User talk:Davidkevin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WP:3RR

Please be aware of the three revert rule. Any further reverts by you today on the Rush Limbaugh article will violate that rule, and may subject you to up to a 24-hour block. - Crockspot 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm already well-aware of it, and I can both count and tell time. I'm not as stupid as your self-deceptive definition of "liberal" is, Mr. Self-Described "Wingnut Pajamahadeen", and unlike some people, I'm not going to break the Wikipedia rules to push a political POV which controvenes the truth two days before a close election. I leave that to those who lack a sense of right and wrong.

Davidkevin 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job on the Limbaugh page

There is a cadre of Limbaugh supporters (still smarting from the election, apparently) who are simply dishonest editors. Kudos to you for standing up to them. Their responses to you showed them to lacking in reason, substance, and character. Eleemosynary 06:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rosencomet's Starwood Edits

The Undue Weight issue is pretty much the heart of the current Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence arbitration. You might want to keep an eye on it for when the arbitrators decide what to do. Y ou are not the first to try to politely point out the problem. --Pigman^talk 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.

Cordially, Davidkevin 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you accept my replacement of the Starwood mention in Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart's article with a list of "Public Appearances". I did this in consultation with Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, and I think that satisfies the issue of Undue Weight. As far as I'm concerned, such a list would be a good addition to any professional lecturer's article, and Starwood and/or WinterStar need not be anything but one inclusion in that list (where appropriate), except when there's some special additional connection to mention (like, as you said, if the subject is an organizer of the event, or recorded a commercially-available CD of their appearance, etc.). I don't have the facilities to supply such a list for everyone, but I will try over time to contact speakers and get one, or find one on their own websites, if they have one. Rosencomet 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that I still think you're trying to plug A.C.E. events in an area where it seems to me that there isn't all that much of an audience or potential audience for them which isn't already aware of them, but creating such personal appearance lists for articles on notable persons seems to be an appropriate way of meeting both your needs and Wikipedia's requirements (or so I perceive: Y.M.M.V. and all that).

I hope you'll include links to other venues and festivals in those lists with the same assiduousness that you do Starwood and Winterstar Festival.

Cordially, Davidkevin 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said above, I don't have the same access to the appearance histories of all these people that I do to a list of who has been at Starwood and WinterStar, but I'll do what I can over time. I can contact some of the individual speakers, like I did Patricia Monaghan and Oberon, and ask them to send me a list or steer me in the direction of an existing one, but that's a one-by-one task, and a few of these speakers are no longer with us. But I'll do what I can, and I certainly won't delete other people's efforts in that area or pepper them with {fact} tags. As far as links, I did put test brackets on all the venues on the Morning Glory list, but Pagan Spirit Gathering was the only blue one. Hopefully articles will appear for all sorts of events of note like Gathering of the Tribes, Free Spirit Festival, Rites of Spring, Wic-Can Fest, Pan-Pagan Festival, Caw-Con, Pantheacon, Sirius Rising, Ecumenicon, Elf Fest, Gnosticon, the Whole Life Expo and others both here and abroad. I am not qualified to write such articles right now, except for Sirius Rising, and I was unsuccessful months ago in keeping it from being deleted (and I am neither associated with it nor have ever attended it, BTW). But I'll link anyone I create a list for that's appeared at Heartland Pagan Festival, Winter Magic, X-Day, or Council of Magickal Arts.Rosencomet 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for reverting my user page. I wish these vandals would do something else besides attacking people. User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Buck

I fail to see how saying that someone forgot someone else's middle name could be considered libelous. The better complaint would be that it's uncited. For all we know, the editor might have either made it up or misunderstood it. Wahkeenah 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier versions were worse -- I think the original intention was simply a slam against Mr. Buck (see the article history). Either or both reasons are sufficient for its removal. -- Davidkevin 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There are some users (IP addresses mostly, I think) who apparently have a vendetta against Joe Buck for reasons known only to themselves, and that kind of stuff has to be watched. I just don't think this one item is libelous... as if Joe Buck even would care what wikipedia said about him anyway, but that's another story. I think he does just fine as a broadcaster. Wahkeenah 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldry Project

Hey. I see that you list yourself as a beginning speaker of Blazon. Have you thought of joining the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology? It's a great place to improve your skills at blazoning. Hop on over and give us a piece of your mind.--Eva ^bd 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler Building

I would suggest that you start reading about what triva and popular culture sections are all about before you do nothing but reverting sections that have been tagged. We wikipedians agree on the status quo of using the tags on trivia and popular culture sections, and that they go together - and the Chrysler Building has been once tagged for the overuse of the unnecessary use of popular cultures.

