Do you think possibly in each Title or Chapters of the RSAs could have a link over to Wikisource to the actutal laws themselves? Since Wikisource is more suited to Primary Source documents.
Also, I wanted to let you know that I have already created a page for the New Hampshire Constitution. Maybe you would like to take the pertinant info from the page you created New Hampshire State Constitution, and put it on the New Hampshire Constitution page, then redirect the one you created to New Hampshire Constitution? I dont know which one has the better title name, I only put it the way I did because the one I created had more information on it.
Its nice to be aquainted with another Granite Stater who attended a school in the University System of New Hampshire. I look forward to working with you. Assawyer 05:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Umm... the link to Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia is up there, so you're fine on that... ;) Hey, thanks, don't worry about it. I'm going to have to put the bear in the Loony Barn so he scares the vandals inside... Tito xd( ?!?) 06:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello! I decided to check my talk page this morning and found a message letting me know that I was the creator of a "hate page" and that I was listed on your (originally users to watch page) kittens & sunshine page. I would really like to know why it is a "hate page". Jesus Christ is all about loving everybody and wanting them to get saved so they will have eternal life. What is "hateful" about that? I have several things on my page right now that show what The Bible teaches. God says that I am supposed to let people know what His Word (The Bible) teaches, so I am doing that. Please explain what is "hateful" about that. If you look at my Myths Debunked section, you will see that I do not advocate hate crimes against gays. I explain what true Christianity is all about in that we are to hate the sin of homosexuality but love the sinners. There is nothing "hateful" about that. Please back up your claims of a "hate page" or remove me from that page. If you don't, you will have to answer to God someday for it...not me. By the way, what does kittens and sunshine mean if you are listing so-called problem users on that page? It seems like a happy name to me. Thanks in advance for your input on this! phatcat68 13:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Lol, I guess you're right- the anti-editcountitis thing went a bit too far, and I was very much a part of that, I know. I'm glad to say I've mellowed a bit since then, and I'm just glad that this is all cleared up. Borisblue 15:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
My Rfa is not going to pass. It is a shame that so few can assume good faith while asking others to do so. I appreciate your nomination and your confindence in my abilities and, of course your maturity in by overcoming our past disagreements. However, if things continue the way they are, I may soon ask that the nomination be withdrawn.-- MONGO 08:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm about ready to have you withdraw the nomination. I would like to see at least a 90 percent pro vote. I don't want to just skim by or have it fail outright. Interestingly, recent edits indicate that three months ago, I was disruptive and that is a longer period of time in the past than some nominess total editing history and whose applications for adminship pass. I also get the feeling that the opposers merely spent time reading the other votes and not my responses to the questions raised by Hipocrite. Regardless, all this seems like a waste of time now as I could be doing something more productive.-- MONGO 14:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly to do about this situation, but I suspect you might have a better idea than I would. It seems the subject of this AfD decided to blog about his Wikipedia entry being up for deletion two days after I nominated it. [1] Anyhow, if you have any ideas, be my guest, but IMO the results are hopelessly tainted now. -- Locke Cole 09:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I've blocked MARMOT for two weeks, at his request on IRC. Apparently he had written a new and improved vandalbot and was sorely tempted to set in into operation. -- Maru (talk) Contribs 20:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead and move it to the talk page; that's fine with me. Thanks for understanding, and I again apologize if I may have offended you. Ral315 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about.
