User talk:RichardWeiss/new archve

This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Haile Selassie

I worked so hard on this, it really pains me to see you disordering it and pulling it in a POV direction. You do not even seem to have tried to address my concerns, which I will repeat for you here:

• There is a name section. Rasta names belong there, because they are no more important than any other names.
• There are now two paragraphs implying that Haile Selassie is a religious icon, in the opening. One suggests merely that he is a religious icon, without mentioning that only a tiny minority of people believe that: Haile Selassie is simply not a religious icon in general, only to a fringe minority.
• Your version states "movement was founded in Jamaica in the early 1930s" twice in the same paragraph...
• without citing "1930s"--that's what needs to be cited.
• Lastly, although you may be passionate about it, the Rastafarian religion is not Haile Selassie's central legacy. The man ran an empire for six decades; that's who he is. For this reason, mention of Rastafari belongs at the end of the opening, just as the Rastafarian sections belongs last in the entry.

Is there anything you disagree with, that I've stated above? Let's talk this out, and let's talk it out efficiently, so I can get back to serious work on the entry and not waste my time chitchatting. I know a lot of people like to chitchat on Wikipedia, but that's not my style... And I think you know I'm the best thing that ever happened to that entry, so I'm sure you don't want to waste too much of my time, right? DBaba (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, what I did is absolutely not pulling it in a POV diorection but quite the opposite, it is keeping it NPOV. Selassie is highly notable as the Rastafarian God, and the Rastafari do venerate him as God. You appear to want to sweep that under the carpet. Him being a religious icon for Ethiopians is completely different from what has developed re the Rastafari and there is no probable about how they see him. Your claim that it is not his central legacy is precisely that, a claim, and indeed only history will judge that but you cannot in the meantime claim that it is only a tiny minority who claim him as the messiah. Please also do not assume I have worked less hard on the article or that it pains me any less to see you pulling it apart on what is clearly a POV crusade. Also names should always be in the beginning, your naming section is contrary to our style guidelines. It is easily citable that Rastafari began in the early thirties. Why do you challenge that fact. Your final assertion just demonstates that you are pushing a POV, please dont do so. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of that doesn't really make sense to me. Let's leave the part about my "POV crusade", which has featured meticulous research and 400 edits that you've not objected to until now, and talk about the names section first. Why are you claiming the names section is unacceptable, but only framing the Rasta names in the intro? What about the Ethiopian names and the royal titles? Is it neutral to pick your favorite names according to your POV? Am I picking names according to my POV too, or are you the only one doing that?

It still says "movement was founded in Jamaica in the early 1930s" twice in the same paragraph: Doesn't that look really stupid to you, too? I don't know man, this is so weird of you, especially to accuse me of trying to "sweep under the rug" the Rastafari angle after I've argued to maintain it in the opening, I just don't know if you're really hearing me at all. DBaba (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

just a general comment

Don't take any of that which is frequently thrown your way to heart. You're doing a great job, and you do it looking good. User:Dorftrottel 06:26, February 20, 2008

Question

I know you are a powerful editor or admin of some sort. I noticed that you removed a link to a video on the Fidel Castro talk page. Was there a reason for that, i.e. is it against the rules to post outside links? I fortunately saw the link before it was removed and it was some very interesting historical footage by the National Geographic and other sources. Just curious, as I can never figure out the rules around here. Regards, Mattisse 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be better coming from a site that was not dailymotion or similar, eg could be a copyright violation, etc. I don't consider daily motion a reliable site. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

it is referenced

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=193185702&oldid=193151916 The fact tag was added to the references. The reference is there. The reference is the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/13/media.newmedia Here is the reference to support the text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Sanger&curid=17605&diff=193336635&oldid=193322152 I have commented on the talk page. Please discuss. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of San José Pinula

An editor has nominated San José Pinula, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San José Pinula and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

dictator

someone inists on using the word dictator to refer to joseph stalin on the article J Stalin would you please put some sense into them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.37.2 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

I believe there is a serious libel BLP violation at J Stalin. The source claiming he was a criminal drug dealer is his album notes. But its a non-notable album sold at his performances and out of his car. Its unavailable and unverifiable. Attempts to place the dubious tag were agressively removed by an editor with steadfast support of the article. WP:OWN issues.Icamepica (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not there now but I have re-added it top my watchlist. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for caring man.

user wikidemo reverted my removal of the selling candy on the bart train, and also removed my {{fact}} on the non contentious claim that he started rapping at age 13 which is cited based on unpublished album notes which cannot be found. this is on the J Stalin article, would someone intervene and revert and also discuss?Icamepica (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

user wikidemo has insisted on adding the drug dealing comments regardless of cnonsensus and blp and RS stating he doesnt care.Icamepica (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of J Stalin

