User talk:Kmweber/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] My RfA

Thank you very much for your participation in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am very grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA voting

Seriously Kurt, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, keep doing that prima facie nonsense to all self-noms in WP:RFA, and I will block you. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, National Merit Scholarship Finalist! Seriously, dude, it's not befitting you as a libertarian to run around RfA making an ass out of yourself. All that's going to happen is the crats will start ignoring you, like they have ignored RfA loons in the past - like that dude who voted against any Jew or Hindu, or that other dude that opposed every RfB because we do not need any more bureaucrats. Don't follow their example, to make sure your fellow editors continue to respect you. -- Y not? 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If caving is what I have to do to earn the respect of these people, I do not want it. After talking with Jaranda online, he has agreed that he will not block me me for continuing to do this, because he now understands why I am doing what I am doing--he doesn't agree with me, but he accepts that I'm doing what I have to do, because it's what I hold to be right. Kurt Weber 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to be political if you want respect. Compromise and pragmatism are part of it. By calling it caving, you're being fair and balanced. That Jaranda will not block you doesn't mean I won't. -- Y not? 00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't. Putting forth a legitimate opinion as part of discussion is not a valid cause for blocking. I am doing nothing wrong; I am causing no problems. Those who don't like what I'm saying are entitled to ignore me or attempt to engage me in discussion. Threats are not an appropriate way to get me to change my mind. Kurt Weber 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that was not a threat. I was being cute. I won't block you either. -- Y not? 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But I did attempt to engage you in discussion, perhaps you could come over to the TPH RFA and discuss where I have commented on your comment, if you like. Navou ^banter 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TPH RFA

I have questioned your comment on the TPH RFA. Perhaps you could come shed some light. Thanks, Navou 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop

Please stop commeting on RfA's about your personal "I view self noms as a power hungry", some people just dont want to draw loads of attention to themselves by having loads of co-noms so please stop this totally idiotic thing, looking at your contribs you dont even both to actually take a look at the user themself just quickly !voting, you made two in one minute recently. So just stop before someone blocks you. Rlest 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT discussion

I have listed a discussion at AN/I here. Regards, Navou 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's to you

		This user is OK!
		You are hereby awarded the Infrangible seal of approval for your contributions and overall, mostly not-bad-ness. ~ Infrangible 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I want to apologise for accusing you of sour grapes at WT:RFA. I would concede that people's views can change over time, and that there's no evidence of you holding a grudge about something which happened over two years ago. I'm also worried that my comments looked a little like an ad hominem attack - attacking the arguer, not the argument. For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your views on self-noms, I accept the validity of your reasoning, and support your right to express your opinion. I firmly believe that freedom of expression is extremely healthy for any community or society (as a libertarian, you no doubt agree with this principle), and I certainly wouldn't advocate removing your comments from RfAs, a course of action which has been suggested by some editors. Walton^One 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contract Addition

I removed the contract stuff you added to {{Infobox NFLactive}}. It might be a good thing to discuss that on that talk page first before adding it. It's a good idea, i just don't think it'll hold up well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA comments

Just a polite note to let you know that your behaviour on RfA is, along with that of other editors, proving disruptive to the project and is spilling over into user talk pages and onto noticeboards. I'm prepared to block you for disruption along with other users if any future comments on RfAs get out of hand as is happening at present. Please consider your behaviour and examine the impact it is having on the wider community. Nick 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo requests

Saw your comment on the PSI page, and wanted to point out that a number of other articles, including Wabash County, Illinois, Mount Carmel, Illinois, Indiana State Road 64 and those for several neighboring counties and towns also have outstanding Photo requests. I've been hoping to blitz the tri-state over xmas when I go back home, but if you beat me to it, you'll be a minor hero. MrZaius^talk 19:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I took one Saturday morning last November taking pictures around Princeton; I meant to spend another day taking pictures at other points of interest in Gibson County, but I never got around to it. Perhaps soon I will. Kurt Weber 20:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies (copied from User talk:Rlest)

