User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Asian Fetish Vandal 2 SMAC02155 3 Censorship: Supporting vote 4 Abu Bakr 5 Kandern 6 Blue Highway 7 Mickey Z. 8 Classics Portal 9 Philosophy talk 10 Plato 11 warning 12 message from stile 13 Syllogism Page 14 Syllogism 15 "Spelt" 16 User:Master Of RSPW, User:Chadbryant, User:Linden Arden and maybe others 17 Akshapada Gotama 18 Bishops, generally 19 Pastor 20 The Pirates! 21 Mischa Barton 22 Zeimbekiko 23 Removal of Librivox links 24 librivox 25 LibriVox 26 Hello 27 Asian fetish 28 Linkspam & LibriVox 29 more librivox 30 Revert war with Kolriv 31 3RR 32 I wonder 33 LibriVox & talk pages 34 Edit summaries

[edit] Asian Fetish Vandal

Mel, thanks for blocking the Asian fetish vandal (see my research at User:Gnetwerker/My_Notes/Asian_fetish_vandal, but what would it take to get the whole range of IPs blocked. See my posting on WP:VIP, but a block on 80.138.128.0/18 (i.e. a netmask of 255.255.192.0) would solve the problem and not (apparently) affect any legitimate users. I know IP-range blocks are the heavy artillery for admins, but ... -- Gnetwerker 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just dropping by to say the same thing. Have you delt with the lot now, i.e. ok to archive the report on VIP? Thanks, Petros471 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. I have been trying to clear some of the backlog over at VIP, but as I'm not an admin I can't actually carry out the blocks. Still plenty of work to do checking which ones should stay on the page though! Petros471 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SMAC02155

Did I mention my connection to Oxford? Here's hoping that my friends show more technical facility...much oblidged. Thanks, SMAC02155 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smac02155 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 March 2006

[edit] Censorship: Supporting vote

Wikipedia:No original research, WP:CITE, WP:MOS are the pedantic aspects of editorial work; there is more to it than that. I respect your vote nevertheless. Haizum 09:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Bakr

Please the Islam talk page for why Abu Bakr should also be in the Islam category. Thanks. MP (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kandern

Thanks for your work on the Kandern article. Evadb 16:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Highway

Thanks for pointing out that guideline.Attakmint 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Z.

Why is an obvious non-NPOV page like "Mickey Z." allowed to exist while attempts to either edit it or bring attention to the clear Wiki violations are treated as "vandalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.212.228 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 March 2006

[edit] Classics Portal

Could I ask you to keep an eye on the Portal:Classical_Civilisation? Once things start rolling, we may need help with things like moving categories (e.g. [:[Category:Classical studies]] might deserve moving to Classical Civilisation or Classical Antiquity, the terminology it uses) or just correcting any gross mistakes we're liable to make. Many thanks, Nema Fakei 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy talk

Sorry to see you're leaving. I thought we had begun to reach a turning point. Lucidish 02:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plato

Hi Mel ! I saw that also on the Plato article about his being a good wrestler ... I actually checked it out and apparently it was documented in history ! See [1] or [2]

"Platon was a champion wrestler (Apuleius De Plat. i 2; D.L. iii 4; Himer. Or. xlviii 21; Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Iul. vi 208; Anon. Proleg. ii 26-8) -- having participated in all four Panhellenic contests (Isthmia, Pythia, Olympia, and Nemea)."

But I left the insertion there. It wasn't my edit. I didn't have time to check the original ancient sources in Greek or Latin. I wasn't sure the editor was serious either. Best Regards. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mel. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you in that the editor seemingly just threw the wrestling bit in, kind of willy-nilly. It doesn't belong in a summary, per se, I agree. I had thought it was in the Biography section that the editor inserted it - which isn't too inappropriate for conceptual placement. As I pointed out above, there is some scholarly feeling that even some of Plato's dialogues were framed, as crazy as it sounds, in a wrestling metaphor ! Consider what is said on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is resonably respectable:

"Plato's choice of the palaestra as a setting for two Socratic dialogues is no accident. Wrestling metaphors recur throughout the Platonic dialogues. For example, in the Phaedrus the conquest of the baser part of the soul by the virtuous part is compared with a wrestling victory in the Olympic games (256b, also compare Protagoras 350e). In part, this use of wrestling metaphors may be an autobiographical touch on the part of Plato, as later tradition tells us that he himself was successful as a young wrestler at the Nemean games (Suda, s.v. Platon). However, the placement of Socrates, a philosopher of the most active sort, amidst those training to fight is most apt. After all, Socrates always sought intellectual contests, not so much for the winning, he would say, but for gaining insight into the truth."

