User talk:Iterator12n

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Willebrord Snellius 2 Bob Evans 3 Coetzee 4 Dutch Revolt 5 'Charles of Spain' 6 Amsterdam 7 Take this.... 8 WP:NOT 9 WikiProject Systems 10 Multatuli 11 Engineering Learning Wiki 12 Least Common Denominator 13 Spain 14 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TomTom 15 Tomtom 16 Really, really bad haikus from a new admin 17 NATO spelling 18 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 19 Federal monarchy 20 My RfA 21 Question 22 RFA 23 My RfA 24 My RfB 25 WikiProject Systems/Member userbox

[edit] Willebrord Snellius

Newer editions of the Winkler Prins and the Grote Oosthoek give his name as "Snellius, Willebrord (eigenlijk W. Snel van Royen)". When moving a page please do not copy and paste and paste the content as this causes the page history to be lost. See Help:Moving a page. Cheers, —Ruud 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, one thing at a time. let's start with the first name. have a look at the image that goes with the snellius article. you'll see "Willebrordus," which makes sense - if one latinizes one's last name, be consistent and latinize one's first name too. next i'll get to the last name. smile. Iterator12n Talk 23:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Willebrord Snellius" is the name that appears on his marriage certificate (which is probably the closest thing as official as you can get for a name in the 17th century) and, as far as I have been able to determine, the most widely used name in various reference works. The "Snell" you sometimes part is likely due to the fact that "de wet van Snellius" became known as "Snell's law". Encarta Winkler Prins, the Grote Oosthoek and Brockhaus all state his name as "Willebrord Snellius (actually Willebrord Snel van Royen)" (well Brockhaus states the actaul name as "Snel van Rojen" (not Royen or even Roijen)). Britannica gives it as "Willebrord van Roijen Snell" in the articles on Snell's law and trigonometry and Encarta as "Willebrord Snell" in the article on optics, though. —Ruud 01:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (which is usually the most authoritative source on the issue of scientist names) has his entry under "Snel, Willebrord". Cheers, —Ruud 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But then, also see Image:Tiphys Batavus (frontispiece).jpg and Image:Eratosthenes Batavus.jpg for a few other Latin declensions of his name. —Ruud 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Asking whether his first name was latinized is a bit of a silly question as this name was not the one given to him at birth, but his scientific name, for which he clearly used various different spellings himself. It is best to follow convention here which quite clearly favours "Willebrord". —Ruud 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You said: "Asking whether his first name was latinized is a bit of a silly question as this name was not the one given to him at birth, but his scientific name, for which he clearly used various different spellings himself." Response: His parents named him Willebrord. Snellius himself seemed to have preferred a latinized name. Then, the various printers at various times may have acted on their own best understanding. His tomb stone in the Pieterskerk in Leiden, with a Dutch text, has "Willebrordus Snellius" as name. I would take that to mean that for posterity, he wanted to be known by that name. (BTW, while Snellius was proficient in latin - he translated works for Stevin etc. - he was also known as a sloppy editor. With the title pages, maybe he didn't care, or maybe he was too busy with other things. Besides, publishers have a way to sneak their idea of a title page past the author, maybe even change the title.)

You said: "Willebrord Snellius is the name that appears on his marriage certificate (which is probably the closest thing as official as you can get for a name in the 17th century) [...]" Response: I did some research into early 17th century family records. I have a rather simple family name but was surprised by the many ways in which the various recorders could (mis-)spell the name. Whatever else, consistency was not a strong point at that time. Of course, limited literacy etc. may have been contributing factors. Also, family names didn't quite play the role that they do today - Napoleon changed all of that.

You said: "The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (which is usually the most authoritative source on the issue of scientist names) has his entry under Snel, Willebrord." Response: Now we're getting somewhere. I propose to recognize two authorities: the DSB and the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek. I will go to the closest university library that has both (over here not an easy thing for the NNBW) to see what they say. Re. the DSB, I would like to see whether it also has an entry for Snell. Anyway, it will take a few days before I get to it.

