User talk:RxS/Archive03

• Archive 1 (March 5 to Nov 21):

• Archive 2 (Nov 21-April 17th):

Maps of rivers in Minnesota -- thanks

Thanks for the maps of rivers in Minnesota. I like them! Malepheasant 06:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! and you should consider adding the 'Wikipedians in Minnesota' category to your user page. -Ravedave 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

List of fraternity and sorority mottos

Is this article really necessary? At least it's no longer List of fraternity and sorority secret greek mottos. But I really don't see the value of it. Dspserpico 09:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asking your opinions of deltion of the article. Originally the article was written by an account made by somebody who had an axe to grind with fraternities and sororities and it was called List of fraternity and sorority secret greek mottos. That's all that Special:Contributions/UnadulteratedTruth has done on wikipedia, no other edits or contributions. The article was later changed to the current name by Doctor Whom noting that secret mottos would flunk WP:V.

If secret mottos cannot be included in the article, only public ones can, not ever fraternity or sorority has public mottos, rendering the article moot. Dspserpico 22:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

RxS/Archive03, thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. If and when that day comes, I hope you will once again support me. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde

I think I already beat you to it. :) Ambi 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my recent request for bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I greatly appreciate your support and hope I will continue to have your respect. Also, please don't hesitate to let me know if you think I don't fully understand the request for rollback issue; I would love to know if I'm either misunderstanding something or not handling something to the best of my abilities. Thank you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the picture of Orchestra Hall. I requested it, and was about to do it myself when I saw that it had been done already. Gaodifan 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Deletion review/Userbox debates

Please do not revert debate closures. The ones in question were closed in an appropriate manner and reverting them is disruptive and can be seen as merely vandalism. Both of which are blockable. If you have a problem, use the talk page, WP:AN/I or any of the other dispute resolution methods. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have already used the Talk page (though I probably should have done it sooner, yes; there are now posts to User talk:Cyde and Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates), now that it's clear that Cyde isn't about to, even to explain his out-of-process and disruptive early closure of a Deletion Review he was personally involved in. You are incorrect in your statement that "the ones in question were closed in an appropriate manner"; closer scrutiny of the circumstances involved should make this clear, though I can understand how this misconception would arise from a cursory review of the edit history. Thanks for the advice, though. -Silence 06:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But you can't just go reverting debate closures, whatever issues you are having won't be helped by getting into a revert war. As far as Cyde closing them, if it had been a close call you'd have a point but there was no consensus at all to do anything. And since the debate was whether to undelete them, no consensus means they stay deleted. What I'm trying to say is that there wasn't any interpretation to be done while deciding the outcome, it was clear to anyone that looked that there was no consensus to undelete them. So it didn't matter who closed it. Technical issues aside, it didn't matter who closed them. Could he have forseen that someone might object to a voter cosing the debates? Sure, but that's no reason to keep reverting it....Rx StrangeLove 07:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The "default position" for Deletion Reviews where there is no clear consensus is not "keep deleted" (especially when it's a review of a speedy-deletion, which is a single user's opinion or whim, not of a TfD or other group decision following a discussion), for the same reason that "delete" is not the default for AfD: erring on the side of keeping rather than deleting, and of continuing the discussion over stifling it early, is almost always good practice, and is well-established in Wikipedia conventions by such actions as Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Template:User_marriage_man-woman (where there was a very similar deadlock, and the admin wisely chose to undelete it and submit the template to TfD so the community at large could judge the template). Also, one of the main reasons there was no possibility of establishing consensus is that Cyde closed it early, possibly even in an attempt to stifle debate and dissent before the view he opposed could gather even more of a majority ("undelete" already had more votes than "keep deleted", even though there was no consensus for either), though more likely he was simply taking advantage of an easy loophole to help push his agenda further, which he hoped would slip under the radar of the involved users (hence his leaving no trace whatsoever of the deletion or its results, which violates the established practice for every past DRV entry and must surely be attributed either to sloppiness (which is what I'm betting happened) or a deliberate attempt at deceptively concealing the results (less likely, though possible)). But, above all, regardless of whether or not determining that the DRV's result was "keep deleted" is valid (which is certainly a matter of dispute and a very borderline issue), Cyde's closure of it was completely unacceptable, as he was a major particpiant in the discussion prior to its closure. That last fact is the main reason I reverted it: if a neutral party had made the deletion, I would never have considered a revert, as the delete would have been legitimate even if I disagreed with the closing editor's rationale or judgment. But for the closing editor to be a user with a strong anti-userbox agenda and a vested, explicit interest in the deletion of the userbox whose DRV he is closing is clearly unacceptable, and cannot go ignored. I care less about the template itself than I do about the apparent corruption at play in its closure. -Silence 07:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, to clarify why I assessed that Cyde had a vested interest in the borderline userbox DRV which he closed as "keep deleted", please review the full discussion therein, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Template:User_review (and, when you're done with that, the earlier Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates/Archive#Template:User_review_2). To show his obviously one-sided and non-neutral pre-set opinion on the userbox deletion, as well as his very deep involvement in the issue, both of which should have prevented him from closing the DRV, especially without any explanation whatsoever for his interpretation of the vote as "keep deleted", here are the comments he made to that DRV (note that they should be read in context for a full understanding of the debate; this is just to demonstrate his deep involvement and hard-set opinion on the matter):