I have no idea of the upshot of this, except it doesn't seem to be stunningly important. But perhaps to others it might be. Thanks ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 23:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] warning

you sent me a warning saying I should not remove content... I have never done such a thing. I have occassionally made minor grammatical fixes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.210.63 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 8 March 2006

[edit] message from stile

hey mel, this is stile ... i edited my stileproject page on here and removed the picture of me from it. i took the picture myself and have not given permission for its use. if you could please email me stile@stileproject.com if you have any questions or comments, thank you! -stile

[edit] Syllogism Page

Mel, this is an appeal to your long standing use (and quite extensive editing) of wikipedia, that you reconsider the situation at this page. I want you to know that I reverted your edits because of the reversion of 'days' of work by Twrigley. I did so, after a dispute with SlimVirgin and others over the treatment I've received since arriving at wikipedia. I have been labeled, called many other names, etc. by a small group of editors who seem to do that same thing to people they think belong to a certain group or whatnot. You can see this for yourself at the 'political views of Lyndon LaRouche' page. Here I was defending a couple of editors who were being labeled by this group including SlimVirgin, and wikipedia from becoming a McCarthy like institution..ie. name-calling and other techniques used to silence or get a honest editor to leave as what happened to Twrigley. He got involved when I requested mediation over the dispute. He was the mediator. SlimVirgin refused the mediation and was nasty with him. He gave his verdict and as soon as this was done, she reverted his long work. You then contributed after this. You and Ted could put together a great page..I support that; and that is the spirit of wikipedia...collaboration and consensus with citations. The revert by SlimVirgin without going to the talk page and in lieu of what happened prior was wrong. I ask you invite Ted back into discussion with you on Good Faith, and work together to put up a good page for that topic. I regret getting him involved in the previous dispute (or any mediator for that matter) as what has happened to that good man was what my complaint was all about in the first place. Thank you for at least reading and considering my plea. I have an email and am willing to discuss matters with you further in the venue, here, or at my talk page to work this out and to right a wrong done to Ted in this. --Northmeister 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel you are free to work on the Syllogism page from where you left off. Twrigley has decided to leave and asked that I not involve myself any further. Since I was there to defend his honor, I have agreed to this. Do wikipedia proud, best wishes... --Northmeister 22:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syllogism

Hello mate. I left a comment on the Syllogism talk page. I liked your rewrite very much - one of the best summaries of the syllogistic I have seen, ever. It is a shame that these little wars erupt so frequently. Vide the Philosophy page. I did try and support you on that one, too, but ... Dbuckner 09:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not a war. It is about righting a wrong and then making an article that was sufficient but needed improvement, better and more encyclopedic. Mel's edition was good. I ask that the war rhetoric stop. I only wish for himself and Ted to work together toward a even better article. In the end the article may very well look as it does now, I am not sure. What matters as a first priority -is to right the wrong done, and then proceed. I've offered a proposal for doing this. The second step, is obvious, add Mel's re-write (after the fact of vandalism and disruption occured by SlimVirgin), into the article through integration and collaboration with other editors. The end result will be a very good article, not written by one editor or the other, but by the community -Let us engage as a community, right a wrong that was done, intergrate our thoughts and words, and see progress. --Northmeister 15:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Spelt"

I have been taught that it is informal or archaic when used in writing. Of course there are no grounds for why words fall out of use over time; it is a consequence of the evolution of language. Dforest 16:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Master Of RSPW, User:Chadbryant, User:Linden Arden and maybe others

Hi. I'm trying to make sense of the sock claims floating around these users, since its coming pu on 3RR in relation to Rec.sport.pro-wrestling? They all seem to keep adding tags to one anothers pages...

• [3] MoRSPW adds a usenet posting to LA's page, with edit comment proof of sockpuppetry by User:Linden Arden restored
• [4] User:FARVA removes it, an asserts that MoRSPW is Chad (Bryant?)
• [5] MoRSPW adds a DickWitham sock to FARVA, with comment checkuser has been requested on this account; please leave this tag intact until it has been confirmed - errm, which seems premature, in the absence of a check

However that last lead me to your socks page, and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Dick Witham. So I think you know The Truth: please enlighten me! William M. Connolley 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akshapada Gotama

