Talk:Rick Warren/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Terry Schiavo section

I removed the section on Terry Schiavo (retained below) from the main text. While correctly cited, the editor of this section took Warren's statements out of context and presented them in a negative and biased manner, quite apart from the original intent. The actual quotes are reproduced below the Removed Section along with my comments.

Begin Removed Section --- In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove Terry Schiavo's feeding tube, "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," and suggested that Michael wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said." End Removed Section ---

Quote: 'If I were in a vegetative state, I would hope the people that love me would keep feeding me with the possibility I might come back out of that state. She's not on life support. This is not a matter -- this is not a right to die issue, in my opinion. It is the fact that they were just feeding a person who is, right now, mentally handicapped, and I, personally, I fear the day, that if we start saying, well, you don't have a right to live if you are mentally handicapped or you're physically handicapped or emotionally handicapped, and you -- we'll just, you know, stop feeding you. This is starvation. It's not pulling artificial life support, it's saying, we're just not going to feed you anymore. To me, that is an atrocity worthy of Nazism.' [comment - the intent here is to say that IF this is not a right to die issue then starving someone to death because we don't want them around is barbaric and is then comparable to Nazism. The intent does not seem to be, as the editor suggests, a direct criticism of Terri's husband.]

Quote: 'MATTHEWS: So why is he doing this, do you think? WARREN: I have no idea. Well, I don‘t know. There‘s 1,000 reasons you could speculate. What if she came back out of the—out of this state and had something to say that he didn‘t want said? [comment - this is a rhetorical answer and not a direct accusation as the editor tries to imply.] CarverM (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren did not express any doubt or uncertainty about the situation. As you quote, he says, "this is not a right to die issue, in my opinion." With that certainty established, the rest of the comments follow in a series based on that clearly established certainty in Warren's head. Since there is no "right to die" in Warren's opinion, and he clearly insists that if he were Schiavo he'd want to be fed, his subsequent reference to an "atrocity worthy of Nazism" is not predicated upon anything, for him, it's exactly that. He indirectly, though clearly, establishes that there's a clear link in his head between cutting off feeding of the by then jelly-for-brains-body-of-the-person-once-known-as Terri Schiavo and Nazi atrocities. His comment about Michael, again, though phrased as a question, leaves no doubt as to what Warren's assumptions about Michael are. He, like others of his ilk, merely has to express them with just enough indirection, to avoid both getting sued and to avoid calling Michael a murderer outright, thus prolonging discussion with this air of false uncertainty. The section should be re-inserted with enough context to show that Warren's comments, worded as they are to attempt to allow others to come along later and deny the obvious, are those of a thuggish slimy weasel. Mike Doughney (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the quote is 1) notable because of the magnitude of the Schiavo controversy at the time and the strength of the comment and 2) was not taken "out of context" in any way that distorts his view. Elaboration may help to add more nuance, but as the above commenter noted, it does not seem to portray his comments unfairly. I don't see why this section should not be reinserted pretty much as-is. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren waded into this controversy and others. The implications of his comment about Michael Schiavo are plain. Of "1000 possible explanations", he chose that one. If you feel it needs additional context, add it. Ae6521 (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Schiavo matter, this time to the "Conservative views" section, with some additional clarifying context. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Creationist

I think his thoughts on evolution and creationism should be briefly mentioned, and maybe that he believes humans lived with dinosaurs.

On Rick Warren's website he wrote the following on the evolution (mispellings in original):

31. Is evolotion part of God's plan?

Question: Why is it not OK for evolution to be part of God’s plan? I don’t understand what the problem is: couldn’t God have used the process of evolution as the way that He created the earth?

Answer: When I was a new believer in Christ, I had some very strong feelings about the issue of evolution. Much as you have expressed, I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently. But they didn't push me or argue with me, they simply challenged me to take some time to look into the facts and study the issues carefully. I'll always appreciate them for that, because this was an issue that I had to really think through. Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together... that there are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution.

