Community input[edit]

• I believe you'd be better off changing it, but if you'd really prefer not to, I'd recommend some kind of notice near the top of your userpage, stating that you understand why the username could be found offensive, and your XBox explanation. One more thing: Wikipedia is the only website where I use this username. I post on a few messageboards and have accounts on a number of websites, using a completely different name. I have no idea why I used Enigmaman/Enigma when I signed up for Wikipedia, but it turned out to be a very good choice. I've learned through experience that it's good not to be able to be connected. Enigma ^message 02:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Between the possibly divisive connotations of xenocidic vs. Xeno, I think I'd go with your current name. Just my opinion though. Congrats btw. dorftrottel (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree. Xeno is not Xenu. Plus, it sounds cool. Enigma ^message 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't take a look at the details within those hidden spoilers, but I think your username is fine. I don't see it as a violation of WP:IU. Useight (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My concern about the name wasn't based on Ender's Game. It was about what the real world meaning would be. Look at Xenophobia. Xenocide would mean killing any foreigners or unfamiliar people. I don't see how keeping a name like "xenocidic" is prudent when you can't change its meaning. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I really don't think there's a problem. It seems unlikely to me that someone's going to interpret it that way and really be upset. What about a userpage disclaimer denying any xenophobic tendencies? Would that take care of any problems? delldot on a public computer talk 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see this as a really major problem. As long as you have the proper disclaimers in place, there is no reason for it to be. This was only a minor component of my oppose comment at your RfA; it concerned me more that you hadn't thought through the possibility that others might find your name divisive. However, per the comments above, it seems that if you don't mind changing your name to avoid the possibility that it might be misconstrued and give the appearance of partiality in some hypothetical future dispute you might be involved in, this might be a good time to do it. I hope that helps; if the thoroughness and thoughtfulness you've brought to this exercise are any indication of your style, I am sure you will be a very good admin. --John (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I cant say I personally have an issue with it. You could, as a happy little compromise, edit your sig to say, "Xeno" while still retaining xenocidic as your offical name. Much like I have with Queerbubbles to QB, queer being the operative word. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with delldot Dave the Rave 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel that your name actually accurately reflects the job of an admin. You must be forever conscious of the power to wipe out large groups through carelessness. Also, at worst maybe you could just change your signature to "Xeno" or some such? Adam McCormick (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I take no offense to your name. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have never seen your username as offensive. Actually, I am kind of jealous. Mine is just so boring. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 14:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never had any negative feelings towards xenocidic's username,in fact, it's what drew me to him in the first place. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 15:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I've always thought your name was pretty cool. (not as cool as mine though :P ) Before your RFA, I'd never thought about it and when I did, I was thinking the "xenophobic" thing, which you are obviously not. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl, in a thorough and well-written examination of my deleted contributions, raised a concern about my usage of the tag "CSD A1". This went back and forth for some time, as I explained how the articles met my understanding of A1. She confirmed that I misunderstood A1, which I conceded. Friday (talk · contribs), thinking me a devil, played advocate with an exposition about how admins sometimes need to ignore all rules, in particular noting that he would like to "see admins deleting whatever is obviously inappropriate by an understanding of the general goals and principles of the project". Moonriddengirl, showing her angelic side, rebuted, suggesting that admins should not "have the power to unilaterally delete articles". Realizing that this wider issue did not really apply to my RFA, she invited Friday to her talk page for drinks, and a healthy debate ensued regarding this matter which you can see at this permalink. As for my RFA, she clarified that she had "otherwise overwhelming approval" of it and that she was "otherwise very impressed with [my] contributions, ... level-headedness and ... approach to Wikipedia". She suggested I "proceed cautiously while getting the hang of CSDs".