My final argument: In the UK and the US, at least some people know of Snell's law. (If I would use "Snellius's law" still fewer people would understand what I was writing or talking about. In the Netherlands, there is a problem the other way around: I say Snell, people would take a few seconds, and then say, Oh, you mean Snellius.) Anyway, Snell's law is the common expression. In writing, changing that to Snel's law would mean a small but unnecessary irritant in the communication process - as if one is trying to take attention away from the subject at hand.

Iterator12n Talk 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My university library is only a three minutes walk away, so a was able to put some facsimiles of the articles in the DSB and NNBW up at http://www.ruudkoot.nl/snellius/. Cheers, —Ruud 08:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Re. the last name: The authorities are clear, it’s Snel, not Snell. Damned the irritation. The only question left is, What changed Struik’s mind between 1948 (when the first edition of his A Concise History of Mathematics was issued, with the Snell spelling) and whenever later he wrote the DSB entry? (Until now, I didn’t know that Struik was the writer of the DSB entry. If you would have asked me yesterday for a third authority, I would have mentioned Struik.)

Re. the first name, the authorities don’t give much support for Willebrordus. However, the last name history shows that authorities may change their mind. I will mount a campaign for Willebrordus. Next time in Leiden, I’ll take a picture of Snellius’s tomb stone, post it with the Wikipedia article, and expand a little on the kerfuffle around the Snellius name. (Maybe I'll get into the "Snell's law" convention even before that.)

Last request: Could you post (here or on your website) the bibliographic data for the DSB and NNBW sources – full name, name of chief editor(s), year of publication, name of publisher, ISBN number. Thanks again.

Iterator12n Talk 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC

In the 1988 revised Dutch edition Struik still calls him Snell. My guess would be that even the greatest historians don't have as much attention for the details when writing a overview instead of an in-depth biography. —Ruud 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

True. However, the dispute about Snellius's name is nothing new, and Struik must have been aware of it. Besides, Struik was a geometer himself and seemed to have been into the subject of Snellius. Strange. -- Iterator12n Talk 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Evans

You asked about a picture of Bob Evans. For fair-use criteria, you really need to do a search for a free license one first. I like to look at what other articles have in the way of justifying fair-use in their images (ones that have stood the test of time). The powers that be are more strict these days than ever about allowing fair-use. I think that it is basically that you have to show that no free image is available, and that the one you do use is of poorer quality than the one you derived it from, and also that it is never used in a gallery of images, and just for the one narrow purpose. That last one won't be a problem for an image of Bob Evans in the Bob Evans article. And, also if you find a freely licensed image later on, you are obligated to remove the fair-use one. - Bevo 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to it. Iterator12n ^Talk 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See the text I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_O._Evans - Bevo 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coetzee

Why you think Coetzee, a great-grandson of a Pole is not a Polish Australian? Kowalmistrz 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First, it makes the term "Polish Australian" meaningless if we let a generation thrice removed determine the nature of citizenship. Second, there is nothing in Coetzee's output particularly Polish. Cheers. Iterator12n ^Talk 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Revolt

Sorry for getting back to you so late, I missed your message. Anyway, I believe the article is going to be delisted anyway as there are still many "citation needed" tags that haven't been addressed. Additionally, it appears the article is having a difficult time with NPOV as you stated, and the current back-and-forth editing, is probably effecting the stability of the article is well. I'll take a final look on the 27th, but at this point it will probably be delisted. However, if the article's issues are addressed, the article can then be renominated at WP:GAC. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Charles of Spain'

Now I can't write this without looking like a pedant but Wikipedia is a pedant's charter, so here goes! He inherited the kingdoms separately at different times and from different sources; he never sought to unify them politically or economically. The idea of Hispania goes back to Roman times but in the early modern era it was not used by Charles. Ironically, it was only after the incorporation of Portugal in 1580 that his son, Philip II, started to refer to himself as King of Spain. So it's okay to give Charles this title as a shorthand, amongst friends, with a sly smile and an ironic inverted comma but it's not accurate. All the best, --OhNoPeedyPeebles 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Indeed, the present version of the Charles V article is fine. Still, the "King of Spain" matter is worth two notes. (1) Columbus claimed American lands in the name of "the King and Queen of Spain," not the King or Queen of Aragon or Castile. (2) Around the middle of the 16th Century, "King of Spain" was in general use, see for instance the Dutch national anthem, and P.C. Hooft's De Nederlandse Histooriën (at least in my abridged version). (Of course, Hooft wrote his work 75 years later, but he is said to have been extremely precise in his facts and words.) Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, evidence of the primacy of "Spain" is right in front of us, in the Wikipedia article of Charles V where it shows a coin from the early 1540s with "Hispaniarum" on it! A second case is Charles's appointment of Philip in 1543 to "Regent of Spain." By that time, apparently the power of Charles already had become absolute enough to drop the niceties of "Aragon and Castile." -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amsterdam