1. "Keep deleted per Doc. These guys have lost all credibility because of the close association between some of them and various Neo-Nazi and anti-semite groups. Their kind of trash don't need free advertising on Wikipedia."
2. "I don't understand this argument. Are you in favor of this template or not? It can be settled here. Requiring that it be undeleted and then shipped over to TfD to deal with just creates more work for more people."
3. "Things change over time. This time it looks like there's a lot more people for deletion."
4. "There are still Nazis and anti-semites on Wikipedia Review who aren't banned. If you want me to name names in private, I will. And saying you will block anyone who reverts it as wheel-warring is like saying you'll murder anyone for committing murder. It's ludicrous."
5. "Grue, I can't believe you just undeleted the template and blanked this discussion. A lot of us are admins too, and if we all did the same thing you just did we'd be wheel-warring over whether the template should be deleted or not. Obviously that's unacceptable, and that's why discussion takes place here. You can't just close down the discussion and enforce the result however you want it, because that implies that you are somehow "more equal" than the rest of us, and you aren't."
6. "Wikipedia also has a speedy deletion policy that includes patent nonsense pages and divisive templates like these."
7. "No, I don't think we would censor this statement if it was on people's userpages, but you don't seem to understand that what is up for deletion here is a template, not something on someone's userpage, and is inappropriate alongside the rest of the encyclopedic content."
8. "Yes, it really is about template and category space. They should have the same rules on being encyclopedic that main article space does, because they primarily designed and used for encyclopedic content."
9. "Even a marathon starts by taking a single step."
10. "Flamebait -1"

That's a total of 10 comments (not even counting his earlier history with this template in its first DRV), a highly unusually large amount of involvement for anyone in any vote (especially a DRV one), and the content of the comments shows tha Cyde had his opinion decided from the very beginning, based on his pre-set biases (whether justified or unjustified) against both userboxes and Wikipedia Review, rather than on the contents of the discussion. While these may be valid opinions on their own, they are unacceptably influential biases for a DRV-closing user. I have no problem with his participating heavily in the discussion; many of the points he made were interesting and useful. But it's blatantly inappropriate for one of the most involved and strongly-opinionated users in a debate to be the one to close that debate, especially when he closes a marginal vote in order to favor the side he'd been so strongly supporting! Now do you understand why I found the closure to be an unacceptable breach of policy and a case that merits being immediately reverted so that some neutral party can close the DRV properly? (Or, alternatively, so that the discussion can continue; I have no strong opinions one way or the other.)

Incidentally, as long as I'm citing examples of why I found the closure questionable at best, there's also evidence that the other three DRVs he closd at the same time (which I have in no way contested up to this point, nor have I reverted them) were at the very least consistent with his views on each individual DRV, meaning that he probably wouldn't have closed them at that point in time if he didn't agree with their results. He closed: (1) "Template:User Copyright Nazi", which had a clear consensus for keeping deleted, and which he had also voted to keep deleted; (2) "Template:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF", which had a consensus for undeleting, and which was pretty much the only userbox is memory which he hadn't voted to delete (presumably because it was a userspace-embedded one); and (3) "Template:User evol-x", which had a consensus for keeping deleted, and which Cyde had also voted to delete. In fact, he was the first person to vote to keep that template deleted, saying "Stupid and possibly inflammatory. Certainly doesn't belong in template: namespace." So, there's significant evidence that, although Cyde was acting in good faith and doing what he thought was best for Wikipedia in the long run, he was also, at least as a side-effect, seeking to further his own agenda and promote his own views as law by closing two deletions which had consensus support for what he'd voted for, one which he was at most ambivalent about, one which didn't have consensus support for what he'd voted for but which he closed in a way that supported his vote anyway, and none that contradicted in any way his personal, pre-set views on those userboxes, as demonstrated by his comments at vote (at least, not the way he chose to close them). In light of all this evidence that Cyde is not a sufficiently neutral and open-minded party, at least in these specific cases, to analyze the pros and cons of both sides of the argument and judge the templates based on that, not just based on his own personal preferences and beliefs, I truly feel that it's not at all asking for much to simply say "hey, how about some other admin who hasn't participated so much in the debates closes this instead"? Indeed, that's pretty much the least anyone could ask for. -Silence 08:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why?

