User talk:Jahiegel/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please, no betting!

Please do not post gambling information on the 2005-06 NCAA Bowl Games page! It is needless and a distraction. NoseNuggets 6:41 PM US EST.

Since this is the top comment on my talk page, I expect that I ought to address it, in order that people coming here don't improperly infer that I am a "problem user". Inasmuch as the information as to point spread is appended to each Super Bowl article, I was including similar information in the article; the "dispute" was amicably resolved. Joe 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Alito article

check the alito discussion.Kiwidude 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

re SB XL

Thanks, although what specific edits are you referring to exactly? I seem to edit that page everyday. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl XL statistics

Me likey. What source are you using? Does it have where each team ranked for each stat? Because I think that would be useful. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Joe-Max Moore

Thanks for checking. I wonder why he thinks differently. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Travel Religion

I appreciate your support for Time Travel as a religion. Please visit the non-censored article at: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Time_Travel_Religion Cjsedwards 15:59, 4 February 2006 (CST)

Lest people should think me altogether strange, I ought to explain that Mr. Edwards, the founder of the "religion" and above poster, ostensibly misconstrued my vote on AfD. I voted for the speedy deletion of the article per the nomination and then jocularly, though perhaps untowardly or intemperately, wrote, "According to the article, though, the religion has been extant for nearly twenty-four hours now, which surely must mean it's notable and significant, no?". The article indeed explained that the religion had been founded on 4 February 2006, which I found rather amusing. It is safe to say, then, as I would hope one would apprehend from looking at my sundry WP activities and my userpage (viz., my userboxes), that I did not give support to "Time Travel as a religion" and, more importantly, surely didn't vote to keep his article, as its AfD page shows (it was, btw, speedily deleted). Joe 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I should say further that one might readily assume from his description of the religion that its creation was entirely facetious in nature, but Cjswedwards' strident objections elsewhere here to its deletion make one wonder (hence my desire not to be associated with his work). Update: his post below confirms that the page was written largely in jest. Whilst one mustn't abide such misuse of Wikipedia and such violation of, inter al., WP:POINT, one is at least happy that he didn't seriously believe all that he wrote. Joe 22:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't denie that the creation was for the purposes of humour, but there was definitely a deeper level to the concept. I am agnostic, and do not prescribe to any specific religion, so the idea that I would create one is rediculous iteself. It is really more of a comment on faith and people's ability to believe something so absolutely that they ignore facts and evidence. Much of science is taken for granted, and is essentially a belief. How do we know the earth revolves around the sun? Have you done the calculations to prove it yourself or do you just believe it because you've been told it your whole life? Maybe a more contraversial example would be whether or not global warming is caused by human influence. Depending on which journal articles you look, the answer could go either way. People choose to believe the research that aligns itself closer to what they want to be true. Basically I am a person who believes nothing and questions everything. Take no information for granted while still finding humour in such crazy ideas as Time Travel as a Religion. Anyway I hope that gives some insign into my motivation.

My previous comment here was more of a compliment to the fact that instead of calling the article vain, as did another user, but rather you chose to find it amusing. A quality that is too rare in today's society.

Anyway I applogize for poluting your space here with my rhetoric. You don't have to worry about me bugging you again. If you want to discuss this further feel free to email me at (e-mail removed lest poster should receive undesired spam).

Michael Schiavo's "bitch"

When can I harvest her organs?

Yo. Until you answer my questions you need to stop the fucking reverting. right fuckin now.

These unsigned comments were posted by 165.247.91.219, who was objecting to my reverting his unencyclopedic edits. After violating WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR and, most importantly, after continuing to insert extraneous and incorrect information into the Michael Schiavo article, he was blocked. I should say that may reverting vandalism on the Michael Schiavo page in no way should be construed to mean that I approve of the current version of the page; I think it inappropriately takes up the Terri Schiavo debate, surely adequately covered on her page, is probably untowardly biased (against the positions of Mr. Schiavo), and, finally, is marked by unencyclopedic language. I have not, though, undertaken to edit the page because, after having been afflicted by vandals and those demonstrating a strong POV, the article appears of late to have fallen into sundry capable hands. Joe 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Text of Turned (and Reference Desk writ large)

