User talk:Gwernol/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 thanks 2 Francis Brunn 3 Certainty principle 4 Warning users 5 Out of Line 6 Thank You! 7 Re: New locomotive manufacturers 8 Re: User talk:158.123.160.2 9 My RfA 10 Re: Traxxas revert 11 Sorry about overwriting your comment 12 Talk page 13 Adminship 14 Vadalize? 15 I apologize... 16 Not vandalism 17 Still not vandalism 18 Speedy deletion 19 Welcome to Esperanza! 20 IM SORRY FOR MAKING FUN OF YOU 21 Revert to Cuckhold article 22 Speedy deletion 2 23 Sarah Cairns 24 Thank you 25 My RfA 26 Thanks 27 User needs blocked, third vandalism 28 The Archie Comics Universe 29 Sorry about egreggrious, is there a way to resubmit? 30 vandalism 31 Blanking of AfD page 32 Christalyn Steers 33 Green e 34 Skin spam 35 im from a school 36 Re Your editing Google X Directory 37 Old Skool Esperanzial note 38 templates used in articles 39 AfD 40 prod-->speedy 41 da vinci code page 42 da vinci code page 43 re webquest help links removed 44 Thanks for reverting my page 45 It is appropriate 46 USSA disambiguation 47 I dont know how 48 rfa

[edit] thanks

..for fixing up my 'test1' warning on Heffer. I was in a rush and blundered it(both location and lacking sig). thanks for the cover 'n' cleanup! Take Care! Anger22 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Brunn

Based on the links you provided, I have undeleted this page. If you are able to expand it to the point that it no longer appears to be a vanity page please do so. Normally I would have spent more time checking into a page like thia, but with the flood of hoax submissions currently being received in honor of April Fools Day time is limited. --Allen3 ^talk 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certainty principle

Hi, while i second your effort - i invite you to read the article and you'll see that . It has not peer reviewed but that isn't what wikipedia is about nor ever will as more and more people join. Wikipedia differs in that everything that is somehow worthwhile for a large enough number of people should get and stay in. Thus we have thousands of articles devoted to software and of course to other scientific fields. Please discuss this with others, as well as how productive it is to set deletion marks. This article certainly needs to be polished and revised but the content is correct. If you cannot judge that yourself then i wonder why you contribute to such articles.

I've noticed quite a lot of admins that set deletion marks at will without actually understanding the content (no not regarding my pages). Concentrate on the new pages, and possible vandalism instead or contribute to articles with good will.

If also contacted the author to get permission right to post it, and it has been elaborated with a peer and review of his professor, as noted in the paper. But it is a shame alone that i have to justify myself instead of inferring the meaning of an article on your own.

With each deletion request, that is unfounded or doubtfull at best you cost others precious time, which is also the sole reason to write all this, in hoping you rethink your attitude.

best regardsSlicky 16:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am familiar with original research. You have to differentiate between what someone devised and wanna publish through wikipedia and between a decent paper that it . It is the uncertainty principle viewed from the other side if you so want, resulting in an interesting perspective. If you would be more familiar with the topic, you would see how wrong it is to question this at all because that would be like disputing the uncertainty principle, which .

Moreover i AM not about requests for deletion, but i strongly oppose users that do not really know in a particular case whether or not a certain article fits the Wikipedia rules and thus simply places tags for hell to come on some article. In that case IT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH to just add a new topic in the discussion such as most more considerate users do. If you don't understand this, well so be it. There are millions and each ones opinion counts along with guidlines and certain few rules. This is just littering of articles, and i am sure you too are not interested in constantly reading and printing articles which are tagged with more wiki-internal remarks than actual content.

You are welcome to actually clean up, contribute AND VALIDATE articles first before tagging them with unnecessary remarks RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE CONTEXT. Whilst i realize my tone is quite harsh try to share this attitude with others. Or use more expressive tags, there are lots of others!

Here's something you might just fancy: Rachel haircut

OR At the very least once again don't contribute in any way to articles you are inapt too judge (which i really don't know, but oviously haven't read the paper), just as i don't add anything to topics i know too little about.

regardsSlicky 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, first of all i never made the assumption that you do not know about the uncertainty principle (let alone from the fact that is hopefully taught in highschool nowadays) but i considered that you may not have written the paper.

