User talk:Brighterorange/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the first archive of my talk page. You may leave me a message on the current version.

Contents

[edit] please check the exile page

Please do check the facts on my "Libel Judgement" section. All the links are there. They've already started deleting it. Thanks. Pete (the real one)

  • I think your edits are getting a lot more constructive, which is good. Do you really think that this needs to be the very first section of the article, though? The other editors aren't deleting it, really, but moving it into the section with all of the other conflicts. Maybe you'd achive consensus more readily by leaving it in that spot but expanding it to include the extra information. And as usual, discussing this stuff on the talk page instead of just reverting back and forth is a much better way to keep everyone from getting mad at each other and engaging in edit wars. — brighterorange (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, it's customary to put new comments at the bottom of a talk page. You can use the '+' next to edit this page to automatically do that. — brighterorange (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Smiths

thanks for doing the US list, I just felt that it needed at least stubbing up (like so many things...) but ddint get around to the US names thing... Justinc 23:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes indeed, I would have been crushed to find my favorite brewery without a wikipedia article! Brighterorange 03:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Domain lar

The "Problem Domain" entry is an attempt to start creating some sanity in the computer jargon world. I'm not surprised that someone really trained in math would find this obsfucating. Unfortunately you will see tons and tons of technical documents, etc. that will create these terms on the fly. The two prosaic meanings are first that the domain is the problem being discussed and second that the writer is trying to define a domain that can be used to map his problem functions. You are correct in that there is a very weak relationship to Domain Theory and this simple definition, but the point was to illustrate that there are formal disiplines that define some of these concepts that can be explored by the curious.

[edit] Welcome

Hi Tom: saw your work on the Twelf article (via your edit on LF). I've just started to look over it: good work, and good to see you editing here. Did you know that Thorsten Altenkirch is also a Wikipedia editor (User:txa)? I'm at Yale at the moment: I guess it's likely you know Carsten Schuermann and Jeffrey Sarnat. --- Charles Stewart 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Cool. It's good to have some type theorists here to set the record straight. ;) Jeff is a good friend of mine from CMU (I was his TA, actually!) but Carsten was outta here before I got into this stuff. Brighterorange 15:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Although now that Carsten and I have shared beers and dinner this year at CSL, I'd say I know him. =) — brighterorange (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PeriodBot filters

I suggest that, as a basic measure to reduce false positives caused by bad wiki format (unbulleted lists et al.), we filter out any article with a cleanup/cleanupsince(?) tag or a wikify tag. This way, we can add all badly formatted articles we get a headache looking at to cleanup, and filter them out as well, and also filter all articles needing cleanup. In fact, these articles seem to be the only ones generating false positives that I have seen in any number. Falcon 03:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah, that's a good idea. I can't believe I didn't just think to look for those tags. I won't be able to do it until the next database dump is released, though. Brighterorange 12:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's set for the next round of the project, which we'll do in September. Brighterorange 15:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Type Theory

Hi Tom-7,

nice to see somebody else around here, who is interested in Type Theory. In fact I planned for a while to start a page on LF, seems you have done this. My feeling was that TWELF isn't so closely related to Martin-Loef's Type Theory hence I didn't include it. However, if you think that it should be there than that's fine with me.

Cheers, --Thorsten 19:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I didn't make the LF page, but I started the Twelf one and then added links wherever "Twelf" appeared (including the Per Martin-Löf article). I don't know if there is a strong relationship between Martin-Löf's Type Theory and Twelf, but certainly his judgmental methodology has heavily influenced the design of LF, so there is definitely a connection at that level. Brighterorange 19:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knots

Hi! I noticed the pictures that you recently uploaded to some of the knot pages. They look really nice, and improve the articles a lot. You might want to upload the pictures into the Wikimedia Commons so that they can be easily used in other projects as well. I have been planning on adding pictures to the knot pages for some time, and recently got a digital camera and was going to start today (with the midshipmans hitch, which I noticed is on your to do list). Perhaps you and I can work together to make the knot pages, and the illustrations on them more standardized and easy to follow. I was hoping to do step by step photos, but I haven't seen, or been able to think of a nice way to put them in the articles. If you have any ideas please let me know. Thanks! Starfoxy 01:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'm glad you like them. The pictures I uploaded are already on the commons. (or am I missing something?) Anyway, there is a Wikiproject for knots, but it seems inactive, and the knot pages are in general pretty poor. I'd be happy to be part of a revival, especially on picture duty... but this month I am going to be pretty busy with other stuff. BTW, if you take knot pictures, for God's sake don't use a flash! (This is a really common problem with object photos on wikipedia in general... I don't understand why people do this.) The pictures will come out much better if you just tripod mount the camera and take the picture under natural lighting. Brighterorange 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typex photo

Hi Tom, thanks for the better Typex pic, cheers! I don't suppose you took any other photos at Bletchley Park that we could use? — Matt Crypto 23:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I did get one or two more, which I'll review tomorrow... Brighterorange 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My other one is a picture of the building itself, which is higher resolution, but I think the picture is not as good as the one up there since it was a very overcast day. So, oh well, that's all I've got! Brighterorange 00:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Never mind, thanks for looking! — Matt Crypto 12:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Federalist Papers

Sorry, thought it was just some guy's rant. --BadSeed 19:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Complete lack of context will do that, huh? I had the same thought initially... — brighterorange (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • More like a complete ignorance of the topic. :P --BadSeed 19:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a comment.

