User talk:Bwithh/archive2

Ok. First Off

Don’t just type the word "Cockaygne" in the description of your edit if your not going to edit the article in anyway to show the familiarity between it & B.R.C.M., otherwise, its just spam. Secondly, don’t call my changes vandalism because I call you out on your little cockaygne. If I had'nt, you would have completely ignored my edit, thus your only reason for reverting it was just to get back at me. Please contribute to articles appropriately in the futer, Thank you. 69.250.130.215

I've warned the above user who is acting in an uncivil fashion and possibly as a vandal[1]. Bwithh 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But you still haven’t said why to typed cockaygne into you edit description when it had nothing to do with your edit. So why are you giving me sh*t about doing it in my posts? Its random and it throws off administrators. At least I don’t just type (m) and move on, I help readers to understand just what exactly is being changed, that way, if it proves to be false, they can easily tell who did it and know its not vandalism. You abused that right by using it against me, so that you could hunt me down on my other posts, as if it was any business of yours. Also, where talking about a cartoonist here that not only lived during the nadir, but it mentioned with in the article that he designed brownies specifically to exploit racial stereotypes. Under these standards i think its safe to say that Cox should be made to belong in the Racist Canadians category, however, you deleted it anyway out of spite.

Also, did you suffer some kind of bi-polar attack when you messaged me? Your post goes from casual to angry in-between paragraphs, is something wrong with you? Also, You really should'nt throw the vandal lightly, or you can expect people to take it the wrong way. I think of my self more as a wikignome with an attitude. 69.250.130.215

Playboy Cyber Club

We could post TfD and CfD notices for the templates and categories and link them to the central discussion at AfD. Massive effort there... ~ trialsanderrors 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple of Nod

This AfD was amended to include Orca aircraft, a related fictional unit to the article in question. Please comment that you do or do not support the deletion of this article is as well, as your comments to the discussion were before this was added. Kevin_b_er 05:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First image on the Web

FYI, I still don't think you have it quite right on Les Horribles Cernettes. Between 1990-1992, I believe the httpd web server software did not have the capability to transmit binary images like gifs (only text/html); this capability did not come about until content-types based on MIME started being put into HTTP headers, the potential format of which was discussed on Usenet throughout 1992. It's hard to verify, but TBL's HTTP "daemon" software, as of approx June-September 1992, did not even attempt to serve binary files. If you look to the change log for the server and the libwww library, you will see that binary and MIME capabilities were officially released in March 1993, and the binary-serving code was buggy up through late 1993.

The images that TBL refers to in early versions of WorldWideWeb are files being downloaded via FTP links within the text, as the early web mixed-and-matched HTTP links (which were hypertext only) with FTP files and gopher links. Incidentally, the image files were not displayed in any sense with the browser but downloaded and opened by the NeXT operating system with the default image viewer.

So the bit you cite as debunking the claim, doesn't per se. de Gennaro's claim that it was the first "clicked on" in a browser may be his mistake in describing it. The likely truth is that, like it says in the Wired article, TBL was writing one of his first tries at the MIME and/or binary handling code in 1992, and one of the images used for test was the first binary image served directly over the HTTP protocol - which is indeed trivial. Hey, it's just fun. KWH 06:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, sorry if I got into too much tech detail, I took the MIT userbox as confirmation that it might be of interest to you ;) You're right that the exegesis of the claim just needs to make clear that this is only (potentially) the first image used in a protocol test, although given the success of HTTP that puts it on a level with "What hath God wrought?" or "Watson, come here, I need you...", although those have similarly complex claims to "firstness". KWH 13:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Inquirer

Hi Bwithh, just wanted to let you know that The Inquirer has published a new article directly attacking you. [2] Dionyseus 13:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Economic totalitarianism

Hey Bwithh, can you do me a favor and run a Factiva search on "economic totalitarianism"? Interesting AfD going on there and for some reason Berkeley doesn't subscribe to Factiva, so I can't check it. ~ trialsanderrors 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Maureen Lipman

Can you please look at the Maureen Lipman talk page. Sources have been updated. If your satisfied, can you please update the article. Linesman 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Silicon Valley of India

I think the best option would be to start a new one on the talk page. The current discussion has had no new contributions for a week. It is also narrow, as it only gave the option for moving it to "High technology industries of Bangalore". If you create a new discussion, then you can give all the options for a new name, and people can discuss that. Once the discussion has narrowed it down to one, then you can add it back to WP:RM. --liquidGhoul 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

add google and A9 shortcuts. stat!! Bwithh 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move of Critical Mass