I like your edits on the Amsterdam article. All too often when editing simultaneously with someone else there is a conflict and a possible edit war, so it's nice when it works in harmony! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Take this....

I've just looked back at your contribution. I was surprised that you've only been here a few months. Your work progresses Wikipedia, and you have communicated fairly with only one edit war, which you handled well in the circumstances. I was given this award when I started editing and it pleased the hell out of me. It's nice to pass it on. Cheers 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

Well, they're still on the discussion page for the most part. Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_trivia_collection and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Removal_of_trivia_criteria will give you the gist. -Chunky Rice 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the WikiProject Systems. I hope together we can make a difference. If there are things you want to discuss or initiate, please let me know or leave a message at the WikiProject Systems talk page. I've been running the WikiProject Systems with lot's of support for half a year now, and things are still moving. The Announcements archive gives just a little impression of the things we have been doing. This doesn't tell that we are not that active. Things are moving with a stop and go... and in a way (after four years now) I am also still learning about the opportunities and limitations of wikis. Good luck. - Mdd 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multatuli

About the atheism of Multatuli see Idea 919:

"De atheist die aan elken 'Heer'(...) den dienst opzei, heeft hoger plichten te vervullen, en moet zyn genot zoeken in zware verantwoordelykheid.(...)Ik verzeker u dat we talryker zyn dan ge meent..."

About Vosmaer:

He supported Multatuli in articles in "De Nederlandsche Spectator". In 1874 he wrote the book "Een zaaier. Studiën over Multatuli's werken".

Frut 11:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The support of Vosmaer was influential. He played an important role in the "Literature scene" in Holland in the 19th century (he published also the poems of Perk). In personal life he knew Multatuli very well, he was witness at his wedding with Mimi and visited Multatuli and Mimi several times in Wiesbaden.Frut 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering Learning Wiki

I noticed that you removed my links to the Engineering Learning Wiki, and I believe you felt my links might have been SPAM. This could not be farther from the truth. I apologize if this is not the perfect spot to post a response, but I am a bit of a Wikipedia newbie. If you inspect the engineering learning wiki you will find that it is a web site which provides links engineering learning wiki and knowledge collaboration content. There is not any advertising, and it does not promote me or my place of employement (Honeywell). Instead it is an attempt to provide better access to free engineering learning resources available via the web. The wiki is a consortium efforts of many large companies ... although I am the primary driving force behind it. You can learn more about me at my blog. eContent. I may be contacted at rhoeg{at}comcast{dot}net

It seems that Tangient LLC (apparently the sponsor of ELW, correct this if necessary) is a normal, commercial business (again, correct this if necessary). Nothing wrong with business but it would be wrong for Wikipedia to serve as a conduit for traffic to Tangient's wikis. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhoeg"

Also note that other editors - Mdd and User A1 - have taken similar removal actions. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhoeg"

Hi ... Rich Hoeg here answering your two questions. Tangient LLC is the not the sponsor of the Engineering Learning Wiki, I am! I actually paid Tangient LLC $50 (per annum) to gain more services via their wiki service, and insure that they could not post advertisements on my individual wiki space. Just like individuals on the web who need various services for blogs, etc, I wanted to create a wiki which supports engineering education. If you Google "engineering wiki" you'll find there is not any resource like this content. I believe in providing free access to these kinds of service, and am willing to put my money where my mouth is! While I understand why you might not want a link to Tangient, it would have cost me far more money to rent server space and install my own version of Media Wiki. Essentially they are just a web hosting service.