Just a comment, but nice photos on your webpage! -- WB 05:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you! It's one of my favorite hobbies... — brighterorange (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Rose

Hi - Noticed your comments on the Richard Rose page where you recommended deletion. I provided some additional information on his notability and non-self-promotion at my WP talk page here: [1] I'm wondering whether you might accidently know some students in the Richard Rose discusion groups in Pittsburgh - there are activie groups of university students and graduates there that study his books and ideas. I have contacted the organization to see whether they could make the article more suitable for the WP format. Happy to provide any more information you would care to see. Best wishes. Sharnish 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Steve Harnish, Miami, FL.

  • Hi, Steve. What would convince me is some kind of objective verifiable evidence of his notability, which I would be happy to accept. Are there sales figures for his books, or membership rolls for his organization? As it is, I understand that he is a man who has published a few books, and has some (perhaps interesting to you) ideas, and has formed an organization. There are many of such people. By the way, even if the article is deleted, it would be fine to recreate it with new content; myself and others would be much more likely to vote to keep an article that is simply written in a more encyclopedic way, even without more information about notability. — brighterorange (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The difficulty is that the subject is "esoteric" which by definition is not integrated into popular culture. RR was never into building an organization and he lived on a shoestring his entire life. He insisted that the groups, of which there were many, were operated in the same manner. The groups (1970s, 1980s) were largely concentrated in universities in the Northeast (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Maryland, West Virginia are the ones I remember right now) but there were also active groups in Colorado, California, North Carolina and Florida. After he was hospitalized with Alzheimers in the mid 1990s, many of the organizations fizzled, but some thrived, notable the Self Knowledge Symposium at universities in North Carolina, which had hundreds of members. RR advocated a very personal approach and his many lectures were attended by hundreds of people, many of whom benefitted in their personal lives from his influence but couldn't commit to weekly meetings, etc. This may sound like BS but if you've read Gurdjieff, he talks about a conscious circle of humanity, who's influence is not known to the general public, but which filters down through other writers, authors, etc. This may be more understandable if you know something about his methods: While he had a side-splitting sense of humor and wit, one of his primary tools was what he called "confrontation," which he used in an extremely subtle manner, and which eventually laid bare all the falsehoods that human beings typically hide within themselves. This is why he was called a Zen master, even though he was very critical of mainstream Zen, and also why he doesn't fit into any neat category. There was absolutely nothing phoney about the man. Consequently, only the most determined indivuals would stay with him for long. However, this produced the further result that he attracted the cream of the crop of thinkers and researchers. Specific to your question, to my understanding there are about 150 actual "members" in the TAT Foundation, but these are spread around the country, where they have their own study groups, which people attend without becoming actual members. I don't know whether they will release book sales figures. The organizations are on an upswing right now as some of the older students finally feel they are ready to teach. I agree with you on the re-write of the article. It could be an opportunity for the organization to produce a cogent analysis of his philosophy and methods. I have recommended that the authors revise it, but it's not my call. (And if I ask them too hard they might draft me into it!) What comes to mind are the instances of famous artists and musicians (e.g. Van Gough) who weren't widly known in their lifetime but whose work gradually became recognized, as RR's is sarting to be, even attracting some international attention (England, Australia). Hope this helps. Steve Harnish 19:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd say that 'esoteric' is basically the opposite of 'notable'. If his importance only extends to a few hundred people, then that is pretty marginal by wikipedia standards. (I could claim, for instance, to have taught hundreds of students, but that certainly doesn't make me notable.) Still, I think your effort is better spent fixing the article than trying to convince individual Wikipedia editors to vote for it. I'll generally vote to keep a good article even if the subject is marginal, because Wikipedia is not paper. — brighterorange (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Appreciate your reading all this. But if popularity is the standard applied, Madonna might be considered notable but Albert Einstein, in his early years, would not heve been. Personally I have no interest in pop culture but many do, by definition. I'd make a distinction then between "notable" and "worthy of note," which carries more of a connation of influential, sub-rosa, which is a better definition of "esoteric" as indicated above. Albert Einstein didn't have much time for teaching, so he taught only the next level below him, those able to grasp his ideas quickly, so his influence at the beginning was ony indirect. Esoteric philosophy, as well as nuclear theory 100 years ago, command pretty wide interest, but if you don't run in those circles they may not seem to warrant your attention. (Or even some arcane aspects of programming, shown in your profile, or the nanotechnology research up at Carnegie Mellon, which I follow.) Anyway, my real intent is to coax the author (or others) into doing a rewrite, which appears to be where the consensus is heading. It just may take some time, which is why I'm trying to avoid deletion of the entry altogether for now. Thanks again. Steve Harnish 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's right, Albert Einstein in his early years would probably not have been considered notable. Fortunately, important people have a way of being recognized for their work, sometimes after they are dead, and once someone is recognized, then he obviously deserves a Wikipedia article. If, as you suggest, Rose becomes as influential as Einstein, then I have no doubt that any wikipedia editors would vote to keep an article about him. But we needn't anticipate such notability to be fair or comprehensive today. — brighterorange (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe we will have to agree to disagree. I've checked the WP policies and they say there is no agreed (consensus) definition for "notable," which appears to be what is separating us here. Without beating dead horse, a couple of questions: 1) Do you have any interest in esoteric philosophy, meaning a direct path to self-knowledge? 2) Does notable in your mind mean commonplace or does it mean distinguished? Thanks. Steve Harnish 00:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • (1) I have specific disinterest in Rose's philosophy based on what I have now read. I admit this bias. However, that does not affect my position much; I have many times voted to keep articles about people whose views I disagree with or find uninteresting. (2) Neither. Being commonplace generally implies notability, but it is not the only way something can be notable. Being distinguished depends on the compared set; someone who is distinguished out of all humans is certainly notable, but someone who is distinguished in his office or local government probably is not. Yes, notability eludes easy definition, but that is why we use discussion to establish consensus on WP. — brighterorange (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Does distinguished out of 99.999% of all humans count? (joke) Steve Harnish 05:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etch-a-Sketch Animator 2000

