User talk:After Midnight/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi my name is Priscilla Taylor

I noticed you changed my date of birth, I assume you retrieved that date of birth from IMDB. I am in a lawsuit with them for this reason, I wrote an older DOB in 1995 on my PLAYBOY data sheet and this spiraled into a mess Ive been slowly fixing. If you like you can email me at [email protected] and I can send you a copy of my ID to prove this if you need. Thanks in advance Priscilla

I changed the Wikipedia date of birth back to my actual one which is Aug 15, 1976 —The preceding

OK. It is best to try to remember

WP:BLP for more details. It doesn't look as though your edits have caused any contention and I don't see any reliable sources that dispute them, so it looks like everything is fine for now. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

14:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is good to hear from you. From the frequency of your contributions, it looks like you have settled your other matters. I am glad things are working out for you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am adding an entry for Sarah Cahill the pianist. I am fixing the "ambiguous" links first, so that nothing is broken. I have changed all Sarah Cahill links to be either (pianist) or (beauty queen). I have added Sarah Cahill (new) which will be the disambiguation. OK? ReechardUser talk:Reechard 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the user's page to keep to one thread. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the FAc page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've brought it up on

the fair use page. Dev920

(Have a nice day!) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good job at writing that up and presenting both sides. Also, thanks for taking this in the spirit with which it is intended. I know that image issues can be contentious and I appreciate that we can both stay

cool on this. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is obvious you mean well, and I certainly have no objection to users who raise legitimate issues with me. Thank you for being so nice about it - I've worked with other users who would have been a lot more arrogant. Hopefully this'll all be cleared up shortly and Andrew can join the ranks of the

great and the good. :) Btw, do you have any other reasons for opposing? Dev920

(Have a nice day!) 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly haven't gotten too involved in FAC very much before now. The image is what drew me into this one, since I didn't want to put one of those ugly tags on an article that was being reviewed while it was in process. I'll go back through the criteria and make another comment on the discussion page. --After Midnight 0001 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the image was sourced and given a rationale by its uploader Dr.Bat, but Matthew has taken it to IfD, so this will be definitively sorted out one way or another now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry that this caused contention. I did notice that the uploader and one or more other editors were reverting and replacing the image. I hope that it does not hurt your chances for getting the article through the FAC process. It really is quite good. I am truly impressed with your resolve, I did not imagine that someone could cover a topic on a fictional character so extensively to reach the level of excellence that you have. Bravo. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello After Midnight! I have proposed a policy

OK, I'll take a look in just a bit. Just wondering... why me? I apologize if I don't remember, but have we worked together before? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I think I saw your username link on someone else's talk page.

Wooyi

23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hey, no need to appologize. I just was intrigued about the invitation, but I was certainly not bothered. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello; First, I apologize for not having accompanied my edits with edit summaries. In Egypt, last name are insignificant, because they change with time. For instance, if your name is FIRST MIDDLE LAST, your son or daughter who has X as first name, will be called X FIRST MIDDLE. Thus, with time, your last name disappears and, 3 generations later, even your 1st name will disappear. Your grandson or grand-daughter will have your first name as their last name. This is why Egyptian names are categorized on a first name basis. Thanks for your understanding. --Lanternix 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll get a response from me as well, don't worry :) Probably tomorrow, I'm kind of busy at times. >Radiant< 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, cool. Thank you. I always find it interesting how some people respond to messages on other people's talk pages. I know that "anyone" can do "anything" on a wiki, and I understand how someone can easily respond to another person's question when it is factual in nature, but I am often surprised when someone feels qualified to offer an opinion on behalf of someone else (unless the people involved have an established relationship or one is off-wiki for extended time). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see your point, those wikiproject reactions weren't very nice and smell of
  WP:OCAT. HTH! >Radiant<
  09:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll try to get it soon, but I am traveling and not sure I can do it until I get back to my scripts on my home PC in a couple days. BTW, did you get to look at that Alaska thing? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 07:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me... just looked it up... according to an AP article I pulled up "Kristina Christopher-Taylor" was definitely the name of Miss Alaska 1985. According to Pageantopolis, "Kim Christopher-Taylor" was Miss Alaska USA 1986. So perhaps sisters? --

