polscience's sock after all (as the user disputes, but Polscience also has a long history of shamelessly disputing his proven sockpuppetry). I would ask her myself, but I'm running late for classes and must run now. I'll be back later. Regards, Húsönd12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he has not unblocked himself but instead just moved on to using another IP. I went ahead and blocked the IP for 31 hours for block evasion. Thanks for pointing that out. Tiptoetytalk18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for doing that. I would always rather start a discussion than lock up a page. Ah...only my second month on wikipedia, it brings back memories of how I did not understand much of anything (as the edit clearly shows). Cheers, Tiptoetytalk22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the situation is resolved, for now. Heh, I add this kind of feelings with my past contribs too, particularly my first encounter with vandalism... I'll try to get these template messages substed. Cheers, Cenarium(talk)01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edits do not appear to be too disruptive and as such I will give them the benefit of doubt and AGF here. Maybe all it is is a new user trying to get used to wikipedia. If they continue to vandalize after their block I will block them indefinitely. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thanks. I wasn't familiar with the case, so I went on the lack of problematic activity. I'll certainly bear that in mind when I next see that name. And thanks for spotting the incorrect full protection; I'm sorry about that, because that was something I was particularly keen to avoid. Blocking if two; protection if the dispute is such that editors will be willing to enter further discussion,otherwise it would be a pointless excercise. Got it. :) Best, PeterSymonds(talk)23:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't worry about the full protection it is only what your third day as a admin? We all make silly mistakes, and having the article full protected for a few minutes did not really break anything. :D Tiptoetytalk23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
undertow
You mean that Don Murphy is just lying to make himself look more important? Oh, well, thanks for the head up. Do you think I should delete my statement? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The account is not under the control of Don Murphy, that has been proven by a check user (not sure how much clearer I can make myself). I recommend going over there saying that you redact your statement. Tiptoetytalk02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So these two antennas meet on a rooftop. They get to talking, and as it turns out, they have a lot in common. Eventually they realize they are in love, and decide to get married. Since I was the engineer who put them on the roof, they invited me to the wedding. I'll tell you, the ceremony was kinda boring, but the reception was excellent.
I added this recently http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Differential but was wondering if I can copy/paste the same comment to the talk page of the other 2-3 articles which talks about calculus differentials. Is multiple copy/pasting allowed? It increases the chances of a better reply, but its not all in one place. My second question is for how to go about acquiring wikipedia policy information--"if there's anything else, ask me on my talk page"--is this meant like when I've given up trying to find it on my own. Do admins spend a sizeable amount of time answering policy questions? I see it as a way to reduce future admin work caused by newbie editors who didnt take 30 seconds to simply ask. Thanks. Sentriclecub (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-paste rules do not apply to article-talk pages, or content that you write that will not appear in the article itself, that said you should not canvass users, or use copy-past to spam users who read the talk pages. As for policy questions, yes, we are here to help be answering policy questions, but you can also just look here: Category:Wikipedia official policy, every policy of wikipedia is listed there. Let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers, Tiptoetytalk14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delicate sockpuppet situation
Greetings, Tiptoety. Thanks for your speedy action to shut down this sockpuppet & puppetmaster. There's some ongoing difficulty on the project page that exposed this particular case, and I'm not quite sure how to handle it properly. Several of us, including at least two editors much more heavily involved in the project than I, strongly suspect that the user responsible for the 842U/BMWR1200C puppets is in fact also responsible for Vbclerate, Amarapura, Jingpho, and possibly Dddike. I can't speak for the others who suspect, but my own suspicions are based on the content, tone, style, and timing of these users' contributions to the discussion linked above, as well as certain of my suspects' having created their accounts very shortly after 842U's sockpuppetry was discovered and exposed, and/or having contributed only to this discussion. However, all of this is circumstantial, and I'm not clear on the standard of evidence required to initiate a puppetry investigation. I don't want to make extra work for anyone by filing an accusation that'll have to be tossed out as improper or frivolous.
Two further notes:
1. I do not regard disagreement with my opinions, interpretations, preferences, or actions as prima facie evidence of sock puppetry. I believe it is possible for reasonable people given the same situation to disagree, and I bear no ill will caused by disagreement (though I do take a dim view of those who behave badly and/or refuse to comply with the letter and/or spirit of Wikipedia policy, protocol, and rules).
2. It looks as if Jingpho and Amarapura are already categorised as suspected sock puppets of 842U. I'm not sure what the significance is of this categorisation. Does it mean they're under investigation, or just that someone suspects them? Who's authorised to categorise users as suspected sock puppets?
You are able to (any user is able to) start a sockpuppetry case, as I have no capability to confirm or deny your suspicions at this time, though there does seem to be some pretty good evidence. The reason that User:Jingpho and User:Amarapura are in that cat is because they have been confirmed though a checkuser. You are able to place any user in that cat by adding {{sockpuppet}}: {{sockpuppet|842U}} to the userpage of the user you believe to be a sock, but keep in mind that you should have good evidence to justify your actions before doing it. Let me know if this is unclear. Tiptoetytalk22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making each title more clear is tough, because we don't want the table to get too wide. By "adminship", yes, it refers to admin coaching, requests for rollback, RFA. Noticeboards, yeah, AN, ANI, COIN, whatever other noticeboards out there. Useight (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re RfA
Hello, Tiptoety. I'm just replying here to the threads about the vote on my RfA that got moved to the talk page. I don't want to encourage the posting of joke votes, and I appreciate your consideration of my feelings in moving the vote. However, I wasn't offended by the vote but found it amusing, and I would have preferred, if the vote was to be discounted, that it be done by some combination of putting a comment beneath it, indenting it or striking it out, rather than removing it from the page. If removing it, it would have been helpful to leave a pointer such as "joke vote has been moved to talk page", as was done with the question that was moved to the talk page.(12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)) As it was, while very busy with my RfA I was left wondering where the vote had gone and whether any other votes had been deleted, and didn't have time to investigate until I happened to see it on the talk page a couple of days later. It seems to me that the action of moving the vote was more of a cause of wikidrama than the vote itself.(01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)) However, there was no harm done beyond a certain amount of wikidrama, and again I appreciate your consideration. By the way, all who participated in my RfA are invited to read the messages at Thank you for participating in my RfA. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread my actions completely. First off, removing the !vote and placing it on the talk page was to avoid drama, not create more (and to be honest find it rather offensive to be accused of trying to create drama). Instead of leaving it on the RfA mainpage to be read and ultimatly allowing others to continue to post would only further the drama that was not meant to be there in the first place, and if I would have placed a link from the RfA mainpage to the talk page, it would have read pretty much like “To continue in the drama fest, click here” and "drama" would have only continued in the talk page. Understand that my intention, whether the candidate does not mind at all was that simply !voting for the heck of it, and stating that you may remove it is completely un-expectable. And after asking if she would remove it, I did so myself. I hoped that it would limit any more !votes like that, which can in fact hurt newer or less confident candidates. RfA is not a place to play around, or at least not in the way that user went about it. Also, understand I would never remove a !vote from an RfA, or any content for that matter, and always move it to the talk page. Tiptoetytalk04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiptoety, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfA thanks!
RfA: Many thanks
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, my page isn't an attack. It's documenting a factual event, and its purpose is to warn others so that it may never happen again. I will put a disclaimer or something on the top if I have to.
