User talk:PTR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on [[User talk:{{{1}}}|my talk page]]. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 23:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: the September 11, 2001 attacks article. The article was protected because of "edit warring" between User:Lovelight and others, over inserting WTC collapse times (how long it took for the buildings to collapse, once the collapse initiated). These details, the way Lovelight was putting them, lend themselves to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Lovelight's numbers aren't quite accurate, with more nuances and details than should be explained in the main 9/11 article. Because of space limitations, the main article needs to summarize all facets relating to the 9/11 attacks with details in the subarticles. We have a subarticle on the Collapse of the World Trade Center, and discussion of collapse times needs to go there. Anyway, your suggested edits sound all fine to me, and don't appear to be controversial. Once page protected is lifted, please go in and make whatever changes you see fit. You are absolutely right, that the article can and should be made more readible. Don't be intimidated by the talk page discussions. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 23:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Timeline 2 helpme 3 fbi 4 Your suggestion 5 Minor Edit 6 Sean Hannity 7 Re: Sean Hannity criticism 8 9/11 9 Hannity 10 More on Hannity controversy 11 The RFM 12 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 13 Request for Mediation 14 Link? 15 9/11 link 16 Thanks for the input 17 Good edits! 18 Request for Mediation 19 Limbaugh 20 Oh so you are a freerepublic user and therefore biased?

[edit] Timeline

I went ahead and updated the timeline page title. It only involves doing a page move. Oftentimes, it's good to discuss such page moves ahead of time on the article talk page. However, on Talk:September_11,_2001_timeline_for_the_day_of_the_attacks, the amount of discussion and activity there [1] is minimal. In such cases, it's okay to just be bold and just move the page. Maybe (but very unlikely in this case) someone will come along and raise objection on the timeline talk page. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] helpme

I wanted to do some more cleanup editing on the September 11, 2001 attacks page but it's blocked for new users. I can wait but I was going to have some time tomorrow to work on it, so...

It looks like your user account will be old enough in about 19 hours. I could try unprotecting the article, but it looks very likely it is just going to be hounded by IPs vandalizing and would need to be re-protected. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, apologies for not getting your message sooner. I'll be online for a while tonight, and can watch for IP vandalism. So, have unprotected the article. It's unfortunate that some anonymous IP users vandalize, but such edits are usually reverted very quickly. And, the good edits made by new/anonymous users tend to outweigh the bad. So, please edit. If it gets bad, we may have to semi-protect again maybe tomorrow.--Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fbi

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your suggestion

I have updated the wording, per your good suggestion. Also added reference to the U.K.'s findings, regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability. Their document comes with a caveat:

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document."

The difference between this being a simple criminal investigation versus an intelligence invesitgation is the key here. I think we have consensus (obviously not unanimous) on this. Unfortunately, we can't possibly please everyone, but this particular paragraph is well-referenced and consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Aude (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --PTR 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy to be of help. Also, from now on, when you leave comments on my talk page, I will respond there on my talk page. This helps keep discussions together, rather than fragment them on different pages. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edit

I know I keep forgetting the "m" for minor edit. I'll try to remember.--PTR 19:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Hannity

Hello, PTR. I noticed that you removed the mention of the purpose of the Code Pink vigil on the Sean Hannity article. According to the reference for that statement, "The antiwar group, Code Pink (search), calls the gathering a vigil and says their goal is increased veteran benefits, or to get them increased." There was a deal of back-and-forth in the article, being that Hannity and Colmes is a political show, but according to the NPOV guidelines, one political point of view should not be represented to the exclusion of the other. The incident itself appears to be the gathering the reference is talking about, and it was my reference that I copied from the Code Pink article that appears to have been mistaken. In the interest of NPOV and the characterization (but not reenactment) of the debate, I am going to source the claim that the gathering was for increased veteran benefits to the Code Pink organization itself. By the way, if you respond, please do it on my talk page or the article talk- for some reason I can't get your talk page to load directly. (I had to edit it through accessing the history in your contribs o_O) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response! The content of the "criticism and response" sentence I inserted was intended to display what he thought was wrong with it and what the intention of their action was, and to do so while maintaining the strictest NPOV I could. If there's any way you'd like to rephrase it, feel free. I spend a good part of my time watching politically charged articles and trying my best to make sure the project always speaks from a neutral point of view. I noticed that your account is fairly new, so if you have any questions at all about neutrap point of view or other related policy, I'm always happy to help answer questions on my talk page. Happy editing, --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sean Hannity criticism

