User talk:Eusebeus/Prod proddle Archive (mostly)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Partitas for keyboard (825–830) 2 Ali Ben Isa 3 MonicasDude AFD disputes 4 Nominating for AfD is a Delete recommendation 5 Inappropriate AfD nominations 6 Harassment policy violations 7 Contested Deprods 8 Horsemen of the Esophagus 9 Aye-aye! 10 Jocelyn Marcel Keyes 11 Monicasdude

[edit] Partitas for keyboard (825–830)

Hello! I was doing preliminary research for Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach and, um, I saw what you wrote in the Partitas article: As with the French and English Suites, the manuscript of the Partitas is no longer extant. Where did you get that information? The article on French Suites states, in Spitta's comment, that most of the suites are contained in the 1722 Anna Magdalena notebook. There's one more suite in the 1725 notebook I think.. and both notebooks are extant, no? And I reckon that the 1725 notebook also has a couple of Partitas, although I'm not sure about that yet. Jashiin 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question - I am not sure where I came across that - I'll see if I can find it again. Moreover, it may be unclear which manuscript/edition is being referred to. Did you check Groves? Btw, are you going to link the notebook to the clearing article on the keyboard music generally? Or is that being abandoned and left to rust in the fields? Eusebeus 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't check the Groves. The preface to one of the volumes of the 19th century Bach Gesellschaft edition seems to confirm that the AMB books contain the French Suites and two of the Partitas, but maybe they're early/alternative versions.

I'm going to write quite a bit in the JSB keyboard works article, as well as in the main JSB article's "Works" section. Its just that I was inactive for some time and Johann Pachelbel was my #1 priority anyway.. but I'll get to doing the work on major JSB articles very soon. Jashiin 19:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

UPD: Allright, I just found out that three of the French Suites in the 1722 AMB notebook are fragments of the actual French Suites, so this is partially solved. But French Suites Nos. 4 and 5 of the 1722 notebook and the partitas in the 1725 notebook seem to be complete, with minor errors made by whoever copied them into the notebook (JSB I think.. odd). Jashiin 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Ben Isa

Please respond at Talk:Ali Ben Isa. --tyomitch 11:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MonicasDude AFD disputes