In the end you certainly aren't wrong to bring in a request for deletion - though are about the emphasis you put on it by using a tag taking a third of the whole page. I think we settled that issue.

At last as far as publication goes (which was also one of my concerns) the author noted: "3. In Russia, unlike in the West, we have journals that do

  not do so. But the situation here is much worse, because
  those journals are controlled by local "science mafia",
  which accepts for publication papers only of "appropriate"
  people.

" You may research that on your own if you feel inclined i admit i did not, however heard similar stories from africa etc. Be aware that the paper came out last month, and the publication cylce is several months. Moreover it is not of such fundamental importance to qualify it as research, it is just a correct take of the uncertainty principle from another perspective from which undergrads could profit. I encourage any scientific effort, and thus i admit was quite biased at the beginning of our discussion, for which i apologize. best regards and keep up your interest into physics Slicky 19:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning users

Thanks for the info, I got acquainted with this.

PS. Sorry for the late answer. Jacek Kendysz 13:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of Line

You have my apologies. My actions were out of line. I was simply trying to add a well used slang term for protestants in the mid-west. I was some what offended by your extremely formal methods, and took out my anger in an inappropriate way. My bad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.181.221.145 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Thank You!

Thank you for recognizing the vandalism over at New Testament Christian Churches of America, Inc and reverting the page back. You rock!!! Hanako 21:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: New locomotive manufacturers

Thanks for your invitation to join the WikiProject Trains. I have seen this and felt a bit diffident about it. I don't have the time or the inclination to engage in discussion of the minutiea, such as whether it should be Derby works (as if that were the only one) or Derby railway works. Or whether it should be Derby station, Derby railway station or Derby Midland railway station - although I have been known to lurk. I particularly haven't the energy for slanging matches with the more aggressive contibutors. I am working outwards from my original page List of early British private locomotive manufacturers. I am trying to head the articles with the official name of the companies, in most cases. After some thought, for instance I have moved "Hudswell Clarke" to "Hudswell Clarke and Company" On the other hand I've left "Vulcan Foundry", although it could lead to ambiguity since it was a very common name at the time. I have problems with Dick, Kerr & Co., especially dates, and the relationship with Kerr Stuart. The title I gave for Falcon Works was the one I was going to use for the article when I got round to it, though I could of course add a pipe to the link in the Kerr Stuart article. Many thanks. Best wishes. Chevin 09:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User talk:158.123.160.2

Thank you for the warnings, please let the other Wikipedia folk know as well. We are a K-12 school district in Rhode Island and evidently some of our students are a bit overzealous. Our entire district is nat'ed behind a single IP address. I will have a notice sent out regarding being nice on Wikipedia. If you have any info you can point me to regarding public schools and Wikipedia I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Mike Marseglia, Network Administrator, Foster-Glocester Regional Schools.

[edit] My RfA

Hello Gwernol/Archive 3: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego talk 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Traxxas revert

Good job, dude. You caught that pretty quickly.

Justin

Hey, I noticed your questioning the truthfulness of the Bollix article. Why would you do such a thing if you are not Irish and would have absolutely no idea of about Irish curse words. Why don't you look it up on the internet next time to prove your doubts wrong before you go jumping the gun and questioning the truthfulness of genuine articles!

Sexyeamo

Yes, that is the mis-conception Gwernol. That bollix is simply an alternative spelling of the word bollocks. That is what I have encountered most of the time when I speak to non-Irish people as well. But it is also not true. Why don't you ask an Irish friend, that at least would be a little more mature than wanting to delete a true article just because you're upset that the word bollix is not simply an alternative spelling of the word bollocks. Just remember Gwernol, this is not a game you should use your position of power with a little more humility, what's important is the truth not your ego.