Hi! I have reversed your move of the Critical Mass article. I don't agree that the article needs disambiguated, but if it is to be the move needs to be preceded by discussion as to an appropriate disambiguation term. I have started such a discussion on the Critical Mass talk page. Thanks, --JeremyA 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Baseball entrance music

I saw your comment on the baseball entrance music AFD page and would like to reassure you that I will, as one of the larger contributors to that page, do the necessary fact-checking should the article be kept. I'm only waiting for the thumbs-up from the larger Wiki community as I wouldn't want to do all that work just to see it deleted a few days afterwards. Like you had indicated in the comment, I hope you will vote to keep with this in mind. (Sorry for the below-the-line mixup.) SliceNYC 00:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mictlan

Hi Bwithh, I note your recent addition of a {heaven} template to the article on Mictlan. Per some reasons I've sketched out at the article's talk pg, I don't really see that it is accurate to describe or categorise Mictlan in such a way. I think that Mesoamerican pre-columbian traditions and belief systems are rather different from those which have such a concept, and the idea is not really transferable. If you've some particular reasoning for including Mictlan in such a way, would be happy to see them at the article's talk pg- but otherwise, I think it should be removed. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 02:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game) (fifth nomination)

urbandictionary.com which have fewer and lower standards
Cute but don't you mean no standards at all? --Whispering 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite

Could you weight in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Hipocrite? If you don't want to, I fully understand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, History21 has been proven to be a sockpuppet, so it's all moot anyway. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ASBO POV

Thanks...sort of. I was wikifying the article when you made the edit (and was going to add the tag after), so unfortunately, I had to start over with that (if I had just copied and pasted under your {NPOV} tag, someone's Bot would probably undo my edit)... Still, thanks. :) It's always nice to have someone backing you up. 66.229.160.94 01:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Applying the WP:CORP criteria for products and services

• Bose Headphone Family (AfD discussion)

UKPhoenix79 has cited several independently sourced product reviews in magazines, to demonstrate that the products satisfy the WP:CORP criteria for products and services. Please revisit the discussion with an eye to determining whether the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied by these published works (and any others that can be found), and thus whether fixing the article is a matter of cleaning it up using sources other than just the advertising and press releases put out by Bose itself, rather than deleting it. Uncle G 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zwei Kleine Italiener

I must confess to being stumped. Why is Auf Wiedersehen, Pet linked as a "see also" article to this song? BigHaz 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As per my reply on my own Talk page (reposted here in case you didn't get it there), I rather like the idea. It was early enough in the morning that I was never going to twig on my own, but now that I know I'm not planning on deleting it myself. Someone else may, though. BigHaz 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars

Given that it happened two months ago, I don't think that it's wirth really pursuing. I wanted to clear up that User:Aloffermn wasn't really involved in what HighwayCello thought. I'm kind of sorry that it snowballed from there. — TKD::Talk 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethinc Stereotypes in American Media AFD 2

Ethnic stereotypes in American media has been renominated for deletion here. Since you originally voted on the article's AFD, please vote again on its second AFD page.--Dark Tichondrias 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : The Game AFD

Apologies for the time taken to reply...I've taken a look at the debate again. IMO the source is fine with me at its size, and I do not think it needs to be exceptionally hype for its inclusion into Wikipedia. Furthermore, the 50,000 circulation in the original argument for deletion to be honest is a bit flimsy to me, so my local's tabloid (of 5 million people) is only 100,000 and the largest bussiness paper in my country a mere 30,000. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New Coke

Thank you. As editor who has probably done the most on that article, I really do appreciate the totally unexpected GA nom (especially because I do have hopes for it as an FA one day. But not now, I still consider it incomplete, in need of some more images and research). Daniel Case 06:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Emeryville

I'm responding to a comment you left in an edit summary. You wrote: "Taking out "booming" for NPOV balance. if the city is hit by recession, would we be introducing it as a "small city in economic decline"?)" I agree with your edit, but I also feel that the answer to your question would be "Yes." Since all city articles, in my opinion, are in part current event articles, then the current state of the city is a completely valid issue to be addressed. I do also feel that if the city is experiencing considerable economic growth, that a statement regarding that growth is also valid. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny

• Okay, I inserted the reliable, verifiable, independant, reputable source that had alredy been offered to prove this in as a reference. The articles passes your complaints (except maybe WP:MUSIC - but I'm not sure that's really the best criterion here). Strong delete is an untenable position, would you consider putting in something more fitting? WilyD 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I wasn't refering to Dr. Demento - the Strong Delete vote remains completely unsupportable. WilyD 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Donald Sadoway

I tried to rewrite the article and actually include information about the research he's done that makes him noteworth. In addition I took out all the Beavercruft that doesn't really belong in Wikipedia. Never took my HASS classes too seriously, so there may still be writing issues, but I think it's much closer to a worthwhile Wiki page now. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nguyen (Second Nomination)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		My heartfelt thanks for your diligence and sharp eyes. You put them to great use investigating and cleaning up the fraud on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Nguyen (Second Nomination) and the related article. William Pietri 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar with bar (as in I came here to give you a barnstar for your work on this AFD & William Pietri beat me to it). Rock on! Pete.Hurd 04:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow! You're the same guy that did the amazing digging on the Alakon/Brent Henry Waddington hoax investigation! My hat's off to you!! Pete.Hurd 04:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services Science, Management, and Engineering

I'm going to remove the DRV later today since there is already a new AfD up and running (see link above). Since you commented on the DRV you might want to move your comment to the AfD. Oh the beauty of Wikipedia process... ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the tip! Bwithh 23:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trinity College Room Ballots

The injustice of it all! As a 3rd year I was 4th in the ballot so had a great room in Nevile's Court. The damned scholars are taking over ;-) Thanks for correcting the ramblings on an old(ish) man. edit summary Alunwyn 17:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteering on the Brody Ruckus DRV?

What do you think? The nominator has a track record, but the other Relist voters (other than TexasDex who seems legit) all start with Relist. with a period but without the bullet point, and all have sketchy contribution records. Enough for a checkuser? ~ trialsanderrors 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think your observations are right. You should ask for a checkuser (though I vaguely remember that there are finnicky guidelines about requests are valid?) Bwithh 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah they frequently deny requests that aren't backed up by solid evidence. Going through the contributions now... ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No-Consensus Relist Flag

I was glancing at deletion review, and saw you pondering if you're the only person who treats "no-consensus" closes as an automatic re-list flag. You aren't. I treat them that way too. Or at least I did back when I was active. 'Course, I'll relist things after keep closes I thought were kept for flat-out wrong reasons, too. The Literate Engineer 06:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay!!! I'm not as crazy as previously though!!! thanks for the note. Bwithh 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

MacDade RfC?

I am torn on the subject of an RfC over the incident. I have been happy to see the response to the DRV, and it appears that there is broad consensus that the closure was wrong. I don't feel any need for revenge. At the same time, I am disturbed by the same pattern of responses that you have commented upon. I'm particularly disturbed by the behavior over the DRV notice I left per instructions. I think I'll continue to mull the issue, but I will definitely let you know if I decide to pursue an RFC. I will point out that it is not entirely my decision -- anyone is welcome to start an RFC on the matter whether or not I decide it's worthwhile to do so. If asked to participate, I would do so. Any offense is an offense against the community moreso than it is an offense against me. Erechtheus 23:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Reed

I am the artist that this article addresses. I don't care whether I have an article on this site or not, but apparently at least one fanatic does. I don't challenge deleting the article so much as I suggest blocking the account of the user. After actually reading the article, however, I propose that it be changed. There are some things that Qabbalah wrote about me that are not completely true and some notable things that were left out. Also, there's some personal information posted there that I prefer not to be accessable to the public. How did he get my wedding photo? I certainly agree that the pages dedicated to my albums ought to be removed or merged. The same with Cafe Graffiti which was not notable except, perhaps, as a side note. I will be happy to change it myself, but I don't know how so you'll have to bear with me as I learn.