It seems that you are almost out to make sure I fail at this attempt to serve the community a little better. From your reasons at my RfA, it is almost as if I am a blatant newbie monster, who after 5+ months at a couple hours a night, hasn't heard of WP:BITE. I assure you I have welcomed a fair amount of newcomers and have followed guidelines to the teeth when it came to warning about vandalism. I know that this message won't convince you, and if anything, aggravate you more, but I wanted to make sure you heard my side of the issue. --Jay(Reply) 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not out to make sure it fails...I had a concern and I expressed it. I'm always very careful to back up my statements because I don't like when people just make assertions. I'm sure you don't like it either. Please don't make this into something personal, because it's not for me. I'm sorry if I made you out to be a monster....I didn't mean to, and don't think I did. And, when someone responded to my comments, it's certainly within the bounds of reason that I respond in a civil manner. I'm sorry, I really am....new users are important, During my first hour here I wonder about how I would have felt if I made some edits and they were rejected out of hand without any comment. Rx StrangeLove 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But on the other end of the spectrum, I have in informed newcomers of good faith reversions. User talk:12.18.80.40 + thanks; 657 down; I assure you that I am very aware of this issue, and I have indeed demonstrated civility towards the new ones. I hope that helps. --Jay(Reply) 02:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

new termonolgy

perhaps you should remove dirty sanchez or other such "nonsense". you should have at least had the respect and time allowed to let that article be deleted or not, not just by your discretion. furthermore, next time you feel you need to delete something email them first. dont just do it from your own non-sequential line of reasoning. cheers ">(Otherside)

never mind then, sorry for the accusation. should i create it again? i mean, new termonlogy is new ternmonolgy. i don't see any problem with that at all. its not just some random thing to spread mis-information, its just listed as a sexual practice and should remain so. " Otherside)

Re your votes on SSM-related templates

Did you read this response to Cyde, and what do you think of it?

[I]t is not divisive in the sense of T1. While the issue may polarize voters, there is no evidence to think that any wikipedians are bothered by the userbox. It is this difference which most admins abusing T1 fail to grasp: divisive politics do not make automatically for a divisive userbox. In this vein, various anti-admin-abuse boxes T1-speedied are also not divisive: most Wikipedians do not mind their existence, even if the underlying politics are potentially divisive.

StrangerInParadise 07:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a divisive issue everywhere, and considering the huge numbers of Wikipedia editors, it's certainly one that affects many of them. You can't separate Wikipedia editors from the general population and if it's a divisive issue out in the world, it's a divisive here. The diversity of Wikipedia editors is staggering and Wikipedia is not immune to issues that divide people. We don't need editors telling other Wikipedia editors that they don't qualify for the same human rights as everyone else. How can anyone think that's a good idea, much less defend it? You're free to have your own political beliefs, but don't go pointing fingers at certain groups you disapprove of and attacking them. Rx StrangeLove 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You say it is divisive here on Wikipedia? Prove it. I think you missed my point: that an issue may effect a Wikipedian does not make that issue divisive on Wikipedia; that an issue is divisive in some other context does not make it divisive on Wikipedia. You cannot use T1 on the expectation that something may become divisive. There is no evidence that it has become divisive. Wikipedia is different. When coexistence in disagreement is precluded by overapplication of T1, the very fabric of Wikipedia is threatened. You say the diversity of Wikipedia is staggering, but T1 censorship will give it the appearence of a bland homogeneity, so who cares?

And, for the record, I support SSM, but support even more strongly the perogative of a Wikipedian to say he does not, and even to network with those that agree with him. You should reconsider why you wouldn't. You and I may not understand why someone would oppose SSM, but T1 censorship precludes many opportunities for understanding, which is why you should join me in opposing it.

StrangerInParadise 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

People don't somehow change when they enter Wikipedia, nor do they drop their political beliefs or personal philosophy. What's divisive outside Wikipedia is divisive inside, you can see this in action in the constant POV edit wars all over Wikipedia.

Including the Same-sex marriage page where there are not one but two reminders that it's a controversial topic. There's no need for prior restraint here, it's already been a divisive topic. We're not using T1 on the expectation that something may become divisive...it already is.

Wikipedia isn't different, read the RFCs, ArbCom pages...read the articles in the protected page log. People bring their prejudices into Wikipedia with a passion and fighting POV warriors wastes more time then any 5 other issues. And to say that userboxes show our diversity is to ignore talk pages in which people are actually speaking to each other. It's incredibly disingenuous to say we'd have the appearence of a bland homogeneity without userboxes. Read the talk pages and tell me that I need to see a userbox to see our diversity. Rx StrangeLove 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not disingenuous (please look that word up, I don't think you meant to be that uncivil). The blandness is not only the visual blandness of a Wikipedia without userboxes, it is also the blandness of self-censored opinions and opinions censored by administrators who have joined this userbox crusade. Administrators are not supposed to be in the censorship game, at all. It is neither your business nor mine what someone says about SSM on a talk page, or whether he does so graphically or not, or whether he joins others or not.

This user is pro-cannabis.