Good! Just be aware that sometimes things are not what they seem and the meaning of words changes all the time. In Ireland bollix means male genitalia and is a singular noun. The origins of the word may be from the term bollocks but it has evolved in Ireland for good or for bad and has a distinctly different meaning to the original there now therefore I believe it warrants its own page. The ironic thing is even some Irish people have forgotten the Irish meaning of the word because of the exposure of British culture. Hence we have our current problem where most people associate the two as the same when in fact they are fairly unique. It's the same thing which has occurred with the term Ulster. Everybody in Briain and the rest of the English speaking world seem to think that Northern Ireland is Ulster when in fact Northern Ireland is just six of the nine counties that make up Ulster. But things like that get easily forgotten when one culture is more dominant than another in our modern multimedia world.

Sexyeamo

[edit] Sorry about overwriting your comment

I was more upset that you didn't subst the unsigned tag, actually. ;-) --Rory096 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

Thanks for seeing and reverting that. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I've only been active since late January, so I doubt I'd accept a nom for another couple of months (plus I won't be on the internet for 7 weeks this summer). How about you? I was going to find your RfA to see how long you had been on WP when you became an admin and... it wasn't there. (Template:RFA cliche1 anyone?) --Rory096 23:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vadalize?

What did I vandalize you fool? ya admin are lyke Bush alwayz keeping us Niggers down! now tell me what I did, so I can try ta get your admin removed. —This unsigned comment was added by Thousandsons (talk • contribs) .

[edit] I apologize...

I am very sorry for having darker skin, please learn to forgive, me. —This unsigned comment was added by Thousandsons (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Not vandalism

My last edit was not vandalism. I removed incorrect information that was contradictory to the rest of the section. 65.185.73.251 23:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still not vandalism

I didn't remove the "majority of the article," I removed one incorrect sentence. 65.185.73.251 23:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Regarding the article JKop, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because the article claims nine single and four album releases, which is an assertion of importance. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Stifle 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Esperanza!

[edit] IM SORRY FOR MAKING FUN OF YOU

I JUST DELETED SOME THINGS THAT I REGRET SAYING SO IM SORRY FOR THAT. YOU LOOK LIKE UR ACTUALLY A NICE GUY SO IM SORRY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emstu10 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC).

Must you type in all uppercase letters? It's called shouting, please ease up on your Caps Lock key. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to Cuckhold article

You made a revert that erased all of my changes on the Cuckold article. My changes were relatively minor, and were intended to reduce or eliminate the complaint that the article was racially biased. I also remove the "toyboy" term, which was used innacurately. (And the term is more commonly "Boytoy") but still should not have been used in that context anyway in order to be accurate.

I will revert back to my edition after some period of time, or re-institute the meaningful changes if you don't want to respond to this and explain.

My assumption is that you are a good person who thinks, for some reason, that you are fixing vandalism to the page, as you are one of the people who monitors recent changes. Maybe sometimes you are overzealous about that? Thanks, -- Atomaton, April 2006.

Revert was Reverted by you, thanks. -- Atomaton

[edit] Speedy deletion 2

I noticed that you tagged the page List of concierge service companies for speedy deletion with the reason "spamvert, incorrect title, unsourced". However, "spamvert, incorrect title, unsourced" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:PROD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Cairns

Ah, no worries: I agreed and had clicked 'delete' and was about to confirm when something rang a bell and I stopped. The article survived by about half a second... only to be deleted under CSD-A7 anyway 2 hours later by someone else! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you! Hello Gwernol/Archive 3. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

[edit] My RfA

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism of my user page. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User needs blocked, third vandalism

The user User:24.62.181.236 is vandalising again. I don't know who to tell or how to tell them, you have warned him before so I'm asking you. Sorry I don't know what to do...See here. Thanks, Bourgeoisdude 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Archie Comics Universe

Hello, Gwernol! I'm RobScholar, new at Wikipedia.

I was trying to edit a page dedicated to the proposed fictional character Harry S. Fulmonovich (steady boyfriend lover to Saranda Yates Jones) in Archie Comics. I operate a website called The Archie Comics Universe at [1]—my website has a section dedicated to Harry & Saranda that people do enjoy.

I regret to learn that my first few attempts to do a Wikipedia entry page for this fictional (although proposed) character got deleted... How do I notify that this Harry is a proposed character for Archie Comics in an acceptable manner? In the article summary, perhaps?! (My Wikipedia page on Saranda Yates Jones got accepted, and added to the articles.)