An article that you have been involved in editing, J Stalin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination). Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To Wikidemo and SqueakBox

Re these comments by the two of you: "appears not to be acting in good faith either." and "Just what we need, a frequently blocked disruptive editor to jump in." etc. at Talk:J Stalin: Would you please keep your comments on the article talk page focussed on article content, not on editors? Thank you. I'm putting a similar message at User talk:Wikidemo. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had enough of this and have removed all the connected pages from my watchlist, talk about being given a hard time for trying to help, and I am not referring to you Copper, but a certain editor is not being helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've experienced frustration in this matter. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Regardless of whether the sockpuppet allegations re Icamepica are true or not (and they were still allegations last night) this makes no odds re the article or the possible BLP violations concerning this Stalin fellow. Wikidemo claimed it was a part of his image, and if it were proven then I would be happy to include it (like Bob Marley for instance) but that has not been proven. What I find really disturbing in this case is that Wikidemo believes that because there is sockpuppetry that this means we can ignore BLP. Convictions for drug dealing can really effect people, especially marginally notable people, and this is why I am appalled at has been happening there. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Jamie Oliver: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Enigma ^msg! 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible BLP concerns

Can you add some input over at Talk:A. A. Gill please SB? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, definitely appreciated. I see it has gone to arbcom (thanks to your header) and will post here. I welcome emails about this case as I am interested and intending to be involved as much as I can. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Uga Man

Thank you for the support of Uga Man's joke on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PPA

Hey, could you go to this link? I've created a proposal for the mediation to put new editors and SPA's editing the PPA page, and other related pages under the supervision of some neutral admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Happy editing, SqueakBox 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists

Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move. Tony has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006, in which you have been actively involved. Your input in the next few days could be quite helpful. SocJan (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay

AfD nomination of Human trafficking in Angeles City

An article that I have been involved in editing, Human trafficking in Angeles City, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Angeles City. Your input would be much appreciated please. Thank you.Susanbryce (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let You know, I referred this to arbcom as I believe this is a banned user.http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement.Susanbryce (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say whether that will affect the afd, but I will certainly keep an eye on this one. Cheers for the heads up. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasting police time

I just wanted to say that it feels very good for us to be working together on an article. It's been too long. --SSBohio 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it is snowing a lot in Ohio. The rain of the past 48 hours here has gone and we are back to hot, sunny, even stifling weather. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reddit

Are you alleging here that reddit is a Wikipedia attack site? 216.37.86.10 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship

As part of the pro-pedophile activism mediation, I've created a mentorship page with appointed mentors for editors to report problems to. The mentors will be expected to keep editorial decorum on the pages and also help enforce policy derived editing on the pages. I would appreciate your input on the talk page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael J. Todd

At least three sources state that his death may have been a suicide. I think we should at least say that much. HalfShadow (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Big deal, I ma sure you can muck-rake, these sources are speculation, the cause of death is unknown and we are an encyclopedia not a rag trying to make money out of the misery of others. If you cannot see that perhaps you should get another hobby. I am disgusted at these flimsy accusations appearing ion wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps you should step back and calm down. We're only reporting what others have said. Others have said it may have been suicide, and so far there is no immediate proof it wasn't. To be equally fair, there's no immediate proof it was. We're not saying it was suicide, we're just saying it may have been. If it turns out to have not, we just re-edit it. HalfShadow (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We should not imply suicide when all we have is the musings of a few journalists, putting it on the Deaths in 2008 page is trolling and this kind of crap just makes wikipedia seem like a gossip rag, IMO repeating slanderous allegations is not something to calm down about, not that I was uptight, i just removed the offending material, perhaps you would care to help me. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Matthews