I would encourage you to take some time to study this issue. I found that, although I'd understood the science side of the equation, I needed to take some more time to read what the Bible really had to say about this subject. Not having taken the time to really read the Bible, I was very ignorant about what it had to say. Let me give you one example. I discovered that the problem of sin, as addressed in the Bible, was much more serious than I had previously thought. When I realized that the world was clearly a perfect place as God created it, and that this perfection was ruined by the sinful choice of Adam and Eve, it really started me thinking. Did the Bible teach evolution or did it teach the creation of a first man and woman named Adam and Eve? If we evolved, which human being would have made the choice that brought sin into this world? If Adam and Eve were just allegorical pictures, why did the New Testament place some much importance upon them as responsible and real individuals? Since God clearly says that it is our sin that brought death into our world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the first man who sinned on the earth? As I asked questions about this issue and studied what the Bible had to say, I found it to be one of the greatest times of learning in my life as a new believer. My prayer is that you will have this same experience!

...

If you want to study this further... Here's a web site that you might want to check out: http://web.archive.org/web/20051118164840/http://www.probe.org/content/section/13/67/ (One article that is especially thought provoking discusses "Darwin's Black Box").

In 2007 interview Warren said:

Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?

WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

On Warren's website he wrote about dinosaurs:

30. What about dinosaurs? Question: How do they fit in with the idea that God created the world rather than the world evolving on it’s own? Why doesn’t the Bible talk about dinosaurs?

Answer: The Bible tells in Genesis 1 that God made the world in 7 days, and that He made all of the animals on the 5th day and the 6th day. All of the animals were created at the same time, so they all walked the earth at the same time. I know that the pictures we all grew up with in the movies were that dinosaurs roamed a lifeless, volcanic planet. Remember these are just pictures drawn by someone today! The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty.

What happened to the dinosaurs? The scientific record lets us know that they obviously became extinct through some kind of cataclysmic event on the earth. Many scientists theorize that this may have been an asteroid striking the earth, while many Christians wonder if this event could have been the worldwide flood in Noah's day. No one can know for certain what this event was.

Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term that includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squid, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct. The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job, chapter 40. We don't know for certain if these are actually dinosaurs or are some other large creatures that became extinct. ...

This aspect of religion and opinion on science is important in describing his beliefs. And add the creationist category per the many sources.[1][2] Tgreach (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote not attributable to Rick Warren

The quotes from the Saddleback website, #'s 30 and 31 are not directly from Rick but a part of the small group leader training Q&A and written by another staff member. So, while a minor point, these particular statements on creationism are not Rick's and should therefore not be in an article about him. CarverM (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I figured that the minstry he founded's wesbite written in the first person (without proper attribution) was his. However, it appears that no one on that webpage put their name of scientifically ignorant claims.

Nonetheless, the 2007 interview on religion and science, does reflect his views on a literal reading of the Bible, including Genesis, as well as his opinions on science. This is relevant to his bio. Tgreach (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not needed in this article but I would like to address your use of the phrase "scientifically ignorant claims." Using the more proper term of "intelligent design" I would contrarily assert that there is much scientific evidence towards the claim and that other theories for the origins of the universe as equally valid to talk about and research and do not need to be disparaged. Have you seen the film Expelled? CarverM (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen Expelled and its ridiculous. Do you believe everything in a movie? Read www.expelledexposed.com to see where the film makers lied in several parts.

If you want to ignore the evidence for evolution then you are ignorant of the science behind it. Also intelligent design isn't science, it is creationism. And creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific theory. See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District-- ruled on by a conservative, Bush appointed judge. Tgreach (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given recent events related to this article, I'm promptly reminding editors that this thread is veering way off-topic. In particular, general discussion of the Expelled movie is clearly off-topic, as Warren wasn't involved with it. Please limit your discussion to topics directly related to this article. Thanks. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing "America's Pastor"

The phrase: "He has been christened by the media as 'America's Pastor'," keeps getting inserted [3] into the text with no citation. A quick search at Google News shows this is not a phrase that is used widely or consistently. I am removing it for now, and we can hash it out here.

This is also a good time to ask User:Manutdglory, a self-declared "member" of Saddleback Church [4], whether he can be neutral about this topic, and if not, whether he/she should voluntarily withdraw from editing this type of content. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed this lame, bald attempt to inflate Warren's status which doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. The fact that "America's pastor" has appeared in print in connection with Warren is insufficient to insert such titles into the lede paragraph. In fact, such a designation is rather controversial, as is clear in a Google news search. It might eventually merit a mention somewhere down in the article, with explicit clarification as to who, exactly, is calling him that, and that others dispute that designation. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I already conceded that your argument was fair enough. Why demean me with this comment? Manutdglory (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am explicitly and specifically referring to this edit right here. If you believe that you and your editing are inseparable, that's your interpretation, not mine. Mike Doughney (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary, part II