I posted the following in response to your message on this topic: Thank you. If is easy to say "someone should merge this", and harder to be that "someone". I am not talking about this article in particular, but merge requests in general. Again, Thanks--Rogerd 19:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

  • No problem. Actually, I think it is generally pretty easy to merge, because even if it is done badly, someone who cares about the parent article can later integrate the text more cleanly. — brighterorange (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Kudos to taking the initiative and doing the merge/redirect. I think some editors are hesitant to do that after a page has gone to AfD. I've done it once with no complaints but for some reason didn't think of doing it myself in this case. Losing my boldness due to too much voting on AfD? Thanks. WCFrancis 05:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Sig

You're not going to believe this, but when I saw your jovial sig @ copyvios for 27 Sep, my hope for humanity was re-invigorated; heh. Cheers for gr8 + cr8ive personalities such as yourself! (your etch-a-sketch comment was funny too!) sorry for the wikistalking :D — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • hah, well, I never expected such a reinvigorating effect, but that is a good side-effect indeed! — brighterorange (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodsport

Please see the talk page. I would suggest you temporarily disable your email contact, if you have not already. Hopefully by allowing them a little of their own way, they may be pacified. If any of them make any further threats, I will take the appropriate action. -Splashtalk 17:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking a look. Actually, I think they found me through my personal home page, which I don't intend to take down! I just wish they'd put the enthusiasm to better use... — brighterorange (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, it's been reverted (with rollback) anyway, which I'm not sure was a helpful course of action as it has only one response. Still, let's see how it goes. I'm pondering the copyvoi nature of the addition to the other articles, since the press kit they cite is copyrighted, but promotional material. It can probably be removed on NPOV grounds, I'd have thought. -Splashtalk 18:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Signature

Your signature looks cool, but the text is too small in my opinion. Wasn't it bigger before? Can you change it? --Phroziac(talk) 00:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • It was bigger before, but I tried to tone it down when someone complained. If I leave the text at the normal size, then it makes a line that it appears on spaced a little strangely because of the added height of the box around it. Anyway, I will continue tweaking... — brighterorange (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corridor H

Just a heads up on your copy right notice. Work of a WV Government Agency - Public Domain. You probably missed the little source box, no worries already repaired. --71Demon 20:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I saw that, but the page says that the work is copyrighted ("Copyright © 2003 Corridor H, West Virginia Division of Highways. All Rights Reserved.") so I'm doubtful that this is okay. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Public domain (talks about federal gov't works; I'm not even sure what the situation is for WV specifically), but if there's a claim of copyright I think it's best to stay on the safe side rather than assume we can use it. — brighterorange (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

[edit] Ghe Nicholas

Hi, you tagged Ghe Nicholas as a speedy deletion. Sadly, we can't speedy articles that have been up for more than 48 hours. I've listed it on Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. Ral315 WS 04:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Whoops, I missed that restriction. Thanks. — brighterorange (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for adminship?

I've seen your work around Wikipedia, and you seem just about ripe for an adminship nom. I'd like to do the honors, if you're interested. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 22:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the honor! Sure, I'd love to be nominated, but can you wait until the weekend? I've got so much non-wiki work to do today and tomorrow that it's coming out my wazoo, so I probably wouldn't be able to get to the RfA questions until then anyway. — brighterorange (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not a problem - the way the new RfA process works, the actual nomination page doesn't get posted to the RfA page for votes until the questions have been answered - I can go ahead and make that page now, and you can fill out the information at your leisure, and post it to the RfA page whenever you're ready. I'll put a link here shortly.  BD2412 talk 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Here it is: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brighterorange. Take all the time you need - don't forget to set the date at seven days from the time you post it to the RfA page (or drop me a note and I'll take care of it)!  BD2412 talk 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Excellent, thanks again. (And if anyone needs evidence of my wikaddiction, observe that even when overwhelmed with work, I can scarcely go 2½ hours between checking my watchlist. ;)) — brighterorange (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good luck - although I doubt this is going to be particularly suspenseful - folks are falling over themselves to vote for you! -- BD2412 talk 23:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA. Your kind words are well appreciated. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The new photo