If you think these tags aren't what they are, I would suggest you search around Wikipedia and find articles that tagged the popular culture section with trivia tags and see for yourself before you do any reverts to Chrysler Building.

Lastly, When you revert something, give a good reason. Also remember, don't ever try breaking the 3 revert rule. You have been warned, we do not tolerate edit wars here.

121.6.67.23 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this 'we' you speak of, oh one who is too new or too cowardly to have an account with a name? "'We' do not tolerate edit wars here"? If you don't even have a named account, you're not part of any "we wikipedians." ("We pompous twits," now, that you might belong to.)

If you're so illiterate that you can't understand the plain English difference in meanings between "'X' in popular culture" and "Trivia section", then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia articles.

Finally, you can quit the pompous finger-wagging, I've broken nothing and there is no war.

"Also remember, don't ever try breaking the 3 revert rule. You have been warned, we do not tolerate edit wars here."

As Chris Knight said about Kent in Real Genius, "Who talks like that?" -- Davidkevin 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

3RR doesn't apply when dealing with vandalism. And you're welcome. :) Corvus cornix 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, David. I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies over my mistake. When I looked at the edit summary I thought it said "Trivia", in which case the template would have been appropriate. Whether or not it still is, I am unsure because I haven't read the rest of the article. I was on vandal patrol and simply looking for blatant vandalism- and removing a template without an edit summary usually fits under that category. I fear I may be becoming jaded by the sheer amounts of vandalism I see. I do only do it every once in a while but I have found that it does tend to diminish your ability to assume good faith. When you see as many real vandals as I do out on patrol you tend to start wondering how it could be possible that a real person out there could be treating something millions of people spent time on with such malice. It does get to your head. I believe I will stay off vandal patrol for a while until I can work this out with myself and I do want to thank you again for calling me on it. I hope you can forgive me, I would hate to think that we could not work past this like reasonable people and maybe end up wikiaquaintances. : ) L'Aquatique ^talktome 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly forgiven, and I in turn apologize for the delay with this reply, pleading illness.

I should have included a reason for my revert, but I was tired and lax and did not, so I have my own part of the responsibility for this mix-up. I shall endeavor to do better.

Best wishes, Davidkevin 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can count, you're not going to get rid of me that way, not when you and your buddies obey the letter of the rule while violating the spirit of it by splitting your content-censorship WP:POV-violating edits among yourselves. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Having several people revert you to avoid running afoul of the 3-revert rule is not a violation of the spirit of it — it's exactly how it's supposed to work. That way, if there is a consensus of many users engaged in an edit dispute with a single editor, the consensus wins. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And if the consensus is that the world is flat? Or if the Sun rotates around the still Earth?

As a better man than I said, "It still moves!" -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Pietromonaco

You have any further info on him and the teen club he was involved with in the basement of the Imperial Club located at West Florissant and Goodfellow? Alatari (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the teen club, sorry, no. I was in elementary school during his days as Johnny Rabbitt, and never got further north than Arsenal Street without being in the company of my parents. They and I did once get to visit with him at the station in "Radio Park", though.

Everything else I know about him (and that's not actually that much) would almost certainly be original research as I doubt I could find a verifiable citation for most of it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil accusations of vandalism

It is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to characterize good-faith edits as "vandalism", as you did in this edit. I would like an apology, here and on my own talk page, and a promise not to repeat this misbehavior, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to answer this at this time because I doubt you'd accept the answer -- not because it would be rude or otherwise uncivil but because you probably wouldn't like the intellectual content of what I would have to write in a specific response.