How's this for a summary: This article is about a proposed fictional character based on a story in Archie Comics—please visit The Archie Comics Universe [2] for more information.

RobScholar 05:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)=RobScholar

[edit] Sorry about egreggrious, is there a way to resubmit?

I didn't know that I deleted that when I tried to change the article. Is there a way to resubmit the article, it poses no threat to anyone. User:SwassFloridian

[edit] vandalism

Some of your user pages got shuffled around by a disgruntled user. I think I've put them back properly, but you should probably double-check. Best, FreplySpang (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha, silly me, I thought that the vandal was calling you a cow because you were female. Apparently you're not a Yank either. Go figure. :-) Anyway, I've deleted the Gareth Stewart redirect. Cheers, and happy Spring! FreplySpang (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the abuse you've recievd. I'm suprised he didn't go for me as it was me who nominated it in the first place, lol. Anyhow, good luck. Englishrose 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of AfD page

Looks like the anon who blanked the AfD page was trying to complete an Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendrix Nosepipe. Clearly, he was not quite clear on the process. ;-) Fan1967 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christalyn Steers

I did not remove the deletion warning from christalyn steers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stack upjohn (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Green e

Clicking anywhere on your signature takes me to User:Gwernol/Esperanza, not just the green e. --Mayor Roy 20:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed this too. Perhaps it should be fixed. DarthVader 10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skin spam

hi -- yeah, we were definitely tracking the same stuff -- I edit conflicted with you and others a couple times added new prod/afd tags, and cleaning up the user's previous articles. it's funny to see how fast stuff changes once people start noticing things -- until your afd, all those articles had slipped through! nice work. bikeable (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] im from a school

i wasnt the guy who added nonsense, it was someone else from the school. i am sorry for their dumb action and please forgive my school :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.138.65.253 (talk • contribs) .

Many schools and colleges are blocked around the world. For example an ISP which all the schools use in my county (same as state) is completely banned from editing at Wikipedia meaning all school in the county are banned. Please don't take these bannings personally, they are aimed at the person who caused them. Martin Porcheron 16:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes...I know who you are...don't worry, Wikipedians! This guy may be sorry, but he's had his computer priveleges revoked. That way, HE won't be adding nonsense to my favorite online encyclopedia! (I know the guy.)

[edit] Re Your editing Google X Directory

Its free. Not commercial you should actually view a directory before making that assumtion, listen if you want to be picky wikipedia also accepts paypal maybe it should get banned from yahoo.ca ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nexus Goof (talk • contribs).

Being "free" is not a criterium for inclusion into Wikipedia either as an external link or as an article. Haakon 10:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] templates used in articles

Hi, I saw your edit summary while reverting my change to Switcher. I thought in general it was good practice to subst templates like these. Sorry if I got it wrong in this case. Could you give me your thoughts on why not to subst this one? I'd like to learn. Thanks, Gwernol 19:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, templates used in articles should not be substed, especially header templates and (for heaven's sake, infoboxes). The point of having these templates is to achieve a consistant format. That's why having a dozen forks of the same one is ill-conceived. Also we want the required code to take up as little space as possible, so as not to confuse the average newb user who clicks on the edit button, and possibly starts typing in the wrong place. — Apr. 25, '06 [19:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

P.S. I thought I'd let you know that since your entire signature links to your "/Esperanza" subpage, I've created its talk page, as a redirect here. Otherwise people might post messages in a place where you don't notice them, I know I almost did. — Apr. 25, '06 [19:50] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] AfD

I like your sense of humor. :-) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic: Isn't That a Restaurant? Coren 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prod-->speedy

Sure. Not a problem. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] da vinci code page

please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:The_Da_Vinci_Code All we are trying to do is get the valid existing links back up but one user from googlefact.blogspot.com is wiping everyone elses links (even ones that are not related to the Google webquests) and this has been going on for days with many complaints but no action whatsoever. This activity is going to get a lot more extreme there if the original content is not reinstated and the user googlefact.blogspot.com not banned in some way. Sorry for the hassle but we have had enough of this prat. 67.101.128.6 02:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] da vinci code page