After another look at the photo ... my new version turns you somewhat into Jamie from MythBusters. And for what its worth, congrats on the RFA nomination.  ALKIVAR™ 06:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rem of your image

I have removed your image from your RFA. We have a lot of RFA noms and since all have transcluded pages, the server load is high. I hope you don't have any objections to me removing the image? Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 06:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's fine, I didn't even put it there in the first place; I think it was just meant as a harmless prank. — brighterorange (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Congratulations - I'm proud to have played a part in your promotion. Enjoy the mop and bucket!  BD2412 talk 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats on adminship. Dlyons493 Talk 23:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hooray, look at all the new buttons! Thanks for the nom BD2412, and for everyone else's support. — brighterorange (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • your welcome old chap :)  ALKIVAR™ 01:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popups tool

Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Brighterorange/Archive1/monobook.js:

// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line 

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true;   // optional: enable admin links

There are more options which you can fiddle with listed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin|talk|popups 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] consensus comment requested at talk:the eXile

hi, sorry to bother you but I noticed you've made some edits to the eXile before and I was wondering if you could leave a comment on some edit wars we've been having lately on the talk page, where I've put up a request for consensus comments. I'm sorry to bother you with something so trivial, but...well I think you'll understand when you see the page, or the article's edit history. If you don't have time, no problem. Dsol 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete Article...............

Why is the Article:Contact Consequences being deleted ? The intent is to address a underaddressed concearn should NASA find something, say on Mars or Europa, this gets leaked to the media, or aliens find this planet. It depicts both the positive and negative effects of the discovery of alien life,should NASA,ESA,etc. find something, aliens find this planet. Imagine that this did happen, what will YOU do ? Remember the mess that meteorite frm Mars caused when it had been stated that fossilized organisims were found in it ?Martial Law 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Imagine the mess that would happen if those bugs in that rock were ALIVE ?Martial Law 06:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, the reason is that we don't permit original research (See the policy) on Wikipedia. It's not that this piece isn't or can't be interesting, or even important; it's just that it's inappropriate because it is not an encyclopedia article. — brighterorange (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The cleanup task force is cleaning up this article. No it is NOT a hoax, nor is it original research, or the cleanup task force would not mess w/ it. Will you reconsider your vote ?Martial Law 08:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I reconsidered, but it still seems like speculative original research to me. Your comments on the AfD page are particularly worrisome. — brighterorange (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Wetzler

Hi. Can you check this AfD out? I've been accused of bias against the subject (who I know), and I would like the outcome to rest on something other than my own argument. BD2412 T 20:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sure... IMO it's a no brainer deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Once again...

I'm very sorry to have to bother you about this again, and I hope it will be the last time. 69.253.195.228 has made some recent edits to the eXile which I am particularly displeased with. Since your are familiar with the article and its talk page, there's no need for any "my side of the story" -- I think these edits speak for themselves. I would like to point out the total lack of justification on the talk page, however, and the relevance of previous talk page material on the stuff that was edited in/out, which seems to have been ignored.

I'm honestly not sure what to do. So far consensus on the talk page has been an effective way of maintaining and improving the quality of the page despite blanking and blatant disregard for the rules (I won't say that none of this ip's edits have been productive, though all have required re-editing of some sort), but I can't keep policing what I feel to be borderline vandalism forever. This user seems to have no regard whatsoever for NPOV and NOR, seems to be editing only eXile - related pages, and only to introduce a certain yellow journalistic critical style of their subjects (not that his edits never contain useful information, or that his criticisms are never valid).

Anyway, like I said, I'm kind of stumped. I'm asking for your assistance not only because you're an administrator who has the abilitiy to enforce consensus, but also because you seem to have some experience in dealing with these kinds of things. I don't think blocking him for any considerable period of time, or demanding that all his edits be approved first on the talk page, would be in the spirit of wikipedia (or the letter of its policies). Also I've never started an RfC and it seems like too much trouble, and probably overkill on a problem that still might be solved via dialogue. If this were a registered user with many edits on different topics, I would suggest arbitration, but since he has existed here only to willfuly introduce his POV (see his contributions) I feel I would be talking to a wall. However I do think someone needs to make it clear to him that his edits have been inappropriate. I don't think I'm the one for this job, since he seems to bear me some animosity, and never responds to my posts on his talk page (which are generally vain attempts to convince him to indent, start new topics, and sign on talk pages). Anyway thanks for the sanity checks you've provided in the past, and for any help you could provide in the future. Dsol 00:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • In truth, I've only been an administrator for a month or so—so I haven't been involved in resolving too many major conflicts, and none yet in the capacity of administrator. I don't think it's true that administrators have the ability to "enforce consensus." (We can enforce rulings of RfAr, but there's been no such ruling here...). That said, I agree with you and I think you have a good attitude about it (and I know how hard it is to be patient with frustrating users!). I don't think that an RfC is overkill (although it is also something I've never done) given Ekman's dedication to reverting the page. But, the article has improved and so has the conduct of the editors involved, so it may be that continuing as you have will result in an article that everyone can be okay with. (I do have faith that one exists!) That's of course the best outcome. If you're getting to the point where the frustration is turning you off from working on the article, consider taking a break for a few days! In the meantime I'll leave him another message. — brighterorange (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I read up a bit more on RfC and I think it could be the best way. I'm not having much luck through dialogue. I think that's good advice about taking a break. I'm going to leave off for a few days, not because I think the problem will be resolved somehow (though you never know), but just because this really is starting to annoy me and I want to have a cool head before submitting an RfC. Thanks again, Dsol 04:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Good call. If it's any consolation, the vast majority of wikipedia conflicts do get resolved. [unscientific observation] It'd be a shame to have a level-headed editor such as yourself get burned out! So, don't let it get to you, and I'll see you again in a few days. =) — brighterorange (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've completed a draft of an RfC and I would like your input. I'm wondering if this is something you could endorse, or even act as a basis-certifier. Thanks,
Dsol 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it looks good, and I'll be happy to certify it. I'll take a more careful look at it later tonight; I'm unfortunately very busy this morning. Brighterorange 18:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Brighterorange — I have no problem with the unblock, hope the RFC goes smoothly. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Reputable and Reliable Source?"