Users expressing concern[edit]

• Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs), per above
• Firsfron (talk · contribs) supported, but advised me "to consider Moonriddengirl's reservations"
• DGG (talk · contribs) opposed, saying the issue revealed by Moonriddengirl was "careless CSD tagging"
• Johnbod (talk · contribs) opposed, per DGG, noting these were "very recent and basic mistakes"
• Celarnor (talk · contribs) opposed on the basis of these tags, saying that it indicated that I was "someone who isn't here to build an encyclopedia"
• Dorftrottel (talk · contribs) switched from support to oppose, "per several concerns brought up above" (I'm unsure if this issue was one of them, though as it makes up the bulk of the opposing section, I gather it was)
• Madman2001 (talk · contribs) opposed, calling me "speedy-happy", I replied here.
• Tiptoety (talk · contribs) opposed citing concern that I would misuse the delete button and per my reply to Madman, teaching me that sometimes, it's best just to keep your mouth shut.
• Nsk92 (talk · contribs) opposed, per John and DGG stating that he thought I was "too hasty with speedy delete tags"
• Wisdom89 (talk · contribs) was an early strong supporter, who later changed to weak oppose, suggesting I had a "very tenuous/shaky grasp of CSD policy"
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) opposed, per DGG and Moonriddengirl.

Response[edit]

• The explanation text for CSD criteria A1 is as follows:

• I had misinterpreted this, and applied it incorrectly per this interpretation (explained here and here).
• That being said, as I noted in my response to DGG, each of these articles brought up by Moonriddengirl have since been red-linked.
• This does not, however, excuse improper usage of the tag, but the articles were obviously inappropriate and by bringing them to the attention of the administrators, 100% of the articles were speedily deleted (under proper criteria).
• Lenticel (talk · contribs), in their support, felt that per my initial CSD tagging, untagging, and improving of WeMix.com indicated that to the contrary of those calling my actions "careless", I am in fact a responsible new pages patroller,
• Personally, I often lean more towards the inclusion side.
• While I now understand where criteria A1 is appropriate, I admit my understanding of some of the other criteria is still somewhat foggy - something I had hoped to cover in admin coaching.
• I will acquire a greater understanding of how CSD criteria applies by observing other administrator actions.
• Until then, I will stick to deleting pages that clearly meet criteria (such as G1, G2, G3, G6, G7, and G10) beyond a shadow of a doubt.
• In cases where I am unsure, I will seek the advice of a fellow administrator and Moonriddengirl has agreed to be a go-to gal for this purpose (though I know several other highly active admins who would be perfect for this as well).
• Towards the end of the RFA as more people raised concern about the CSD tagging, I made this statement, which I stand by.

Community input[edit]

• My goodness, but you are meticulous. :) A good trait, I think. At least one of them was not deleted by a proper criterion, but that was not your fault. Golf in middle earth was deleted as WP:CSD#G1, nonsense. Nonsense has a specific and very strict definition on Wikipedia, here. I suspect that it was deleted under the suspicion that it was a hoax, which would properly be a WP:CSD#G3, vandalism, deletion. However, as we now know, it wasn't a hoax, but legitimate information, if not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The nonsense tag is often misapplied, so I'd suggest you watch out for those. In addition to hoaxes and generally unencyclopedic material ("Bob is a good dog"--a legitimate A1 candidate!), I've seen it put on foreign language articles (on the premise that foreign languages are nonsense to an English encyclopedia). G3 is a little tricky, too, especially when it comes down to hoaxes. Even if it looks blatant (and I would honestly have thought that one was), I always verify by searching before deletion. I do not want to be the admin who deletes Leck mich im Arsch! If I have the slightest doubt, I'm putting it up for wider review. Bulletball should not have been deletable by any of the speedy criteria aside from WP:CSD#G4 without an application of WP:IAR, as games are not a valid candidate for WP:CSD#A7 and the article was not promotional and so did not meet WP:CSD#G11. But I'd like to note that, in my case, my point was never about whether those articles were encyclopedic, but only that I look for a thorough understanding of the deletion criteria and the consensus for when and how they are to be used before supporting an RfA. Again, though, your other contributions won my respect nevertheless. You are always welcome to drop by my page, to get (or give) advice. :) And I'll go ahead and congratulate you here for weathering the process. I remember well how agonizing it was. :/ You passed with a wider margin than I did. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kmweber was an early opposer, stating in his edit summary that the candidate "assumes we all share his faults" and "fails to recognize that people can change their minds over time." Originally I had meant to let this comment stand on its own, but a well-meaning supporter asked for clarification which led Bobet to speculate that it had to do with my comment at Guest9999's RFA self-nom in response to kurt's famous oppose statement.