It seems disingenuous to ignore the time wasted on userbox burning- in all its varied forms- and saying either that this is insignificant or that the effort results in any reduction of POV-warring. You may note my familiarity with controversial topics [see right] and that I see my fair share of misguided POV edit-warriors as well- from all sides- and that I know with certainty fighting userboxes is irrelevant to dealing with them. Communication, civility, and even-handed policy is however effective. Userbox fighters are making the problem worse by undermining their own impartiality. A skilled admin would see userboxes as a tool, and otherwise not pay them much mind.

BTW, with respect to the SSM page, the topic is divisive, the topic is here and this will not change. The userbox, however, is not divisive. Divisive means that the userbox itself divides us to the point that we cannot edit. This is nonsense, there is no evidence that this is in anyway influenced by userboxes. Also, I read the SSM talk page, nothing problematic there either. To delete these userboxes is to apply a non-solution to a non-problem.

StrangerInParadise 09:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think this is getting anywhere. You keep shifting the terms of the debate...now it's "Divisive means that the userbox itself divides us to the point that we cannot edit." No one claims that and raising it to that standard is not realistic and not part of the discussion. Admins aren't in the censorship game...and just asserting it doesn't make it so. There's just too many ways for editors to speak their mind (including subst-ing userboxes). We'll just have to agree to disagree.... Rx StrangeLove 02:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Support Great user, easy support. This should break 200. Rx StrangeLove 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not likely. I don't think I have enough coverage to be known in all the areas I would need to come close to 200. But that's okay. I just hope it passes. Thanks for your vote of (over)confidence though. :-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that. I had actually noted that you had opposed my last RfA. That's one of the reasons I dropped you this little note of gratitude. I hope I have proven all of you (well, the ones that still contribute here) wrong. Thanks again. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

Indulge. :)

Dear RxS/Archive03,

Thanks for voting on my RFA! I appreciate your comments and constructive criticism, for every bit helps me become a better Wikipedian. I've started working on the things you brought up, and I hope that next time, things run better; who knows, maybe one day we'll be basking on the shore of Admintopia together. Thanks and cheers, _-M o P-_ 22:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11

Looks like it's time to do something more about the articles related to 9/11...POV pushers of nonsense are determined to have their link, even though it vilates a number of wikipedia policies. I am inclined to have a zero tolerance now even in the conspiracy theory pages that relate to this junk science. I am also about ready to start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages.--MONGO 07:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means, do what matters the most to you...just encourage you to keep tabs on what's going on and glad to see you participating...don't let it take over one more minute than you feel is necessary, for in my opinion, we are arguing with trolls mostly...sorry for the bluntness...just my style at times. Happy editing.--MONGO 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Minneapolis photos

I noticed on Talk:Minneapolis, Minnesota that you offered to take some photos in the Minneapolis area. I've been working on some articles listed under List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota, and I think it would be nice to get some pictures of the historic places that don't have photos (or even articles) yet. There are so many historic places that it might take more than a day to take them, though. I'll leave it up to you to determine what pictures you take. I've added external links for the articles that don't yet exist but have good reference material on other sites, so those might be the ones I'm more likely to create articles for. Thanks for your offer to help out! --Elkman - ^(talk) 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Block of 64.80.222.26

I wanted to let you know that User talk:Stco23 was recently blocked as a result of your blocking the above IP. He requested an unblock, but as it seemed quite clear to me that they were both the same editor and your reasons for blocking the IP seemed entirely correct, I removed the unblock request. Hope this is okay with you. AmiDaniel (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not blocked after all.--Stco23 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Stco23

I have a message i want you to read on User Talk:64.80.222.26, because my talk page was blocked because i abused the unblock thing. By the way if you get any email about me, because i was upset at the time i said i am sorry to you for vandalism that i did not do. I just wanted for my block to end even though it was not my block. IP address are different from every single person. I have a Dial-up connection, and when i was online i could not edit anything on this site. When you get those emails, delete them. Thank you very much.--Stco23 09:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

AOL/IP Blocking

Please be aware that when you block an IP used by AOL, you are effectively blocking all users who are randomly assigned that number. You may not reach your target at all. Please check the reference list provided to administrators on these IP numbers. The general rule on these numbers is that they should only be blocked for very limited periods of time, usually 15 minutes. You have blocked this number for 24 hours, a violation of this rule. As an somewhat unwilling AOL user, I am often impacted by these type of blocks. Please see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a prompt release of this block. Information below. WBardwin 05:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Rx StrangeLove for the following reason (see our blocking policy): repeated vandalism Your IP address is 207.200.116.137.