Hello, Eusebeus. I could not help but notice that User:Monicasdude has been going from page to page in your nominations to AFD contrarily voting to keep everything with no more reason than they were AFD'd by you. Just as an advance warning, I brought this up to you to remind you to keep a cool head and do what you think is best for Wikipedia in any future conflict. Thank you for your attention to all of the lacking articles, however; I personally think that it is vital to the future welfare of Wikipedia that these articles find their appropriate place (be that merged into different articles or not in Wikipedia at all), and further I thank you for bringing these contested deletions to the attention of the community via AFD. Thanks for your hard work, Kuzaar 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I just felt the need to let you know that Monicasdude and I have been talking back and forth via our talk pages, and that there have been some issues brought up that you yourself might want to address. Primarily, one issue brought up that I had to deal with in the past couple days is the mentioning of other editors' names in the AFD, which I spoke with Thatcher131 about and we both came to agreement that it is almost always an inappropriate thing to do. One should attempt to present the AFD to the community in as neutral a tone as possible so that all involved parties, of course, keep a cool head. If you're interested in voicing your opinion on the matter, I welcome you to get involved with the discussion on my own or User:Monicasdude's talk page. Cheers, Kuzaar 15:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Over the course of April 23 and 24, you nominated for AfD 40 articles that Kappa deprodded. On April 25, you AfD'd 13 articles that Monicasdude deprodded. There is a loaded term for this that I will not use at present, however blaming Monicasdude for systematically voting keep is a case of Pot/Kettle. An argument could be made that you are as guilty of thoughtless nominations as Kappa and Monicasdude are guilty of thoughtless deprodding. I suggest you lay off the deletions for a few days. No harm will come to wikipedia if a non-notable article hangs around for a few days until somebody else gets around to nominating it. Thatcher131 15:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Your comment to me hit as I was sending this. Let me also add that identifying the deprodder was, in retrospect, a clear mistake and I have already advertised my apology to Kappa on his talk page for so doing and thereby inadvertently inviting uncivil comments. I appreciate that. I'm glad you see how your actions could have been perceived as targeting certain individuals. I still think my recommendation above is a good one. Lay off for a few days. Either someone else will nominate Kappa's deprods (and there are others who seem to watch Kappa and MD) or you can get them later. Obvious vandalism and hoaxes and such should be deleted as quickly as possible, but I see little harm to allowing nonnotable articles to remain for a while. Thatcher131 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • I hope I was clear in the various places that I commented that your actions might look like bad faith; rather than directly accusing you. With the toolserver down, checking the contribution history of known deprodders is a logical way to find articles that might be deletable, but it will have the unfortunate side-effect of making it look like you are targeting that user, especially when you cite their name in the AfD. I can't think of a good way around this, short of asking at Wikipedia Talk:Proposed deletion if someone could make a tool or category for deprodded articles.
    • I was just looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Radio Stars where Kappa has proposed a merge with Ross Tregenza which itself is a poor article. If it was me, I would have done the merge and spent some time at allmusic or amazon to verify and clean up Ross Tregenza, which itself is not a good article at the moment. But that would be the work of maybe 30 minutes. I think wikipedia needs editors who will systematically weed out bad articles but it also need editors who will take 30 minutes to fix one article. Maybe the ratio is out of balance at the moment. Thatcher131 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that Eusebeus now acknowledges that he is targeting articles I've deprodded for Afd nominations, and that he has no basis for believing that my actions on prods have been inappropiate, bad faith, or otherwise violate any applicable policies or guidelines, his behavior clearly falls under WP:Harassment. He should stop violating this policy immediately. Monicasdude 18:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this doesn't seem like he was targeting you to me. It seems he noted that you had deprodded a lot of articles that he thought were questionable to dispute, and referred to other articles you had disputed the proposed deletion of for reference. Neither he nor I think that your disputing these deletions are in bad faith, that's why they're in the AFD instead of tagged for speedy: they are worthy of being looked at by the community. You might refer to the guide to keeping a cool head in disputes before you post curt comments that might be construed as going after other editors. Kuzaar 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, do NOT confuse Eusebeus trying to Work Toward Consensus by giving articles their "due process" with him unfairly targeting any user- when he sees a dispute like this, can anyone say that it's bad faith to ask the community to cast their judgement? Kuzaar 18:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC

You should read the harassment policy before posting nonsense like this. Eusebeus says, quite openly, that his main criterion for nominating articles for deletion is the identity of the person who objects to a prod nomination, and that he does not consider the reasons for the objection, but looks only at the form of the prod rationale. Thus, he proposes deletion of any article prodded with the nn-bio tag, no matter how obviously wrong that tag is. That's both harassing and vandalous. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this misbehavior. Monicasdude 14:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Monicasdude - you are becoming a bit unhinged about this. I said I was locating deprods via users as an expedient (you, Kappa, as well as several serial prodders) which is not the same as saying I was bringing to AfD anything you had deprodded as matter of course because you had deprodded them. Obviously. The fact that several of the articles I have brought to AfD have generated solid consensus to delete or merge suggests further that there were perfectly legitimate foundations for seeking wider consensus. If you feel you have been wronged and that I have indeed acted in bad faith, rather than producing bilious screeds attacking other users, simply solicit an RFC against me. If I have clearly violated the harassment policy or acted in bad faith, condemnation of my actions will presumably be forthcoming and uncompromising. Eusebeus 15:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  This is far from an honest presentation of the issues. As I have said, the issue is your deliberately indiscriminate behavior. The fact that wild shots sometimes hit legitimate targets doesn't justify turning the world into a free-fire zone, and your purposely misleading rationales for deletion are clear signs of your bad faith. Read the harassment policy and comply with it. Monicasdude 15:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well then you should definitely raise this through an RFC. Pointedly and repeatedly informing me that my actions are in bad faith when it is clear that I don't agree is not serving anything. Further, considering the results on the deprods that I have brought to AfD , I am going to find it impossible to accept that my actions can be interpreted as having a deleterious effect. I have openly explained how I identified the deprodded articles, I have adduced reasons for those where I felt additional discussion was worthwhile (much fewer than half of the deprodded articles I reviewed) and then brought them to AfD. The one thing I did do untoward was identify the prodder and Kappa as the deprodder (an editor for whom I have significant respect). I apologised to him for the unexpectedly incivil comments that produced and have since refrained. But at the very least it showed to other editors that I was bringing to AfD deprods from a specific editor, letting them determine if my actions were thereby in bad faith. This sentence : The fact that wild shots sometimes hit legitimate targets doesn't justify turning the world into a free-fire zone, and your purposely misleading rationales for deletion are clear signs of your bad faith is simply wrong. Eusebeus 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