Resolved

 – Reactionary is a loaded word so using it requires exceptional sourcing. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep destroying my edits? Every time i add information to this article by directly quoting from the reliable sources, you revert my work and then threaten to ban me? Several times i have added more footnotes to directly link to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV, the Pacifica News Network's broadcasts of Democracy Now, and i have conveniently provided the links to words i used such as "Reactionary" so you can read the literal definition and avoid quibbling about the nuances of vocabulary. If you look up the definitions of 'slander' and 'malign' you will see where i provided concrete examples which are undeniably demonstrated in those interviews and reports. Why are you so eager to obliterate my work when i have gone to the trouble of carefully providing fresh direct links to the specific _verifiable_ sources of information? Instead of arguing about whether an editor's viewpoint is sufficiently Neutral, why not just provide the information (the links, the citations, the quotations, the direct attributions) and allow the readers to decide and interpret and analyse for themselves? Why fight with me, why conduct a Revert-War, when you can just have an article full of citations and concrete examples? How can an editor satisfy your demands for 'Neutrality' if you keep deleting mention of those reports and interviews? Teledildonix314 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't expect your work to be edited, particularly with regard to Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP, then don't post here. I have explained to you what Wikipedia policy is multiple times now, both here and on your talk page. It matters not what you think the definition of "reactionary" is and how you think it applies to Warren, or that there's an article in Wikipedia titled "reactionary." You need a reliable source that uses that term to describe Warren that may be cited in this article. You haven't produced one, and until you do, it comes out. Further, calling Warren a reactionary (or for that matter a slanderer) without citing a reliable source qualifies as a WP:BLP violation and it gets pulled on sight. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested this repeatedly for the past couple days, and i have provided citations from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV, and the news reports from Pacifica's Democracy Now. But there are a few editors who keep erasing my contributions and debating my citations and quotations. Instead of arguing and disputing, why not just offer more citations, quotations, and information from verifiable sources? Why don't these editors simply use examples and demonstrations of facts, instead of erasing every one of my contributions? If you disagree with an opinion, that's your prerogative; but when i edit the Article and insert citations which link directly to the interviews, recordings, and broadcast reports which show _SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AND SPECIFIC EVIDENCE_ of such things as 'slander', 'maligning groups of innocent people', and exposure of the OUTRIGHT LIES being spoken by Rick Warren, you just keep telling me that i'm not being 'Neutral'.

There is nothing more 'Neutral' than objective evidence, such as the direct links i provided to reliable sources of VERIFIABLE information and recordings of the interviews with Rick Warren himself. There is nothing to dispute when an editor gives you specific citations and direct quotations. If you don't like the information which i have tried to add to this article, you should feel free to 'balance' the article with your own contributions of EVIDENCE, DEMONSTRATIONS, and PROOF of your reasons for the dispute. When you simply erase my work, and then threaten me because you don't enjoy what i wrote, that achieves nothing.

If you don't agree with me, and you don't think my contributions to the Article are correct, then please: show me a specific example of any statement, declaration, implication, or suggestion which is not factual. If you don't think it's factual, please explain why the video recordings and newspaper articles are insufficient evidence to support my contributions. If you don't understand the definition of 'slander' or 'Reactionary', please double-check your dictionaries. Then please tell me (and any other readers here) why you disagree with my mention of Warren's SLANDER, PUBLICLY EXPOSED PREVARICATION, AND EXPLICIT BIGOTRY. In order for your disagreement to have any validity, it will require some kind of evidence which contradicts all of the citations i have provided. If you can't give any such evidence, then you might just have to admit that YOU ARE WRONG, and there is no 'Neutrality' to dispute. Truth is self-evident, people can watch and listen and decide for themselves whether there is anything inaccurate in an article as long as they are given direct links to the VERIFIABLE sources of information. If you don't offer any evidence to support your arguments, then you are making no sense when you threaten me for my contributions, citations and quotations.

Teledildonix314 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add your new comments to the bottom of the file, in an appropriate section, rather than trashing pre-existing discussion threads.