Hello again, PTR. I think I know one of the passages you're talking about. Specifically, the one I recall is where he characterized Phelps and his ministry as left-wing war protestors. In the literary or encyclopedic sense of the word, "to criticize" means "to find fault with", which is what (in that specific instance) the Mediamatters citation did; namely noted that his original assertion regarding that incident was incorrect. If you can give me some of the specific examples you wanted to see logic about criticism on, just let me know on my talk page, and I'll be more than happy to talk with you about them. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have found a source for the other criticism paragraph you brought up on the talk page. Incidentally, be aware of the editor User:Getaway- I have had issue with his edits and tendency to use talk pages as a soapbox, and propensity for trying to Wikilawyer criticism of people who agree with him politically away, even if it be reliably sourced. Not to suggest that you have anything to do with his sort, but he is a good example of why it's good to keep a cool head when editing political and other articles that espouse strong feelings. Cheers. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, I would very much like to be able to put in a citation to the original transcript of the show. However, with that in mind, it bears saying that the Fox corporation controls their copyrighted material very tightly and transcripts are not common- right now the only reliable source for the quote and the criticism are the Fair and Media Matters pages, as far as I could tell- I looked about 10 pages back in the google results. One page you might find helpful is Wikipedia's guide to identifying reliable sources, available at WP:RS. It is very useful for getting guidelines to distinguish reliable sources (generally mainstream coverage not from a biased or political source) from nonreliable ones (about everything else, including blogs, forums, or almost anything that isn't independently edited by someone who isn't the author). I know the concern about edit wars cropping up is very valid on articles dealing with political figures, and that's why I always take pride in assuming good faith and engaging other editors in the best way I know how. Cheers. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No sweat about talking to me here, that's what the talk page is for. :) As far as assertions and claims as relates to BLP, the old Wikipedia motto is "It's not what they did, it's what a reliable source says they did". Because the reliable source in this case asserts that X said Y or X did Y, it is reasonable to assert in the article's voice that X did Y, so long as you have the citation thereafter. In the case of controversial assertions, it must be taken one step further and say that according to W, X said/did Y. In the case that the assertion could be libellous, WP:BLP asserts authority and the claim should be left out of the article entirely.

Now, as for the second point you asked about, where Hannity is recorded coaching guests for the show- note that the article is not allowed to cast judgement or develop new ideas from the source, that the source itself does not originally say, on the account that in that respect it would be Original Research, which as I'm sure you're aware is one of the primary prohibited things in the Wikipedia mission- As long as it's properly sourced and the decision on what the deal is is left to the reader, it's acceptable. In my own view the paragraph was probably included by an editor who wanted to point out what he or she may have construed as unethical behavior for a talk show host. With a strict interpretation, I think it's probably not necessary to include, but not necessary to omit either. One thing that does concern me is the length of the criticism paragraphs, which can probably be condensed down to the point they're trying to make in so many words. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and specifically what I was referring to when I mentioned the part about assertions and reliable sources- what I was getting at was that it is appropriate to say that Hannity said X, so long as there is a reliable source saying that Hannity said X. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back. I was away for the weekend. I noted your last comment on my talk page; I did a little research about Media Matters. It appears that they call themselves a "progressive" news outlet. This does mean that they will tend to report news that people of a more liberal viewpoint will consider of interest (I think), but that does not mean that they are not a reliable source. See for example the issue of Fred Phelps' involvement with Al Gore as espoused by Getaway on the Fred Phelps page- the Log Cabin Republicans group is pretty plainly a news source that reports stories of interest primarily to one political group, but that does not mean they aren't a reliable source. Specifically, the reliable source guidelines are in place to keep crackpots from being cited as mainstream sources, and to keep marginal views from being overrepresented in articles. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, just jumping in here - have been keeping an eye on things per PTR's msg on my talk page-- did you see my reply back? User:Jossi would be a good one to go to for whether MM is a reliable source, etc. --plange 15:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Plange. Thanks for the reference to Jossi. I'll open a new section on his talk page regarding the reliability of a couple of the political reporting organizations that PTR seems to be concerned about on Jossi's talk page. It may have to wait until this afternoon when I get back from lunch; however, I too would like to know (as far as WP:BLP goes) what sources and statements are appropriate when sourced, and to whom.