Suppose this guy is never charged, or is charged and acquitted? We've labelled him a criminal and a particularly nasty type of criminal. How much do you think he would be able to sue the Foundation for? Answer in millions, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not labelling him a criminal at all, I assume he is innocent until (if ever) proven guilty, and I take BLP very seriously. If this were an article on him (and I would oppose having one) that would be different but what we are saying is that the disappearance of Shannon was a crime and it is quite clear that that is the case, as with Madeleine the other little girl who has disappeared in strange circumstances. The huge resources expended by the Police show they clearly were thinking a crime had taken place, and indeed the disappearance of a child and a huge police investigation is ample eviodence that a crime has taken place but none whatsoever that this chap has committed a crime himself, the crime is in the disappearance and her discovery doesn't affect that. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your optimism, but I have practised law in the UK and his lawyers may disagree with you. He is clearly identifiable (or soon will be), and WP:BLP applies not only to the subjects of articles, but any person mentioned in articles. Sorry, it has to stay out until he's convicted. The huge resources expended by the police are normal for any missing child whether a crime has been committed or not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I am no lawyer myself but I am not going to edit war with you over this point either. I suggest when his name is published we redirect to the article, BLP its talk page and watch vigilantly to make sure nobody creates an article, I certainly do not want to be part of in any way harming this individual and fully agree that BLP concerns anyone mentioned in any article, even in a case like this where he has not been mentioned by name, and while I am not in the UK I support wikipedia reporting these cases as if we were. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway this whole news has really cheered me up, not that I was down but you know what I mean. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is almost unheard of for a missing child to be found alive after 24 days absence. The family are rejoicing this evening. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And according to news reports the family are not alone in partying. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy 2

Why is it OK to mention who he is married to, but not other details from his biography? RTFA (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets try and keep personal details to a minimum in this case, please, I would rather not even include who he is married to. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was not sure if it was because the biography was from his official site, so he could present a date of birth to pass off as being younger. RTFA (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For me the real issue is he objects tot he article existing at all. Therefore IMO if we just focus on his work (such as an opinion of his you added) I think that would be for the best, but as it happens I don't believe his website is a reliable source for anything concerning him. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I am looking at this right now and use it to add more detail about his professional career instead. I think a version of that link already existed in the article, but it was not well-used. RTFA (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Pedophile Activism Intro

SqueakBox, I would like to inquire why you made your most recent edit to the intro of the "Pro-pedophile activism" article. There already is an explanation of how adult-child sex is viewed by the majority in the very first paragraph, and the words are even wikified. Furthermore, most would agree that PPAs advocate for a number of different changes in mainstream legal, medical, and social takes on pedophilia. Taking this into account, why should the issue of child sexual abuse be singled out, and put ahead of everything else? Also, even if CSA needs to be mentioned earlier in the paragraph, shouldn't at least pedophilia be listed first in the sentence, considering that's what this movement focuses on? Then, from a stylistic perspective, if your addition of CSA at the top remains, one of the wikilinks to the article discussing it needs to go, because there's only need for one wikilink per paragraph, especially in an intro. The other question I had for you is in regard to you adding an attribute of "claim" to the statement that PPAs would like to change negative societal attitudes towards pedophilia and pedophiles - is there thus an implication that the PPAs are wrong/mistaken to assess the community attitude as being hostile? Wouldn't you agree with this assessment (that most people react in a negative manner to pedophilia, pedophiles, and PPAs)? I really don't want another edit war to start, and this is why I'm not reverting your edit, but instead decided to inquire about your contribution to the article via your User Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is needed to explain what PPAs want, and what they want is to revoke the laws and social attitudes re child sexual abuse. The problem with the PPA claim is that it may not be correct. Anyway i have respionded to Jack's proposal at PPA talk. I think any committed editor should be at least trying not to edit war and I certainly am committed to that. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I owe you a big apology

Dear Sir,

Last year (07 June), I behaved toward you in a very rude manner. You and another user had communicated on the Tony Blair talk page in what I took to be general chat rather than discussing improvement to the article. I chose to criticise this behaviour by referring to it as “stupid”(!) When you queried this disgusting outburst, I responded with an explanation of why I had objected but I did not bother myself to apologise. On the principle of ‘better late than never’, may I now offer you my heartfelt apologies for my appalling incivility. I am very sorry (and very embarrassed) by my boorish behaviour. I have also apologised to ‘Gustav von Humpelschmumpel’, the other user whom I insulted. I am not normally given to this kind of conduct and I really do not know what came over me. There is simply no excuse. Regards,
Conval (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean Bean

I'm a bit confused. Last night you removed a James Bond villian succession box from the article with the edit summary stating "if you want to restore the Bod villain box you must mention it in the etxt witth refs etc". What exactly is in dispute regarding this if the role is already in the lead paragraph and is in the article further down, and once again listed in the filmography, as well as on the List of James Bond villains? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention in the article itself about this, my point is if we are to have the succession box we need to mention his role in Bond films or film in the text itself. I simply do not/did not know whether this was true or not but if it is it certainly means mentioning in the bulk of the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But there is mention of it in the article. See the section entitled "Hollywood" which says This would be the first of several villains that he would portray.[11] He became Alec Trevelyan (MI6's 006), the major villain of the 1995 James Bond film GoldenEye... which was the point I was making. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That is strange as I ran the string Bond through my search and the only result was for the succession box. If you haven't already I suggest you revert me. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

