User talk:Ramsquire/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

FNC

Appreicate the note... protecting the page is quite the wrong reaction... the admin refused to issue the block, and then threatened blocking everyone because of an unrelated issue. What's the project coming to?  ;-p /Blaxthos 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No harm no foul. I believe AuburnPilot to be pretty reasonable, and I will ask him about his "support" (I missed that comment). This guy is definitely on a power trip, I'm just not sure how to proceed -- he's giving legitimacy to editors who are more concerned with pushing an agenda than following our policies. In any case, giving up is not the answer -- that attitude will guarantee that this little experiment is won by those who will destroy it. /Blaxthos 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary was to the subject of the post, and not you. You did the right thing. The summary was just in case the post happened to roll across his eyes. I'm not giving up yet, but, let me just say, that sometimes I wish I could meet people face to face to have these discussions. A lot more can be done when someone isn't hiding behind a keyboard and computer screen. I am pretty certain the events of these last few hours probably wouldn't have occurred in a face to face sit down. AuburnPilot's support is in the ANI section, which mage me agree to drop it. Although, these later comments by this guy make me pick it up again. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm done for now. See comments on the talk page. Good luck, should you decide to stick with it. Let me know if there is any real progress or effort (RFC, etc)... /Blaxthos 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

Are you insane? Return of the Jedi was the best of the Star Wars films. By the way, I have stolen your separation of church and state userbox. --JHP 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started with ROTJ :) ...outside of Vader, Luke and the Emperor, that storyline made no sense. One word sums it up... EWOKS! Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You hate Ewoks?! Do you hate Jawas too? ;-) --JHP 23:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Feedback on NPOV/POV

Thanks for your comments on Gamaliel's talk page. I left a response there. You have an interesting user page. You also have a warped sense of humor, with which I can identify. I even identify with some of your political views. I would have to respectfully disagree with your support of the un-Constitutional notion of "Separation of Church and State" (which was taken out of context by the Warren Court from the writings of Jefferson, and are not to be found in the Constitution). However, that's what makes America great: we can respectfully disagree without getting nasty about it! <smile> Sdth 03:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your opposition to a state-established religion, which IS found in the Constitution. I am just very careful to make that distinction. Thanks again. Sdth 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the anons

Do you think semi-protection is warranted in Lee Harvey Oswald?--Mantanmoreland 21:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. An admin stepped in and did the deed.--Mantanmoreland 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

FNC/Referree

I appreciate your effort at quelling the argument, however I think these sorts of things could be more permenantly settled if everyone participated in sharing their opinion instead of watching two guys fight and then saying "you guys shouldn't fight." I noted at the top of the summary section that the RFC was effectively closed with consensus being to remove the image entirely, my only intent in continuing the discussion was to try and get the community (read: beyond the editor or two who have been fighting this from the beginning) to actually take up the issue instead of covering it with a bandaid or ignoring it completely (which is what happened anyway). If more of you would stand up and say "this is what I think about the content" instead of just trying to find a quick fix, I think we could erradicate a lot of the bullshit and trolling that continues to plague us. I think you've seen (many times) that I'm certainly willing to re-evaluate my position when it appears the community feels differently than I do, and it's my hope and belief that when trolls (even those with what they believe are the best intentions) see that they're just flat out wrong they'll be less willing to cause such tomfoolery. /Blaxthos 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't like to feed the trolls. I am pretty confident that people like OutforthePeople, Arzel, Tom will not listen to any dissenting viewpoint from theirs. So, if they are violating policy, I will step in and give opinion, but I don't want to legitimize their nitpicking in situations where nothing is gained by going to the mat. If they wanted to change article content, I'd stand right by you. But since it was about an image, why stress yourself out. The other thing is, I was not actively following the discussion (I'm dealing with a troll/sockpuppet/anon and another misguided admin who thankfully has seen the light on the other articles I edit here) the reason I stepped in is that Cogswobble had gone into a very childish "well if you say so" mode, which told me that he had nothing else to add. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right (in all of your points). I just think that the "social shaming" aspect is what's being neglected in this case. Is it more likely they'll stop if the meat of their nitpicking is ignored, or if a majority of editors point out that they're wrong/childish/etc.? I don't know... different approaches I suppose. In the end, though, I recognize that if the community writ large doesn't also actively jump in and honestly address the issues (which they did not, IMHO) then it just ends up making me look bad for pressing it (which is what, I'm afraid, happened here). "Being right is no excuse", eh?  ;-) Point taken. /Blaxthos 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry you don't look bad. I believe most of the community agreed with your position, but just couldn't get as worked up over an image. BTW-- the FAQ has been taken down again. It is interesting on the FoxNews page. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the words of support -- by and large, I'm so avid because I am confident that the community supports my interpretation. The micro issue may be the image, but the macro issue is the bullshit that was used to force its deletion. I don't care so much about the image as I do about the blatant wikilawyering/policyshopping that is used to try and justify removal (read: censorship). Why doesn't the community step up to the plate? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, no? /Blaxthos 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the developments of today (tushie still sore), I am more inclined to be more pro-active in these areas. I'm more of a "give them enough rope to hang themselves" kind of guy, but I do see your point. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, isn't the timing ironic? I recognize the wisdom in the enough rope to hang themselves argument, but all the rope in the world does no good if no one is willing to say "enough is enough" and attach it to a set of gallows. It was, however, very thoughtful for Arzel to go ahead and prove my point for me.  ;-) /Blaxthos 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy shopping