Your assertion that MLK Day was on the same day as the inauguration was clearly false and was thus removed from the article. The rest of your complaints I've already responded to elsewhere. Repeating yourself and scribbling haphazardly on multiple talk pages will not change Wikipedia policies with respect to verifiability, neutral point of view and no original research. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The exact text at the top of the page says: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

The controversial material in this case is not unsourced, nor is it poorly sourced. It is strongly sourced from immediately verifiable sources with reputable references. If a statement is true, it can not be libellous nor slanderous. When i added declarations of fact (for example, when Warren slandered millions of innocent people) i didn't just toss out an accusation lightly. I made a point of carefully linking at least three reliable sources which give us not just reports, but the actual VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDINGS AS EVIDENCE. This causes the material to cease to be controversial: a controversy is difficult to decide, but in this case we have incontrovertible proof and immediately verifiable citations, so we don't need to decide on the Point Of View nor on the Reliability.... instead, we can all see the actual quotations, reports, and Warren's own words directly from the DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE. Why are some of you editors so obstinate in your refusal to allow these citations, links, and footnotes to be included in this Article? Why are some editors destroying my contributions of clear citations from reliable sources, then threatening to Block or Ban me from the wikipedia editing? How can the factual presentation of supporting evidence be described as a dispute? What else could you possibly desire beyond actual recordings and interviews linked directly from the newspapers and TV broadcasts? What could be a more reliable source of information than an actual broadcast of a relevant interview in which the audience can listen to Rick Warren express his own words?

It has become so tiresome trying to continuously defend facts, evidence, examples, and demonstrations of proof, when a few hostile parties choose to exercise their non-democratic powers to suppress those facts and citations. What is the point of having an encyclopedia if a few editors just keep deleting all of the footnotes and direct quotations?

Attempts to intimidate and suppress simple declarations of fact do not succeed here. If you must insist on perpetuating your dispute with any of the demonstrable facts and evidence, please provide us with some kind of proof for your positions; otherwise we will have to assume that you are full of nonsense, and your edit-war activities this week have been entirely pointless. If you don't like what i write, why don't you ask editors to examine the citations, the evidence, the reports and interviews? Why don't you ask for a consensus, rather than deleting all of my contributions? Your attacks make you look unreasonably stubborn and indefensibly hostile to simple presentations of fact. Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You have still not produced an article from a reliable source that says that Warren's actions are either "slanderous" or "reactionary." Without that, there isn't much to talk about. You, and only you, introduced those words without evidence that any reliable source has used those words to describe Warren. Without that kind of source, you are violating WP:BLP. Mike Doughney (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, how can you keep saying there isn't any reliable source?!?

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22rick+warren%22,+slander,+gays

http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/rick-warrens-invocation-inclusive-of-christians/

http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/22/etheridge_warren/view/index6.html

What more could you possibly demand for evidence?! I've given you articles in major national newspapers, i've given direct links to the video interviews from internationally-renowned news broadcasters, and i've even offered quick links to the internet searches which easily verify the sources of information. I've given you the most unambiguous and specific and concrete example i could possibly imagine of an overtly slanderous action by Rick Warren, and i didn't just give you some paraphrased quotes or some second-hand hearsay, i gave you THE ACTUAL VIDEO INTERVIEWS. If you don't want to believe your own eyes and ears when you see Rick Warren refer to homosexuals as incestuous pedophiles, that's your problem. But you can't dispute a fact when people offer you actual videotapes, recordings on microphones, transcripts from newspapers and radio and television networks, and thousands (millions!) of witnesses to such an act of slander, maligning, and prevarication. If the unadorned truth is insufficient for you, no amount of editing is going to change your mind. If you just keep deleting my links to the proper citations and reliable sources, then you keep coming to my User page to threaten me, it makes YOU look like a sad little bully who can't win an argument by supporting your case with evidence. It makes you look like an impetuous child who can't see reason when it is literally spelled out for you, recorded on videotape, distributed across the Internet, and delivered directly to your desktop. Teledildonix314 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain the edits to your work one by one. This is a diff of the subsequent changes to your edits. The reversions at lines 13, 23, 46 and 129 are removals of the word "reactionary" because, as I've repetitively said, no reliable source has been provided to show that such a characterization of Warren's views is justified, thus this is potentially a WP:BLP violation. At line 23, the reference to the video ultimately sourced to the Rachel Maddow show was moved to the part of the article where it is relevent. Also at 23, the reference to MLK day was removed because it is false, MLK Day is the day before the inauguration. The elaboration at line 97 was removed because it is largely POV commentary and repeats what's in the following paragraph. The material removed at 121 was a blatant WP:BLP violation because it accuses Warren of slander. The changes at 129 removed a redundant reference to Maddow's video, the cite was replaced with the one that was at line 13. Now you're welcome to discuss each of these changes one by one instead of vaguely complaining about the fact that, like most everything contributed to Wikipedia, somebody came along and edited or removed what you contributed. Here your work was changed or removed for exactly these reasons, some of which were because it violated the biography of living persons policy which is considered a serious matter.

