User talk:Cecropia/Archive 4

June 2004

Hi, is there any chance of unprotecting Nick Berg conspiracy theories, if I ask really, really nicely?  :) The user causing all the problems has been banned now, and there don't seem to be objections to unprotection... --Russell j 21:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That was quick... thanks! --Russell j 21:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, I just wondered if you had finished with your Test redirect pages yet in case you'd forgotten to delete them. Angela. 03:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Back Up For Adminship

Hello, just letting you know that I am back up for adminship. It is at the bottom under the self nominations section. ChrisDJackson

Nick Berg

Thanks! Mark Richards 21:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pro-American sentiment

Hi Jim, I think this article has interesting parts in it but it was voted to be deleted. However, no one has taken care of it. As an administrator would you cooperate in merging it into the anti-American sentiment? We could try to make it a reasonable article perhaps under a new and less controversial title like Attitudes towards the United States of America with that stupid expression anti-Americanism as a redirect.? Get-back-world-respect 12:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

GWB

I'm trying to refrain from commenting on the GWB talk page, as that person makes my blood boil. He's been pestering me on my talk page, threatening to take me to mediation. I'm not worried about it, but I would prefer to simply avoid any interaction with him, which is bound to be unpleasant. The most charitable thing I can say about his exposition is that it is original research. WP should present facts, not speculative agruments. I mean, I would not be entirely unhappy to see GWB impeached (sad for the nation, but perhaps justly deserved). However, the WP article on GWB is not the place to make the argument. Hah. I had avoided watching the GWB article precisely because I didn't want to get caught up in this kind of BS. I just happened to check in on it last night. If this is typical of how it has been, I can very much sympathize with your frustration about keeping the article balanced. older≠wiser 21:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hello. I noticed your request for bureaucratship and I had a couple of quick questions I've been asking all of the recent candidates. Do you support adminship being widespread and generally "no big deal" or do you feel adminship should be more exclusive? As a bureaucrat would you give controversial user's and troll's votes equal weight to the votes of respected contributors? Best regards --"DICK" CHENEY 15:05, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please feel free to repost my question on RfA. Thanks for asking. --"DICK" CHENEY 15:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long, I just posted the follow-up. --"DICK" CHENEY 15:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer all of my questions. I haved voted to support you. --"DICK" CHENEY 16:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jukes and Kallikaks

I initially added a whole lot of information about the Kallikaks to Jukes and Kallikaks, but I have since split it off into its own entry (The Kallikak Family) and simply linked it. I don't know as much about the Jukes however. One of my goals for this week is to get a copy of The Kallikak Family from the library and scan in some of the pedigrees and photographs. Just thought I'd let you know since you listed the original page on cleanup... --Fastfission 00:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Congratulations! You're a bureaucrat. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats and m:Bureaucrat before making any new sysops. Angela. 00:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Redirects to Oral sex

Have these been listed on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion? These are not vandalism, so please follow the RFD policy when deleting them. Guanaco 01:23, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Please cool it, else I'll have to put them all back - David Gerard 01:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This new user has apparently just decided to see how many terms he could think up for sex acts. In two years in the service I never even heard some, such as "cunt slobbering." Policy says offensive redirects can be removed. These are not developed articles. I'm not going to fight over this, but I would think you should consider the evident motivation of the poster, and the quality of Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Read the policy more carefully. Offensive redirects may be listed for deletion and deleted if there is a consensus to do so. Guanaco 01:36, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Please talk to a m:steward about Johnleemk. I don't deal with user rights anymore. -- Tim Starling 15:29, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

You were a early for Denni - its only 15:15 UTC. Secretlondon 15:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)