    • You're simply not telling the truth. You say openly that you look mainly at the stated reasons in the initial prod, ignore the deprod arguments, and don't bother to check the accuracy of prodder's analysis so long as it's in proper form. You're simply harassing people who active and reasonably participate in the prod process and don't share your views. That's pure and simple harassment, and you should be honest enough to own up to your misbehavior and stop. You're deliberately trying to damage the project. Anybody who might give even slight credence to your claims of good faith can simply check out your AfD nomination for Christopher Winship, where you asserted that chairing a major academic department at Harvard University wasn't evidence of, or an assertion of, notability. Monicasdude 15:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you always like this? Eusebeus 15:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Accurate in the face of abuse and malice? I do my best. Monicasdude 16:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominating for AfD is a Delete recommendation

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion states e.g. "First, be certain that deleting the page is what you want to recommend" and "include a reason why you think the page should be deleted". Such statements seem to indicate that nominating for AfD is by itself recommending delete.

I have seen at least three ways people nom for AfD:

(1)Reason(s) for deletion. (signature)

(2)Delete Reason(s) for deletion. (signature)

(3) Reason(s) for deletion.

Delete per nom. (signature)

AFAIK these all amount to the same thing. I'd had a question about this before: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Noms_w.2Fo_delete_recommendations.3F_Not_that_it.27s_a_vote. and the consensus there was also that a nomination for AfD is treated as a delete recommendation even if it does not explicitly say delete. Шизомби 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying, but I still don't think you're supposed to AfD a deprodded article unless you are in fact recommending delete. Otherwise, you should let someone else list it for AfD who does believe it should be deleted (likely the person who originally prodded it). Шизомби 17:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If a deprodded article does not seem worth keeping but you are not sure you should use one of the cleanup tags instead (unreferenced, cleanup, context, vanity, non-notable, etc), or contact the author's talk page if it is a new article with one principle editor.Thatcher131 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate AfD nominations

That's what article talk pages are for. If your motive was really to spark discussion, you'd present both sides of the argument; instead, you present only the supposed case for deletion. That makes an inference of bad faith almost inevitable in this context -- especially when your selection method is clearly the identity of the editor who opposed the prod nomination. Given your comment above, about "scurrilous reasoning" and "mere laziness" in prod nominations, it appears remarkable that your response involves only proposing deletions, rather than objecting to any inappropriate prod nominations you might identify. Monicasdude 17:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment policy violations

What are you taking because I need some? You have cleared your talk page of their comments LOL. You got me. AND - I have cleverly masked their new location!