All references to "slander" that are easily found in the links you provided are either not from reliable sources (blogs, self-published web sites, letters to Salon, minor newsletters, etc. are not reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia) or the accusation of slander must be directly attributed to the speaker quoted and not simply asserted in the article's text. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody (i.e., Warren) stood in front of the TV camera and microphones and told the audience (in his own words, for you to verify on the videotape footage) that he directly equated the advocates of marriage-equality with the people who are incestuous, pedophiles, or polygamists. This is not an accusation, this is not a subjective assertion which can be debated because of some lack of confirmation! The actual footage is right there in those articles from Reliable Sources which i cited clearly and directly. Nobody is making a supposition, nobody is speculating, nobody has to dispute anything.... you can watch and listen and witness the overt act of slander for yourself! What could possibly be more clear? Why do you just keep repeating this nonsense mantra of "not reliable sources"? We don't need some extra special source of verification when we already have the ACTUAL FOOTAGE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. For crying out loud, what could possibly be more reliable, verifiable, and incontrovertible than a direct link to Rick Warren's own interviews?!? Please, please, will you try to make some sense when you argue about this? So far you have only repeated your nonsense tediously, and neither you nor any other editor has offered a single shred of evidence to refute any of these undisputed FACTS which are freely offered to all viewers, unfiltered, unembellished with any kind of "Point Of View" or any other troublesome quality! This has to be the most unnecessarily repetitive argument i've ever had, especially because i have offered citations and links for every single word i contributed to the Article. Can you say the same? Can you show me any citations or links which give any reason to dispute the sources which i have offered?

I didn't think so. Teledildonix314 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Warren said what he said. That what he said was "slander" of anyone or any group is your assessment. That's something that you came up with. While you might be able to find various commenters here and there that might agree that that's what Warren did, that's still insufficient to include that word in the article as if it were fact. I don't seem to be able to explain to you that your assessment of what Warren said, in and of itself, cannot be added to the article in the way that you added it. I will just clearly remind you that if you do accuse Warren of slander, outside of a clear quote attributable to a reliable source, you will violate WP:BLP after you've been final-warned and you'll be blocked. If you think that's nonsense, go put it back in the article and see what happens. Having explained the lay of the land around here to you many times now, I'm done responding to your repetitive babbling. Mike Doughney (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't scare me with your threats. I have violated not a single policy of verifiability, reliability, accuracy, facts in evidence, direct citation, direct quotation, nor any other rule of Wikipedia. It is only YOU who keeps trying to impose some extra special demand of further sufficiency by insisting that a direct quote is somehow an "assessment" or by insisting that my citations somehow don't qualify as satisfying your demands despite their obvious and unambiguous contents. You seem to be mistaken in this notion that a statement of fact or a declaration of evidence is somehow an "assessment" or somehow a subjective thing. The difference between a fact versus an "assessment" or versus "original contribution of research or analysis" is the ability to show immediate, clear, strong, incontrovertible proof. Strong proof comes in forms such as video interviews, tape recordings, and transcriptions in national newspapers, as well as broadcasts on networks such as Pacifica or in the AJC. If you insist on arguing any further about this, it is only you who will continue to appear nonsensical. Go ahead, Ban and Banish and Block and Threaten and Cajole all you wish. The truth is its own defense, it doesn't require your approval. It is freely visible for anybody to see for their own satisfaction, and your hackneyed attempts to obliterate direct links and citations have grown boring.

Eventually people will stop contributing to articles where you are present because your ham-fisted Blockage and Banishing and Suppression Of Facts And Evidence will undermine any decent efforts made by legitimate editors. You will have only yourself to thank/blame when articles devolve into a morass of hearsay as their citations and Reliable Sources are suppressed and deleted. You probably think your voice/ opinion/ administration is somehow more important, more correct, more powerful than the work of other editors.... and as soon as you actually make that situation come true, that will be the precise moment when your encyclopedia ceases to be a collaboration. Teledildonix314 (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks, PXK ^T /_C 00:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)