talk | contribs | esperanza

07:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That pretty much eliminates vandalism. If we get any reference for a family relationship we can always note it later. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 07:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I've linked the years in all the articles back through 1995. BTW, I also posted a couple questions on the talk pages for 96 and 95 if you get a chance to take a look. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Saw in your userpage that you are an advanced mathematician. Was wondering if, by any chance, your field of expertise happens to be lambda calculus. I work in that field, so it would be good to be acquainted with others in the same field of expertise. :) --soum (0_o) 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Me, not so much, but check out {{User λ}} and I'm sure you will find some. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) --soum (0_o) 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear After Midnight,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

--

• Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real
  WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube
  04:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I only have 2 of the national teams on my watchlist, but I revert and warn for all vandalism that I find regardless of the topic or potential bias of the people involved, on all articles, not just football. You, however, should not vandalize Wikipedia to make a

point. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out this page from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Looks like they've been checking out the wiki! Most of the hometowns/ where born bits are all from here... I highly doubt they sleuthed all that stuff themselves :P

Thanks for sorting out the wikilinking... we're going to have to keep an eye on the "Uma Blasini" situation but I think once the move request is resolved things will calm down... I laugh that I'm being accused of "owning" the article... methinks that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black! --

Wow that is something. I don't see where they list their source. I would bet that they either did pull it off of here as you suggest, unless they are able to get all that from the official Miss USA press kit or something similar. By the way, speaking of keeping an eye on things, we may have a

WP:OWN issue on Paige Brooks‎ as well. The original author has reverted the page back to their version. It is possible that author is actually Paige herself. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Re

talk | contribs | esperanza

01:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, after a 3RR warning and request to post concerns on the talk page, I eventually reported the account for a 3RR violation and it has been blocked for 24 hours. --

talk | contribs | esperanza

22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye out again once the block expires. I'll be interested to find out if it editor is also the subject. --After Midnight 0001 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note the difference stated in *Category:Year of birth unknown as opposed to *Category:Year of birth missing (Shannon James, for one, would be placed in the latter category). Thanks, Irk_(talk) 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I have never been comfortable with the differentiation between these 2 categories. I think that it is subjective now, especially with BLP. The editor is being asked to make a judgment regarding whether or not the year will ever be truly known with a

WP:RS, and now with the BLP concerns and people hiding their ages, I think that this becomes more and more difficult to pinpoint exactly. I understand that different people will make that judgment call differently, so if you prefer to change the category on any that I have used, please feel free. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! Herostratus 20:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

...I was wrong by the time the debate closed, so my vote should've changed anyhow. No offense taken.--02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically, talk pages are deleted when the image or article is deleted. There is a discussion at

OK. I restored it. -Regards

talk

01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not have to be redeleted. That is not a requirement, just a tradition since most of the time the information is not needed. I do not plan to delete it, but you may want to copy the info to WP:PUI as a backup, just in case somebody else deletes the talk page in the future for some reason. -

talk

01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In your comment in this discussion, you noted that this discussion should be sent elsewhere. Now that the AfD has been closed, the question now is where to hold this discussion. I encourage you and the other editors (listed below) to find a suitable spot for this discussion and carry out the necessary steps for making a decision.

Perhaps this message does not make any sense whatsoever. In which case, please respond to this message and indicate what you want me (as the closing admin of the aforementioned AfD discussion) to do to carry out the result of the AfD. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

.

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: rfd

Generally, you shouldn't edit closed XfD discussion, but I'd think it's perfectly exceptable in this case. John Reaves (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Something's been bugging me for a while now and I finally gave in and thought I'd ask your opinion: what do you think of the formatting of the delegates tables for the Miss Universe year articles (e.g.