Please check the discussion page on the_eXile concerning "Reputable and Reliable Source?" Peter D. Ekman

[edit] Without Looking Down

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and I have two questions. I saw your edits on Without Looking Down. I think that some of that material you removed might be appropriate to keep since a synopsis of the artists objectives would be a reasonable thing to have, but I am not sure how much? ok, I guess i only have 1 questions but maybe you have more than 1 answers? Jars of Gray

  • I think the page should be expanded, but the text that was there should not be. There are two important things to keep in mind if you do expand it. First is the neutral point of view policy, which means that the text can't be a review of the music, saying how great it is, or how bad it is, or whatever. Since this is an encyclopedia, we only deal with neutral facts. (The text I deleted was rife with violations of this!) The second thing to keep in mind is the verifiability policy, which means that we only deal with verifiable facts. It might be true that the artist was thinking a certain thing when he wrote a certain song, but in order to say that in a Wikipedia article, we need to provide a verifiable reference. I think it would be extremely hard to fix what I deleted, which is why I deleted it instead of adding cleanup tags. But this said, if you want to do the work to create a neutral, verifiable article about this album, by all means please do it! And thanks for helping Wikipedia! Brighterorange 15:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The assault on the List of sexual slang

Two users in particular The Literate Engineer & Voice of All(MTG) have apparently made it their duty to get rid of the list and they have been using underhanded tactics in an attempt to do so in any way they can.

But word is getting out, and supporters of the list are starting to rally against them and protect the list (via rerverting vandalism, countering their tactics, etc.).

[edit] The results of the 18 October AfD:

  • Keep & clean = 3
  • Keep, no clean = 11
  • Delete = 2

[edit] The anonymous clean-up notice

The following anonymous clean-up notice was posted to the list on November 1st:

23:44, 1 November 2005 68.17.227.41

The notice was placed without group consensus, and there was no edit comment. Pretty sneaky.

This was the user's only edit. Nothing before or after. A sock-puppet.

[edit] The results of the 10 November Afd

  • Keep & clean up =3 votes
  • Keep, with no mention of clean up =7 votes
  • Delete = 4 votes (including the nomination)

That's 10 votes to keep, out of which 3 voted to clean up. Seven out of ten clearly voiced their desire to retain the list without deleting its entries.

[edit] Dishonest report of Afd results

Voice of All(MTG) reported the results as " ", and he and The Literate Engineer used that as the basis to erase the content of the list, which they did in successive edits.

[edit] Non-consensual list move

During the 10 November AfD discussion, Voice of All(MTG) moved the list to the new article name sexual slang, citing the introduction at the top of the list as the basis for the move ("it is more than a list"). Several users then used the article title as an argument against including any list entries.

When an article is moved, the change history is moved with it, and a redirect is placed under the original article's title. If the redirect is edited, then the article cannot be moved back. That is exactly what has happened to the list. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for more information.

[edit] The current situation

The change history of the list is currently stranded as the change history of Sexual slang.

The content of the list itself has been restored to List of sexual slang, where it was originally. This preserves the spirit of the results of the two AfD discussions mentioned above.

[edit] To summarize:

  1. On Oct 18 the list was nominated for AfD (article for deletion), but this attempt to delete failed, and the vote was overwhelmingly to Keep.
  2. An anonymous sock-puppet placed a clean-up notice on the list. It has been used as a justification to delete entries.
  3. On Nov 10, The Literate Engineer made an AfD attempt against the list and it failed too.
  4. Then Voice of All(MTG) underhandedly moved the list to the non-list name sexual slang, while the AfD was still underway.
  5. Voice of All(MTG)reported false results for the 10 November AfD vote, and he and The Literate Engineer edited out the entire list.
  6. I posted a rebuttal to the above antics on the talk page for sexual slang, and reverted the sexual slang article to the November 15 version in the article's change history (the complete list). My username ("Bend over") was banned as inappropriate or offensive.
  7. Some editors stated that an article is not the place for a list, and used that as a justification to keep list entries.
  8. So I replaced the redirect at List of sexual slang with the actual content of the entire list. Unfortunately, the change history for the list is still part of the change history for the article sexual slang.
  9. An attempt is being made to protect the list against vandalism at its original location: List of sexual slang.