I propose an alternative: some of your telephone numbers are on the web. I have toll-free long-distance and a flexible schedule. I suggest you specify a convenient time and date, and presuming it's mutually so (more likely than not), I'll call you and we can see if there's some way we can work out an acceptable compromise (if such a thing is indeed possible) over the content issues about which we are disagreeing, short-cutting the back-and-forth of e-mail or public postings. No absolute demands, no assumptions of authority, no rancor, no name-calling, polite conversation -- honest negotiation of the underlying issues.

Better this attempt, I think, than continuing to fight. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility should be a given, independent of content. We can continue to disagree about the content, but I insist that you treat my side of the content dispute as a valid one, not as an attempt to degrade Wikipedia, which is what you have labeled it by calling it vandalism. I repeat my call for an apology, visible publically here and not through private channels. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried. [ sigh ]

I'm not an errant boy, for you to spank or publicly shame.

The suggestion for a telephone conversation was not to apologize through private channels, but to try to solve a problem. What I am sorry about is that you don't appear to care to try to do that.

Given that the split List_of_sites_running_the_LiveJournal_engine is undergoing an AfD vote as we write, it does in fact strike me as unethical to reduce a contested part of it to almost nothing in mid-vote, leaving some voters seeing one version of it and other voters seeing a gutted version of it. And yes, I honestly see that to be vandalism, as an act in bad faith. If you were sincere in your change and the reason for it, and confident that you are correct in your interpretations of the Wikirules, why couldn't you have waited for the vote to finish before making it?

Given my honest opinion and belief, to apologize to you now would be a lie. I haven't lied at any time in this dispute and I'm not going to start now.

It's also my opinion and belief that I am being subjected to escalating attempts at cyber-bullying to get me to back down from my honest attempts to improve the article as I perceive it, particularly from Crossmr and you. For example, you wrote up in item 11 above:

Having several people revert you to avoid running afoul of the 3-revert rule is not a violation of the spirit of it -- it's exactly how it's supposed to work. That way, if there is a consensus of many users engaged in an edit dispute with a single editor, the consensus wins.

I'm sure in disagreements honest on both sides that could be correct, but in this case, it's clearly a means to attempt to marginalize and/or silence a dissenter by a clique.

I know bullying. I was physically bullied as a child, I've been paper-bullied in APAs, and cyber-bullied elsewhere, too, so I know it all too well when it's happening, and it's happening here. You demand, "I insist that you treat my side of the content dispute as a valid one, not as an attempt to degrade Wikipedia...." Well, frankly, I can insist that too, as neither you nor anyone else in your clique have ever given me that courtesy.

If anything, this demand of yours is uncivil, as was your demand here that I submit to your personal test before I should edit again, as offensive and uncivil a statement as I have ever seen anywhere in Wikipedia. I think you should apologize to me for that, although I don't ever expect to receive it.

There is one other thing I'm sorry for, and that's losing my temper when I first came back into this. Well over a year ago, when I first tried to improve the LiveJournal article and was censored by Crossmr, I got so angry I walked away as the various dispute resolution articles suggest, because of the manipulation of the rules I saw. Coming back, I had all that unresolved anger, which came out when I saw the same misuse and manipulation continuing to be used to censor the article, by the same person, in a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN, despite the amount of time which had passed. I'm sorry I gave way to that anger, which is now being focused on in order to attempt to divert attention from the ongoing manipulation and censorship. It's not about me, it's never been about me, but making it about me rather than about the article is a useful tool, and I'm sorry I enabled that.

Finally, I didn't know until today that you are an Admin.

If what I've written above is right, I'll now be blocked for "continuing to be uncivil", which is dirty work Crossmr tried to get other admins to do for him in AnI without success. If what I've written above is wrong, maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from and we can work together, accomplishing something productive about opening up the LiveJournal articles to reports of LJ management criticism while keeping the standards you say you want observed. If that happened, I'd admit to being wrong (as I've never had a problem doing when wrong) and make retractions, and even apologies, accordingly.