Seriously, I'll ask you yet again - if you feel my actions represent such a severe violation of policy - and you've cited Bite, bad faith, vandalism, stalking, I think you have point in there somewhere, and I am sure there's a couple more I have forgotten - just take me to RFC; heck I am tempted to do it myself but I am not sure if I can nominate myself for comment. You seem to think that I don't understand your arguments and that by posting longer tirades and hitting higher notes of hysteria you will cause me to see the light. So let me state clearly: I do understand your points, every one you have made. I understand you think I have stalked, bitten, acted in bad faith, harassed, abused, lied, etc.... So please accept that I think you are totally and unambiguously wrong in almost everything you have said. I will continue to bring some contested Prods to AfD for further consensus. That is sound policy as I see it. Hence: RFC. Eusebeus 18:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I note you don't deny violating the applicable policies, and refuse to correct your behavior. Since you've already participated in a pending on RFAR as though you were a party, on the relevant issues, that's the appropriate venue, not a time-wasting RfC. And nominating an article for deletion, when you don't have a good faith belief it qualifies, is clearly a WP:POINT violation. Monicasdude 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I have not done so officially, so for the record: I deny that I have violated any policy of Wikipedia. Specifically - I deny WP:BITE; WP:POINT; WP:STALK; WP:AGF. Were there others? Since you've already participated in a pending on RFAR as though you were a party, on the relevant issues, that's the appropriate venue - that I don't understand. Dude - RFC. Eusebeus 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you've already admitted conduct violating WP:STALK and WP:POINT; you just say you're excused from those policies/guidelines because you've unilaterally decided you have good reasons. Monicasdude 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude - RFC.

You have repeatedly violated WP:STALK. That policy provides

Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.

Harassment is sometimes described as a violation of don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or no personal attacks, but is properly both a subset and special case of both, while at the same time being separate from both for definition reasons.

Wikipedia editors not directly involved in the underlying dispute have commented on the inappropriateness of your behavior, noting that your conduct appears to have targeted more than one editor you disagree with. You have cleared your talk page of their comments. You have admitted your behavior is personally directed. While you claim other motives, you never made any attempt to promote your case on the talk pages of the relevant articles, of the policy/guideline pages involved, on the Village Pump forum, or even in the deletion nominations you made in pursuit of this supposedly innocent pattern of behavior.

Your behavior also violates the WP:POINT guideline, which provides:

Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work.

Your own descriptions of your conduct and motives demonstrates your intentional violation of this guideline. You made no effort to discuss the problem you claimed to perceive in the prodding/deprodding process. You did not discuss the supposed problem in the dozens of deletion nominations you made in an extremely short time period. Instead, you simply indiscriminately proposed deletion of many articles, making no efforts to discuss the issues that you claimed concerned you with any of the contributors to the articles, or with any of the editors involved in previous discussions regarding proposed deletion. Your response to criticisms has been to intensify your behavior, now purposefully targeting many articles for which there is no reasonable basis to propose deletion. As per both the official deletion policy and the WP:BITE guideline, the appropriate way for a Wikipedia editor to address problems in the form of articles from new editors -- such as insufficiently clear assertions of notability -- is to assist those editors in improving their articles, rather than mechanically nominating them for deletion. Whatever your personal animus towards me, it is irresponsible and abusive to attack the valuable contributions of new editors to further your manifestations of animosity. Monicasdude 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, I have to speak out on this. Monicasdude, it appears to me that you are applying all of the rules and regulations of Wikipedia to Eusebeus without considering that you yourself have toed many of these and other guidelines in your actions this past week. Namely: First, the clause to assume good faith in the absence of strong evidence otherwise. If I recall correctly, all that Eusebeus admitted to was looking at your recent edits to find questionable contested PRODs that he might be interested in garnering consensus on in AFD. Personally, I do not think that this can be rightly considered Wikistalking, as he has already explained that for at least part of them some useful tool was unusable, forcing him to take an alternate route to find candidates that could benefit from the AFD process. And even so, if nominating articles for AFD was inappropriate toward an editor who contested it, this community would be full of people harassing others by demanding consensus on the deprod.