Remember, the three reversion limit does not apply when reverting vandalism. Only if enough concerned users participate will this be successful.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Red Rover 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exile Revisited

The eXile page is again embroiled in the question of whether or not the Exile can used a source for "what has been published in the Exile", but now it is possible the debate is having consequences for the rest of Wikipedia. My position is the same as yours: "the eXile is absolutely a reliable source about what itself has published" . SlimVirgin disagrees and contends that the Exile can sometimes be used as a reputable source for what they have published and sometimes not, depending on whether or not the Exile is talking about somebody else. She has claimed this distinction arises directly from Wikipedia policy. I have asked her to explicitly justify this distinction. Instead of referring to the section of the policy she believes justifies her interpretation, her first response was editing the guidelines page for Wikipedia:Verifiability after the fact to suit her immediate interests. Then on the article's talk page she refered to this guidelines page as established Wikipedia policy.

The policy she advocates, as she advocates it, is vague and superficially benign by blurring the distinction between stating "what a tabloid has printed as fact" and stating "what a tabloid has printed as what that tabloid has printed". The example she provides on Wikipedia:Verifiability, however, is specifically tailored to advance her agenda on the Exile page.

If this precedent were accepted, it would be detrimental to many Wikipedia pages including the Exile specifically. For instance, this new policy would allow for the Pavel Bure lawsuit to be described, but prohibit a quote from the Exile newspaper of the alledgedly libelous statement that the Exile was being sued for. Thus, SlimVirgin's proposal would deprive users of relevant information and ensure a biased portrayal of the Exile. There are other weaknesses to her proposal as you might expect from a policy chosen because of its immediate convenience rather than its long-term consequences. (some might call it "legislating from the police station").

I spend time formulating my arguments to make them clear and reasonable. When this admininstrator abdicates argument and then gins up the guidelines page to suit her own immediate interests and says to me "That's the policy" I interprete this as a sign of contempt for the resolution process that Wikipedia advocates. It's a sophisticated equivalent of saying "I'm right, you're wrong, so shut up."

So to cut to the chase:

1) Would you comment on Wikipedia:Verifiability? SlimVirgin is under the impression that her viewpoints have widespread support and I don't think this is the case.

2) What are the standards that administrators are held to?

--Ryan Utt 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetic Poetry

I made a Magnetic Poetry page and saw that you were the only page that linked to it. Any ideas where it could be linked to? -- Mjwilco 19:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well done! I cleaned it up a bit and added two categories. It's not a big deal if there are no incoming links, although if I think of anything, I'll add it. Brighterorange 00:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Actually the article was moved by someone else but the AFD page was not; I was just fixing it. Brighterorange 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] insulting people on AfD

G'day Tom,

fair enough. I am trying to get people to make more detailed nominations (as opposed to "nn d ~~~~" or, on one very special occasion, "delete per nom ~~~~), so that, instead of making "non-notable" as a blanket statement, we actually say why we think something's non-notable. 97% of stuff that appears on AfD is drek, but the 3% that doesn't (and the proportion of the drek that has a creator who actually cares about his work) really deserves a good explanation for why we want it delete. I think good nominations are an important habit to get into, and am trying to nudge people in that direction by a) setting a good example myself, when I nominate stuff, and b) constructive criticism.

You make a good point, though. I've been unnecessarily prickly on AfD recently, to the point where "constructive" above could be replaced with "uncivil". I am sorry I caused offence, and I will try to put more effort into my own comments in future :-). Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, like I said, I generally agree with you. I was just alerting you that the way you were making your comments might have been causing undue stress for contributors (as it did for me). Constructive criticism and discussion is always appreciated. =) Brighterorange 05:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcome to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could help us, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why cleanup on Canadian Unitarian Council?

Brighterorange: I'm interested to know your thoughts on the Canadian Unitarian Council article. In Sept 2005, you tagged it for {{cleanup}}, with a comment of "yikes". But there's no comments in the Discussion page about what specifically should be cleaned up. What caught your eye? Thanks, --Jdlh | Talk 09:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi again

Hope you've been well since our last contact. I wanted to ask for your help regarding two minor administrative matters. First, could you possible take some minor action in response to some personal attacks made on my user page? Second (and unrelated), could you protect or sprotect Mark Ames to deal with persistent vandalism, blanking, and new anon users with an aversion to use of discussion pages? As always, much thanks, Dsol 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I added your user page to my watchlist; the vandalism was a bit too long ago (and from shared IPs, alas) for blocking to do any good. But I'll keep on the lookout now. Actually, it seems the best strategy for user page vandalism is to quickly revert it, and wear it as a sort of badge of honor. (Many users even keep a count of how many times their page has been vandalized!) As for Mark Ames, I've never sprotected a page before, so I'm not quite comfortable doing it unless there is obvious persistent vandalism (perhaps some day when I become a more grizzled admin ;)). Despite how controversial he is, we actually see a lot more vandalism at, like Jellyfish (??). It seems like it is more just revert-warring going on now—I agree the 82-anon's edits are strange and not backed up by discussion, but I don't think it qualifies as vandalism. But this page is on my watchlist too now. Brighterorange 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input at talk:Mark Ames. I guess you're right, protection might be premature. As for my user page, I didn't mean the outright vandalism (that was quite long ago, and I didn't mind reverting it myself, nothing like logging on to find my user page reading "fuck you fagot[sic]" in the morning), but rather the comments today under the sections "Re: Budapest page arrogance" e.g. 'You are not intellectual...You are very likely a Zionist shill paid to police the internet media by your ideologic handlers...' etc. etc., which I felt constitued a personal attack. More of the same on talk:Budapest, etc. Dsol 19:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] howdy