I agree that the caps are silly. The columns work for me because it really shrinks up the real estate. The bolding of the names I don't mind because it helps me visually break up the entries. The bold for other entries I'm not so nuts about; I would consider using plain text or italics instead. I hate all the linking in the heights, but that is a function of the template which converts to metric; only way around that would be to create an alternate template to use that doesn't include the links (which would be easy enough to do). Is that the kind of feedback you are looking for? I won't be online much longer tonight.... --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This has probably got to you too late to catch you tonight but no problem :) Thanks for your comments, I agree that the columns are good and kind of see what you're saying about the bolding... I think what I really have issues with is the relationship between the country titles and the names. More questions: are the flags really necessary? I would rather see the country name bulletted with the name and other information inline bulletted (**). Second point: are the heights really necessary? Again, I'm not so sure. In truth, I'd rather see the whole tables set up like the ones for the Miss USA articles. As you have pointed out in the past, the placements etc aren't really necessary in the table because it is already included above. Anyway let me knwo waht you think... --

talk | contribs | esperanza

04:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see.... I think that flags are a nice touch. I'm used to them because I do alot of editing on sports articles and they are used there also. Heights to me do not add that much value. I have never entered or edited one and don't pay attention to them, so if they disappear, I certainly won't miss them. Ages can be helpful because they can be used later to help determine birth dates when researching/creating new articles, but still not necessary. You have a good point about the placements, the only potential counter for that is that this table is bigger than the 50 states, so you may have to scroll further to find that info. I think it was good that you posted the comment on the talk page for the article. That may generate additional discussion. As you know, I will go with the consensus. I can't imagine that you would do anything that would hurt the article, besides, anything you change can always be restored from the history if someone objects strongly at a later time. Or, if you are really concerned, you could copy the whole section to the talk page before you change it…. I hope all this helps. Regards --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Take a look at

talk | contribs | esperanza

22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I see that you did '87 and '95 also. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep! Call it a good 'ole bit of random article selection at work :) --

talk | contribs | esperanza

04:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Archive_5, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Postal Codes

Hi, I just wanted to see if I could get some idea of your further plans as to what to do about the various postal codes. Category:Lists of postal codes is pretty extensive, so I understand it's a chore, but I agree with the idea that something needs to be done. FrozenPurpleCube 16:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for stopping by. I was thinking about dropping you a line as well but I'm still trying to formulate a position. I honestly am not sure yet where this should go or what I would like to see happen. Among other things, I am trying to keep an open mind as I see how the consensus forms on this issue. I tried to ask an impartial administrator for a suggestion about how to proceed and they suggested that I take it to an appropriate VP. Unfortunately, I tried to get some clarification from them and none was forthcoming. I actually was not even sure whether they were telling me to discuss the issue at VP or if I should go to the VP for help instead of asking them. Also, I couldn't figure out which of the VP's was appropriate. Do you have any ideas of how to generate a more broad community discussion? If not, my current planning is to look around more in the categories to see what else is there. I know that there is a real plethora of articles out there. I haven't looked at enough of them to see if they are all similar or are easily replaced, especially the ones outside the US. So, long story short... if this AFD ends in keep, I will probably move on and let someone else champion the effort. If it ends delete and no easy solution becomes apparent, I will look for another grouping of articles and continue to build consensus/precedent. Let me stress again, any suggestions are welcome. BTW, as far as this being a chore, I'm up to the challenge. If it is necessary to just grind through these, I will do so. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Village Pump section I feel is closest to what you want is the policies section, since looking at it, I see that it is the most directly related to whether or not pages should be kept (a matter of policy after all). Failing that, creating page in your user-space might be the thing to do. But this could be totally wrong, I'm as uncertain as you are as to what would be the best way to reach a good consensus on these pages, and that's why I hadn't acted yet. But it looks like the AFD will be a delete, so it looks like you'll have some work ahead for you. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you, even just giving recommendations on borderline pages. FrozenPurpleCube 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and input. I checked out that VP; what a mess.... I'm not sure how much gets decided there, at first glance it looks a bit like a free-for-all, but I'll continue to monitor. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are lots of messes like that on Wikipedia. Frankly, I'm not sure how much gets decided anywhere on Wikipedia, but that's for someone into sociology to research. FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.