In light of recent events, I am considering writing an essay on policy shopping. Your contributions and thoughts (both positive and negative) are welcome and requested. Please find the (very) beginnings of my essay here. Thanks! /Blaxthos 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I think it's now pretty much done (much revamping) and covers the basic points I'm trying to make. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! BTW, thanks for the support on the (silly) MFD.  :-) /Blaxthos 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Keeping cool

You didn't really do anything wrong, that I can see, other than the "screw you" comment. Which, admittedly, isn't really that big of a deal, but I know I'd be mad if someone said that to me. I know it's hard to stay cool when someone accuses you of something, or lies about what you've said, but it's generally best to just back away, or in more extreme cases, report them at WP:ANI and let them deal with it. Parsecboy 01:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding FNC

There have been very miniscule, snide remarks made over the past few archives b/w me and Blaxthos, and I kind of let it boil over... hopefully this will better explain what I said on FOX NEWS CHANNEL. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople

OoooH KAyyyyyyy... but I still don't know what attacks I made, and why anyone would assume that I thought the article was mine. That is a totally weird statement. I did the poll to allow everone to have their final say about the FAQ, not as some kind of calculated move. If this is something between you and Blaxthos, please don't involve others (i.e. ME). Thank YOU for looking out! Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the satire.... it did not involve you. Please accept my most humble appologies. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Oswald

have not sabotaged oswald page and I no intention to do so, my only comment is that E. Howard Hunt is due to his intelligence backround CIA, OSS, watergate) a favourite ghost for conspiracy buffs and there is NO proof or credibel evidence suggesting his involvement with Oswald or the JFK assassination that is all I want to change unless some one can find a credible source and prove me wrong

I can be reached at nerox21@yahoo.com if you want to correspond about this topic as I wrote my ba on watergate and have at least some knowledge of the subject, especially on Howard Hunt

Thanks

Thanks for trying to help me in the Jews for Jesus controversy. I see that I really messed up by trying to throw my weight around. I should know better. I'm going to stay away from the article now since I don't think I will be able to do any good there. Steve Dufour 00:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you didn't mess up anything. You tried to improve an article, which is what we all try to do. The problem is that JfJ, although benign to a Christian ear, is considered very destructive to the Jewish community, and has very strong opposition. Through the mediation we were able to to really neutralize some areas of the article, and to get JfJ's position out. So, don't be too discouraged, just let it lay low for a while. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did go back to the article, trying to be more humble, and I think some improvements to the article were made. The long time editors of it ended up being much more reasonable than I had thought. It turned out to be a really good WP experience. Steve Dufour 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This has to be the best response ever.  :-) /Blaxthos 00:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother 8

Please explain to me how the LIFE FEEDS are considered VERIFIABLE for the Big Brother 8 article? I try to change the article based on the RULES, the very protective naziesque editors of that article don't seem to listen to reason! --RMThompson 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. But the live feeds probably aren't as the interpretations from the editors is probably original research. However, I suggest to all editors to sometimes makes allowances to reduce your wiki stress. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ramsquire Workspace

I just notcied this in recent changes...shouldn't this be a subpage rather than a separate userpage, i.e., User:Ramsquire/Workspace? That actual user doesn't exist, so it would be perfectly fine to move the pages...let me know if you need help moving them... — Scientizzle 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I deleted the cross-namespace redirect. If anything in Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Ramsquire_Workspace is important, feel free to correct the links. Cheers, — Scientizzle 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I also took care of the archive. — Scientizzle 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving

Normally, I'd suggest the move function, but looking at the page's history, it looks like you've used that page as a sandbox in the past. If nobody else but you had edited the contents of the page, I'd recommend simply copying the text and pasting it into Wikipedia:Objectively reliable sourcing (or whatever the title may be). The issue is that because other users edited the page, the history must stay with the essay due to licensing restrictions. Let me know what title you'd like for the essay, and I'll delete your workspace, restore the essay edits, move the page, and then restore your sandbox. This should solve any copyright/licensing issues and keep the histories of both pages intact. - auburnpilot talk 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of "Objective Sources". Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The essay now resides under the title Wikipedia:Objective Sources and the histories have been divided, leaving your workspace as it was before the proposed essay. - auburnpilot talk 02:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your message to me

I hope this is the correct way to do this - your link led me here. I suppose I could keep my temper in check long enough to try to help out on the J4J page - the dissemination of the truth is more important than anything.FlaviaR 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

You seem to have misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting any changes to the Lead. --Dweller 17:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. --Dweller 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of discussions

I have to take strong exception to your removal of another editor's comment on Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator). Most glaringly, as I understand it, WP:BLP applies to articles, not talk pages. Secondly, removing the content obfuscates the point the editor was trying to make. As I (and others) have noted to the editor, it's highly unlikely that such material would ever make it into the article. Removing content of his post is a breach of good faith. Given our past collaboration on many issues I know your intentions are righteous, however I think your removal was neither necessary nor justified. I think the community writ large will need to address this (probably via a request for comment), but I want to give you the opportunity to reply first -- it's not about what you did, but what you did (if that makes sense). Thanks! /Blaxthos 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To jump in and quote WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.". It applies everywhere. - auburnpilot talk 02:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... then how are we to discuss proposed information that may (or may not yet be) properly sourced? Seems like a catch 22 to me... /Blaxthos 06:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AP. I tried to quote the section in the edit summary but ran out of space. However, to answer your question Blaxthos, I think we are supposed to not bring this information to the project unless it has already been published by an extremely reliable source. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

DANKOO MULTIPASS

Hey, thanks for catching those bad faith notices placed on my talkpage (here and here). If anything else occurs I'll take the issue to full RFC per your suggestion, and may ask for your assistance. In the meantime, I've made a report to ANI, which was met with what I've learned is an all too typical response. Hopefully this is all over with, but if not I'm glad there are editors who are looking out. Much appreciated. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I think Arnabdas means well, but just doesn't have a grasp of the policies yet. But, it seems like he is willing to move on as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blaxthos' Comments Regarding Media Matters and Bill O'Reilly

Hi Ramsquire. I am going on the record to let you know I did not do give him a warning in bad faith at all. I felt Blaxthos has been pushing his POV on the article in question and explained my reasoning on the POBOR talk page. However, I will wait to issue another warning until he gives reason for editing the article without discussing the issue on the talk page. I want to settle this with civil discourse. Up until now, Blaxthos has only engaged in edit warring and not engaged in any type of discussion with this. If you feel I have acted in bad faith then I am sorry to hear that because that definitely has not been MY intention (and although I won't speculate about Blaxthos', his actions do point towards that direction). However, I do ask a suggested course of action you feel I should take in order to put out my reasoning why it should be worded the way it was worded...that is, if it is different from what I already said in my reply to you on the POBOR talk page. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful Thanksgiving. Arnabdas (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you meant to act in bad faith. However placing a retaliatory NPOV warning tag on his Blaxthos was an act of bad faith. I hope you see the distinction I am making. I even state above that I think you mean well, but are just new to how this project works. If someone places a tag on your page that you believe is improper, the proper action is to either a) ask other editors if they think the tag is justified, b) report it to ANI or c) file a RfC on user conduct. However, to just fire back a similar warning is usually construed as bad faith. Even worse, it makes you appear trollish. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to act in bad faith and I am glad you realize that. However, I fail to understand how his tags have not been in bad faith as well? I after all was more than willing to discuss his opinions on the issue, but he never engaged in discussion of them. Isn't that bad faith on his part? The tag I placed on his page did have merit because I felt he was trying to impose his opinion on the page. Was it necessary? Maybe not, but were his warnings necessary when I was willing to discuss them? Arnabdas (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable giving an opinion on Blaxthos's warning tags because I don't know the history that led up to that point. I only saw that your tags were placed on his page reasonably soon after you received his. However, my advice to you is to simply let it go for now. If it happens again, and you feel that the tags are improper, feel free to file an RfC, and let me know about it. I'd be more than happy to give you advice or help out if I can. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WLA

This user wants you to join the
Los Angeles area task force.