Thanks for taking the time to ask your questions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.182.38 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Mdd and User A1 for second opinions. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello All. My essential issue with linking this wiki is that it is designed to boost support for a project. This argument would remain regardless of whom is hosting the wiki. WP:LINK is quite clear, and as policy it is has been considered by a large number of editors and is most likely there for a good reason.

The policy for external links to other wikis is to be avoided, unless there is a significant number of editors and a high level of stability, even then the article must be considered as to the quality of the learning resource. The reasoning for this I cannot say, as I have not trawled the history to see what was said, however I imagine that it is to prevent the proliferation of small, or incomplete wikis. The link to the engineering wiki itself I consider to be unnecessary considering the current state of the external wiki, and perhaps some time in the future this can be reconsidered.

So in short: There is no weighting on whom hosts the wiki, merely on the content and stability of the aforementioned content. Thankyou User A1 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree here. Removing these links has much more to do with Wikipedia policies to refer only to highly stable, peer reviewed, sources. Good luck with your wiki site. - Mdd 14:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rich Hoeg here again (admin of the engineering learning wiki, and the person who added the links). Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and analysis. I understand and while I don't like the outcome, I basically agree with your position. I've been fascinated on how this "played out". I learned a lot, and will blog my experience. You are all to be commended for your involvement with Wikipedia. This is what makes it such a good tool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.182.38 (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Least Common Denominator

The source is Connected Mathematics 2nd edition, Bits and Pieces I. Is that sufficient as a source or do you need photocopies of the actual book? --Bachcell (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. For a proper citation of the source (so the general reader of Wikipedia's LCD article knows what book is being referred to, precisely) see Wikipedia:Citation templates. However, overriding a proper citation is the consideration that the LCD article is not the place to fight a cultural war about education reform or not. The LCD article should deal with the mathematical concept of LCD. The LCD concept is not central to education reform. (If I understand your position re. ER correctly, it seems that you should be interested first of all in a full explanantion of the LCD concept. Inserting the issue of ER only takes away from the explanation of the LCD concept.) Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

Actually, there was a "Kingdom of Italy" (conforming to the north and centre of modern Italy) between the time of Charlemagne and that of Napoleon, and a Kingdom of Germany roughly from the time of Louis the German (when it was initially East Francia) to Napoleon, so to talk of Charles as King in these kingdoms is perfectly acceptable. Whereas there was no 'Kingdom of Spain' until 1707 (even if pretenders such as Sancho III called themselves 'Emperor of the Spains'). So it's acceptable in the body of the text to talk of him as having 'ruled Spain', but it simply confuses the issue in the lead: you give the reader the impression that he was King of a unified body, which was certainly not the case. Michael Sanders 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you answering. If we agree on "ruled Spain," can I invite you to take away (as you see fit) any impression that he was king of a unified body? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd just like to leave the introduction as it is. Michael Sanders 15:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like people talking behind my back, I prefer them to talk straight to me. That doesn't make it appropriate for you to use my talk page as a dumping ground for witless blatherings directed at other editors about the virtues and drawbacks of amateur encyclopaedias. Michael Sanders 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TomTom

Hi. This company is very notable and you may want to just withdraw the AfD rather than let it drag out. I left some detailed comments on the AfD page. 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As you requested a DRV of this matter, I have looked into the case. I have annulled the non-admin closure as speedy keep and reopened a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TomTom (2nd nomination). You may consider adding your opinion there. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• One thing I want to say about the TomTom affair: by drawing attention to the article with your AfD nomination you certainly caused people to improve it. It was a classic "no sources except the company's website" mess three days ago, it's much better now. :-) --Stormie (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My aspirations were higher (to convince editors that Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should not also become a business directory) but for now I’ll take the improvement in the TomTom article. I have to re-plan my business directory attack. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start by building your case at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I disagree with your idea, but it is certainly a valid, credible idea. Good luck, --A. B. ^(talk) 23:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In North America, tom toms were often war drums or voodoo drums. There's a message there but i'm not sure I know what it is.