Yo, this is mjn from AAD/Escape. Just discovered that you were on Wikipedia (due to the userbox policy discussion); so I thought I'd drop by and say hi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equalpants (talk • contribs)

  • Hi mjn! Why not turn your userpage blue with some userboxes?? ;) Brighterorange 18:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh heh, I just might; my anti-authoritarian streak is fighting with my aesthetic desire for shiny boxes... Equalpants 19:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for help cleaning up duplicate image I uploaded

I accidentally ended up uploading two copies of the same image at [2] when I was trying to add the licensing info that I forgot the first time. Could you please delete the older one? (just to clean it up) Thanks. By the way, I just chose you randomly from the admins list. Hayne 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - feel free to remove this section from your talk page now if you wish. - Hayne 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beardy-weirdy!

Thanks for the catch on the redirect of pogonotrophy - much better than just to delete it as I suggested. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • No problem; this is why we have {{prod}}! —Brighterorange 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICFP Contest

I see on your user page that you were once interested in creating a ICFP Contest article. FYI I created International Conference on Functional Programming Contest a while ago. Any help would be appreciated. --Janto 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent. It is usually referred to as the "ICFP Programming Contest", so I renamed the page and created appropriate redirects. Believe it or not, I'm actually one of the organizers for the 2006 contest. (This will give me ample experience in order to improve the article..!) I hope you'll participate this summer! Brighterorange 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool! But doesn't your rename actually add the awkwardness of "...programming programming contest"? And yes, I'll definitely try and participate. --Janto 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is, people almost always call it the "ICFP Programming Contest" rather than the "ICFP Contest", but that expanding the acronym to "International Conference on Functional Programming Programming Contest" is rather awkward. So I think the abbreviated "ICFP Programming Contest" is the best name for the article. Brighterorange 20:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I see. OK. I think you'd know better. --Janto 12:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Userfication

I've started a policy proposal on userfication - care to throw down your comments? Cheers! BD2412 T 23:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I left some thoughts on the talk page. — brighterorange (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I incorporated some of those into the project page. BD2412 T 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo criticism

If you thought the criticism section in the Halo series article was bad then you should check out Criticism of Halo 2  :p --TheKoG 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yup, that's pretty bad! I would have voted to delete, but maybe the shakeup will cause some of its defenders to actually cite sources. It shouldn't be too hard, actually, since there is plenty of criticism out there... — brighterorange (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knots: sheetbend

I respect your advice about high resolution images. I thank you and will learn to upload larger versions. I grew up when the Internet was so slow that large images were to be avoided if possible. Old habits die hard.

However, I don't think we should display an image where both ends of the large rope are lost to view. The whole point is to emphasize the importance of passing the line first round the short end of the larger rope. I have larger images and will insert a replacement if you approve.

Best wishes, Grog (Alan W. Grogono)

Wikipedia Name: Grogono

[edit] Uploading Hi Res Images

Thanks for your feedback and comments about uploading images. As you appreciated, I'm still learning about Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure how to load images to the Commons.

My larger images do not have any text on them. The originals are mostly 2000 x 1500 or greater. This seems way too high and I can scale them What is recommended?

All the images were prepared for my website:

http://www.animatedknots.com

It is a non-commerical, advertisement-free site. It is becoming very popular and I get a steady stream of thanks. With this in mind I feel comfortable providing links on the knots pages. I would value your reassurance that you feel this is both useful and appropriate.

Thanks for the information re signature

Grogono 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Please do upload the highest resolution that you have—2000x1500 is great! You just want to make sure the images are no larger than 5 megabytes or so. Wikipedia scales them down to an appropriate size to display on the pages, so you don't need to worry about download speeds. Higher resolution is always better for archiving, printing, and as we get higher-resolution monitors in the future. To upload on the commons, just head to an image that doesn't exist yet, like this and you are given the option to upload it, just like on Wikipedia. Then you can just use the [[Image:whatever.jpg|thumb|right|caption]] syntax to include it in an article. Also, yes, I support adding links to your site on the knot articles, though some may see this as self-promotion, so you might be a bit careful. =) — brighterorange (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] conditional support

Check out my "Conditional Support" entry on the userbox poll page. I'm curious to see what you think.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 19:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd still prefer that the userboxes be maintained in a centralized way and transcluded, since that is the most convenient way we know to do it. I don't buy the arguments against transclusion. — brighterorange (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images and Links

Thanks for the support and for the caution about self-promotion. I only add a link when my site provides a relevant animation for the subject. If you ever see an example that offends, let me know.

For various practical reasons I will be unable to load the images for a day or two - but I will.

Thanks again!

Grogono 04:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock me

I need to be unblock the reason, why i was block have been resolve, but nobody unblock me..