Last week, I suggested that you try connecting to Wikipedia using the HTTPS method as described at Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users#How_to_bypass_the_AOL_proxies, have you had any luck with this or givent his a chance? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep...sorry! That page wasn't marked as an AOL proxy and I was working through a large backlog at AIV. Rx StrangeLove 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Air America

Air America Radio is linked in KTNF --grejlen - talk 21:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to log in. --grejlen - talk 22:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dr Strangelove, I have to say I was surprised by your message warning me not to blank pages again, since I never attempted to do it. I admit I tried to make people think that Belgian Eucharistia really use beer instead of wine and fries instead of hosts, but this was a good-taste joke. It even lasted a few hours. Consider instead my positive contribution, which concerns more or less ten articles, against my "negative", which is about one article, and you will find too your blame unjustified.

Regards,

tonpere

Messages

OK, I will cease and desist on any further messages, I certainly don't want any negative repercussions for Dewet's RFA. However, I would like to point out that other users have thanked me for the "heads-up" on this RFA (see two sections above your message on my page) and that the few "please reconsider" messages I have left have been to those people who voted against him for the "biting of newcomers", which I consider an unfair and unsubstantiated accusation. Kind Regards, Elf-friend 07:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA

At great peril, I'm just letting you know that I answered your concerns there (I doubt everyone keeps RfAs on their watchlist). Thanks, dewet|✉ 00:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor

Since the former userpage of Dschor has been under attack from recent sockpuppet accounts, couldn't we semi-protect it? DGX 05:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess theres no harm in just reverting the edits as they come. DGX 06:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review "Persecution of Muslims"

On the unfortunately censored [1][2][3] detetion review you endorsed Cyde saying making accusations of some sort of anti-Muslim conspiracy is totally unacceptable. I'd like to ask you, what do you consider worse? Possibly wrong accusations or a possible discrimination of Muslims? Raphael1 16:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WTC

I'm not sure who made the transcript, it was on this acrticle when I first looked at it. After watching the video I believe a more accurate one would be “I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. Er, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." I think the video is from a PBS documentary called America Rebuilds. Thanks. Kernow 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, although what do you mean by some concerns? If you watch the video the transcipt is pretty accurate apart from a few 'ers'. Kernow 16:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow ban

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=160 as you can see it's says Member Group: Banned. I was talking to MSK about it in IRC as well and I found out by that. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the kind support, once again...[4]--MONGO 03:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for uploading the picture of Orchestra Hall. I requested it, and was about to do it myself when I saw that it had been done already. Gaodifan 02:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC) moved from top of page Rx StrangeLove 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "warning"

People who leave "warnings" - or should I call this threats? - on my talk page, without leaving the same on those people's pages who lie about me and slander and harass me, are at best hypocrites. You can just as well stop it, I will remove it anyway. -- 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalize WHAT???

Because i make the wiki clean for vandalizing and faults.

Tell me just one thing that i have made wrong?

this was from "Comanche cph"

Revert

Could you revert to my verison on the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) page? I'd be in danger of the 3RR if I did it again. ForestH2

It's content, Foxearth claims he is not vandalizing the page though he really is. I gave him a vandalisim warning and if we want Wikipedia to like a good website, it needs to be reverted. If you knew a lot about the Harry Potter articles you'd understand more. ForestH2

Hello...

Forest is finding small bickerings because I don't agree with his ideas - it's not vandalism. Do not worry about it - he does it to lots of people. I haven't vandalise anything - I'm just trying to see logically. Forest is cocky and needs taking down a peg or two... anyway feel free to leave a comment on my talk page... thanks Foxearth

Thank you

Thank you for your comment and "vote" on the mfd. We are trying really hard to improve the project, and if you see anything else that needs changing, please let me know. By the way, i was wondering if you could strike you nomination for the mfd, seeing as how you now support the project. Thank you again, Thetruthbelow 05:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, while I would like more people to come to our side, I would appreciate if you closed the mfd. We are spending about half of our time on the mfd, and therefore if it was closed we could improve the project twice as fast. Let me know! Thetruthbelow 05:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Holdingford MN.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Holdingford MN.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) oops...forgot the license. Resolved/\ Rx StrangeLove 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Also per user:freakofnurture"

On Jorge's RFA, I noticed my name in your comment. I'm not really sure what you were referring to, as I really didn't say much. So maybe you misread and thought I said something I didn't? I'm not worried one way or the other, but you might peruse it and make sure you said what you meant to say. Regards. — Jun. 25, '06 [18:04] <freak|talk>

Okay. I didn't realize how profound my words were, and thought you might have mentally associated my name with a different comment. Carry on. — Jun. 25, '06 [18:11] <freak|talk>

Minnesota

Hello, I am working to get the Minnesota article to featured status and could use your help. Could you perhaps help out getting good pictures into the article? (and taking any needed ones!) It needs pics for the culture and transportation sections especially. Any help would be apprecated! Thanks, -Ravedave 05:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add to your watchlist

You once blocked this user (User_talk:AtlanticWebfitters). Can you please add this usertalkpage to your watchlist? Thank you. Kff 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Froggy RfA thanks

Paying homage to my roots...