Ultimately.. we're talking about a publically listed company with over a 7 billion euro market cap. I consider myself quite inclined to the deletionist camp when it comes to notability, but I can't imagine setting the bar so high that such a company would not be reckoned worthy of a Wikipedia article. --Stormie (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Being slightly (but only very slightly) familiar with the situation around TomTom (not familiar enough to improve the article) I was turned off by the business-directory-kind of article that TomTom was. I think there is a potential for a much more interesting article, even an encyclopdic article, and still better than even today's edition. (An encyclopedic TomTom article would preserve little from even today's edition.) My general point: Wikipedia only should have encyclopedic articles, not travel-guide-kind of articles, not business-directory-kind of articles, not how-to-play-the-violin-kind of articles, not etc. etc. Wikipedia should not try to become everything to everybody. (I would like to leave "what's encyclopedic" for another occasion. I have followed the Wikipedia discussion of that topic, and have restrained myself from participating, so far.) -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomtom

I'm afraid you have the wrong person. It wasn't me that closed the AFD. >Radiant< 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Iterator, thanks for your support in my RfA.

I find your stated purpose on your user page very interesting. The culture and dynamics here are interesting to me, if once in a while a little off-putting. I don't think human nature has changed much in the last few millennia, but its forms of expression are constantly evolving. Now we have this big experiment, Wikipedia, that really doesn't have many close precedents (in my opinion). I think sociologists could write 50 academic theses on the subject without exhausting the topic.

I think somewhere I've seen a Wikiproject or list of groups studying us lab-rats in our maze.

In the meantime as you figure all this out, enjoy your haikus,
--A. B. ^(talk) 15:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reacting to my user page. Regarding doesn’t have many close precedents I offer for your consideration a concept that (in my opinion) is a precedent – democracy. This is not to say that Wikipedia is (or should be) a democracy. Instead, what I mean is that the participant in a democracy and the participant in Wikipedia both don’t have (or need to have) perfect knowledge but that ideally the outcome of democracy and the outcome of Wikipedia are better than any participant can offer individually. Obviously, this opinion goes back to a mathematics-driven interest in systems, complexity and emergence. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NATO spelling

Sorry for the late response: NATO officially uses Oxford spelling. The reliable source is NATO's own website.

Have a look on the official NATO homepage [1]. Here we see the spelling of "organization" in the name of the organisation itself; whilst if you have a closer look you will notice "Informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers" under Upcoming Events (accessed on 16 Dec).

Interestingly, NATO actually used standard British spelling (-ise) until mid-2007 (look on NATO's talk page on Wikipedia); but like most international organisations such as the UN has changed to use Oxford spelling.

Swedish fusilier (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --Elonka 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federal monarchy

Hi. I've nominated this article for deletion if you're interested. Cheers. --Gazzster (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. On the appropriate page, I have given my support for deletion. Actually, right now I'm mildly down on Wikipedia as a whole because of the abundance of articles like Federal Monarchy, articles that don't belong in an encyclopedia, not only because they are badly written or badly sourced but because they appear to be largely based on the invention of one misguided writer or another. Good for you to do something about it. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I've realised Wikipedia isn't the great learning tool it purports to be. It has many flaws, including, as you say, the invention of poorly thought through terms and concepts. Which is disturbing, considering how widely Wikipedia is used as a source by schoolchildren.--Gazzster (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source on the tension issue http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/hpt/2003/00000024/00000004/354 Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the abstract alone, it looks like the article addresses the tension between confederation (never mind that the WP article is about the federal monarchy) and central authority, independent from the specifics of kingship versus some other form of central authority. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 16:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello Iterator12n, I noticed you revert vandalism, occasionally but efficiently. Would you like rollback to help you when reverting vandalism? Acalamari 23:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would. Not that my present method of reversion forms a big burden for me but I always like to learn about new (new for me) tools. Thanks. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 00:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) If you would like to read up on rollback or practice with it on a test page, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 00:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Image:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Iteratir, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I am especially thankful that you took the time to review my work and change your opinion to support; I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Systems/Member userbox

Hi, I updated the WikiProject Systems/Member userbox and changed it allready on you userpage. -- Mdd (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)