We'll just see, I guess. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to block you myself for being uncivil — though I may think you deserve it, I'm too closely involved in this dispute to take that action. I had avoided mentioning escalated levels of dispute resolution so far (or my own admin status), deliberately, because I wanted to give you an honest chance to apologize without being under any kind of threat.

Hiding your status from me is not honest, it's deceptive, a lie by omission, and you're literate enough to know that.

I have seen escalating levels of threat for some time, starting with the failed attempt at AnI. I have had no reason even before today to assume that escalation would not continue -- and given your last sentence below, I'm sure it will, sad to say.

I said above why you deserve no apology from me, and won't get one, regardless of escalation. I am sorry that you don't seem to see that what you did in that edit was wrong.

My requests for an apology are a not, as you view them, demands that you comply with my will regarding the content of the articles we disagree on, but rather an attempt to attempt to get you to step back, recognize the importance of Wikipedia's policies (particularly, in this case, WP:CIVIL),

I remind you of your offensive and uncivil demand here, since you seem to have forgotten it already.

and avoid that sort of escalation. But the next steps, if you continue to refuse to assume good faith, would be to take your case to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, possibly followed by higher levels of dispute resolution (user-conduct RFC, or, as a last resort, WP:RFAR).

Why are you ignoring the sentences beginning with...

"There is one other thing...."

"I'm sorry I gave way...."

...and, most importantly...

"The suggestion for a telephone...."

"If what I've written above...."

...and...

"If that happened, I'd admit...."

If you wish me to take it to a higher level, so be it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's a threat.

Despite all the rudeness on your own part, despite the attempts at bullying, despite all the threats, both oblique and overt, I was willing to set it all aside and assume good faith: I offered an olive branch, an explicit offer of cooperation to build a better article. You don't appear to want to take it.

That makes it also a shame. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in case you care, I've decided not to waste my time escalating this at this time. It's the new year, and a time for new chances; additionally, the AfD will soon be over, at which point I hope this will all be moot. But I ask you again, without any further request for action from you at this time, that you please reconsider all of your past actions in light of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and try harder to assume good faith and be civil in future editing disagreements, regardless of how you feel other participants in those disagreements may have behaved. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject St. Louis

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Davidkevin! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While my paternal grandparents were from Germany, they both came to the United States as infants, and I myself have never been there nor do I speak or read German. I doubt I'm knowledgeable enough to contribute to the project, but I thank you very much for the invitation and wish you well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Am I supposed to know what 'dot_cattiness' is? I am lost. Lots42 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Well now it's a little clearer. Despite what you seem to think of any shared history, speculation, especially fandom based speculation, is just plain not allowed. It's not abuse, it's not a vendetta, it's basic Wikipedia rules. I still don't know what dot_cattiness is. Lots42 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

This edit summary does not assume good faith on the part of User:Lots42. In fact, Lots42 is correct in this case, as all information in Wikipedia articles must by verifiable -- which means "fanon speculation" is not appropriate. Please review this content policy, and remain civil in your edit summaries. Thank you. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Lots42 is a participant in a group cyber-bullying which has been ongoing since 2003. There is no assumption on my part involved -- I know with certainty that regardless of the text he is not acting in good faith, but is extending the bullying from LiveJournal to Wikipedia.

I agree that the assumption of good faith in an edit is the normal response to be expected, but this case is different -- this is stalking on his part. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What? I have no idea what you are saying, I am part of no such campaign. Lots42 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Either you have the memory of an Alzheimer's patient, or you're lying. Either way, the next time you think an edit of mine needs correction, leave it alone. If anything I write truly needs further editing, I have no doubt someone else will note it without bias and make the appropriate adjustment. You stay out of my work and my life. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Jesus Factor

Thanks. I'm sorry to say I lost the book during moving house a few years back, but I thought it was an extremely clever fantasy around the Manhattan Project and subsequent events. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USS Princeton