(♠Taifarious1♠) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion on Handling the Situation

Hey Ramsquire. I wanted to get your opinion on how to handle the situation that is ocurring in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly page with user jimintheheatl. He seems to be POV pushing and not listening to consensus at all. I gave him a NPOV warning and he put one on my page in retalliation. I myself did something like that with Blaxthos when he and I were getting into it, but since then Blaxthos and I have resumed good faith between us and one of my first acts was to remove my retalliatory one. Jimintheheatl simply will not give in and keeps reverting the information despite consensus of it not belonging in that particular section of the article. Would appreciate any thoughts you have on the matter and any suggestions you have on handling the problem. Thanks. Arnabdas (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to reply to your post. I was on vacation. I should have put a note on my page, but I never got around to doing it. In any case, I hope the situation has corrected itself, but if you still need my help or opinion, I'll be glad to help out any way I can. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hijinks and tomfoolery

Regarding this concern, I think it shows extraordinarily good faith that you have gone out of your way to make sure everyone knows what's what. Had I known of the ArbCom decision I would have chosen a different title, but I have explained exactly why I did so. If our positions were reversed I probably would have done the same thing (regarding changing title, or asking you to do so), and I don't think anyone can or will fault you for attempting to diffuse the situation. I will give some advice regarding JSN: I don't buy the I'm just a newbie charade, and I don't think he's particularly interested in improving the encyclopedia via the expected processes. I am all for not biting the newbies, but once they show that they're not interested in respecting the community or policy then things should be dealt with head on. If anyone wants to cry foul regarding good faith I have no doubt I can present a fairly convincing argument that he willfully ignores policy to promote discord and chaos. I think others are starting to realize this as well, and hopefully the community will reject such antics. At any rate, I appreciate the lookout and I will continue to try and keep the discussion grounded in policy and rationality. Hope more of the community joins in the discussion. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - If you have thoughts on the matter the community would be better off if they were placed on the discussion page instead of lost as WP:DFTT. :) /Blaxthos ( t / c )

Well I took your advice and posted my thoughts. But apparently I no longer write in English as my point has been taken on a tangent that strains logic. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm going to take the time to compose a thorough explanation of how the CURRENT version came about, step by step, with all the policies and logic documented and abandon the attempt to refute JSN's twisted nebulous commentary. I'll probably remind everyone that it was NOT my original version (or anyone else's) but was rather earned through consensesbuilding. In retrospect it looks like a really well crafted introduction, compliant with all relevant policies. Hopefully it will give everyone a grounding point -- this RFC was doomed from the start due to JSN's bullshit in the first day or two (what with the horribly POV-ridden presentation) and my lack of time to post a concise explanation until late in the RFC. Will advise... /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn's on my informal ignore list. I know he has responded to a couple of my posts, but I couldn't be bothered to read his responses and I won't respond. I don't think he's gotten the hint yet though. P.S. you're last edit summary re:Bytebear is a doozy if you know what I mean. The page is slowly creeping toward a flame war, and I'd hate to lose good editors in the process. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Close to the line

Ramsquire, thanks for the note. There has been much discussion today while I have been unable to participate (and won't after today for the next couple of weeks). Some editors will probably not accept what I have to say at any level, but I think what I said is quite relevant. Some editors (one specifically) feels like I am pushing an agenda regarding this issue, and it is this to which I am speaking. Because of their opinion of me, and FNC they (I believe) have lost the willingness to re-evaluate the information. The fact that the UCLA study has been used within the lead for over a year as a reference to back up the statement that FNC is biased, and now when it has finally been shown that the UCLA study says exactly the opposite they say the study is flawed. So please tell me how it can be valid when showing bias against FNC yet invalid when showing FNC to be centrist?

Anyway, I don't know if this is a response you were looking for, but thanks for the note. Perhaps when I return from vacation the world will have relaxed. Arzel (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I just came back from vacation to this, so maybe next time we can coordinate to get out together. I wasn't looking for any particular response, but I know that you have "a file" on ANI so to speak, and just wanted to make sure that the post accurately reflected what you felt, and would not be used out of context to adversely affect you. Unfortunately, since I was on vacation I have not had a chance to go to the UCLA study or the discussion of it, once discussion turns to the lead again, I'll try to get to that to see if it should be there or not. Have fun on your vacation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Please take a moment to comment here, if you're comfortable. Time sensitive. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have my blessing to remove my reply along with his comment, although I think JSN's comment is just another example of the sorts of behavior that lead to the ANI report in the first place. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)