North America

Greetings, your change in North America ingnore that the Middle America region is not a pure North American region and may include South American regions, due this is the North America article, such fact should be informed. Cheers, JC 13:47, 20 March 2008 (PST)

I just found that article. As a Brit I have to say I have never heard of the term Middle America used in this way but the reality is that Venezuela and Colombia are never considered a part of North America in my opinion and therefore to restore that info you must ref it, verifiability being the name of the game. This is a difficult subject, I am aware of that so reffing any additions is necessary. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced see here: [1]. Off course Colombia and Venezuela arent considered North Americans, thats why their mention should be added. Cheers, JC 14:00, 20 March 2008 (PST)

You maintain that this minority notion should be included, even when many others clearly don't include those territories at all? The article is about North America, not what may or may not be in Middle America. Your rationale is as confused as your edits. Corticopia (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is rarely the case, as many other sources make no mention of these countries being in the region. You will continue to be reverted, J. Corticopia (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, without verifiability. I think the problem is that all definitions of South America include Colombia and Venezuela, generally its where to place Mexico and Central America that is controversial. And sure, Colombia (the coasts) and Venezuela are east of Central America but we aren't here to describe how things are we are here to describe how they are seen, hence the verifiability element. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes: after all, the article is about North America and what comprises it, not what one of its regions (a region of the Americas which rarely includes countries from another continent) may or may not comprise. Thanks. Corticopia (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of Shannon Matthews

Per WP:LEAD, the break by her age is jolting for a reader, especially since it's stated on the next line. The lead is meant to provide an overview, which it does. Hope you don't mind. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, and your edit looks great, there won't be any edit warring here. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring Bloom

Theres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Kurt Krenn

Hi. Why don't I rewrite the article on Kurt Krenn? Why should I? The Catholic Curch of Austria is not my field of expertise, but I have been living here long enough to be able to assert that there is no incorrect or libellous information in it. Knowing that is one thing; proving it is another, and there are certainly more competent people around who know where to look up the missing references.

However, my main problem here is an over-reaction by an admin; others might even call it a slight abuse of admin powers. All the best, <KF> 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would trust Doc's judgement. We need an article that is thoroughly sourced and deals with the complex issue of his resignation in a fair way. And aren't we here to write articles? Well I am, not to contest the judgments of admins. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, thanks for starting a stub on Kurt Krenn. I don't know if you have read the deleted article, but now that I've reread it I cannot for ther life of me understand why it allegedly is a page "that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages"." Krenn is not attacked in the deleted article. The page serves the usual purpose of a biographical article and does not "disparage its subject", let alone only disparage it. The only shortcoming of the text is the absence of one or two, maybe three, references.

The Sisyphean task that has just started is to start from scratch without the help of the deleted text. My guess is that sooner or later a Wikipedian or two, supported by some casual browsers-turned editors, will come up with very much the same article again—just because there is nothing else to report about Kurt Krenn. Personally, I hate people working against each other, but if you are all happy with it, so shall it be. Happy Easter! <KF> 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about this chap, or should I say I knew nothing about him, just noticed the thread on Doc's page. Feel free to email me the copy you have if you like. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Are you paid by Jimbo to speak for him or something? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely to the contrary, I am an independent editor who has never met Jimbo, and none of mys statements could be attributed to Jimbo. People like The Rolling Stones have thousands of hardcore fans. What Jimbo isn't even allowed one. And by supporting Jimbo I feel I am supporting the encyclopedia as a whole and while I mostly like to edit biographies and related subjects I also think a bit of mop work is a good idea. I work to gain money, wikipedia is just a hobby, and I am not not cash short right now to want to be paid in my wikipedia endeavours in a way that would be controversial.

In my work I understand some of the problems with counting the number of words without a major software overhaul which would include it in the programme but it would be an interesting challenge. Did you hear the other day somebody deleted the sandbox, and mid-afternoon US time when Western Europe was still awake, ie at the worst time, and the servers crashed for a couple of hours as you can't do that kind of thing, an admin either not thinking or simply didn't realise that you can't edit 4 years of history on a page which had I have no idea how many edit revisions but clearly enough to crash the servers. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply -I wasn't aware of that crisis no- just goes to show how fragile the system can be. Anyway in regards to Jimbo I gather he is very busy, I just feel a bit let down that he doesn't take more time to respond to editors as individuals. It seems he only comments if there is some sort of outrageous claim or editor on the prowl. I've proposed things to him like a new Wiki Translation system which I thought was a good idea, but he didn't even utter a word in response and at least say why it wouldn't be. It seems that more often or not you are the one answering his questions so this is why I asked ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Signature Expert on wikipedia : www.hi.wikipedia.org

Greetings Friends on Wikipedia. I am vkvora, Male and many administrators on Hindi wikipedia say that I am terrorist where as I say all Administrators are involved in abuse of tools and three confirmed and three are in line.