But what do you mean by minor edits?

Universal Hero 16:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Universal Hero#AWB to try to keep thread unified. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking because that is what I normally do with AWB, it skips pages that don't have typo's on them. ~~

Hello. I am assuming that you saw my comments to Universal Hero. If you click on the 4 links that I posted, I believe that you will see that they are all just white space, with no text involved. Typo fixing is however strongly encouraged and is a great use of the tool in my opinion. Naturally, when typo fixing, you should always check your edits to make sure your fix is appropriate and you should have the correct edit summary selected (Note: I haven't looked at your edits; I'm not saying that you don't do this properly. I am just commenting in general.) Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, tough one. I'd be inclined to call it a defining characteristic, yes. Of course this would require sourcing, but it's less of a BLP problem than a cat for the perpetrators would be. >Radiant< 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding

I would like to know why you put the well documented and very well done zip code pages up for deletion. These pages obviously took a long time to make and for them to be struck down by a rule that was meant for phone numbers, etc seems wrong. I know I use those pages on a somewhat daily basis and will probably save them tonight in case they are deleted. Take care....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, there was an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma) which targeted one of the articles. The AFD was closed with a recommendation to discuss all the articles as a group, rather than individually. Please know that I mean no disrespect towards the articles, nor those who created and worked on them. My opinion was that they did not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia as stated in my nomination, but since we work on consensus, I am always open to listen to all sides and will abide any decision which is made by the closing administrator. Please also note that I am letting people state their opinions without replying to demean other users or their views. I hope that this clears up my intent and position, but if not, please let me know. Respectfully, After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I gotcha now. I think the articles could be knocked down instead of state by state, it could be first two numbers and then list the town and state there. That would be more helpful (in my opinion). But, state by state would be more helpful for most and clear out the first two numbers lists.

Please know that I know you have no disrespect for the articles themselves. Sometimes, really big articles, sometimes have to go due to Wikipedia rules. But, I would be glad to work to a consensus with you. Please let me know how I can help. Take Care....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would say that the best thing that you can do is to make as clear and convincing an argument as possible on the discussion page, if you have not already done so (note that I am not going back to look at what you have already posted as I write this - you may have already done this). The best arguments cite policies and guidelines rather than emotional arguments. Also, I think that the articles are most "at risk" for the content which is merely 5 digit numbers with the name of a city, etc. Any prose, especially if cited, strengthens an article. Also, you may want to consider splitting the prose out to new articles titled "History of ZIP codes in State". If you don't have a chance to copy all of the text and it does get deleted, I am sure that you would be able to find an admin to put the page in a sandbox for you to get it later if you use this argument (and I would certainly support you in that regard). Regards --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I did post a reply on the AFD page, it is small, I hope it is convincing. If not, I have saved all the pages and I can copy it down to a word pad document and save it here on my computer for my personal use.

If you need any further help with this or any other article, please let me know. I am happy to help where I am needed. Take care....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to bold the winners... do you have any suggestions as to a quick-and-easy way to fix all the articles to the new delegates' list standard? I've just been using notepad but you often have good ideas!

Sure, just ask me to do it for you.... LOL, but seriously.... When I want to buzz through a bunch of edits like that I usually use Word and Excel techniques. I am pretty proficient at using them with their find/replace, formulas and macros. I could probably knock each one out in 5 minutes or so, if you think you might want me to do them, just let me know and I'll run a test and see how long it takes me to do one. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well my trick is find&replace as well (using notepad). Ok well I was being a bit obvious, wasn't I? Lol. Ok so fine, would you mind doing a few? Perhaps doing 1979 forward whilst I work backwards? Sorry to put this upon you!