Thanks, Joe, for your kind words. I had scanned your user page and enjoyed all the userboxes. I stole the one on bipolar disorder, something I've lived with for over forty years. It took ten years to get the correct diagnosis, from a British psychiatrist. It seems German and American psychiatrists at the time saw most everything as schizophrenia. --Halcatalyst 23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

NFL Draft

Hey, no problem. Do what we can, eh? Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 05:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image

Hi. I removed image:MagrittePipe.jpg from you userpage because it is a copyright violation in accordance with our fair use criteria. Thanks. You may want to check and confirm that all the other images on your user page are under free licenses. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Orson Welles film "Othello" film in Ireland in 1955

Hi, Joe, hope you are well. Thanks for contributing to the humanities reference desk, and I hope you'll continue. I think you were a little hard, though, on the person who posted this question. Long ago I was a Ph.D. student (at Northwestern, as a matter of fact), and I can well remember how much I didn't know when I started out (or now, for that matter). Consulting an encyclopedia is definitely not a bad place to start looking for information. Now, it would be bad if you stopped there.... --Halcatalyst 01:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Joe. Thanks for your response on my discussion page. You raise important questions about the value of Wikipedia, not just the reference desks. I'm more sanguine than you are, though. On WP, generally, the wheat gets sifted from the chaff quite efficiently, at least in areas people pay atention to. You might like to read my response to the computer science student who's doing a class project on the value of Wikipedia. Regards, --Halcatalyst 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for the various Olympics based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on these sports. You might like to further identify with us by adding to your user page the {{User WikiProject Olympics}}. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Arankin

Remember to welcome people on their talk page, not their user page! --Rory096 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

With the Utmost respect and cordiality...

With all due respect, user:Jahiegel (aka user:Joe) I do not wish to create a commotion, but this is a matter of principles. I do not want to be tarnished by such labels nor will I sit back and watch defacement of articles. It is my responsibility as a community member and editor to uphold the values of Wikipedia, so that all users can benefit from the good work we all do to advance knowledge and human cohesion. Manik666 07:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Bhai Makhan Shah Article

Obviously, Sir you have not read the article or the background material relating to this article or have no idea of this subject ie: Sikhism- For some general education for everyone, a Sakhi refers to a historic account of interesting and important events mainly during the 250 years or so of the lives of the Sikh Gurus from 1469 to 1708. However, Sakhis do exist outside this time scale do exist. Watch this space!!! and take that finger off the trigger - Think before you act!! --Hari Singh 03:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

It would help if you could explain why the AfD status has been given to this article. Please use the discussion page or my user page before you take any further steps - It is obvious that you do not have any idea of the background of this subject (ie: Sikhism). Can I suggest you refer to www.Sikhs.org and www.Sikhnet.com to see the importance of Sakhis to this subject. Both these sites have material on sakhis and account of varies important such historic accounts. Also can I refer you to GDFL site at www.Sikhiwiki.org where I have made a large contribution. --Hari Singh 03:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

Lest one should infer a religious animus, or, worse, an inadequacy of intellect, from my AfD, one should see my response here. Joe 03:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Further comments from Hari (moved from new topic)

Dear Sir:

As the writer of the article Bhai Makhan Shah, I make the following comment:

It is interesting to note that this article was tagged by you for speedy deletion because you thought that the article "appears to be a fictional story" at 2:58. You had failed to notice that the article began with: "Makhan Shah Lubana (also written as Lobana) was a devout Sikh and a rich trader from Tanda district Jhelum (now in Pakistan)..…" – If this was a fictional story, would it refer to "(now in Pakistan)"?

Further, mid-way down the article is the line "He then recited this Shabad of Guru Arjan Dev:" followed by the sacred hymn by the fifth Sikh Guru – Now surely if you are not even aware of the Gurus of the Sikhs, do you have the right to make any judgement on this article or any other article linked to Sikhism?

You were wrong but you realised your mistake and rightly and honourably retracted from that position. However, you did not completely re-evaluate your position as you almost instantly put an AfD notice on the article.