Kurt, I asked administrators to post this as I have understandably not been unblocked. I'm here to apologise for my calling you an idiot under this account. Although I (and in the kindest possible way everybody else on Wikipedia) strongly dis-agree with your reasons to oppose users just because they're self noms has become out of control. I would also like you to know that the IP address what called you an idiot on your talk page was not me, rather banned user Molag Bal who causes immense trouble for me on Wikipedia and did throughout the incident when I edited as Qst. i hope you accept my apologies, I also hope you find it in your heart to stop this opposing requests for adminship based solely on it being a self nomination, Best Regards. Rlest 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Dr. Stephen C. Sillett

Good after noon Kurt. It seems that both Dr. Sillett and myself are in agreement about the excessive length of the wiki entry for Dr. Sillett. While I understand that it is better to trim the article to size rather than bulk deletion, I do not see how my current revision is excessive. How would one "trim the fat" from such a lengthy, young, and self-aggrandizing vanity page. Even this current page is excessive for the calibre of scientist Dr. Sillet truely is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVarkey (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter how good of a scientist you or anyone else thinks he is. The length of a subject's article is determined not by the importance of a subject but rather by how much relevant, verifiable information is available on him. Just because he might not be a very good scientist is no reason to trim down his article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the information that you have removed. Kurt Weber 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir, for your help in the ettiquette of Wikipedia. I reverted the article to the form it was before I ever edited it. I will allow the Wiki community to do any future edits of Dr. Sillett. Thanks. --DrVarkey 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. A lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around the fact that since Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia, it is unbound by many of the limitations such encyclopedias experience; specifically in this case, the length of an article isn't dependent upon the importance of a subject but rather on the amount of information available. No need to feel sheepish--you're new, it takes some time to learn the ropes. And feel free to continue making edits to that article as you wish--if you breach any other community standards, as long as your edits are done in good faith all you'll get is a polite explanation of what you did wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opposes to self-noms

I have noticed that you have opposed every self-nomination on WP:RFA, and with all due respect, opposing self-noms on an inherent basis is just wrong. Self-noms are not only allowed, they are encouraged, especially if you cannot find anyone to nominate you without asking (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). I mean, self-nominations are not something to really oppose for, and I have a strong feeling that the bureaucrats will not take your votes without further explanation. Thank you. Diez2 14:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to push this issue, you might want to take it to the talk page or the village pump, and not take it out on the RfAs. Diez2 14:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been talked to many times about this. I don't see a change in the foreseeable future, even though I'm sure he understands that it's inappropriate to make an accusation without properly reviewing the candidate. It also doesn't make it appropriate to state that you hope the thing you've just accused them isn't true... whatever the candidate is supposed to take that to mean. How should they improve? What can they do in the future to gain his support? This is unclear at best. The only advice I can see coming from the opposes is to canvass prominent RfA nominators for their next try. At least that would ward off 1 oppose. Leebo ^T/C 15:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not even worth talk about it (I say as I talk about it). He won't discuss it substantively, and was himself a self nom. Personally, I just wish he'd say "hunger for power" instead of "power hunger"... just seems to roll of the lips a but more fluidly. Hiberniantears 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to discuss it several times already, and every time I was ridiculed or ignored. And yes, I self-nommed myself once; that was two years ago. Is it that inconceivable that people might change their minds over time? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with your opinion (perfectly valid) or risk aversion; it's the fact that your opposes are not constructive, or, in my opinion, polite. Both of which are recommended at the top of the Discussion area. They are not constructive because they offer no information about why the candidate is actually unsuitable administrator material. They are not polite, in my opinion, because you openly say you have not reviewed their contributions. It is my opinion that if you do not want to take the time to review candidates, you should refrain from commenting. Candidates are owed polite and constructive criticism. Leebo ^T/C 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, if you at least explained why you believe such a risk exists, many editors might be willing to take your view more seriously. I realize you have no evidence, but why do you feel this way? What motivates you to believe this? Philosophically speaking, do you fear the granting of "power" generally, and therefore fear those who seek it on their own more so over those nominated by others? I think your standard oppose statement frustrates a great many editors because there are many who believe you have the right to make such a statement, but there is very little agreement as to whether or not it holds any value because you do not explain why you believe, and as I have noted, you are yourself a prior self-nom, who simply states you changed your mind... but you do not say why you changed your mind. My point is simply this: If you think you have a well founded reason for opposing self-noms, why not develop a fully articulated explanation of why you believe this in order to make certain your contributions are taken constructively, and receive greater merit? Hiberniantears 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I don't agree with Kurt's assertion that self-nom indicates being power hungry, I find it at least an understandable sentiment. I think people should probably hassle him less about it. If the crats disregard it, so be it. I do completely agree that if someone seems power-hungry, or authoritarian, or displays any tendency to try to throw their weight around, this makes them an unsuitable candidate. Friday (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out recently on WT:RfA, actually, most Wikipedia/Wikimedia positions rely exclusively on self-noms. Historically, bureaucrats were always self-nominated (recently, there was a nomination of a 'crat candidate by someone else, and a very experienced editor wrote in to ask if there was a change in the norms for this position). Arbitrators, stewards, members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors, all are self-nominations only (last year, someone tried to "draft" me to run for ArbCom and was told that that was highly unorthodox behavior, because if the individual wanted to run he would nominate himself). Requests for adminship has always been a mixed process, with some self-noms and some nominations by others (in the RfA thread, someone pointed out that self-noms actually came first, historically, hence the name "requests" for adminship).