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

photo request

I noticed on the Minnesota Wikiproject page that you were taking photo requests. Maybe you could get one that sums up Dinkytown for that page. Thanks. ReverendG 00:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Well, I'll see what I can do, it is a hard neighborhood to sum up in a picture, so I don't blame you. ReverendG 05:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:CyberVenuThomas

He doesn't get it. He's recreated VenuThomas from Venu Thomas. - CobaltBlueTony 19:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pee-wee's Playhouse

The content on Pee-wee's Playhouse was added by a vandal who put it there to make fun of Paul Reubens being gay. Read the removed content closely. I watch the show and never has he acted that way. Please remove it and unblock the IP as I am now using Tor and this IP should be blocked (but not that one. 63.211.169.142 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert / "copyright"

Just FYI the "copyrighted" material you removed from the Louis Gohmert article was work of the Federal government, and therefore not copyrighted. However, it was "official bio" and "cut & paste" and not NPOV and I'm not going to rewrite it, so I thought it was a good cut anyway... --studerby 13:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have left you a pointer to the original of the bio - Gohmert's official bio at house.gov I'm 95% sure Vote-USA copied it from there... --studerby 05:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

eBay

Kinda weird; I don't know what the editor is doing. The original information there was about Jerome T Heckenkamp, aka MagicFX, who did exactly what was described. Then he changed it to be a hoax. Scratching head in puzzlement. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, makes some sense. (I was the one who first discovered that eBay's computers had been compromised...) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks! Thank you very much for your comments on my recent Request for Adminship. The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address your concerns before running again. I guess I've If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks! -- RandyWang (chat/patch) 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Five Discs

Hi, concerning the copyright violation of The Five Discs. Permission was indeed received. <long story> I tagged a bunch of articles from that editor as a copyvio and asked the user to send a mail to permissions. They took a while to respond, I even mailed them what the current status was (not blaming them btw, all volunteers here and a busy queu I imagine). They told me I could assume good faith and restore the articles (without them having the permission). That seemed a bit excessive so I told the editor to wait and having him send me a copy of the confirmation from permissions when he recieved it. I also asked an admin for advice. See here. All went well, he mailed me the permission mail, I removed the copyvio tag from the articles, and added the {{confirmation}} tag to the talk. </long story> I did explained the editor about no original research and the like though, which this material probably falls under. A bunch of this material will be (or already is) removed from wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Re: long AOL blocks

True, in the past we avoided blocking AOL IPs for more than 15 minutes or so. But now that Bug-550 is fixed, and it is possible to block just anons from that IP without affecting registered users, there is no longer any excuse to allow those AOL vandals to enjoy this "safe harbour". Yes, occasionally a legitimate unregistered AOL user will get affected by such a block, but it has already been mentioned here that the requirement for AOL users to register is a very reasonable one. Owen× ☎ 01:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyone on that IP will be blocked, and the original editor will be on to a new IP so it does no good. The result is that we end up with a non-involved user on a blocked IP. We can encourage people to create accounts but shouldn't be forcing them. AGF on new users....Rx StrangeLove 01:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You convinced me. I shortened that block to time served (24 minutes). Owen× ☎ 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Heya, I was wondering if the level of vandalism and socking on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination) page has risen to the level of serious vandalism needed to semi a page? I notice you had protected it, but there's really only a handful of problematic edits on it, and they were inactive (8 or so hours since any editing) And at least one good faith anon edit on the talk page. I don't think it's the last option left on the page per WP:SEMI. Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 05:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, a temporary semi-protection was the best way to go. It was only intended as very temporary, so I've removed it now. —Mets501 (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User "Crcluver"

Thanks for putting in the username block. I've warned a lot of vandals over the years, but never has one decided to imitate me afterward. CRCulver 02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, Doc...

Doggone, I promised myself that I wouldn't delete anything except for obvious nonsense and I find myself doing the same stuff once again re. substubs. Good point. I think that proposal came after I left as I'm not familiar with it, but I plan on boning up on it. Thanks for the prescription, Doctor.  :) - Lucky 6.9 06:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Meetup October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Aramex

Thanks for cleaning up this one. JRHorse 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a little confused about a page you edited. You see, on the early version of the Phenomenauts' website, they had a biography that can't be found on their site anymore. I saved it before it got taken off the website, and posted it on their Wikipedia page. Now, yes, it may be some PR stuff, but it's not just some amateur fan zine writeup. It was written by the Phenomenauts, and it's a fictional biography behind the characters they portray onstage. I and others believe that it properly belongs on the Phenomenauts Wiki page. Thanks.

Wait a second..