Can you help me on link

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Jainjain

I say Rajiv Mass Administrator on Hindi wikipedia and Ravi Jain are both one and same. Friend it is easy for you, where I do not know, good english to write you. I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from vkvora

signature of Administrator Rajiv mass and his dumy Account Ravi Jain is verified. Both are one and same. Regards . vkvora2001 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Don Murphy

An editor has nominated Don Murphy, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Murphy (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to warn you that you added a vote after the nomination was closed, so other editor had to remove it [2], since you can't change an already closed debate. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Er no, that was me who reverted myself but I am glad I am commented anyway as I am one of the very few regulars at the Murphy article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

PPA

HI --

When you have a chance, would you take a look at this PPA talk page section and recent article edits? Thanks... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

replied

Hello, RichardWeiss. You have new messages at NonvocalScream's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ta. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit conlicts

Sorry about stepping on you there, I thought the software was supposed to stop edits like this when the page changes before I hit save page. *grumble* :) NonvocalScream (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder

The "Using this page" section of WP:PedMen instructs you to "notify the users involved in the dispute on their talk page." You failed to do this for your complaint against me. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, that bit missed me entirely. Well at least you know now but my apologies for failing to inform you. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Your edit summaries are really hard to read and understand. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:29 24 March, 2008 (UTC)

Yes well that one was bad typos but don't generalise. Unfortunately edit summaries are both unfixable and unresponsive to spell check. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't generalise if it wasn't generally true. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  02:34 25 March, 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean like "out hgead of sstate dictator is weasel". Thanks, SqueakBox 04:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are six examples from the most recent (as of timestamp) page of your contributions. These are not all in order, but mostly they are. There were also two edits that were mis-spelt that I did not include here because the mis-spellings were rather minor.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Franz_Schubert&diff=prev&oldid=201216678
Spelling and capitalisation (caps obviously aren't quite as important but still can help some).

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Honduras&diff=prev&oldid=200920187
Spelling, and it's really a devil for other people (at least me) to read—one vanmdalsim one bad fix restore previous…pardon me if I'm just being dense but was that supposed to make sense?

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Remote_administration&diff=prev&oldid=200917464
Spelling, even in a short summary of two words (!).

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Heather_Mills&diff=prev&oldid=201132987
Spelling; "sunosurced"? "ehr" and "npot"??

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Martijn_Hoekstra&diff=prev&oldid=201152478
Spelling when you added your experience with Martijn Hoekstra "to my votr I knwo it isnt a lot".

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Hastings&diff=prev&oldid=201218883
"ona". Interesting.

Generally my opinion and experience with edit summaries (as well as talk page messages, e-mails, &c. &c.) is that if I have to read them twice, and especially if I have to read them more than twice, then it is usually not worth reading anyway. Not to say that your edit summaries are useless (they aren't), but in others it is often the case. Just trying to help. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:12 27 March, 2008 (UTC)

Chill out, Springeragh. Point taken, and with total respect. I actually appreciate your thread (I wouldn't dream of removing it) and am taking what you have taken time to tell me on board, but don't expect instant results (long lasting ones are so much more important) so cheers for taking the time, and you might say my response was a revelation to me because I couldn't see what I had meant for the life of me. And my first teacher on this subject, El C, then posted a lovely card (he told me way back to always include na edit summary and I do now and for a while, so I will now work on getting my edit summaries right and interesting but always coherent. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to sound stressed or anything. I actually edited my original post (see page history) because it sounded somewhat dickish as well. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:35 28 March, 2008 (UTC)

Xavier/ Eide Real Name Sources

I can see no reason why you are attempting to remove relevant sources from an article. Please review [3]. There is nothing is wiki policy that suggests limiting sources to support a particular fact. There is nothing on the PJ Talk page that suggests a consensus to remove the extra sources for the Eide alias. Your removal of these reliable sources is unbecoming a wikipedia editor. Vagr4nt (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy? We are encyclopedia writers not wikilawyers and the factuality is not disputed nor ever has been so even one ref is the absolute maximum needed. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not been editing this article very long, but if you have you would remember that this point is often challenged on the basis of relevance. The additional sourcing has been established to support the inclusion of this point.