Not that this matters, but.. RE: WP:MUSIC, There are two "notable" credits - 1. I toured South America and Mexico with Elegant Machinery - 2. I have been played on "Alternative" stations owned by Clearchannel (Something I regret, but it qualifies) Also - It is important to note that I have sold enough copies of my first two albums to earn a gold record, but I refuse to join the pathetic agencies that masquerade as unions, so I don't qualify.User:TonySReed

AfD verbosity

I saw your "shout-out to another verbose nominator" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Volkan Yucel, but I'm not sure whether I should feel flattered or chastised. ☺ "Shout-out" is usually praise, but "verbose" is usually criticism. Maybe my penchant for making robust cases for unpleasant actions (like deletion) earns both? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note. It was praise from someone who also often makes similar length nomination(e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stackell which is been around for 15+ hours at time of writing this sentence without response, even though its a totally straightforward WP:VAIN nom) but wonders if this makes more people ignore the nomination as too much effort to read. (I hadn't thought of the negative connotations of verbosity actually - I was thinking of the VERBOSE mode in text adventure games (i.e. the game mode which switches on lengthy room descriptions permanently... this may make no sense if you don't know the genre, but its a neutral usage of the term). Bwithh 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with text adventures, going back to CAVE (to date myself). I have a habit of leaving verbose mode on in my postings, I'm afraid. By the way, you've got your first response on Stackell now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

NFT

What is your basis for declaring WP:NFT an established guideline? Looking at the talk page, I see at least four editors in recent discussions who say it should remain an essay (an opinion I share), and only one or two who think it should be considered a guideline. I don't really see consensus either way. Just curious about your thoughts. Kafziel ^Talk 15:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't declare it an established guideline. I recategorized it as an established guideline because its page has the official guideline tag on it - this may be controversial, but there is no official indication that it is not a official guideline yet. If there are people who want to demote it down to essay status, than have a proper hearing in the relevant guideline/policy reform discussion pages. The talk page of the article is not the right place to decide policy shifts (and just counting the few opinions that happen to be on the talk page can't be taken for any of kind of consensus either for a guideline / policy article. If it is demoted after discussion in the proper channels to a proposed guideline, fine - change the template to reflect this. As things stand, saying it isn't an established guideline on the template and having the tag saying it is on the page is a contradiction. Bwithh 18:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have that rather backwards: it was declared policy on a whim. It's not a matter of demoting it; it was never properly promoted in the first place. One person (Radiant) decided to put that tag on there (here) despite numerous discussions to the contrary. It was reverted and re-reverted a few times (not me) and is still a bit contentious. Doesn't concern me much, but I just wanted to see if you were aware of some consensus somewhere that I hadn't seen. Kafziel ^Talk 18:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I personally am ambivalent about whether this remains a policy or returns to essay status (I agree that it is not well written, but then I have similar issues with other more established official policies) Basically I just wanted to see the template match whatever is on the page. Can you not just take the official guideline tag off? Bwithh 00:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried that (with the essay and with the template) and so did a few others. He's very persistent. But I'm ambivalent as well, so I decided to let it go. It's no big deal, I was just wondering if you knew something I didn't. Thanks anyway, and happy Wikiing. Kafziel ^Talk 02:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, thanks for leaving your comment. In hindsight, perhaps WP:SNOW was not proper to cite (I suppose I was avoiding the inevitable snowballing argument between people who already voted in a recent AfD). I cannot say I think there is a specific time that should be waited between AfDs, but my instinct tells me anywhere from 90-180 days seems more appropriate to wait then a mere 30. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Loved the Teddy bear link on DBWF. Poor Fish, but then a Grizzly (I hope the teddy was a grizzly model) has gotta live too..... :) Bo 19:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its was a Paddington Bear.... Bwithh 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm crying "Uncle". I did like the bear link! Bo 00:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Bwithh 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Differences between mecha and powered armor (exoskelletons)

Just for your own interest, there are differences between mecha and powered armor. Mecha is a machine with legs that is driven or piloted by someone (similar to driving a car or piloting an aircraft) while a powered exoskelleton (aka Power Armor) is worn. Lengis 22:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-Penis award

Bwithh is hereby awarded a pseudo-penis for s/his valiant efforts. Onward, Wikiparrots! - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, yikes. Yikes indeed. Thanks very much, Crazy Russian, what a um... unexpected honour. I'll be keeping this one in the sock drawer, to spare Everywhere Girl's blushes. (Dionyseus was responsible for the pseudo-penis article though)Bwithh 09:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re : Stackell afd closure

Done. Apologies for missing that out. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) thanks ! Bwithh 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mirko Norac

Thanks for your contributions to the article for Marko Norac. For what it's worth, I'm not the one who removed the AFD tags from previous. I didn't even know they'd been there before. My edit and attempt to make the article neutral was in hopes of not seeing it deleted again completely, but to encourage others to keep the article neutral so wouldn't be deleted in the first place. In all due respect, how do you still see it unneutral or having weasel words? It would be my pleasure to make the article what it should be and I encourage others including yourself to do so.