Hi, the problem with Indian history is that most of it is undocumented and most of the documented history is from the accounts of foreign travellers to India. Also, matters are not helped by the fact that several historical figures share the same name. Thus, it is very difficult to establish the diference in personalities. For example, there is a sage by Name Gautama (also spelt Gauthama, Gothama and Gotama) who is reputed to have written treatises on law. Many people believe that he is the same as Akshapada Gotama. If you click "what links here" for the above, you will find several re-directs which were the things left after I merged different articles, all making the same claim that he wrote a treatise on law. If we need to comment out the vague details, the redirects may also need to be reverted to their article list. I am ok either way but prefer the current status slightly. Please review this in light of the above discussion and take a decision as you deem fit. Thanks in advance, --Gurubrahma 13:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

When there are claims for different dates, it may be prudent to mention different sources in the article rather than take one which we feel may be reliable. just my 2 cents. --Gurubrahma 14:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the changes. It looks good. was planning to drop you a note, but it slipped my mind. btw, in the sources and references, I do not know if we should wikify the names of the authors - I doubt if all of them are notable enough to merit separate articles. --Gurubrahma 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishops, generally

Bishop (not bishop), and "of" not "in." A Bishop is a Bishop OF the church, just like I am a member OF (not in). Thanks. Pastorwayne 13:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pastor

Hi.

I am a new user on Wikipedia.

I recently found some articles that abuse the Wikipedia rules, as in they write lies that personally attack people.

I know this pastor that they are attacking. The people that are writing these malicious articles hate him because they lost an election in the church.

The pastor recently had to withdraw his application to another church because the church saw these lies on the internet.

How can I help my friend? These people are preventing this pastor from getting a job and are ruining his reputation.

~christianlove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianlove (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 March 2006

He has not been married twice. He was not born in Tainan. He never went to school in Alabama.

I am proposing this article for deletion. Please do not remove my tags. Thank you for your help though.

~christianlove

[edit] The Pirates!

Sorry, I was trying to swap the two articles around. The correct title (i.e. the one given on the front cover of the book) has a capitalised 'In'.Minglex 17:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the capitalisation, it is common practice to capitalise any work after an exclamation point.Minglex 18:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mischa Barton

why did u delete my information about Mischa Barton's boyfriend? there are many sources!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.119.238 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 March 2006

[edit] Zeimbekiko

You reverted my changes about the zeibekiko rhythm. I have started a topic at the discussion section of the article. Please respond there. It is a common mistake for zeimbekiko to be regarded as 9/8 but it is 9/4.--Zito ta xania 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Librivox links

I do not understand how you see my referencing to Librivox audiobooks as a problem. It is as much advertising as having the links to Gutenberg e-texts. Did you actually visit any one of the links that were posted? Librivox is a community of volunteers creating audio recordings (released to the public domain) of public domain books. The links to the catalog pages of each work were meant to provide access to the audio recordings to those interested. Re: [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.197.123 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 March 2006

[edit] librivox

dear mel etitis,

I was informed by a libvrivox volunteer that you have been removing librivox links from wikipedia pages, as "linkspam". LibriVox recordings are free public domain recordings done by volunteers of public domain texts. We are a non-commercial, public domain project (inspiried in fact, by wikipedia). We don't even have advertsing. We have something like 1000 volunteers and a growing catalog - about 150 public domain texts in the works. We are, if you like, an audio version of project gutenberg - with whom we are in close contact, see for instance: http://www.gutenberg.org/audio/

As our webpage says: "LibriVox volunteers record chapters of books in the public domain, and then we release the audio files back onto the net (podcast and catalog). Our objective is to make all books in the public domain available, for free, in audio format on the internet. We are a totally volunteer, open source, free content, public domain project."

so, I don't think by any reasonable criteria, we qualify as linkspam.

I'm going to do my best to go thru your edits and revert them back so that wikipedia users may have access to this free public domain resource.

Thanks for your understanding,

Hugh McGuire, Founder http://librivox.org librivox AT yahoo DOT ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackinaw (talk • contribs) 03:45, 12 March 2006

[edit] LibriVox

Hi Mel, About three months ago I discovered http://www.LibriVox.org/ where literature in the public domain is read by live human beings into sound files and distributed on the net without cost to the listener. Though still small, there's a growing community of dedicated readers over there who are actually providing quite a surprisingly high-quality service free of charge.

Because of the nature of the Wikipedia, we felt it was appropriate to link completed works to the appropriate entries here. Today however, one of the volunteers who does this received this note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.16.197.123

Though we are certainly advertising the LibriVox site, there's no commerce taking place. We're simply trying to direct Wikipedia users to a place where they can download public domain works for free.