Further, if his nomination to AFD of contested PRODs can be considered a violation of WP:POINT, it's not a far stretch at all to consider your own mass deprodding of articles the same. Both sides in this dispute have things that they could have done differently: to Eusebeus, it may be bringing up issues on the talk page of an article, and asking for consensus where it is questionably appropriate (AFD) instead of the article itself, or trying to make a point of the prod system. To MonicasDude, it may be contesting prods en masse without in any way contributing to the quality of the article, or trying to make a point of the prod system, different than Eusebeus. However, this is a true and important thing to consider: before bandying about accusations of maliciousness when it could have easily been explained by good intentions, realize that you yourself to an impartial observer may not be as free of guilt as you seem to think. Eusebeus is not blameless, but neither are you. Bandying about claims of personal attacks, harassment, and bad faith are not going to serve you in an arena where his actions can just as easily be described by his methods, and operating under good faith. And finally, monicasdude, I think you underestimate the ability of new editors to learn about Wikipedia policy and criteria for submission in saying that what Eusebeus has done in the past can be construed only as biting. I think that both you and he are working under good faith, but just have conflicted philosophies and opinions of how Wikipedia should be improved. Kuzaar 01:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, in response to your claim that "editors have commented that he has appeared to target users", I ask you to remember two things: In many of those comments, you yourself have been fingered as not blameless in this dispute, and also that it is his methodology of article nomination that results in what might look like targeting, not the other way around (that any kind of targeting might be construed as his pattern of article nomination.) Kuzaar 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

One final thing: that you have a Request for Arbitration open against you in which scads of users have testified that you have violated numerous Wikipedia policies against other users, and on which you go after your accusers in methods tantamount to personal attacks, does not speak well in your favor. Kuzaar 02:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

(Not to mention the valid points Isotope brought up about a possible violation of WP:POINT at D. Montgomery.) I'm not keen on seeing people like Eusebeus, genuinely interested in the welfare of Wikipedia, shouted down by someone who cannot assume good faith. Kuzaar 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contested Deprods

OK, I have an issue with the following deprods that you made (let me add that most of your deprods I agree with):

Mussio Magdalo - 53 Google hits [1]

Jocelyn Marcel Keyes - no notability established in the article beyond being the wife of Alan Keyes, so merge.

David Schrader (writer/director) - Is definitely verifiable per IMDB, [2] but not notable enough to warrant inclusion without soliciting consensus opinion at AfD.

Ernest Defarge - je ne sais pas si vous avex lu le roman de Dickens, mais M. Defarge est tout a fait secondaire a sa femme and at the very least an arguably non-notable literary figure.

Mary Rose de Valladares - non-notable with only 67 Ghits [3], suggest redirect to HOPE Curriculum.

(Adding some more)

The American Youth Harp Ensemble - 80 Ghits [4], nn youth group.

Midori Hirose (fine artist), nn artist w/ 84 ghits [5]

Stephanie Blake, largely uncredited actor whose IMDB entry would appear to point to non-notability [6]

Can we get some consensus here? I'll go ahead and add the merge and redirect tags if you agree. (I'll add this to my talk page so you'll need to blank that as well if you continue with practice of blanking my comments.) Eusebeus 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Re: Jocelyn Marcel Keyes, please read the article's talk page, has already survived AfD. Thatcher131 03:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horsemen of the Esophagus

Stop post harassing nonsense on my talk page. The article plainly and verifiably asserts notability. Just read it. Monicasdude 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Monicasdude 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If the book sells more than 5000 copies not only will the book be notable but so will the author, per WP:BIO. The book has been excerpted in Atlantic Monthly and reviewed in Salon, the New York Daily News, and others. I expect that with coverage like that it will sell more than 5000 copies. Did you check google news and decide the book still wasn't notable? Thatcher131 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• With this comment to Monicasdude [7] you are venturing into troll territory. He is obviously not interested in hearing from you again. I advise you in the strongest possible terms to stay away from his contrib list and stop trying to delete articles he had deprodded. There are plenty of other poor articles here and I urge you to find some other way to find them than trolling through Monicasdude's edit history.
• With regard to the article, do you think the Atlantic Monthly gives its space to vanity books? That assertion of notability is plainly written in the article. I would like you to read these two messages, from Morven (long time editor and arbitrator) and Jim Wales (you know who he is, don't you?). [8] [9] The subject is the misplaced need to revert actions by other admins without taking the time to talk to them, but it applies just as well to deletions.Thatcher131 00:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• • This:

If you really think that asking you to substantiate you deprod on notability grounds so we don't have to repeat the recent kerfuffle is vandalism, don't just post colourful notices on my talk page, put up an RFC - seriously - and have me properly sanctioned if you genuinely believe my actions are so wrong: WP:RFC. BTW, I have about 10 - 15 more deprods from you that I find questionable. Can I list them for your review? Or will you simply refuse to justify you assertions of notability and assault my talk page. If not, I will likely take them to AfD for further review there. Eusebeus 00:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

is going too far. I have to go off-wiki for about two hours but unless you have a good explanation for this and an apology to Monicasdude I will be listing you at WP:ANI for uncivil behavior and trolling Monicasdude. Stop. Please. Find something else to edit. Please. Thatcher131 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher. If you genuinely believe my actions to be trolling or in bad faith, as you posted, you can (since Monicasdude is unwilling) post an RFC against me to solicit reaction from the larger community. Apparently, MD's campaign to discredit my prod review has been successful enough to convince people that I am, in fact, targeting him specifically (simply as the author of deprods) and you may, as a result, find a sympathetic response since stalking is a serious offence. He suggested specifically I solicit comment from the deprodder in order to avod the unpleasantness recently encountered at AfD, and so I have done so. In response I received an accusation of vandalism. However, if you disagree with my actions, then as you note there are venues for remedial action. Btw, now that I am here, I myself have authored an academic page (Franz Babinger) and the issues you raised in the academic debate are germane. Personally, I feel that 100+ citations are not enough, but the issue is clearly one of some contention. Cheers, Eusebeus 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I believe. I think your deletions have been rather hasty, and I don't blame Monicasdude for thinking that you are not a serious person (although he expressed it differently) when you posted your second note about Horsemen not being notable when it stated clearly in the article that it was excerpted in Atlantic Monthly. Honestly, now, how many books get that treatment? It gives the impression that you were either not paying attention or simply trolling him, and your followup response certainly sounded to me like you were saying, "prove your deprods or notable or else I will delete them." Furthermore your actions amount to wikistalking, and I say that with due deliberation. I am 95% convinced of your good faith that you do not intend it that way, and that as a known de-prodder, his contrib list is a good source of material for consideration. However, the result is the same as if you were maliciously targeting him. I would like to ask you to find another way to identify articles for deletion. For example, I find about half the articles at Wikipedia:Dead-end pages are good deletion candidates. I also find that if I'm bored and start clicking the random article link, about one in ten is in serious need of improvement or deletion. I really think you should avoid him for a while. Thatcher131 02:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of the RFAR, and I'm not sure where you get the idea that I am "outraged." I think if you're in your car and get distracted on the phone and run over the neighbor's mailbox you're just as responsible as if you did it on purpose. Your actions target MD; even though you have nothing personal against him the results are the same. No matter how in the right you are, it would be an excercise of tact and discretion to go find something else to do for a while. Thatcher131 02:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aye-aye!

I couldn't help it! My edits are my children! Snoutwood (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The way you're editing you'll build back up in no time :). What is this? 125 edits a day? Are you mad? Snoutwood (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaaahhh. Yeah, moving can be like that. Good luck! Snoutwood (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelyn Marcel Keyes

...is definitely notable. If there's nothing establishing notability in the article, we should add smth. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Smth = Something. Smbd = Somebody. For some reason when I learned English in Russia, these were unversally understood contractions. I carried them with me, but people in America don't understand. Weird. The others I saw briefly. Nothing strikes me as particularly keepworthy, but I didn't do in depth research. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude

You may be interested in this. Snoutwood (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No bother, anytime. Snoutwood (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)