I find no merit to your suggestion that self-nomination for adminship, or any other position, suggests "power hunger" more than accepting a nomination by someone else would do so. I strongly urge that you drop these !votes and comments, which clearly enjoy very little support from the community. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad on this, and think that perhaps the objection to self-nominations comes from a view of adminship as an honor, award, or grant of status. If it is such a thing, it shouldn't be - it's a job, work. Seeing it from that position, someone who self-nominates is really just a volunteer, volunteering for more work, not more power (though obviously certain powers are granted to allow them to do that work). That's why (to my mind) bureaucrats and ArbCom are self-nominated -- because the first step in the process is for them to step up and say "I'm willing to take on additional duties." No one should ask them to do so - they have to volunteer for it. Same with admins, I think. --TheOther Bob 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An RfC has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber

To everyone concerned about Kmweber's self-nom opposes: A request for comment has been made on this issue. Please continue this discussion here concerning the self-nom opposes of RfAs. Diez2 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trent Green

Trent Green has not started a game for the Dolphins, so please don't add him to the template. He's not even running the first team in training camp yet, Cleo Lemon is, and there's always a chance Green could get knocked out for the year due to injury. This is what WP:CRYSTAL is about.►Chris Nelson 15:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just thinking about it...

I know you will completely disregard this comment altogether, as you clearly don't care what anyone else thinks. However, here is my question: Let's say that your oppositions to self-noms are valid, then how come you have never once actually supported someone (aside from once in protest of your critics)? In fact, have you ever so much as commented on an RfA where the candidate had a separate nominator? Why do you refuse to consider anyone at all? I am not trying to be particularly critical (as I've been critical of you before, and clearly, neither my nor anyone else's opinions matter to you), but merely asking. I am absolutely, 100% willing to listen to your opinions on why someone who self-noms is power hungry, and I am also willing to listen to why you simply refuse to look at the actual credentials of anyone running for adminship. As it is obvious you don't care whether an editor becomes an admin or not, why even bother opposing, especially when bureaucrats have stated that they disregard your comments anyway?
Like I said, I don't expect you to respond to this, but I would certainly appreciate a reply. Also, I apologize for the previous paragraphs' slight rambling tone, as I ask a few questions that may or may not be strongly related to each other. Thank you. -- Kicking222 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As unfashionable as it appears to be acknowledge it, conferring adminship upon someone does indeed provide him with power that can be abused. Centuries of experience has told us that those who actively seek out power are less likely to wield it properly, so I view self-nominators as too big of a risk. My ideal candidate is someone who really doesn't want to be an administrator, but accepts the nomination of others only reluctantly--someone like George Washington or Cincinnatus. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the butting in. Just wanted to say, that sounds like a reasonable answer to me. However, I think there are other ways to look at it too. I suspect many people don't really think of having the admin tools as having power, particularly. For people like that, there's no reason not to self-nominate, and no reason to be reluctant about accepting a nomination. I accepted a nomination mainly thinking "I'll be able to actually delete things instead of tagging them and having someone else do it, thus saying a bit of time and effort." I don't really see the admin tools as power, and I agree that people who do see it that way shouldn't have them. For me, having the technical ability to delete a page, for example, is different from having the power to delete a page. I have no "power" when it comes to deletion, I just have the technical ability to do it. If I do it wrongly, it's likely to be overturned. But, if I could delete pages due to having power, even a bad deletion would still stand, if I wanted it to. And that's not what we want at all. So to me, power is fundamentally the wrong way to look at this issue. Friday (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The power to delete is the power to wreak havoc. Yes, deletions and blocks can always be undone, but in the case of deletion it causes a lot of headache for everyone else, and in the case of illegitimate blocks then, especially if it's a new user and this is his first taste of it, even if the block is undone you've already pissed the guy off, possibly past the point of no return. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And you're right, a good admin wouldn't look at it like that. But in my judgment, the fact that someone has self-nominated himself indicates that there is too big of a risk that he will--a risk big enough to outweigh whatever other merits he may have. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You've never responded to my point that by your logic, all of our bureaucrats, stewards, arbitrators, and Board members are "prima facie power-hungry" as well. Your logic makes no sense, and after a month or so of this discussion, I think it is time that you accepted that your current position enjoys no support of any kind in the community and stopped what I view as bordering on harassing a sizable fraction of RfA candidates. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine. To your first point: Yeah, I would have opposed them...so? To your second: I've never claimed it was widely supported; I simply don't care. I have yet to be convinced I am wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I respect this position, though I in no way agree with it. Yet I don't understand why you refuse to do even the least bit of research on someone. What if they self-nominate, but they also have an extensive history of talking to other users, participating in the Wikipedia: namespace, and resolving debates? Also, you note that you have an ideal candidate, yet you've never supported (or even commented on) the candidacy of someone who was nominated by another user. I honestly feel like people would be more receptive to your views if you showed that your only actions on RfAs were not simply background-check-free-opposes, specifically if you supported some users (though, obviously, not supporting anyone who has a nominator), or even if you opposed with "oppose, because a self-nom signals that this user is power hungry, and in addition, ______." -- Kicking222 22:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Because, as I pointed out already, the mere fact that someone self-nominates himself is, in my judgment, enough to outweigh any other evidence in his favor--so nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to support the risk, such as the number of self-nom admins who subsequently caused more harm than good, or is it just a hunch? Leebo ^T/C 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't keep track of who is and is not a self-nom after the fact, no. It's not relevant when all I'm concerned with is preventing problems before they start. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Can you please provide evidence of the "problems"? Sorry if this seems harsh, but the way you cling to your opinion without appearing to even consider the other side, you'd think there was mass admin abuse from self-noms. Smokizzy (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the scarcity of rogue administrators (thank goodness), it is unsurprising that there aren't actually any individual self-nom admins who could be offered as evidence. Axl 18:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those who actively seek the reins of power have a higher propensity to abuse it than others. I don't know of any specific instances on Wikipedia because I don't keep track of that, but there are plenty of instances throughout the rest of human history to make me be unwilling to take the risk here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, when I apply, I'll ask a friend to nominate me. :-) Axl 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, this is such a small amount of "power", and much more janitorial in nature, that one could hardly compare it to the responsibilities of a leader or official. All editors have degrees of "power" provided to them through the simple ability to edit. What I'm saying is that while humans in general may be power hungry when we're talking about wanting to be the president or another kind of leader, admins are probably comprarable to hall monitors on that scale. Leebo ^T/C 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The stereotype of the megalomaniacal hall monitor exists for a reason. Some people try to squeeze the most out of any amount of power. Why should Wikipedia be any exception to human nature? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's different because you're saying we should hold them to the standards of a George Washington level of power. That's clearly not an accurate analogy. Also I just want to note that it's technically possible for someone to be "reluctant" and still self-nominate. I was asked several times by multiple users if they could nominate me and I turned them down because I wanted to wait. In your opinion, had I then nominated myself to avoid the trouble of having multiple nomination requests, would that have seemed power-hungry? Leebo ^T/C 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent again) contradictat tantum contradictur causa suffrago pondera. You know, while your point is arguable, the fact that you never do anything but blanket opposition removes any credibility it might have had; causing more people to support a candidate that self-nominated because you give blanket oppositions. — Coren ^(talk) 00:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that Kurt once was a self-nom already killed the hope of credibility. By his logic, he was either power-hungry or the only exception to the rule, and 'prima facie' does not allow for exceptions, so it's pretty much a moot point. the_undertow ^talk 03:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That was nearly two years ago; heaven forbid someone might actually change his mind in the interim. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington and Self Noms Opposition