Thanks for your response re vandalism, and please accept my apologies. Yes there are several site owners who have become very frustrated with the actions of one person from googlefact.blogspot.com who is repeatedly wiping out all links and sections on this page related to the Da Vinci Code webquests - both the original quests that have been on this page for a year or two, as well as the new Google webquest which is what his site is all about. As well as wiping out 'competitive' links regarding the Google Webquest,he is also deleting links that are not related to the Google webquests at all. Some of these links, as I said, have been there for a couple of years. Why several of the site owners effected have been threatened with bans by Wikipedia while the person responsible for all of this hassle is getting away with it AND being allowed to retain the page as they want it with no other links except their own defies explanation, and until a mod exercises some fairness here, the da vinci page is likely to undergo a great deal of warring. I would like to request the page be restored to it's original condition of several days ago, before the person from googlefact.blogspot.com decided that Wikipedia exists purely to serve his selfish butt, and then locked. Failing that, the 'war' will continue. 67.101.128.6 03:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This ridiculous. It is 67.101.128.6 who has been reverting edits intended to keep the article within MoS guidelines. Additionally, he/she/it is repeatedly re-adding links to blogs/websites not entirely devoted to the WebQuest, which is confusing to non-tech savvy readers. See my request for protection for details. BTW, leave a comment on my talk page if you get this msg. M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. M1ss1ontomars2k4 03:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re webquest help links removed

I can't believe how you people run this place. WTF is wrong with you? TRY READING THE FACTS FIRST. There were 5 different linked sites that provided help on the Da Vinci Code webquests - 2 were for the original webquest and those links had been here on Wikipedia for several years without issue and were the most well-used resources for the webquests on the internet, and then 3 more links were recently added for help with the NEW Google webquests that just started this month. NOTE that these new Google webquests are not related to the older original webquests at all, and do NOT superced them in any manner. ONE person comes along who has created a new site that provides help ONLY for the NEW Google webquests (and no help whatsoever with the older original webquests), and this prat deletes ALL the links and information to ALL the webquest help sites both old and new, and replaces them with his own link, and when several site owners try to put their information back up, this clown repeatedly deletes it ..and then you mods back him up??? WTF is up with that??? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS??? Your page now provides absolutely no links to help with the original webquests, and only one link for help with the new webquest, which is all thanks to this one selfish prat from googlefact.blogspot.com. Oh wait, there's one more link too, and that's to his mirror site at davinciquest.blogspot.com. How can you justify your actions? The owner of googlefact.blogspot.com also posted on the site of one of the links he removed (student-rant.blogspot.com), to laugh at everyone and thank us all for the traffic and the ad-impression revenue it is generating for him. AND THIS IS WHAT YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO CONDONE???? If you could give some reason for your actions then perhaps all of us site owners who were deleted could understand, but we do not see that there is any justification for what you have done, nor has anyone offered any. The ONLY message we're getting here is that it pays to manipulate Wikipedia for personal gain and delete everyone else's links but your own. WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOU RECTIFY THIS MATTER AND THEN LOCK THE PAGE TO STOP THE PERSON WHO STARTED ALL THIS FROM DOING IT AGAIN - which happens to be the one link you have left on the page. At a bare minimum, restore the help links to the original webquests so people looking for help with them can actually get some. I still can't believe how unjustly you mods have administered this matter so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.49.172 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Thanks for reverting my page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism by 172.203.70.132 on my user page. I wonder who he was, making claims that he is coming back, doing a report or something... Anyway, thanks for your speedy revert! IronChris | (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It is appropriate

If you knew the background of that page. The person who made that entry has made almost 60 entires to Wikipedia all promoting himself. Each one of th elinks on that page all go to pages he created and all go to advertising Wikipedia entries for his companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.17.216 (talk • contribs) .

READ for once please thanks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:USSA

Are you honestly telling me you cannot read a Talk page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:USSA

Strange...?

[edit] USSA disambiguation

Thanks very much to you too. I wouldn't have looked back at the disambig page if the anonymous IP user hadn't have put that message on my talkpage. It's great that you saw the PROD tag being readded and then reverting it. Thanks also for your helpful feedback to the user. See you round :-) DarthVader 04:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I dont know how

I dont know how to do that, can you do it for me or show me how?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Adams

[edit] rfa

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)