This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jfdwolff (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 8 November 2004 (→Congratulations: silly Rex). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:23, 8 November 2004 by Jfdwolff (talk | contribs) (→Congratulations: silly Rex)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)/archive1 – posts from August 2004 to start of November 2004
Say anything you want – I won't edit any comments but I may reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy.
Please note that I will usually reply here, not on your talk page.
Sysop
Are you a sysop yet? If not, do you want to be one? ] 12:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Replied on user talk:Dmn. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've nominated you. If you accept, good luck ] 20:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship#User:Violetriga
Breastfeeding
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. To return the compliment, Breastfeeding and Blackadder are both excellent (if somewhat different!) pieces of work, so well done.
I was only trying to reach an acceptable solution for all concerned on Talk:Breastfeeding. I don't think DanP is entirely happy yet, but there we are. (As it happens, I would oppose the automatic knee-jerk circumcision that has happened in the US for many years, but I can see that parents may still choose to circumcise for cultural, religious or medical reasons. However, unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I just can't how circumcision is relevant to breastfeeding other than the limited effect that is already mentioned.)
PS - good luck on WP:RFA. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I decided a while ago to abstain from voting on WP:RFA because I don't want to get involved in the politics, so please don't take the absence of my vote as censure because I think you will be an excellent admin - but just to say that it is usual for a nominee to formally accept the nomination there :) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yasser Arafat
That's why I was (attempting to) revert back. SethIlys said the information was on the wire, so I took that as evidence enough for the claims, which were made by reports on Israeli TV, citing French sources. I only noticed soon after the AP soon after rejected the claim. Sarge Baldy 17:08, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Nice one for being on the ball, or at least meaning to be (there are some reports of his death). I wasn't sure if you were going to revert it so I went to do it, but it seems that it didn't work when you did it - some sort of database error appeared instead. violet/riga (t) 17:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I seem to have a problem with looking at the source of old news articles. When I tried to edit the latest previous version I got a database error, didn't notice, and proceeded to save. I was trying to think of how to go about fixing that when I noticed you reverted the news properly. So it's a good thing you were around just then :) Sarge Baldy 17:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Stop reverting me
Please butt out at Dedham, Massachusetts. The edit you are deleting is 100% accurate and 100% truthful and it's not POV. I have researched the topic thoroughly and have documented answers to all concerns on the Dedham talk page. Your repeated reverts are vandalism. You are indeed a vandal and a trouble maker. 216.153.214.94 20:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Lots of people are reverting you. Stop putting it back until you've further discussed it. violet/riga (t) 20:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Regarding Dedham, Massachusetts; Violet, you really are an idiot - you know nothing of the subject matter, yet you stoke a revert war. You have no idea if the edit you kept reverting is true or not. And, don't you dare tell me to "futher discuss" it - you reverted me multiple times with no discussion at all. 216.153.214.94 00:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Violetriga, you might be interested to know that, in one of the arbitration proceedings against Rex, when his propensity to sling insults was raised as an issue, he responded to the Arbitration Committee as follows: "As my name shows, I have been here for lesss than a month and each week, my courtesy to others has grown. There is no rational basis to infer, suggest or anticipate that I will make rude comments about others." So presumably he means "you really are an idiot" in a good way. :) JamesMLane 03:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please disregard JamesMLane's conjecture based assertion. His edits as of late indicate he's misunderstanding certain basic facts. Also, he continually refers to "Rex" for some weird reason. 216.153.214.94 05:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dedham, Massachusetts
Your particpation in the un-justified deletion (via non-discussed reverts) of a factually accurate, non-POV, historical fact from that page has contributed to causing that page to be "protected". Therefore, I am asking you to particpate in the dialog at Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts which the "protection" notice calls for. Either that, or please leave a message for Mirv and request that the page be unprotected. This message will be reposted here daily (approximately) until you acknowledge it on the Dedham, Massachusetts talk page. Thank you 216.153.214.94 03:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, unanimity being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:09, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks Cecropia... =) violet/riga (t) 23:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Congrats - deserved and all. And unanimous too! JFW | T@lk 23:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- ... and thanks JFW! =) violet/riga (t) 23:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The vote was not unanimous! 216.153.214.94 04:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
since when is 35-0 not unanimous? --kizzle 05:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
My vote was deleted. and since you all claim to "know" that I am "Rex", then you can;t very well delete my votes as being anonymous, can you? 216.153.214.94 05:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, basically, what you're saying is "You should believe that I am Rex when that's convenient for me, and believe that I am not Rex at all other times." This is Exhibit A on why we know you're Rex; who else is so blatant and shameless about demanding rights while shirking responsibilities? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course, ignorant Feldspar misinterprets statements once again. The above statement merely points out that persons who accuse me of being "Rex" ought to consider all my edits as being from "Rex" - no picking and choosing. Of course, since Feldspar is so dumb(?) he incorrectly misinterprets that as an admission of me being "Rex". Feldspar, do you have "Rex-envy" or something? What is this weird "Rex" obsession that you have? 216.153.214.94 06:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
35-0. Now that's a mandate. --kizzle 07:18, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)