Here you go it's off his 1996 album Unchained. - Akamad 22:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yo. ΞU here. Was bathing my son and had an idea for an alternate table layout. Basically just doubles up the table, giving two columns instead of one. Dunno how wide you planned on making the single table, but you can see the alternate layout in your sandbox. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 00:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Went ahead and finished the tables, in both styles. Hope you find 'em useful. → Ξxtreme Unction { yakł blah} 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
In Demi's RfA you said "if we should have a WP:CSD-esque speedying for noms". Interesting thought. You might want to have a look at Image:RfAsPerWeek.png. Observe that the average # of admin nominations per week tripled in three months from July to October. If that sort of an increase is not an aberration, but what we can expect in the future, then six months from now we will be seeing ~180 nominations per week. Wow. I mean really wow. I did a linear progression using similar data some weeks ago. I don't remember the results, but I do recall something along the lines of ~200 nomination per week within two years. Reality probably lies somewhere between those two figures of six months from now or two years from now. Either way, I think we're looking at near 200 nominations per week in the not too distant future. RfA's current process is, I don't think, scalable to handle that. Change will happen I think, and I think "speedy promotions" just might become reality. Just some food for thought. -- Durin 00:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have restored this page, as you link to a diff on it from POTW's RfAr. Furthermore, you may not have been aware, but it's generally encouraged for administrator's not to delete their own sub-pages, but to ask another administrator to do so. I'd like to request that you not to either, however, while the RfAr is active, as you linked to a diff as evidence there. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 06:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, since you just deletec the tronic article, you may be interested in having a look at Supatronic, which is in the exact same vein. Schutz 01:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Things are not resolved between Andy Mabbett and myself. I thanked him for reverting some vandalism on my user page, because he had done so. This does not mean that I agree with everything that he is doing. For example, he is insisting on treating The Merry Widow (ballet) on an equal footing, within The Merry Widow operetta article, as the various versions and productions of the operetta. In spite of the fact that the operetta and the ballet are completely distinct pieces, separate from each other, Andy Mabbett insists on acting as though the ballet is just another version of the operetta. It is becoming tiresome and frustrating trying to correct his mistakes. Figaro 16:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was hesitant for good reasons it appears, but it worked out okay in the end. It wouldn't have happened if you hadn't nominated me, and for that I am deeply appreciative. Been a rather long week for me as you might imagine. Your strong support and continued endorsement of me is a really fine thing and I am very much looking forward to our continued and combined efforts to make this a better encyclopedia. Thanks Karmafist, you are a class act!-- MONGO 03:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I replied to your peer review concerning the small towns. You may be interested in this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dawson Creek, British Columbia that I posted. It is a rural town of 11,000 people in western Canada. I would like to know what you think, especially in terms of a structure for a small town article. -- maclean25 09:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Alright, but I've known "Dr" Gastrich for quite a while from Usenet, so when he turned up here I was ready for him more than most. He isn't very clever and is easy to contain. He's even more blunt than me when it comes to politics. I smelt his socks as soon as he arrived about a week ago. It was me who identified all of them, after which everyone caught a whiff.
Socks are against policy but not so much as disruption or personal attacks (um yeah, them). But on the other hand, why encourage him to try to hide them better? Why block his socks, which will only wind him up (I've been there recently, remember) when he's not being disruptive? — Dunc| ☺ 21:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to be such a bureaucratic snot nose, but I unblocked Pigsonthewing. I don't think it's fair to block someone that you are having a dispute with (also 24hrs might be a bit long). I'd reblock him myself if I knew exactly what the dispute is about. I recomend you use WP:AIV or WP:AN/I to try and get him reblocked. I also fixed your userfication (there is no User Template namesapce), I made it a subpage of your userpace - User:Karmafist/Potw. Broken S 19:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Please come back to IRC, I'd like to speak with you. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
As a major disputant with Pigsonthewing, it is not your place to block him. If you feel he is engaging in behavior that warrants a block, you should endeavour to contact other administrators to enact a block, but you should not place a block yourself, regardless of whether or not a block is deserved. You should also not have engaged in block warring by re-blocking after another admin unblocked him. Please do not block Pigsonthewings again for any reason whatsoever, if he is engaging in block worthy action another administrator will enact a block. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I doubt he's scared away thousands of editors. That doesn't excuse his actions or his intimidation tactics, but I don't think the amount of users he's affected number that highly. That being said, scaring away other contributors is not good, and needs to be dealt with, and will be dealt with. PS have you tried e-mailing Leonard to try to get him back? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't block anons indefinitely, unless you're sure its an open proxy. Whether the effect is collateral damage or a lifetime ban, each is a Bad Thing, so try to avoid it. A couple of days will suffice. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 06:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I've commented on your block of User:Jason Gastrich over on WP:AN/I. Kelly Martin ( talk) 06:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI - There may be something wrong with your signature. The one on my talk page was broken. I added in your username. As to the arbitration... I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works, but do what you think you need to. As to the rest, this isn't about an edit summary. I urge you to take a good look at your behaviour and the number of different people who have suggested that there is a problem with it. -- CBD T C @ 00:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
CBDunkerson and Pigsonthewing are different users. CBDunkerson edits from very wide range of dynamic ips, Pigsonthewing edits from a small number of different ips. Fred Bauder 01:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I hope you don't think I'm cheeky, being a relative newby, but if you add |Karmafist after your user categories, you'll come up on lists under K (for Karmafist, duh!) rather than U for User.