Furthermore, I can't see why any wikipedia editor would deliberately remove sourcing of facts. It seems downright contrary to everything we're doing here. Vagr4nt (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No I ma someone who has challenged it on the basis of relevance over a long time. But the refs don't help notability which is why we only need one at most. If you can't see why editors would remove refs in this case where there are too many (to the point of WP:POINT) then you perhaps need to ope your mind a little. I have been editing far more than you and know exactly what I am doing so your assumptions about this contradicting everything we are doing is just plain wrong, yuou may need to get a better handle on what we are doing. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt DRV

If you were reading the DRV at all, you might notice that the discussion is about the redirect not restoring the entire article. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do realise that, Josh, ie it was the redirect that has been here months that was deleted. I was actually responding to suggestions of restoring the full article both on DRV and at the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you make clear that you aren't necessarily intending to endorse the deletion of the redirect. If you are intending to do so, I suggest you say so. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and done. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner's edits to Cannabis smoking

Probably Tokerdesigner was right to remove that picture of the ludicrously large joint. ;) I dunno about his/her other edits, though...

Here is the thing with Tokerdesigner: He or she believes that joints are part of a giant conspiracy by Big Tobacco (or "Big Tobackgo" as TD likes to say for some reason) to sell people on an "overdose smoking method" that allegedly heats marijuana or tobacco, take your pick, to an extremely high temperature that denatures the chemicals and makes it harmful, and that everyone would just stop smoking this way and use vaporizers instead, then nobody would die from smoking tobacco or cannabis. I am not making this up, he/she has said as much on my Talk page.

Now, there is likely some merit to some of these claims. I dunno about joints being part of a "Big Tobackgo" conspiracy, but it certainly at least seems plausible that burning tobacco or cannabis at higher temperatures and with more contaminants is going to be more harmful to your health.

But whether I think the ideas are plausible or not, it's still all original research, and Tokerdesigner is pushing it hard. A lot of his/her recent edits to Cannabis smoking are WP:OR, are not verifiable, and none of them are sourced.

I don't want Wikipedia to become a place where people can push their own personal agenda. So I am very concerned when I see Tokerdesigner removing a picture of a rolling machine and calling it an "advertisement for overdose smoking". Is the picture of the rolling machine appropriate? I can see an argument either way. Is TD's reason for removing it appropriate? Absolutely not.

I rolled back a bunch more edits after you reverted me, but then I saw your comment and decided to undo my revert until we can get consensus. But just check some of TD's edits, keeping in mind what I have told you about the conspiracy theories, and let me know if you still think these are mostly constructive edits. I am very skeptical... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Tokerdesigner actually had the cajones to tell me that I should start going by my middle name instead of my first name, because when I tell people my first name is Jay I am creating a "propoganda effect" for "overdose smoking" and thereby benefiting "Big Tobackgo". I don't want to delve into ad hominem attacks here, but uh... Yeah, I dunno, take what you want from that exchange. [4] [5] --Jaysweet (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll do some looking around but not right now. I agree with the soapbox issue, and especially re cannabis, anyway I'll let you do what you think is best in the meantime. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your more recent edits already caught some of TD's unsourced pov edits, and I moved his pro-vaporizer paragraph down to a subsubsubsection under the smoking methods, instead of being the first primary section in the article. I don't think it's situation-critical anymore as far as letting him have a soapbox, and the whole article needs so much work, it would be a little unfair for me to remove TD's unsourced claims and leave the other 500 unsourced claims in the article :D

BTW, I loved the pun about the "chronic" problems with the article, ha ha ha... Anyway, I gotta go, and this article has way more problems than either of us can fix in five minutes ;) So another time... Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Cannabis smoking

You are wrong about warnings. Our only goal is to create a good encyclopedia, even in Europe many young people do not start smoking tobacco just because they smoke cannabis and we are not here to deter people from smoking tobacco, its just completely off topic (and if we were to warn of the hazards of smoking we would surely wasn't to warn of the hazards of smoking anything but that is not our role). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See, I followed Jaysweet's instructions and quoted the item to be answered, putting it in italics.

You are right, young people "do not start smoking tobacco just because they smoke cannabis"-- off topic, because rather, they get hooked on tobacco from following bad advice and mixing tobacco in with the cannabis. If you will check the article you will see as of 1 a.m. GMT Jaysweet has moved "Mixing with other herbs" to the top of the article, and changed the title to "Mixing with tobacco". As a former addict who got off the habit (something I haven't had to do), please think what it means when Google sends millions of youngsters around the world to this article seeking to find out how to smoke cannabis and the first advice they get is how to mix with tobacco.

censorship

I will be looking around to see if there is a policy on how to report or debate this, but it looks like censorship to me. Trying to be charitable, maybe Jaysweet is one of those who feel safer if the cannabis article has a facade of tobacco in front of it to protect against being cracked down on by the tobackgo police (read US Drug Enforcement Administration etc.).