Who, what, when, where," and.... if you know: "why" and "how"...and REFERENCES. Thanks WikiDon (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your intentions are, but this reads (to me) as patronizing and rude. I put in the information I had available to me, counting on other editors to elaborate with what information they might have beyond what I knew, as you in fact did. However, you could have done so without appearing to be a jerk about it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] justifying your userboxes left and right

Really, you are "a" historian? I consider myself some thing of "an" historian. Is there room in the wikiverse for both of us? I just don't know. DaronDierkes (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant no offense, I've just always struggled to choose which article to use. You may be interested in the new history working group for the st. louis wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis/History. I'm still working on a bunch of loose ends, but I'll be try to work on that page as much as I can off and on. I mean to eventually sort through the articles and figure out exactly which counties they happened in and categorize them. There's a lot to be done. No pressure, just want to keep you informed. DaronDierkes (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of WP:ANI case against User:Rosencomet

I have opened an WP:ANI discussion on User:Rosencomet's canvassing off-wiki for people to participate in AfDs. Since part of the evidence is your recent post on his talk page, you might want to at least keep an eye on it. Here is the diff and here is a link to the specific section. Please come and participate in the discussion. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal e-mail

Please stop posting something that was not addressed to you on my talk page. That e-mail was a personal one to friends, Oberon included, and should NEVER have been forwarded to ANYONE without my consent. I have spoken to Oberon about this, and he has apologized. You used the term "tacky"; how much more to keep publicizing a private e-mail, especially in a way that it can be taken out of the context of the private conversations it was a follow-up to and used to damage me. You say you have nothing against me, but I have a hard time believing it. Perhaps if you viewed my contributions over the past six months or even since the arbitration, you'd realize that I am just trying to get more Magical people involved in Wikipedia. Maybe then I wouldn't have to defend these authors so often myself.

Also, my intent is not to promote Starwood. Most of the articles I've written in the past year, like Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Sally Morningstar, Pamela J. Ball, Vivianne Crowley, and many more have never been to an ACE event. Pigman has been scouring Wikipedia of mentions of Starwood and ACE that pre-date the arbitration no matter how appropriate a mention might be judged on a case-by-case basis; I have usually either let it go or responded on talk pages, not revert warred or been aggressive, which is exactly what I was told to do. -- Rosencomet (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That e-mail was posted to four separate YahooGroups -- two connected with Oberon's Grey School of Wizardry and the Grey Council, one connected with the revival of the CAW, and a private groups of friends of mine populated by my personal invitation only. In no way was it described as confidential.

You said I misrepresented what you wrote, I don't think I did. If anything, I minimized the extent of what you were asking others to do. I first tried merely linking to your letter, than copied and pasted it after I found the link would not work, so that other editors could make their own judgements from your own words what your intent was rather than go through my interpretation which you claimed was inaccurate.

As for the letter's context, no, I certainly didn't participate in the larger written exchange of which it was a part, so perhaps I am mistaken about that, but from my admittedly limited point of view it certainly looks to me like a crass attempt to proverbially stuff the ballot box.

I make no claim of perfection, and perhaps in fact I am wholly misinterpreting, and then again perhaps I am not. I can only go by what I have read plus what I (no doubt incompletely) know of your past actions with regard to Wikipedia.

Yes, I really do not have anything against you...but it does distress me that you seem unable to grok that some of what you do in the context of Wikipedia is seriously inappropriate. I myself have a hard head and have made similar faux-pas from time to time and been taken to task for them, sometimes with kindness and sometimes with malice, so it distresses me to see someone who I know to be an otherwise righteous person subject himself to the same. I really am trying to help you in my less-than-perfect way. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rosencomet

Was a decision made with regard to Rosencomet's AN/I, or did it simply scroll off again? Pigman put it back at least once, but I don't want to be presumptious, especially as I just want him to act differently, not get blocked, which is where it looked like things were going the last time I looked. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it just went stale. He is not blocked but has no contributions in the last couple days. I think I would like to try to work with him, since he seems to trust me. I will approach him about that soon. - Revolving Bugbear 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have hopes for your working with him. Much obliged. -- Davidkevin (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: WikiProject St. Louis Invitees