Did you say you agreed with me? [5] *rolls eyes* Guess theres a first time for everything. :) — Moe 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to have bad feelings about :) — Moe 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mimes

Hi. Mimes began to vandalize the Ed, Edd n Eddy article just as soon as your block expired. -- 67.117.24.163 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Nonoffensive

Don't take this the wrong way, but 48 hours? His third edit was to redirect George W. Bush to Muhammad, and every edit since has been mischief or vandalism. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See all of his messages, apparently coordinated with User:Vladamir Bonars ([6]), to User talk:Gdo01. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear..I meant that User:Nonoffensive and User:Vladamir Bonars were both attacking User:Gdo01. I would be shocked to see User:Nonoffensive return as a constructive editor, but I guess anything's possible. Anyway, thanks for blocking them. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You FINALLY got the vandal that kept vandalizing my user page. AND you got the one that struck three times on my talk page. You deserve a barnstar.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For blocking the user that struck FORTY times on my userpage, and for blocking the other user that struck three times on my talk page. SupaStarGirl 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Guthrie Theater update on 1 Nov -- minor quibble

Even though the Guthrie Theater has opened, the picture previously captioned "The new Guthrie Theater nearing completion" is indeed a picture of the new Guthrie before it opened (ie, nearing completion).... but the shorter caption of "The new Guthrie Theater" also works. Bfx12a9 13:00, 14 Nov 2006

dely verf

i from belgie my e-M verfoto@gmail.com

my mame verfaillie eddy you want more e-mail my

verfaillie eddy greatings verf test response RxS 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

MfD - Esperanza

i've been reading the 70kb i missed of the MfD for Esperanza, and i like the cut of your gib from what i see from your comments. keep it up. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

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

This message delivered: 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article

Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. [7] . Thanks. Abe Froman 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please assent or dissent to mediation in the 911 external timeline link matter. [8] Thanks. Abe Froman 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

He may be a long time editor, but he IS blanking content to a user page for no good reason (User:Jbamb). Then, he's protected the page to ensure the content is properly censored according to the whims of the cabal.-- JohnBambenek 22:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The "someone's sock" you reverted on Hoffman

From comments on the user page I imagine the owner of the sock is Bov. Apart from lack, total lack, of edit history comments, which is aggravating, he does not appear to be using his logged out state to circumvent the 3RR. I do wish he would come to the table and work with consensus, though. Fiddle Faddle 10:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, after this TfD is over, I may simply abandon diting topics that are political. The part that bewilders me is that the unusual fringe may form a consensus and steamroller its rubbish through. Fiddle Faddle 07:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Can you explain

...to me why you have an issue with the AskMeNow's entry but not with Windows Live Search Mobile? The entry was essentially taken from that template.

Also, I noticed you removed AskMeNow from the mobile search page. You do realize that AskMeNow is one of the largest providers of mobile search? You again allowed Windows Live Mobile to remain which was only launched about two months ago and is in its infancy. I'm led to believe that it is you that has some sort of conflict of interest here.

I reverted back because you removed a lot of content but I removed the external links that you had issue with.

I replied on your talk page. RxS 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although Microsoft may be better known your mistaken if you think Live Mobile is better known. You haven't addressed the same issues on the windows mobile page.

Why did you revert the page again? I removed all the links. All you've done is mess up the formatting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mironearth (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

AfD debate

Hi Rx StrangeLove, following your prod of Emo violence being contested, the AfD debate is here. Addhoc 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:BN

Re [9]: Amen, a thousand times amen. And these are the people that we hold in high enough trust to perform this function? This is appalling and utterly repulsive. Essjay did it with WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U (where clerks no longer exist and it is open to people who want to help thank God), and even wrote an essay about it. Now Mackensen is doing it too. If he doesn't want people peeing in his sandbox (as Essjay put it) then he's in the wrong sandbox. --The disruptive, interfering, officious, demeaning, policy wonking, inflexible, martyr complex afflicted, theatrical editor previously known as Durin 16:35 7 March 2007 (UTC)

All-Clad

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article All-Clad, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

The article lacks primary criterion to show a company is notable. -ChristopherMannMcKay 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Heather Wilson

Thank you for removing the potential slander from the artical. Why is this even included in the article to begin with, who knows? If I am not mistaken the article is about Heather Wilson not her husband. To throw out accusations and innuendos serves no purpose to the individual or Wikipedia. In fact, I would shy away from any and all controversial language, possible slander, considering some of the press focused on Wikipedia now regarding topics just like this. Once again.....thanks00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on my user and talk page, as well as your continuous work here fighting vandals, I hereby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Thanks a ton :) Kntrabssi 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I have never initiated an office action or performed one of my own volition. Make of that what you will. Danny 14:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I was working under Office authority. Danny 14:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So your problem is with the tool, one which I voluntarily gave up. Danny 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. In my oppose vote I sais that the likelihood of abusing tools was really the only question that should be at issue. And in my comment to Doc, I tried to say that history of how admin (or similar) tools were used in the past is relevant. Again apologies if I wasn't clear. I mean, isn't that what RFA is for? RxS 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis

Hello. Does Minneapolis, Minnesota look all right to you? Please pardon this form letter that is going to about a dozen people whose user name I recognize from some Wikipedia edit (could have been recent or in the past year). I expect to close peer review by nominating Minneapolis to featured article candidate in a day or two unless other editors have more work they'd like to do. In case the links help, places to make a difference are to edit in place, comment in the peer review, comment on the talk page, support or oppose when and if it gets to featured article candidate, or work on a child article linked from the following template. -Susanlesch 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous

Regarding this edit, I hope you have checked the link to understand it is not a personal attack. Personally, I find the lack of common sense in your removal worrisome. -- ReyBrujo 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a coward is always a personal attack, no matter who or how many it's directed at. I'm surprised you found that term helpful to the discussion, especially in so controversial a topic. I'd worry more about keeping things civil. RxS 05:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, can you believe I just got an edit conflict trying to post this: Disregard what I said here. Someone actually took the time to explain me why the wording is used. Sorry for bothering you. -- ReyBrujo 05:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. RxS 05:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Do you have a better (larger, higher resolution) copy of Image:CathedralofStPaul.jpg? I'd like to replace this one before Minnesota is on the main page on May 11. thanks--Appraiser 13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Greetings, I do have larger examples of that photo. I actually have several I took that day. Would you like me to just replace the one that exists here? By the way, if you're looking for any other metro area photos (or better examples of what we already have) let me know and I can try and get take some over the next week or so. RxS 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes; you could simply replace it if you have a better one; I've asked the same of User:Mulad who took the KSTP picture (which is also small). Other pictures I've thought would be good to replace at some point are

• Image:Loring-Park-Minneapolis-2005-11-08.jpg, which is Charles Loring's office
• Image:BasilicaofSaintMary.jpg. This picture is an acceptable perspective, but the photo lacks contrast, color, and brightness
• Image:Lowry Hill Tunnel.jpg. Again, the scene is OK, but it's not a great picture
• Image:Walker Art Center.jpg. We ought to have a public domain picture to replace this one.
• Image:Woodburycityhall.jpg. This is one of mine. The weather was lousy that day and the picture is lousy too.

Thanks for offering to improve our visuals. --Appraiser 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a larger version to Commons, if you'd like a full size version let me know. Looking over your list, I noticed that I took the Basilica one...it was taken from the footbridge so it's fairly distant. I can see if I can get over there again. I also have several of the Walker, in fact I thought I had one on that page..I'll take a look. I'm assuming you have this page watch listed, let me know if you see this. If I don't hear back I'll drop a note on your page...RxS 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi again. Sorry; I didn't intend to insult your photography. Today I was looking at bridges that cross the Mississippi and found that Lowry Avenue Bridge doesn't have a picture. Most of the other Twin Cities bridge have decent ones.--Appraiser 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• The KSTP photo looks good to me now. Thanks--Appraiser 15:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I found another one: Image:Lakewood Chapel.jpg could be substantially better--Appraiser 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• If you're still interested in photo ideas, we need photos of the State Theater, Orpheum Theatre, and Pantages Theatre. I believe these are all on Hennepin downtown. Thanks --Appraiser 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've got a new bug... I started compiling county courthouse buildings after looking at this [10], and I started Category:Courthouses of Minnesota. There's a list of Metro Area courthouses that we don't have pictures of here. Thanks--Appraiser 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:24.195.205.252

This is not a content dispute, scroll through the talk page, he's VANDALIZING the comments, and now he's using socks to do it. Nardman1 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the socks now, tell you what, let's let it settle down a little and see if he starts up again. If he does, drop me a note and I'll take a look. He really hasn't vandalised any articles has he? RxS 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This be true. Nardman1 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Visual Paradox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Visual Paradox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Visual Paradox seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Visual Paradox, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot

>>How does a bot decide about Notability?
It doesn't decide on notability. It only alerts the creators of articles when they are marked for speedy deletion, if the nominator doesn't notify the creator themselves within a given amoutn of time. --Android Mouse 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy talk page

I couldn't agree with you more. My comments on the page are there to specifically address questions and comments regarding the article and its content. Too much bad information on that page (i.e. fire didn't melt steel, etc.) is being propagated across the internet. I was simply attempted to address these issues in how they related to the article. Thank you for archiving it, but respectfully, I believe the discussion on that page is useful and proper when discussing the context of the article and the facts presented in it.— BQZip01 — ^talk 02:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey mate, no worries (I've been talking to Aussies a lot lately, can you tell?!?). I know it takes me a while sometimes to get back to people...especially when I am busy.

"...how steel reacts to fires is a little off topic (as regards to the article)." Gotta REALLY disagree with you there. That is one of the tenets of the 9/11 "Truth" movement, most recently and famously espoused by Rosie O'Donnell. I agree that we should not try to come to any conclusions and should be talking about is how/if some research fits into the article. I contend it is not research, but conjecture and object to its inclusion as such. But hey, it's a semi-free country. On that note, I HIGHLY recommend watching this clip from Penn and Teller about freedom of speech. Note the nervous applause after the flag is gone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)