The following discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

I do not know whether you are familiar with the admin stuff, but from my experience, this might turn out a disappointing exercise for you. You have hardly any edits in the wikipedia space, which is not a good sign, and your overall number of edits is probably to low for many editors to support you. --Kim van der Linde^{at venus}18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At worst I will recieve critism I can use to improve myself. I am going to go through itHighInBC18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, good luck and do not be disappointed. --Kim van der Linde^{at venus}19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have a very happy disposition, I am not easily offended.HighInBC19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you withdrawl your request for adminship as explained in my reason.ForestH2

If you want criticism & opinions from other editors, I suggest you go toWikipedia:Editor review. RFA's sometimes have the tendency to turn into lynchings & disheartens editors, sometimes causing them to leave. We wouldn't want that to happen to a fine upcoming wiki-editor like you.Srikeit^{(talk ¦✉)}19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I may just do that later. As for the RfA, I am sure critisms will be based on facts and inform me.HighInBC19:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was sorry to oppose, as you appear to be a good editor, and your reaction to the Rfa has been very level headed. I would sugest continuing as you are, and also getting some experience contributing inWP:AFD,WP:DRV andWP:RFA, as well as watchingWP:AIV andWP:RPP, to see what's involved. The reason I commented on the edit wars is that admins don't have the luxury of avoid conflict, their job includes making decisions that cannot please everyone, so knowing how they deal with critism and tough decisions is important. That said, avoiding conflict by dialoge is a great trait, and if you came back with more experience in the many area of wikipedia, I would easily support. Regards,MartinRe21:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I will certainly try again later should I fail this time<grin>.HighInBC23:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to hear. If you need any clarifications, don't hesitate to contact me on my talkpage! :) -Best regards,Mailer Diablo17:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for being alert.:) Cheers,Sango123(e)17:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting my user page. :DEkrub-ntyh18:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, he did the same thing to me[1], I notified an admin and the user was banned indefinetly.HighInBC18:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I in no way intended vandalism. I am new to Wikipedia editing, I am still learning it.

Zaphlon

I was unsure of your actions becuase you did not leave an edit summery. This lets people know what your intentions are when you do something.HighInBC03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,About the Sean Avery article, i did not write that, I mistakenly reverted to an unclean version. Thanks for picking it up and fixing it. However i would appreciate it if you would remove the test1 warning from may talk page, since i do not deserve it and i can not remove it myself (as that really would be vandalism lol).Cheers.Luckyherb03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.HighInBC03:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksLuckyherb04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, looks like they have gotten bored and gone off to find something better to do. Thanks for reverting my user page tonight, also. CheersTigerShark00:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

If you have a look atmy recent changes page, I personally can account for and am happy with the changes up to and including "The Place Promised in Our Early Days". All subesquent changes were not made by me. I understand these are probably due to others on my network, and I will investigate further.A simple solution would be to sign up, but I just haven't got round to it yet.

Cheers.80.229.216.2513:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking, I realize I made a mistake and removed the warning from your talk page. I apologize for the error.HighInBC13:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved, joker on this network thought it would be untraceable. Pfff. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.80.229.216.2519:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this a couple days early, at about 45% support. RFAs typically require at least 75% support. Try again in a few months, and with a few thousand more edits or so. Also, you may wish to ask another user to nominate you, as self-nominations are historically less likely to succeed. —Jun. 2, '06[03:56] <freak|talk>

DigHighInBC05:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I need your help. An IP is vandalizing and falsefying theAlisher Navoi article. Please have a look at it. ThxTajik16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin so I can only do what you can do. Here is how to handle a persistent vandal, first warn them on thier userpage with a {{test1}} then a {{test3}} for the next vandalism. If they continue in the next few hours you can post the ip/username of the vandal onWikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. You must be sure the user has recieved proper warnings or the admins will not block them. Good luck and happy vandal fighting!HighInBC16:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I must point out that you should be clear thatcontent disputes are not a form of vandalism and are handled in different ways, seeWikipedia:Conflict_resolutionHighInBC16:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reverted my edit as vandalism? I reverted thesexism article to 2 versions back because there was evident vandalism (an edit added "Porn is good", the other is more questinable, but I think the intent of the writer was to vandalize). I provided an edit summary ("reverted vandalism"). If I made something wrong please explain.

I see that another user with VandalProof reverted the page again, is this a bug in the software?

I am not sure what is happening, I was unsure of the content which is why I reverted, not sure why it is being reverted by other people. Sorry about that.HighInBC14:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you said about the edit summaries, but my edit on theJim Quinn article wasn't vandalism (I was adding another heads-up to the list of heads-ups), and it should be returned.

Sorry about that, it was difficult to tell.HighInBC14:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as anarchive.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.