[edit] inklings

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. I know more about the inklings than you ever will, so stop wasting your time - this paragraph deserves a section in the article. If you block this ip address, I have several others, which - I can assure you - I will continue to add that paragraph to.

Thanks for your concern, or lack there of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.120.122 (talk • contribs)

  • I encourage you to discuss this with the other editors on the article's talk page, since there seems to be consensus against the paragraph you want added. — brighterorange (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Three "editors" hardly constitutes a consensus. In addition, I encourage you to take a nice hard look at the history page, since several other editors have made changes to the page and have had no such problem with the disputed problem. It seems to be only you and a small group of uninformed others. I look forward to hearing yet another unreasonable response from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.120.122 (talk • contribs)

  • I am simply asking for you to make the case for the paragraph on the talk page, rather than adding it without discussion; three editors surely counts as consensus when there are no other voices. I am not trying to start a fight. — brighterorange (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't others speak when they allow the article to remain as is? They approve with their silence. What case do you ask I make on the subject? That group is a contemporary meeting very similar to the Inklings of Lewis. The group signifies the modern day influence of Lewis's Inklings, and therefore it deserves a spot in the article.

  • I don't think so, because not every editor that makes a small edit to an article will take the time to edit the entire article. None expressed support when I solicited opinions about these paragraphs on the talk page (and I still encourage you to do so). I'm only asking that the paragraph be held to the same standards of notability as the rest of Wikipedia is. An example of a case being made for it would be a verifiable source (see the policy WP:V) that indicates the group's notability. Also, are you a member of this group? — brighterorange (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a former member of the club, whether or not that information is relevant puzzles me. For the final time: the disputed paragraph of the article is pertinent information due to the fact that it is a contemporary influence of the Inklings, inspirations and effects of groups (i.e. bands or literary discussion groups) is important and useful information. This is completely applicable in this case also. I understand your responsibility as an administrator of Wiki, and appreciate the hard work you put into stopping vanity - this is not such a case. This, I am sorry to say, cannot be backed up by a source since the club tries to keep a low profile (similar to Lewis'), and does not have a club homepage. The reason for this is that it is a semi-selective club, and seeks only to be home to those of the highest intellectual status. ειρηνη 68.76.120.122 00:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • From what you say, this is then a violation of the wikipedia policy about verifiability, which is one of the core policies that decide what can be included in the encyclopedia. I recommend that you read that page—relevance and/or pertinence doesn't even come up if the information isn't at a minimum verifiable. The reason that it is relevant to the discussion that you are a former member of the group is that you therefore have a self interest in its promotion. Writing about one's own group is not forbidden on Wikipedia, but it is discouraged. — brighterorange (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying I "have a self interest in its promotion" could not be any further from the truth; if I wanted that I would go back to high school and "spread the word" there, or start my own Inklings club at college. In addition: "the reason that it is relevant to the discussion that you are a former member of the group," is your own opinion, once again I have several times (ibid) stated the relevance of the included information. I encourage you to once again read why (as I have provided) this information is relevant, and to review those somes guidelines on vanity which you hoped would handcuff me into submitting to you, but on the contrary only gave me more proof for the credibility of that paragraph. In the meantime, since correcting every minute error and looking for every single violation of Wikipedia policy there are 1,000,000 other articles that you can take your time on.

  • 68.76.120.122 01:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check the history of the Inklings article and you will see that the disputed paragraph was not included by me. So this inclusion by me (after you continually remove it) is not in violation of Wikipedia's discouraged article ideas. Also, please be sure to verify both: the Inklings society based in Aachen, and The Wade Center, located at Wheaton College

  • It is difficult to distinguish anonymous editors; I apologize for the assumption. Based on what you say about the group's notability, it seems likely that the paragraph was originally added by someone else associated with the group. In any case, re-inserting information about a group you were a member of is just as bad. But aside from all that, the information you add absolutely needs to be verifiable, meaning there must exist some source; this is wikipedia policy. — brighterorange (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops, my bad.

Hello, Sorry that I made the mistake. I am very new to the WikiPedia scene, so I am not used to this enviornment. Thanks for adding it to my user page and not deleting it!

-Dalton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalton Man321 (talk • contribs)

  • Hey, no problem. It's clear you put a lot of work into it, and it's not easy to get up to speed on wikipedia etiquette and rules. (And another tip: You can sign and date your posts by writing ~~~~) Happy editing! — brighterorange (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attention tags

Hi! Since you removed my attention tag from Larry Sparks, I was wondering if you had any words of wisdom as to exactly when they ought to be used, as I suspect I'm not getting it quite right. Thanks for any help. Cantara 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Punctuation - Period Bot Dumps

Hi, Wonder if you can answer me a quick querie.

I have recently started working my way through the dump files from the period bot, and i noticed that there are some that were started a couple of months ago, and no sign of anything been done.

Are we allowed to take over and complete these to help finish off the round?


Cheers


Reedy Boy 10:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Thought it'd be easier to reply here, but have done in both.

Cool, it will be good to get through them, and with it being the easter holidays and me being a college student, i've got quite a bit of time, so probably can get through 2 or 3 a day at least. So i could get a long way to getting that september dump finished!

Reedy Boy 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DMCA

Please, please, please, explain to me any injustice found in the DMCA. Please.

[edit] Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)