Users expressing concern[edit]

• kmweber (talk · contribs), per above
• seresin (talk · contribs) opposed, stating that bringing up kurt's "years-old self-nom RfA in that manner was probably supposed to be funny, but it comes off to me as petty and immature, and it did not add anything to the conversation"
• John (talk · contribs), opposed per Seresin, and elucidated on the talk page of the RFA stating that, in addition to his concern about the username, the "recent snippy comment to K Weber, [was] enough to make me doubt whether you have yet got the right temperament for the role."

Response[edit]

• As I stated in my response to John's further remarks on the RFA talk page, the comment was indeed ill-advised and unhelpful.
• I could've apologized to kurt during the RFA, however it would've seemed insincere (i.e. an apology merely to prevent further opposes).
• Frankly, I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
• I regret making the statement, not because it caused people to oppose my RFA, but because it makes me look immature and petty, which is out of character for me.
• I've since apologized to kurt.

Community input[edit]

• Your apology to kurt could hardly be improved upon and I think puts the matter firmly to rest. We all say things in the heat of the moment that we later have cause to regret, and normally an apology is quite sufficient. As above, my concern was that this might indicate a temperamental deficiency that would potentially create problems for an admin. I no longer have any qualms about this and I look forward to working with you in the future. --John (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first oppose came from Naerii, who felt that my answer to Q2 indicated somewhat weak mainspace contributions. For "best contributions", I had cited major cleanup efforts I did for WeMix.com and Realtime Worlds, but I also noted template work and new article work. My nominator came to my defense, suggesting I "deserve[d] credit for trying to salvage an article [I] initially taged for speedy deletion" and that the difference between what Realtime Worlds looked like before was "vastly different" than what it looked like after. I clarified as to why I left the "rewrite" tag on the article (in retrospect, it should have been removed). While Naerii was initially unconvinced, they later deleted the entire oppose discussion and switched to support, citing a popular Eminem song in the edit summary as the justification for this change.

Other concerns were more intangible, and some touched on the fact that I tend to focus heavily on video games.

Users expressing concern[edit]

• Naerii (talk · contribs), per above
• J Milburn (talk · contribs) (weakly supported) - "would like to see some slightly better mainspace contributions"
• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs) (neutral) - citing involvement in only a "narrow area" of Wikipedia
• Pixelface (talk · contribs) (opposed) - partially on the concern that I "only [write] about video games"

Response[edit]

• Diversify mainspace contributions
  • Possible areas for diversification:
    • Proposed WP:MILHIST / WP:VG collaboration
    • Children's television shows, as I watch a lot of these with my son
• Consider working on an article to bring it up to FAC status
• Continue to create new articles when appropriate and expand on those I've already created

Community input[edit]

• Mainspace edits are importent, but the "behind the scenes" work that xenocidic has been doing is just as importent.Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat minor concern as it was raised only in the support section, Jbmurray weakly supported and wrote that "edits to [my] own user page far outnumber edits to any other; hence Xenocidic shows a tendency towards using WP as a social network" and also noted "blog-like activity" (my "Hello world" monthly Wikipedia progress reports).

Users expressing concern[edit]

• Jbmurray (talk · contribs), per above, also noted my creation some months ago of a seemingly unencyclopedic user category which was subsequently deleted.
• MrPrada (talk · contribs) supported, but raised concern about the "social networking aspects of StatusBot"

Response[edit]

• Deep cuts to my main userpage, especially the moving of most userboxen to a subpage
• Regarding StatusBot - I feel that it was a useful tool that let other users know if you were around. Some people are often looking for a "quick answer". See also WP:HAU. (SoxBot V has since been indef blocked, though I will still likely maintain my status indicator manually)
• Initially, the "Hello World" did function somewhat as an unencyclopedic blog (see especially February and March), however, recently I've been using it to track what areas of Wikipedia I've been focusing on, and things I learn along the way. I would like further community input on whether there is utility in this.

Community input[edit]

• .

Feel free to make any general comments or suggestions here.