If linking our free public service to the Wikipedia is in violation of your policy, then we'll certainly remove all of the links, but it seemed to us as if we were participating in the spirit of the Wiki.

Peace... ChipDoc Paul Campbell pcampbell@TampaTrib.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.247.65.99 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 March 2006

[edit] Hello

Holi greetings. --Bhadani 13:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian fetish

Why did you revert 68.239.208.11's edits? The term IS generally used to refer to east asians. -- infinity0 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the names are Indian. But the phrase "Asian fetish" as a whole, refers usually to east asians. -- infinity0 15:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as the article exists it should be accurate... -- infinity0 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro does make it clear that it mostly refers to east asians, though. I removed the reference, since the source given doesn't mention the Indian girls, anyway. -- infinity0 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam & LibriVox

Mel, I got your note re: linkspam, and I really have to object to your interpretation. LibriVox is a resource for people to use. Unabridged audio versions of public domain texts. We get many listeners referred from wikipedia pages - because they find the resource useful. Imagine if you want Notes from the Underground, and you find a link to the gutenberg text -- vanity? linkspam? no, it's the actual text for god's sake. that's not vanity or linkspam. so why would an audio version of same text be considered vanity or linkspam?

In your message to me, you state: "The Wikipedia view is that, if a site is worth linking to, then it will eventually be linked to by someone not associated with the site." Where does it say in wikipedia policy that no one associated with a particular site may edit articles relating to that site?

So: how do we resolve this problem with librivox. I feel you are incorrect in your assessment: can we go to an arbitration pannel or something?

Cheers, Hugh Mackinaw 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more librivox

Mel do we have this conversation here or at my page? Mackinaw 15:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The probelm I have is that we are an organization much like wikipedia, run completely by volunteers. We have about 1000 people who spend hours and hours recording public domain texts, for free, and offer them up to the public domain, for free, out of their passion for public domain and literature. We have hundreds of hours of public domain stuff available, hundreds more coming; thousands if we are lucky. This is a big effort undertaken by a group of people inspired by the wikipedia movement: volunteers all over the world contributing to something important. we add links on the relevant wikipedia pages because we think this is an important resource (as our listeners tell us), one that is free, and one that could not be more relevant to the pages we link on: we are linking to audio versions of the texts in question! what could be more relevant? if it seems that the links are being done en masse it's because every once in a while, we realize we have completed a new batch of audio literature for the people and someone or other at librivox goes over to wikipedia to add the relevant links. Now we are not only being accused of being linkspam (which is frankly a little insulting, but that's beside the point) but all those useful links to relevant material on wikipedia pages have been removed (by you). it is upsetting because we should be a sister project to wikipedia, and instead we are linkspam. it is upsetting because our volunteers spend hours and hours recording and then spend the time & care to put the links up on wikipedia & they are removed. it is upsetting because we are warned that we will be blocked if we continue to add useful links. it is upsetting because of all the time I seem to have to spend on this. It is upsetting beacause now someone will have to take valuable recording time, and go around and either post links on talk pages or on the page itself - where it should go.

If you are interested at all in finding out a bit about librivox, you could check this page: http://librivox.org/about-librivox/

so now, given that we are clearly classiified as "what should be linked to #3" on this page: External_links ... what happens next?

Mackinaw 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"No-one has suggested that there's anything wrong with the links per se; the problem concerns who is adding them, why, and how." ... do you have the same policy when gutenberg text links get put up? if the person is associated with gutenberg.org do you erase as linkspam and threaten to block? Mackinaw 16:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In-line repsponse [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mackinaw] (sorry rusty on wikipedia etiquette & formatting).

1. Please answer this question: when determining linkspam, is it the content of the link, or who/how makes the link which is more important? Does the who/how ALWAYS trump the content of the link?
2. ie. Should legitimate links (ones listed as #3 "should be linked" in external_links) be removed by Admin because of who made them? (this is my7 "*who* vs *what*" question that seems confusing).
3. Please note that we/librivox/us is just a loose group of volunteers around the world who record public domain texts. we have no budget, no money, no staff, no one is working for anything, we do not have ads on our page, nor will we ever, we are totally public domain & non-commercial.
4. I explained the reason why LV links turn up all at once as they do (once in a while, the a batch of recently-completed recordings form the LV catalog are linked to wikipedia). but yes many LV volunteers are also wikipedists. I have no idea how many. If you are interested in reading, for instance, a long defense of wikipedia and subsequent discussions on our forum, you could check: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1016&highlight=wikipedia
5. finally, after spending all this time battling about links, would you consider doing a reading for us? the best place to start is weekly poetry, see: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1657

Mackinaw 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether LV is laudable or not is not the question. The question is: do we produce something which ought to be linked from wikipedia? So looking at it logically:

1. given: wikipedia policy states: "An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible." (see:External_links What should be linked to #3)
2. given: librivox catalog pages contain "the actual book" in audio form.
3. then: the policy states that wikipedia "should" link to the librivox page.

so:

1. do you agree with 3?
2. and if so, are you saying that wikipedia articles SHOULD link to librivox catalog pages, but librivox volunteers are not permitted to make the links?