I know you have been trying to be fair and impartial, but this is the one time when the exception probes the rule. If you want to follow it further, I will discuss it directly on the User talk:Jaysweet page and on the User talk:tokerdesigner page.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe either Jaysweet or Until are pro-tobacco. You could just as easily say my wanting to move the joints section up the page is pro-tobacco as certainly in Europe the habit is to mix tobacco with cannabis. This is partly because until recently most cannabis was hashish in Europe and one cannot smoke hashish in a joint without mixing it with something. When I was young people who started smoking cannabis did occasionally get hooked on tobacco smoking cannabis but most people who smoked cannabis were already tobacco addicts. I then saw the next generation much more open to using pipes to smoke pure hashish. I thought Americans just smoked grass in pure joints, as Latin American do. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this happen every spring? _(1 == 2)^Until 01:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra's RfA

Please stop disrupting the progress of this user's still unlaunched RfA. Thank you. Húsönd 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning to restore my edit. If it isnt open it looks it, it also appears you are tam[pering with it, presumably with the idea that your support can be before others opposes, which smacks of cheating to me. I am posting at rfa talk. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Without violating Wikipedia:Mediation#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation could you explain on or off-wiki the reasoning behind your position? Usually when you and certain other user disagree on something, I agree with you. So obviously, the fact that both of you were eager to vote in opposite manners in this RfA interests me, and right now, is the primary basis of my Neutral. I can accept and respect an answer like "Opposed due to things at privileged mediation", but if you could explain more, I'd appreciate it. MBisanz ^talk 20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Asking him to elaborate to inform your own decision is fine - if this thread turns into a call for him to do so in order to justify his vote, then that is inappropriate and folks should recognize that it is given to voters on both sides to make a decision without justifying it extensively or at all to the community. Avruch ^T 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if I defend Kurt's right to oppose without being berated for it, I would never dream of asking a user to justify their vote. But yes, this thread is only to help me form an opinion, not to make him, make public his opinion (thats why I left open the option of an email). MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Avruch, I see where you are coming from here, but I have the very strong feeling that it is the first: MBisanz is looking for more information to base his own vote on, not a justification of Squeakbox' vote. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, that is clear from what he wrote. It won't necessarily be why anyone else follows on to add their own request for the same bit of background. Avruch ^T 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear what people are saying, I am not well today but I will try to find something else to say, but probably not till tomorrow. I clearly know Martijn as we have done mediation together. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like its been said by everyone else, having looked at the Rfa. I find my interest is increasingly in making good article edits and not in too much drama, though the child sexual abuse articles will definitely remain very much an interest in the sense of the work to make them good articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well wishings

Hope you feel better. Best wishes, El_C and Kitty 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for fixing my badly written newbie user links. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates and days of the week

Hi. I've got doubts about the accuracy of Calendar year you are using and, as you will see, I've reverted a couple of your recent reverts that you sourced from it. Do you want to look at it again? Best.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any specific reasons for doubting? I will look for another one, see if there are discrepancies. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very confident with Battle of Agincourt: the historian Juliet Barker has three pages in her account of the battle on how the day and date were calculated, and I have given her as the citation. Calendar Converter by John Walker, the source I used for Schubert, has worked accurately for me in the past (Siege of Sevastopol) and concurs with the edit before yours. I did not revert Beethoven, from Walker again, because there was no corroboration. Please check out Walker's page for yourself, I think you'll be impressed! Good luck with with your checks for other (or not) discrepancies. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a further look. I find this stuff fascinating and really want to get it right, so thanks for your interest. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this one http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/index.html?year=1828&country=1? (taken from the ELs at Calendar), it certainly agrees with your convertor on both Beethoven and Schubert's deaths, and that the latter took place on a Wednesday, and indeed that Agincourt was on a Friday. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the ELs at Calendar until your suggestion. There are some very useful ones there. Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You left a newcomer welcome message on my talk page when I first joined a couple years ago and I never thanked you for it. So I'd just like to say, thanks for the warm welcome. :) Haddock420 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Adventures of the little wooden horse