In the interest of intellectual honesty, can you admit that no self-nom, or even a non-self-nom admin will ever cause Wikipedia to unleash upon the world anything as dangerous as the Demi-God George Washington managed to trigger at the Battle of Jumonville Glen? Maybe the guy was hesitant to be President because he'd already started a World War. No contentious deletion of a poorly sourced image on Wikipedia ever led to a seven year war involving the world's major powers... not yet at least... Food for thought. Hiberniantears 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're ignoring context. A power-hungry Wikipedia administrator can cause a similar degree of damage within the context in which he operates as a power-hungry politician can within his context. They're perfectly comparable. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A ruler like what George Washington was being asked to be (some wanted him to basically be like a king) would have more power than even Jimbo in the Wikipedia context. Admins have no authority outside of the realm of editors, they just have different tasks to perform. Any of their actions can be undone. No one undoes a king's actions, unless there's some kind of rebellion. Leebo ^T/C 14:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're obsessed with this idea of what adminship should be--with which I agree, but is irrelvant here--and ignoring what administrators have the practical ability to do, even if such actions are illegitimate. That's what I'm worried about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, anything admins "have the practical ability to do" can be undone. Wrongdoing is handled very quickly. Unless you're talking about something else, I'm not sure what admins can do that might be so devastating that anyone requesting the ability to do it is unfit. Leebo ^T/C 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And as I've already said: "Yes, deletions and blocks can always be undone, but in the case of deletion it causes a lot of headache for everyone else, and in the case of illegitimate blocks then, especially if it's a new user and this is his first taste of it, even if the block is undone you've already pissed the guy off, possibly past the point of no return." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it's possible for any editor to tick lots of people off and bite newbies, those are just different ways of doing it. That's why we check their conduct to see if it's likely that they would do that. Someone who hasn't done anything like that in the past, and has expressed concern in handling newbies, wouldn't just start because they have new tools, but maybe you disagree. In any case, I see no way that a selfnom means all conduct should be disregarded, including their actual nomination statement. Leebo ^T/C 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the formatting advice. Shabda 16:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox NFLactive

I am glad to get a new perspective on the topic. As you may have noticed a number of heated debate(s) have broken out on that page. Please contribute as much as possible and if you feel like you would like my specific opinion, please let me know. My run-ins with another editor on there have been pretty intense and I'm trying to avoid wars with him, as such, I am inclined to not respond to a number of his recent posts. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:RfC

I just found it interesting that you had nominated yourself for an RfA, and people said things like you were going to push your own agenda instead of following consensus. Basically it said that if you got the mop, power hunger would take over. Seems like a violation of WP:POINT. If it really means that much to you, I will retract my "misinformed" comment. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The irony here, in my opinion, is that this is exactly what he has gone on to do with the RfA process - push his own agenda without regard to the views of the community. I'd bet the farm that on this basis alone any future Kmweber RfA will fail. Avruch ^Talk 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protopopov's b-day

The date was taken from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia [1]. You may also wanna check Britannica [2]. Take care and drop me a line if you have any questions! KNewman 18:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Did you notice that some of your categories are being deleted, per this discussion? That's why the bot keeps trying to remove them from your userpage; because they won't exist any more soon. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be deleted, and when the bot removes them from my page it screws it up. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undrafted field

With regards to the undrafted field on the NFLactive template: It is part of a very big problem right now going on that infobox. I am not inclined to leave the information in there because of the dispute. You might want to consider reading the {{Infobox NFLactive}} (t/l) page before adding it to other articles. Perhaps you would like to add to the discussion as well - it would be great to get more input in here. Just be aware of the fact that tensions are high between myself and two other editors. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a question for you

How do you vote in real life? Melsaran (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)