Mackinaw 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war with Kolriv

Please do not use rollback for content disputes. It is for dealing with vandalism. Thanks. Noisy | Talk 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right that there is no policy or guideline: there just seems to be advice, as given here and here. I think this advice should be followed closely when the affected user has only been on the site a few days and is probably not aware of 3RR.

On a somewhat related note, I have put Encyclopedia of Anthropology up for AFD. Noisy | Talk 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Sorry, I did not know how to list the differences between pages Asterion 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I wonder

On the Librivox thing, they seem like good people, and good links, I wonder if you could give some advice on how we all (you, me, them) might all work together to have a group of disinterested Wikipedians go through as a project adding any and all relevant links?--Jimbo Wales 21:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LibriVox & talk pages

The proposed solution is OK by me - i just hope that useful links get up there. I still think it's a bit of a...complicated...way to go about things: if librivox links are agreed to be useful and acceptable links, then we are now creating 4 jobs, where there need only be one (one for a LV volunteer to add links to Talk; one for a non-LV wikipedia editor to move the links from Talk to the wikipedia article; one for a LV volunteer to check to see whether the Talk link was added & contact Mel_Etitis in the case that the link is not made; and one for Mel_Etitis to ensure that any relevant links are made). However if this is the only way to stay within wikipedia guidelines, well, certainly we'll oblige.

The one fringe benefit I see in this is that more wikipedians might learn of LibriVox, and then volunteer to help us reach our stated objective: to make all public domain texts available in audio, for free, on the internet. (the invite is still open, Mel_Etitis, and the tech/quipment side is easier than you might think! LV volunteers are a helpful bunch & you'd be up & running in a jiff I am sure).

Now, my preferred solution would be to find some way propose a "pre-approval" of LibriVox links within the wikipedia/literature editing community. but I am only an occasional (and lapsed, at that) wikipedist so I don't know if this is possible within the structures of the community.

Also: LibriVox is and always will be non-commercial. I make my personal pledge to remove all wikipedia links to LibriVox recordings in the case that LibriVox betrays itself and does "go commercial"- which will never happen, or will only happen when I am dead; and I suspect only after the deaths of a 100 or so hard-core librivoxers. This also reminds me that our "core values" are not yet displayed prominently enough on our about page, and I will remedy that today. This might have helped solve some of the misconceptions about our motivations. But for the record, here is the relevant part of our FAQ: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=878

(And in just a quick defence of Kri, the tireless LV wikipedia link-adder who got caught in this process, I think she was upset to see her hard work of perhaps a couple of hours of adding links removed and with a linkspam/block warning to boot... which reminds me as well to make sure that our volunteers log in when they post on wikipedia).

so: we'll go the Talk route, but is there any way/place to propse a non-linkspam pass on LibriVox recordings? And then let the wider community decide on the value of the whole LibriVox collection, rather than on a case-by-case basis? As I imagine was done with Gutenberg? Mackinaw 22:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ok deal struck! hand shake from my end. thanks.Mackinaw 00:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

oops. sorry. I seem to have shaked too soon - there's a bit of a revolution over at librivox, with many unhappy & disenchanted volunteers, so it looks like you may have won: no links to LibriVox recordings. Mackinaw 06:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

the "problem I am having" is that you, as an admin & representative of wikipedia, appear to have offended many people at librivox. whether you meant to do so or not is immaterial: it is what has happened. many people have been offended. and no one there seems to want to have anything to do with wikipedia at the moment. the LibriVox community (including me) felt very unwelcome here, and unwelcomed by you. perhaps you meant to be unwelcoming, perhaps you did not. but that's how it was preceieved.

as to the links themselves. you deleted them, hence I presume you wanted them deleted. if you (or others) do not want them deleted, then I presume someone will do something about it. But, for the moment anyway, it does not seem likely that it'll be anyone from LibriVox.Mackinaw 17:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

such grace. thanks.Mackinaw 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Oops! I'll try to be more conscientious in future. Bathrobe 10:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)