• Congratulations on your successful RfA. You ask a question on your user page, as a caption to the picture of a bucket and mop. I'd like to answer the question. These are deep symbols of the way in which a Wikipedia administrator works. You take the bucket and place it over your head. Most prefer that it be empty at the time, to symbolize the other contents, once it is in place. But it is okay if it is all wet. Then you take the mop and swing it about. It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to have any intention to harm anyone with it, but since the bucket prevents you from seeing what you are doing, you need have no fear of accusations of bad faith. Always remember to put on the bucket before taking the mop in hand, when administrators forget to do so, and hit someone they can see, they have been de-sysopped.

Seriously, from your RfA, it looks like you are likely to make a few mistakes. So, remember, Wikipedia is fault-tolerant, you can make lots of mistakes with little harm if you are careful to

(1)remember to assume good faith, so if, for example, you find it appropriate to block someone, assume -- no matter how hard it might be to do so when the editor has just replaced a featured article with obscenities -- that it was an unfortunate accident or some momentary lapse. Maybe the editor was showing someone how Wikipedia works, knowing it would be instantly reverted and therefore harmless (this actually happened to admin Ta bu shi da yu), and then his internet access froze up, so he couldn't fix it. You still block, if needed for protection, but very politely.

(2)when you make a mistake, promptly admit it. Even if you think it wasn't a mistake, at least don't deny that it was a mistake. It just enrages people; make sure that someone telling you that you did something wrong knows, if they are paying any attention at all, that you heard their objection and you will carefully consider it.

(3) Carefully consider it. For examples of what not to do, look at the desysopping of User:Physchim62 and User:Tango. Both remained convinced, to the end, that they had done nothing wrong. And that conviction was the only real reason they were desysopped. Everyone makes mistakes, but when people can't learn from them, can't understand why so many are upset, or, worse, start to believe that there is some conspiracy against them, in the end, they lose the trust of the community.

(4)Never punish. Protect. Don't push the block button if you are angry with an editor, instead ask for help.

I'm confident that you will do well. Anyone who could comment as you did on Kurt Weber's Talk page isn't likely to be abusive. --Abd (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moar advice copied from Abd's talk page) As you know, policy and guidelines play second fiddle to actual practice. Therefore you should make sure to keep the bucket firmly in place while pressing the buttons or swinging the mop. Otherwise you might have a point of view, and you would then be POV-pushing. If, by any accident, you should see anything with one eye, make sure to keep the other eye firmly closed, or else you might fall into depth perception, seeing things from more than one point of view simultaneously, and we all know how confused this can make us. --Abd (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats, pleasure to have recently met you. Don't hesitate to drop me a note if you ever need anything, I will be glad to try and probably fail to help. :P delldot on a public computer talk 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at your careful analysis of youself here, it's clear that any of your shortcomings are going to be outweighed by your ability to accept criticism and learn from others. Good luck. Kevin (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations on your adminship, and I hope you'll be able to keep your current username. StaticGull  Talk  14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulatory banter[edit]

(copied from my talk page)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Good luck with the mop! :D Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty congratulations on your new tools. Please let me know if I can ever help you in any way. --John (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And congrats on your approval as well! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)Congratulations!!!!! Hope you enjoy the tools... (like you won't) Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Can someone direct me to the "delete main page" button? ;> xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 01:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the admin tools!!! Cheers, Razorflame 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look! I buried my congrats in the garden that be your talk page! Well, congrats. I'm sure you'll hate with passion love being an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck as an admin! You stole my header! ;) Rudget (Help?) 12:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

I don't know you, but congrats on your new adminship! --Justpassin (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the first to support your RFA, I'm the first to congratulate you on passing. Wait, no. Not even close. Useight (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your In-depth analysis[edit]

You've got a slight typing error in this section, where you have "Wisdom89 was an early was an early strong supporter". Useight (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! xenocidic (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the possibly divisive connotations of xenocidic vs. Xeno, I think I'd go with your current name. Just my opinion though. Congrats btw. dorftrottel (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh[edit]