If you had the "well-being" of Wikipedia at heart, surely it does not take more than a few seconds to search for "Makhan Shah" on Google to see if this is fiction or fact! – If you had done this, you would have found 654 hits and the first article is at: www.Sikh-History.com – Do I need to say more! – I don't think you would find fictional stories on a history website. Under the circumstances, the comment by User talk:Royboycrashfan that this is "original research" is laughable. 654 hits with Google and he thinks this is original research!! This is a record of historical events that took place in about 1620AD. And what is surprising is that he is supported by User:TBC and User:Khoikhoi. Blindly follow the leader!!

Following my comments on the discussion page highlighting that this article was a example of a Sakhi (ie: Historical Record), which are very popular in Sikhism at 3.09, you changed the article to AfD status at 3.13 saying that this was because "text is a Sikh story taken from www.srigurugranthsahib.org website". So in 4 minutes you had read the 2 articles of over 1250 words each and done a proper comparison of the two articles. I am sorry but I don't think this is how articles should be judged - Someone spending less than 4 minutes to evaluate an article that may have taken a few days to create from various resources. Why should someone who appears to have no knowledge of the subject matter, is completely anti-religion and has spent very little time researching the subject take such a step? I wonder?

Having read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, I believe that the comments made by you – "only that the fashion in which it is currently presented is non-encyclopedic" does not appear to be reason for articles to be deleted.

Further, you say that if the text was: "of great religious import, it would, I think, appear in some form on more than one website" – This is based on a Google search of the words: "Once while he was returning home". What you do not tell us is the Google finds the following:

"with his ship carrying valuable goods over the vast seas, his ship got caught up in a furious storm" in my article and

"with his ships loaded with valuable cargo, there was a furious storm at sea and his vessels got caught in it" on the other site.

Not quite the same sentence – let alone the whole article. So how you can say that "text is a Sikh story taken from" www.srigurugranthsahib.org site - is a completely mystery to me? I wonder why you took this step as it is totally unjustified!

I believe that your criticisms are entirely ill-founded and without foundation. Further, this appears to a tactic to discourage minority religions to have a reasonable say on this website and this type of behaviour will stall contribution from the minority traditions. The majority sects will dictate what goes on this site - even when they are completely wrong!! If that was your intention, I have no problem with that – just do it openly rather than using unnecessary stealth! --Hari Singh 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - Trivium

Nice edit summary.[1] You are completely correct, IMO, about the best place for that factoid.
I'm curious though, about your use of trivium to mean (I assume) the singular of trivia. I checked www.dictionary.com, and they define trivium as "The lower division of the seven liberal arts in medieval schools, consisting of grammar, logic, and rhetoric."[2] Wikipedia has a similar definition.[3] Dictionary.com does note that the word "trivia" is the plural of "trivia" (meaning more than one of those lower divisions)[4]. However it does not say that trivium is a singular of trivia in the sense of "Insignificant or inessential matters; trifles." Neither does Webster's online.[5]
So, that leads me to believe that Trivium is not a singular noun for an insignificant or inessential matter. Since I'm interested in words and in trivia, I wonder if you have a source that says trivium can be used this way?
I hope you don't mind the question. Best, Johntex\^talk 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

CSD for Claw Your Way to the Top: How to Become the Head of a Major Corporation in Roughly a Week

I've delisted this from CSD, please cite the copyvio location before readding the deletion tag. (Then it will vaporize!) — xaosflux ^Talk 05:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bhai Makhan Shah

Hi there. I'm perfectly satisfied with your actions. I've seen a lot of stuff in AfD, and am quite active there. I'm a pedant, so I like to keep records - see User:Blnguyen/AfD, but the latest ten haven't been added to my record yet.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy versus PROD

There are a lot of speedy nominations that do not meet any of the criteria. Prod is an easy way to deal with them. For me, prod nominations are good for those articles which should be a speedy but don't fit the criteria. Glad I reminded you of a tool you can use. Enjoy editing. Vegaswikian 06:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I'm sorry, I saw your question on my Talk page yesterday and meant to get back to you last night, and it just slipped my mind. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gender