PTR, if you want to in the meantime, go ahead and open a section over at Jossi's page regarding this, I'll hop in after I return. Thank you. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, PTR. It's always a pleasure to see new editors dive right into interaction with other users, and I must say that even though I've been around for going on a year now, I've learned a few new things about policy myself, editing this article. I've added some comments on Jossi's page regarding the backstory of the questions on the Hannity article, and links to the site in question. By any means, I just wanted to thank you yourself for being such a levelheaded and adept editor, especially for being new to the whole thing. Cheers. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, since in many of these sections, as you have said, that it is likely the case that Hannity has made the statements in question and a reliable source is what is needed, I have found that the website Fair.org appears to be a media watchdog organization without the specific mission to report on conservative media. If you think that they would be a more reliable source to give these assertions, I may be able to turn up some links, since Sandy expressed his/her concern about Media Matters on Jossi's talk page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm- you may be right. Maybe the correct way to handle this would be to mention the controversies only by name and go into more detail on the individual show pages. I've got to head out for the evening, but I trust you'll handle anything that you feel needs to be done well. Happy editing. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I had a concern about the complete removal of the "controversy" section from the Sean Hannity page. I, like another editor who reverted your removal of it, do not think the controversy section should be removed entirely. The sources at mediamatters, etc. are not reliable for providing details of the disputes- however, in my opinion, the fact that there exists a page on the article in question produced by a widely-published political should serve at least as a direct claim that the incident in question is controversial, even if the source is not reliable to assert the details of the controversy in the biography page, according to BLP. In my opinion, one larger paragraph enumerating the major points of contention that were previously fully fleshed out (although using details gleaned from a source unusuable on a BLP), should replace the individual paragraphs previously there. The controversy paragraphs in their original form should be inserted on the article of the respective show, be it the Hannity and Colmes Show article, or whatever. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe I found the original article it was mentioned in. Check the Sean Hannity article's talk page for a link. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 15:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

The proper format is # WTC. Not WTC #. Please stop changing it back. (I know you only did it once, but you're the third one this week). For example, people referred to the towers as "One World Trade," et. al. --Golbez 11:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannity

Hi, PTR. I'm sorry not to have kept up and have been more help: I've had high maintenance house guests, and won't be able to catch up until next week. No, editorials are, by nature, biased opinion, rather than unbiased fact. I'll catch up next week; in the meantime, do let me know if you have any quick questions. Another person you check with is Crockspot (talk • contribs). Sandy 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, PTR. Per my comments on the Sean Hannity article's talk page, I am done editing it for now. I am not confident that some editors at that article are interested in or willing to work toward a consensus, NPOV version of the article that accurately reflects disputes and controversies the subject has been involved in. Again, as I said there, the BLP guidelines were put in place to prevent defamatory statements from being made about living people, not to give editors a hand in whitewashing and disrupting an accurate reflection of the situations that those same living people have been involved in.

Ordinarily, I'm a pretty patient and tolerant editor. I almost never allow my personal POV to affect my edits, and strive only to put out material of the highest quality. However, the actions of a few editors- namely, entirely removing any trace of material that could be remotely critical of the article's subject or put any question into the reader's mind of the subject's impeccable character, under the banner of making sure BLP was enforced, have convinced me that my editing efforts and attempts to find consensus and neutral point of view at this article, at least, are neither needed nor wanted. Good luck on your editing at this article in the future. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Hannity controversy

Ok, so I have read the above conversations in re to the controversy sec on the Hannity page, and have a couple of questions for you. Firstly, despite the almost certain potential frustration, I would like to offer any help you may require in repairing this situation. I don't think it would be reaching too much to hypothesize that there might be ulterior motives - beyond adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia - at play here. Should we ask User: Getaway if he wants to go to Al Franken's page and dispute the controversy sec there too? I have my biases, and I'm sure you do too, but IMHO the political maneuvering going on in this article is too much too ignore. Having a controversy section on the page of a prolific pundit seems completely reasonable, but maybe we should just splice some of the info with undisputed refs into relevant sections of the article instead. Let me know what you think the best way to move forward is at this point.--Jackbirdsong 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so promptly. I hope I didn't unintentionally seem frustrated with you in my above message; It was geared strictly towards the difficult Wikipedians who edit this article, and you do not seem to be one of them. So, since we seem to have a better idea of which refs are considered solid and which policies are pertinent, why don't you make the first moves and splice in any info you deem as acceptable. I would like to try to include the Schiavo controversy somewhere, since it was rather prolific info when the video was first released, but am not sure where to put it. What do you think? Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 00:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Schiavo link is indeed dead, I have a feeling FOX had it removed from YouTube per copyright issues, but I will try to track down an article from a cred. source that references the video, and that should be just as good. As for the Franken article controversy sec., if we are to presume that any controversy has to be put into the context of: 'Who was this a controversy to?', we are going to have major problems. The Franken page is, I think, More or less NPOV, although I think there are some pretty innocuous and purely gossipy parts as well. But all of the Franken controversies leave out the question of who they were controversial to, exactly. So my question is: is this really a necessary criteria for including any controversial issues in an article? Can't something simply be controversial to the general morals/values of a given society? For example, if somebody decides they want to tattoo a swastika on their forehead, surely we could say that this is controversial to more than just one segment of the population of a society, but rather simply controversial in general. All in all, I think that the Hannity controversy sec was fine the way it was, except for a few refs and the whole Fred Phelps thing. If we can figure that stuff out, I think it should be good. Either way, I will try to hunt down some more objective refs. Cheers. --Jackbirdsong 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, PTR. I saw your note; I see you're back safe and sound. I hope you noticed the long and helpful note that TheronJ left earlier on my talk page. I haven't peeked back in at Hannity because it took a really sour turn while you were gone, and think it's best to let those situations cool. I found TheronJ's message very encouraging. Best, Sandy (Talk) 05:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The RFM