Lol at your summary: "While Naerii was initially unconvinced, they later deleted the entire oppose discussion and switched to support, citing a popular Eminem song in the edit summary as the justification for this change." - it makes me sound so crazy when written formally like that! I just realised that my concerns were kind of petty, and seeing as I supported Evula in her recent RFB even after seeing her mention somewhere that she hasn't written much in the articlespace I figured it would be hypocritical not to support you for admin. It's nice that you're taking opposes into account rather than taking a stance of "well I've passed now, I can forget all that crap", though. My exams are over soon (in 6 hours as a matter of fact :o) so if you need any help writing articles over the summer I'd be glad to assist (personally I'm going to be writing some boring history stuffs). Improving an article to GA or FA can be pretty daunting on your own, so I'd be happy to help out if you like :)

And the edit summary was just me pissing about I guess; I rarely if ever use edit summaries and when I do remember I can never think of anything to say, so sometimes I just quote whatever I happen to be listening to at the time (how embarassing to admit that I listen to Eminem :(). Congrats on passing your RfA. naerii - talk 04:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not embarrassing at all - Eminem rocks! or raps... or something... Sorry, I didn't meant to make you out to seem crazy, I wrote it that way for comedic effect. =) (I can change it if you want) I must admit I did have a chuckle when I read it. at first I was like... wtf? until I realized where it was from. Still, I was rather confused - thanks for clearing that up for me. and I might take you up on that offer, though, my area of expertise... well,... it's been getting some scorn from the GA/FA review projects recently. as for addressing the opposes, I feel that they are the most important part of the RFA, they really need to be taken into account and you need to look at how you can improve for the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. anyways, thanks again. xenocidic (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao it's fine, it cracked me up :P I've seen some grumbling about the video game wikiproject in FAC recently but I wouldn't take it to heart if I were you; most of the articles I write are about albums and that area is looked down on just as much as video games are and to be honest I give about this <-> much of a shit ;) So yeah just let me know if you want any assistance with anything (wikis are all about collaboration after all) - I'm not the world's best writer but I enjoy expanding articles (people will just have to deal with my amateur prose - you know it's really ironic since I got 94% in my English Literature A Level). naerii - talk 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your RFA[edit]

Hey Xenocidic, I hope you weren't offended/put off by my switch (seemingly at the last minute) to a weak oppose. Nothing personal of course. I do think you're a strong contributor/editor, but after revisiting the discussion, the CSD tagging took me somewhat aback. I swayed back and forth about it for a while before changing my !vote. I think you'll make a good admin though, just as long as you don't bite the newbies by tagging an A7 as an attack page : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offended - not at all - I've come to respect your contributions to the RFA process and I know you wouldn't have done that without deep deliberation. No hard feelings whatsoever. Truthfully, I didn't expect to be at RFA so soon, I really did want some coaching on the CSD stuff - but no matter. I'll have to learn on the job =) xenocidic (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

((smile|Prom3th3an))

Congrats on your RFA, When you find your feet let me know as 2 coaches are better than one and i'd be honoured to have you aboard once more. I have only known you for a short time, but your kindness, approachability, knowlege and did I mention kindness? makes me proud to be a Wikipedian and makes you one of the best new admins ever :)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Congrats[edit]

Congratulations on getting the mop. Now it's time to see if what they say is true: "be careful what you wish for, for you will surely get it..." I was especially interested because your RfA was the first one for an editor that I actually knew before seeing the RfA. Wikipedia needs more like you - see you around! Frank  |  talk  11:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great edit summary[edit]

here. Took me a moment to get it and realise I still had the test account on my automatic watchlist -- but that was great. Thanks for the morning laugh and congrats. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, (In Soviet Russia, username blocks YOU!) is a close second, but the mathematical one is still my favorite. Morning laughs are always a good thing. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

Congrats on your successful RFA! If you need anything or have any questions or want a 2nd opinion, feel free to drop me a line any time!. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your RfA!!!!!![edit]

Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re:[edit]