User Talk Review me!

03:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, starting to process some CFD's now and then it will probably be time for bed. I should be able to crank these out over the weekend, I think I'm at least a half-day behind you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you got most of them done before I started, but I think I took care of the last 5. I wan't sure what to do about all those long names though. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

removing prod - all US Playboy centerfolds have articles [1][2]

Huh. Who knew!

Is this just unwritten general practice, or is this actually hashed out somewhere?

Thanks for your time, --

Hello, thanks for stopping by. First of all, let me say that I literally do mean centerfolds, not every model that has appeared in every issue. You will find that all the centerfolds, including the 2 that you tagged will have an infobox which will let you navigate to the Playmate who preceded and succeeded them. You can use these to navigate in sequence to every centerfold in the US editions of Playboy. Also, if you check out

WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. I hope that helps; if your questions was different, please let me know and I'll try again. Regards. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an end run per se; it may be the case that people tried the new name for awhile and found it didn't work out either, effectively simplifying a keep/delete/rename debate to a keep/delete debate. But I'll keep an eye out anyway. >Radiant< 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to remove an argumentative comment by Calton (BAD IDEA on my part) and that set that off. I attempted to say that it wasn't the time nor the place, but that never works out. I left it at that. He can respond back as much as he likes. My apologizes, though, if it seemed like I was being argumentative myself, I wasn't, but again, my apologizes if it seemed like I was. Take Care....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 05:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't trying to reprimand anyone, I just wanted to intervene to try to make sure that nothing got further escalated. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were, just letting you know why I did what I did. Take Care....SVRTVDude ^(VT) 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a screen cap hahahahaha. Is it illegal to use one for an article photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz madrid (talk • contribs) 12:11, 26 April 2007

First of all, let me say thanks for commenting on the CFR for Category:United States National Guard officers. Yes, it was a kind of test case - I was going to start with the subcategories of the Air Force and branch out from there. You mentioned an umbrella nomination for renaming: do you think it's a good idea to nom all of the categories at once, or should I nom then one at a time? I was thinking of splitting it up by US military branch, that way it's not a too overwhelming nomination, and if there are objections, it would be easier to document. Again, thanks for your comments! - NDCompuGeek 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that an umbrella nom is best because that you are doing several at once and you don't get people objecting because "this one is different from that one" (like I did). At the same time, I understand that you might not want to overwhelm people by doing too many at once. I would consider doing either everything in Category:American military officers, which looks like 15-20 cats, or do the 3 in Category:United States Air Force officers and mention that you will be quickly following with the corresponding Army, Navy and Marine. But hey, just my opinion, obviously, I'm not in charge here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My adopter,

Good evening (

Cheers, and see you around!

Regards,

Note — I've got the same intentions now as you did

here

- normally I reply on my own talk page to keep threads contiguous, but I wanted to make sure that you saw this.

Normally, I reply on my own talk page to keep threads contiguous, but I wanted to make sure that you saw this. By now, you have probably noticed that I and some other people have commented further about the formatting. I would be happy to discuss that issue with you further if you choose; I think that it is no longer an issue for your RFA. More importantly, I wanted to say that I perhaps jumped and judged you too harshly upon following some of the links that had been provided. Fortunately, I am not a "hit and run" commenter at RFA and I have seen the testimony of several other editors who have spoken on your behalf. As you probably also have noticed, I have withdrawn my opposition. It sounds like you will be a fine admin and I wish you luck with the remainder of the process (not that it looks like you will need it). I hope to see you again and look forward to having positive interactions with you in the future. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I did, in fact, see the relevant withdrawal at my RfA, nevertheless thank you for taking the time to post over here. Your thoughts have been noted, and thank you for your moral support! Look forward to having positive interactions with you in the future - and I, you ;) don't hesitate to drop me a line back here any time!

Kindest regards,

Anthony

16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)