She?? What part of "dude" don't you understand??  ;-) Monicasdude 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: John J. Gumperz AfD

Check out the recent edit summaries for Craig Anderson for some interesting information. Go Badgers! Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe Houston

Joe Houston

I looked up info on him because I saw he was listed on:

Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/23

Operative.Phrase 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My nominations

You are free to have your own opinion about my deletion nominations and to vote on the page, but no personl attacks. Alethiophile 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My saying that you might not fully appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored for minors was surely not a personal attack; it was also echoed by four other members across your two AfDs. Joe 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It did not succeed, however, with votes of 10/19/11, so I have not yet become an administrator. I appreciate your support vote, though, and I look forward to see you vote for me next time! Should you have any questions, comments, or complaints at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.

Edit to Barbara Kruger

In your edit here, you changed the title of Kruger's piece Allegience to Allegiance. The title is, itself, misspelled; Allegience is correct. I noticed you used AWB to make the edit; how can I mark this so that AWB will not change it in the future? --TreyHarris 21:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; but what I meant to ask was, "how can I mark this so that other users of AWB will not change it in the future?" --TreyHarris 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yamato and AWB

Hey there Jahiegel --

I just noticed that, in your recent edit of the Yamato period page, you changed the underscore in links to a space, as in

• "[[Kofun_era|Kofun]]" becoming
• "[[Kofun era|Kofun]]"

I'm puzzled as the change was to the code part of the link that isn't visible to people browsing the site. Furthermore, both Kofun_era with an underscore and Kofun era with a space link through to the same page, with no redirection, and mousing over shows the link destination to be "Kofun_era", with an underscore. Since no one sees the pre-pipe part of a link anyway, and since the change does not alter how the links function, I'm puzzled as to why. Was this change intentional? If so, is there any specific Wikipedia policy for this? Or was it just part of how AWB works? My fear is that mass editing to change the invisible parts of links from underscores to spaces simply increases server load, while producing no real benefit. However, I'm sure you have a reason, and I'd love to hear it. Thanks! Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Jahiegel/Archive 1, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Savad rahman

Thanks for your comments and move! Happy editting. Bobak 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: PROD tag and Why Make Clocks

Thank you for informing me of my mistake in restoring the article's PROD tags. I had just finished restoring a long series of speedy and AfD tags that were wrongfully deleted by editors, and so I didn't even think twice when restoring this one. I am aware of the policy (I've even deleted several prod tags from articles that I didn't believe met the criteria for deletion), but I just spaced it this time. Hopefully you won't object, but I've just nominated the article for AfD. I'm sorry for my incompetence, and thank you for bringing this to my attention. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Gate to destiny

hi Joe -- you're quite right, and as you guessed I hadn't noticed the prod tag (the third in the first half hour of existence!). guess I should check next time. Meanwhile, I took this one to AFD myself, since it seems like an easy one. (It may or may not be original research, but it appears non-notable and probably non-verifiable -- it doesn't even say whether it's a video game, roleplaying scenario, board game...). thanks for the note. best, bikeable (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Joe, yes you are right about the prod. I did check the edit history, but not thoroughly enough and mistook the prod tag without a reason provided to be a {{notability}} tag. It is a poor mistake to make and I will pay more due attention in the future. My rational behind labelling it as "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, seems to be a mix of WP:NFT and WP:NOR" is the usage of the term "fictional game" in the article, but that may have been placing to much weight into the potential semantics of the term. The nomination statement for AfD by bikeable seems closer to the mark. Also thanks for taking the time to leave me a note. --Blue520 06:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome/vandalism tag

Indeed, the bv template is very useful. Thanks for the praise. Keep up the good work yourself. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

bold m ?

hey there,,, what does the bold m mean next to your name,, i see it in alot of names

peace --Muhaidib 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Life of a Tennis Ball deletion

Hey man, I just wanted to respond to your comment about the deletion of the Life of a Tennis Ball article a little bit ago. I was the writer/director/editor/everything else for the film, and I also wrote the article about my own film, on the condition that if no one else contributed to it after a period of time, I would personally post it for deletion. No one else contributed, and I followed through on my promise to put it up for deletion.