Thanks again and please feel free to check out my contributions to the article for public access television. DavidWJohnson 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there David, thanks for the very polite note. I know its not you who removed the afd tag - this was removed by someone else (I checked the edit history previously) who is actually an admin (I was a bit surprised, as the removal does still seem out of process). Anyway, the afd tag should not be removed until the article for deletion discussion is closed (and then, only by the admin who closes the discussion) - this discussion is still very much active and unclosed[3]. To remove the afd tag now disrupts the afd process. Other issues: the cleanup tag is unrelated to the neutrality issue - I thought that there were a number of English language issues with the article, but I think now I was a bit hasty with this tag (there are still a few phrases that need sorting out e.g. "waiter high school" but the issues are not as many as I thought). The weasel words tag is related to the use of the "some say" and "some think" type sentences - this is problematic even if they are used to give the idea of balance - see WP:WEASEL. There were a couple of these lines, but these make major claims about serious issues. I've taken them out of the article now. If they can be referenced properly, more detailed versions could be introduced. Hope this clarifies things, thanks Bwithh 23:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Bwithh. I agree and salute your changes. In all due respect, I personally find "waiter school" a bit comical, but I do believe it's correct.

In general my sentiments towards censorship in general are that it's unbecoming for any of us who would hastily delete one's work vs. doing our best to encourage its transformation into the best that it can be. I think it's easy for us to be chomping at the bit so to speak to crucify someone vs. encouraging them. Call it an unconscious fallacy on our parts if you will, but I still know we can do better.

As for "Weasel Words," again in all due respect, I think that was a poor choice of words on Wikipedia's part, while "Misleading" would've sufficed. I think "Weasel Words" is rude. What if the contributor had no intention of writing misleading words? What they take it the wrong way and never visit Wikipedia again? Is that good business? True, maybe it sounds funny, wasn't intended that way to offend, and leaving would be rash on one's part. But, is it good business? I say, No. I'll go so far to say that I think it's similar to the concept of our unconscious fallacies I mentioned above, and our tendecy to be rash in taking delight with coming up with descriptions like "Weasel Words." I think we can do better.

Finally, I'll hopefully sum up my point by using my work on the Public Access Television article as an example. Today I nominated it for GA and FA status. I expected feedback, but I'd hope it wouldn't all be what one in all due respect could call negative, rude, and abrasive. I politely answered most of the replys. Finally I reverted my nominations. Not anyone mentioned if they'd liked things about the article. It was all about how wrong it was. I'd hope someone would've at least noted my contribution of adding a link to the Wiktionary definition for Public Access, but they didn't. The same went for my addition of images, a History section and etc. In sum I think we can do better than that. I hope that we do. Thanks again Bwithh. DavidWJohnson 02:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Having a laugh?

I'm not laughing. I'm just calling things as I see them. I've studied the precedents for the various sex moves, and I'm just applying precedent. I'm new here, so if I'm wrong, then so are the precedents. I don't understand what's so funny. I also work on new pages patrol, and I apply the rules as I understand them. I've also been working heavily on Mindy Kaling. Maybe I'm not as savvy as you are, having not been here as long, so if you would like to give me advice, I'm open to that. Billy Blythe 01:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Transformation Story Archive got rewritten

Just a heads-up, User:Serpent's Choice did an extensive rewrite of Transformation Story Archive after you voted on the AfD for it. Does it satisfy your concerns? Bryan 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

hello

You don't have to agree with me. But I wasn't trying to fool you. I have already told you that, so no more accusations, ok? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Admin

I don't think Parsssseltongue deliberately misled you - there is a clear statement further down in the conversation you started here. I should point out I'm not an admin either as you seem to have assumed this here. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message. I know there is a statement about not being an admin further down the thread, but that was also made 17 hours after his/her reply to my original message, and in response to someone else who also assumed he/she was an admin. And I assumed that you were an admin because I thought he/she was an admin, and you were challenging him/her on that level. I feel my assumptions were reasonable. Bwithh 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think your assumptions were unreasonable, and that's why I'm chalking it up to a misunderstanding. I would hope you'd do the same now. Otherwise, this is just dragging on an argument I have no intention of participating in. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Edit conflict...but I was basically going to say the same thing - seems a perfect case for WP:AGF all round. Yomangani^talk 00:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright then, I've retracted my point about this, based on Yomangani's advice Bwithh 01:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)