I have added you you to the list of involve parties as per your message. My apologies.--Acebrock 18:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Charles Wesley Turnbull Coke R. Stevenson DragonRaid Winnie-the-Pooh (book) Governor of New Hampshire James Allred Topper (dinghy) Kids Against Combs J. W. Henderson Kenny Guinn Frank Kaufmann WFLA (AM) Roo Dittohead Piglet's Big Movie Dave Heineman Ordensburg Walden O'Dell Fletcher Stockdale

Cleanup Videos of Osama bin Laden Texas A&M University Corps of Cadets United Airlines Flight 227 Merge Governor of Colorado List of Governors of Colorado Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol Add Sources Marvin Bush Charles Perry Colonisation Wikify Pundit (politics) Andrew Lawrence-King Hänsel und Gretel Expand Supreme Injustice Into The Fire Forbes 400

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 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Link?

You removed a link today that contains WP:RS and WP:V sources. May I ask what the arguement against its inclusion is, or a link to a relevant discussion on the merits of the link. Thank you. In the future I ask you post a discussion on the talk page or my own talk page when reverting me. Again, thank you and I look forward to hearing your arguements for removal. --NuclearZer0 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article links to

Main article: September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks

which has a link to the timeline on the page you referenced in your link without the user having to find the actual timeline. There has been discussion on the talk page which came to no consensus which might have gotten a bit lost with all the other items discussed.--PTR 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to know it came to no concensus, concensus is not needed to add items, but to remove them. The party challenging the item needs to present a reason and the party defending the item then defends it. If the removing party isnt supported, the item should not have been removed. --NuclearZer0 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just going by what the external link section in the article says: ATTENTION! DO NOT ADD LINKS WITHOUT DISCUSSION AND CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE. OTHERWISE THEY WILL BE REMOVED. --PTR 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 link

Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. [2] . Thanks. --NuclearZer0 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the input

I want to thank you for your input on the Free Republic article. There is a partisan effort on that article to transform it from an encyclopedia article into a "hatchet job" against Free Republic. Please continue to contribute there. Dino 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good edits!

You get a cookie!

I approve of your work both on the DU and the FR articles. We need more people like you here. --BenBurch 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Limbaugh

I didn't delete it. I put it back. I think you wanted to put your remarks under someone else's comments. I think it's notable for now as it's a current event. I also think it's a bit of a publicity stunt. --PTR 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I believed that you did remove it. I was responding to Lurker and you made an edit while I was typing and my comments came up under your comments. I was not directing the comments toward you. I agree that it is notable because the current event value. Also, I believe strongly that if Al Gore's page is going to show his Nobel nom then Limbaugh's page needs to be consistent and fair. Yes, I agree with you Al Gore's nomination is definitely a publicity stunt, just like Limbaugh's. If Al Gore's wasn't a publicity stunt then why has it been fed to the media over and over again in press release after press release?? Al Gore is generating publicity for this book and movie Inconv Truth.--Getaway 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please join us on the talk page to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of the information. My main objection is the utter lack of reliable sources regarding Limbaugh's nomination. People keep comparing his nom to Gore's, but Gore's nom has primary coverage by reliable sources. Vassyana 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured it was something people might be looking for information on so thought it should be in the article until it's not a current event. That being said, I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other. As to comparing it to Gore's nom, I think it's all speculation since the committee doesn't release the nominees but his is better sourced speculation.--PTR 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I agree it is all speculation to a large extant. My only issue is the lack of reliable sources for the Limbaugh nom. If someone can find something so we can satisfy WP:V, I'd drop all objection to its inclusion. Vassyana 23:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh so you are a freerepublic user and therefore biased?

So what would it take to prove that certain topics are forbidden? Should I register a new account and submit a screen shot of everything I do, including a post critical of the war in Iraq? Then I cna screen shot the banned account page. Will that be a sufficient "source" for proof of the censorship at free republic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critter183 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't read or post on Free Republic or Democratic Underground but I edit both of the articles. I started editing them due to NPOV/Cleanup tags. I left you a message on talk regarding the content you'd like to add to the article. --PTR 17:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the remarks made above by Dino:

I want to thank you for your input on the Free Republic article. There is a partisan effort on that article to transform it from an encyclopedia article into a "hatchet job" against Free Republic. Please continue to contribute there. Dino 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I took them to mean keep contributing at Free Republic. Sorry if I was mistaken. I also left a response in Talk regarding Free Republic article. For what is is worth, I was a long time FR user until I was banned. I started there in 1998 and was banned sometime after Katrina hit N.O.Critter183 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

He meant my work on the FR wiki article. BenBurch gave me a cookie for my work there and on DU. --PTR 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)