Thanks for taking the time to work on this. Its my first and currently only article, so its nice to have someone else take an interest. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was my favourite book as a young child (6 or 7), the first real book I ever read, and on many occasions, so it was a real pleasure to work on this particular article. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My favourite at that age too. We were read it at school, and I insisted my parents got me a copy. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember being read Prince Caspian at school age 8 and getting my parents to buy me the Narnia books but my reading the Little Wooden Horse definitely preceeded that, and I imagine my dad's copy from his childhood as it was an old blue hardback book (whereas I had a paperback version of Gobbolino). Certainly Ursula Moray Williams was hugely influential in giving me that love of reading, and it was the first book nobody read to me, I did it all myself. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sanger initially proposed Wikipedia (originally a Nupedia wiki) as a feeder project

Here is a historical ref. --> Sanger initially proposed the wiki concept to Wales and suggested it be applied to Nupedia. * Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's make a wiki" (Email). Nupedia-l mailing list. Nupedia. Retrieved 2008-03-28. Sanger initiated Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if he did it while a paid employee of Wales that would indeed indicate they both initiated it. Anyway have a look at The Guardian reference I added. Lest just keep working at getting it right, eh. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reference failed verification anyhow.[6] And saying both initiated it is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Wales, "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software." * Wales, Jimmy (October 30, 2001). "LinkBacks?" (Email). wikipedia-l archives. Bomis. Retrieved 2008-03-28. Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is text in the lead that is not verified by the citations. Can you fix it now.[7] QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales current role in the project

Wales is a public speaker and promoter of Wikipedia. <-- Here is a sentence we can work on. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this section would be best for this information. --> Jimmy Wales#Roles of Wikipedia creators QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

March 28

Sorry SqueakBox, I was responsible for deleting March 28 on recent deaths. Someone vandilized it so on that occassion I removed the whole thing. Hope this clears things up. Raphie (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags in others' posts

If you feel what I was doing here is a blockable offnse, then take it to ANI. I sincerely doubt you'll find an admin who will consider what I or the bot did to be "tampering" or a "blockable offense", but you're welcome to try. I do find your objections to "tampering" with the posts of others extremely ironic, since adding "fact" tags to someone else's post is certainly that! I certainly doubt that User:Vgmaster posted the comments in April, then returned in June to add "fact" tags to their own posts! - BillCJ (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC

I did not say I wanted to see you blcked, please don't misinterpret my words. I made my complaint and directed it to the bot owner. The bot was inappropriately tampering with user comments, we dont use the tags on talk pages in order to maintain anything but to give examples and it was an inappropriate use of a bot. All the same interfering with user comments is a blockable offence, that is a fact,a nd of course by reverting you took personal responsibility for what your reverted to, if you check my first revert of the bot it was adding the maintenance to some tag examples that a user had added to a talk page, if on other occasions people were adding fact tags to user comments then that should always of course be reverted. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tags on talk pages

This is a minor dilemma, because some of these tags put talk pages into categories. However the crux of the matter is that those which should be putting talk pages into categories need dating, those which shouldn't be, need to be {{Tl}}'d removed or otherwise dealt with, and those that don't, if they happen to be in the same page as one that does, will not be affected by having a date parameter added.

As far as you be "extremely pissed off" that you couldn't add and edit summary,just leave me messages in the normal way if it's that important to you. Rich Farmbrough, 10:42 28 March 2008 (GMT).

Well I will now but I didn't know who you were until after I had left the message, I was writing to a bot with an unknown owner, and yes leaving edit summaries certainly is very important to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And for the record I think your bot does great work in the main space. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job.

Good job reverting my edit on User:Jimbo_Wales

You should be an admin.

9potterfan (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Diaper

Heh, at first I thought your name was SqueakBot so I figured your edit there was just automated. Then I looked back and saw that you were a real person. So basically Im writing here to tell you that I am pretty sure the word there should be reusable. If you read the paragraph through it makes sense, and you can check it by reading up on the source. Basically, it comes down to this: plastic diaper manufacturers were getting scared when they saw environmentalist mommies buying into cloth diapers, so they put out some tricky pseudoscience showing that THEIR diapers were actually better for the environment. But they weren't; they were just twisting the numbers and using misleading statements such as comparing 1 cloth diaper vs 1 plastic diaper instead of 1 vs a whole truckload of them. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I looked after your revert against me and didn't revert you again cos I figured you are being genuine, your response just confirms this. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lima Article

In your edit summary you said that you sensed that something wasn't right about that poster. Well that same guy has been doing the same thing for several months now via IPs (blanking talkpage discussion on the pics, removing pics on Lima's surround slums and adding pics of Lima's more well-off areas). I've had to protect the article in the past because of him and he just doesn't seem to want to stop. There is not much we can do if this guy finds different IPs to work with to continue doing this all the time.--Jersey Devil (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you a Jew

Are you a Jew? Don't take what I say out of context like you people do to Reverend Wright.