Yeah, well, there's only like one person on Wikipedia who I think possibly deserves to be an admin more than you and now you are one. Also, great idea with RfA analysis page. Maybe I'll get a chance sometime to stealcopy that idea sometime. As for your other idea, I dunno man. I still make mistakes with CSD tagging (though this one was a result of misunderstanding how Twinkle works) and that definitely would not help me very much, especially considering my lack of CSD participation was a major factor in the failure of my rfa. (that, along with my boneheaded answers to the questions....) Anyway, I think I should probably wait until late June at the absolute earliest before trying again. Either way, I don't really need the tools to do what I do (though me having them might make some of the guys at AIV happier.....) and if I do need an admin for something like a move-over-redirect, I know exactly who to ask ;) so it's no big deal if I don't have the tools. Not to say I wouldn't like to have them, I would, but I'm basically saying that I can still make good (even great....well... ;) ) contributions to Wikipedia without them. So yeah. Congrats on your Rfa (again). It's really cool you passed it. Anyway, talk to you later. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it! ¬_¬ (I was thinking: ok, they know I'm weird already, but maybe that's going a little too far....) Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you using ((Adoption backlog/count)) for anything other than ((Adoption backlog))? If you aren't you could probably delete (man, that's weird suggesting that you delete something...) that page because I transcluded the text of that page into the userbox page. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

holy crap[edit]

I missed your RFA!, Here's my after-the-fact support, and congrats on the mop. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My congratulations and support for you in your new responsibility! Vishnava _talk 02:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late congrats from me too. I honestly thought I had supported you. My mistake! — _Maggot^Syn 07:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats![edit]

Three cheers and a tiger for your successful RfA! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad for your success. And please don't take negative comments raised in the RfA discussion to heart. If you can recall the old Rick Nelson song "Garden Party," it had the lyric: "See, you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself." If you're satisfied with yourself, then ultimately that is all that matters. So...what's your first order of Admin business? Who's going to be the first person to get blocked by the Xenocidic mop of justice? :) Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, blocking mannequins doesn't count! Some lucky person will be your first block -- they should be happy they are contributing to your Admin history. However, if I knew you were stealing jokes from Yakov Smirnoff, I would've voted Super Strong Oppose <kidding>. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Glad to hear of your success :-) Lradrama 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm...I just took a peek at your contributions for the day. Apparently you're on a one-man blocking attack. At the rate you're going, you should have all of the vandals off the site by midnight! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!!![edit]

Congratulations on getting your adminship. I'd write something more meaningful if I had more time, but this is all for now. StaticGull  Talk  17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude! xenocidic (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

I can't remember what the encounter was. But it must have been good :). Congrats again, have a good day. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I put this on my own talk page. Grats on the RFA again :). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi![edit]

Congradulations! ((subst:smile)) Hope you have a wonderful time on wikipedia as an admin, hope to see ya around- Cheers, :) B jacob (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks =). xenocidic (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congats[edit]

Congrats on becoming a Admin. Electrical^{Vandilize Me} 13:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rfa thanks[edit]

And thanks to you for your note and your thoughtful response to RfA comments. Congratulations and good luck with the adminship! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation[edit]

I saw that you were named an administrator even though I have only dealt with you a little. Congratulations. Chris (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (In reply to [1]) Congratulations on becoming an admin! I very much hope you will be a good one, and wish you the best of luck. While I have a few deletionist sentiments myself, I very much dislike the aspect of WP:NPP that you mentioned. But even apart from WP:NPP, I have fairly often seen speedy deletion applied or invoked incorrectly (in my view) during AfDs. Since speedy deletion can occur quickly, with little oversight and is difficult to contest after it occurred, I hope that admins apply it carefully and with a strict adherence to the speedy deletion criteria (In fact, even with an ordinary deletion prod, I hope that admins think carefully if the reason given by the deletion nominator is correct, before deleting an article with an expired prod). In cases of doubt I would very much rather see an article go through a formal AfD debate than being deleted prematurely. I have just a few days ago seen a newly promoted admin speedy an article under A7, while an AfD was open, where the subject of the article had over 1200 google news hits mentioning him and quoting his opinions as an industry expert. I complained and the closing summary was changed, but the episode undescores my worries about the speedy deletion process. Anyway, I trust that you will be a thoughtful admin and wish you the best of luck. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.