Anyway, I thought your comment about it being the first film in history to be silent due to technical difficulties was hilarious. Thanks for the comments on the interesting backstory of the film. -Jon Simpkins jon.simpkins@gmail.com

Cleanup

I have a question. I have a very important pending transaction with a gentleman in Nigeria (he's the son of the deposed king!) and, having sent my bank account number a few weeks ago, must now wait for him to send me $6 million. May I, then, stay on the Internet until our transaction is completed (I expect it's just a matter of minutes now)? :) Joe 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, but you have to be careful, because the Internet-scouring bots might take your money and give it to the cabal, and you wouldn't want that to happen! --Deathphoenix ON WHEELS ʕ 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference Desk

Thank you for your message. The sarcasm was lost on me, and this is something I blame on this medium more than anything. Now that I know it's there I can appreciate it. Btw, your birthday is the same as my mom's (though surely not the same year), which is in the same week as mine. If I believed in the zodiac I may have created an internal bias that could've made it more difficult to get along. lol. I appreciate being free of most or all superstitions. -LambaJan 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait! you were the one who wrote the joke! I knew that that was a joke. I wrote my little defence in response to that earlier comment that insinuated that I was mistaken and didn't even know it. I put it after yours because it was still in the same thread and I didn't want anyone to be confused with posting times. Sorry about the confusion. -LambaJan 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PROD

Hello there. You have proposed the article Longfei for deletion without providing a reason why you think the article should be deleted. When proposing articles for deletion, please consider adding your reasoning like that: {{prod|Reasoning goes here}}. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Adding your reasoning will aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. Thank you. Sandstein 15:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I overlooked your reason stated in an earlier edit. I didn't meant to chide you about this or sound condescending; sorry if this looked that way. When I saw the gaps in the deletion log, I decided to start a mini-campaign to inform the PRODDers about the proper use of the PROD tag... Best, Sandstein 19:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Greg Childers

I just reverted the article because: 1) as an entirely blank and category-free article, it could be overlooked by an admin. 2) an admin could judge immediately whether it should deleted.

That's it. I wouldn't pass judgment on whether it was a "superior" method, merely how I'd want it if I were wielding the admin mop, that's all.

Admin Box

Heh, thanks. I'd been so busy sending out 'thank you' notes all day that I hadn't gotten around to putting up the 'hey, I'm an admin' sign yet. :] --CBDunkerson 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Jahiegel. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

Hi there Joe. It is up and running, if you are still interested. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Basketball Hall of Fame

David Gavitt has been elected! Look at HoopHall.com. --Bender235 11:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on Tawkerbot2's page. Ironically its one of the pages that the bot doesn't watch :) Again, thanks! -- Tawker 02:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How did you do that so fast

I just finished creating the article for Vilma Ebsen and got up to take a leak. I had intended to do the categories, but when I came back to the computer they were done. And you did a more thorough job than I would have! How did you do that so fast? Was that done automatically by a robot? --Hokeman 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: University of British Columbia

Thanks for your support. RadioKirk is a longtime friend of mine, and I thought I should ask him before nominating for AfD in case I am overlooking something (and he has more experience than myself). I was going to nominate it for AfD tomorrow morning but after your reply, I'm going to nominate it now instead; your comment has confirmed what I was feeling all along. Thanks for your help, it's greatly appreciated. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Kusma's RfA

Hello, Jahiegel! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

What I think happened was in the split second before the bot grabbed the page you reverted and it grabbed the wrong text. Sorry about that, I'll see what I can do to stop that (that's the first time I think I've seen that happen) -- Tawker 05:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Percent

Thank you for your note on my talk page; sometimes when communicating only in text one tends to forget that the other person isn't trying to be (in your words) "exorbitantly argumentative", but is just making their point.

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but you haven't mentioned anywhere in your comments since the point I brought up on The Office talk page that the Manual of Style does not recommend either "percent" over "%". Based on this there does not seem to be any reason at all to modify a quotation to match a certain style when the Wikipedia style guide does not endorse one style over the other. This would seem to make the discussion about what exactly is being quoted moot. Qutezuce 05:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)