User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 →


You're quite right, the geodis tag does belong at the bottom. I was operating on the idea that having it at the top would make it immediately clear to the user that the page is a disambiguation page; however, I see that the manual of style wants it at the bottom. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Zug Island

Thanks for the edit. If you're interested, I've recently come into possession of a large amount of company documentation regarding the history of McLouth Steel I'll be creating a wiki entry with soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TOstrowski (talkcontribs) 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Trail of Tears

Are we leaving it on Andrew Jackson as a badge of dishonor? Otherwise anyone that goes to the Indian removal article or the Indian Removal Act is directed to the Trail of Tears it's even mentioned in his article. This seems to violate the style manual of putting things in See Also that are related but not mentioned in the article. Alatari (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But by that criteria, only the first two of all the items currently listed in See also (below) would remain -- all the others are mentioned elsewhere in the article.
Make little difference to me, as I've not seen that the guidance for See also that you mention is very rigorously followed. But if it is going to be applied, it should be applied uniformly within the article. olderwiser 21:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. It's fine then as long as the list doesn't grow to over 10 entries. Then I'll try and find a way to pare it down. Alatari (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not the mouth

Of course, your right. However, from a 'river's eye view point' calling the place where the water flows in makes more sense. It is only the mount for persons coming upstream into it, and that is how it has been historically used.

Plus, I've been in that part of the St. Clair river a number of times. One I particularly remember was in a C&S 22 sailboat, with a smallish outboard on it. We hugged the shore, and hung in suspension for what seemed like forever, trying to get past the Blue Water Bridge. So I have a different viewpoint. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Indian Removal

Indian Removal is a proper noun amongst the tribes left in the Oklahoma territories. By moving the page you have violated WP:NPOV. I will be petitioning other administrators to have the page moved back. Alatari (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

After research I'll drop this. See my comments on the talk page. Alatari (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Chief Illiniwek

Please note that I have reverted your removal. This is being worked out on the talk page. Justinm1978 (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Monroe County and Monroe, Michigan

Thanks for the assistance. Visit the town, too for some copy editing. I figure you probably would, anyway, but a reminder can't hurt. Enjoy your weekend. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Battle Creek, MIchigan name -- typo?


Nice rewrite. However, you wrote in part: "native term had 'nothing to do [with] blood or battle' which I think left out the preposition. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

If you didn't like the population statistic in Sterling Heights, Michigan you won't like it in Southeastern Michigan either

7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

Actually, Southeast Michigan is OK as is. My edit to Sterling Heights was to correct the implication that it was ranked fourth in the 2000 census, when it was not. The Southeast Michigan article doesn't clearly identify the year of the ranking (which may be a different problem, but not anything I'm overly concerned about). olderwiser 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CDPs in Michigan

The consensus on Wikipedia has been to make a distinction between CDPs and other unincorporated areas. CDPs have their own categories, the articles for CDPs are more developed and follow the structure used for articles about incorporated areas and county articles often list CDPs separately. The county navigation boxes reflect this distinction by listing CDPs and other unincorporated areas separately. Unless the Wikipedia consensus changes, the templates should continue to show this distinction. VerruckteDan (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What consensus are you referring to? Yes, Wikipedia articles identify if the subject of an article is a CDP. That is all well and good. But the CDP designation is nothing more than census jargon that is completely meaningless and entirely irrelevant for most purposes. The templates are a navigational device which do not need to be based on arbitrary categorizations derived from the Census Bureau. Yes, there is some value to mentioning this in the articles, but it is not a very user-friendly way to present the information in the navigation templates. olderwiser 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If there's a difference between the communities, as we all believe there is, it should be reflected on the templates. Listing CDPs separately is the nationwide standard; there's no reason that Michigan should be different. Nyttend (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
For persons who do not deal with demographic data on a regular basis, there is no meaningful distinction whatsoever for the average person between a CDP and a non-CDP community. The navigational templates should not be driven by Census Bureau jargon. olderwiser 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked for additional opinions on this here and here. olderwiser 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
These templates follow the nationwide style, used in every county with a CDP that has a USCounty Navbox-formatted county template. Do not continue reverting, or you will be in violation of WP:3RR. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert any more at the moment, but your reasoning is faulty. If as you say, every other template is constructed in such a user-unfriendly manner, then that is cause to to change that foolish standard. olderwiser 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And it is a little disingenuous of you to claim claim some "standard" as if there had been discussion and general agreement to the principle. In fact this discussion from just last December indicates that I'm not the first to question this questionable "standard". olderwiser 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

St. Martin Island-Michigan

Many thanks for editing the article about St. Martin Island. It gets confusing of which island is in Michigan or Wisconsin. Another island Poverty Island had the same problem. You may want to look at that one. The 2 islands are in the same chain. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


The religious status of the Founding Fathers is known and is a fact. It is not opinion. This has even been verified by recent US law (HR 861 or something like that, and reemphasized in HR 888). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the material is cited is not the point -- the assertions are framed in such as way as to forward an argumentative position in violation of NPOV. olderwiser 13:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not. You only disagree with it, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were registered Christians who attended daily mass as a whole, and this is well documented. There is no denying of that. It is even U.S. Law. If you persist, you will be violating Wikipedia Policy and stating something which U.S. Law and multiple sources have already declared as true beyond a doubt. This is not something that you will win, because you would have to rewrite history. [1] and [2] Both put it into law that this is a fact. "Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots;" "Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible; Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;" And on and on and on. You cannot deny that this is true, and if you persist, I will be forced to report you for 3RRs. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is at all -- it is quite obvious that you have completely missed the point I was making. The edits in the article are advancing an argumentative position. That is not allowed per WP:NPOV. olderwiser 01:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia No Point of View demands that ALL points of view are expressed, and your deleting of their point of view in a section asking for point of view is breaking that rule. You also violated 3RRs and keep removing properly cited information. That is three rules that you are breaking. Are you trying to get banned? Why else would you delete the information that no longer expresses any point of view? Have you even bothered to read what you are deleting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View is intended to give balanced and neutral expressions to various positions held by verifiable sources. It is NOT intended to allow persons to make argumentative conclusions based on research by sources as fact. olderwiser 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Warren, Michigan

More made up population figures? This stuff looks dubious to me, although I've not researched it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Stan

He's back. If he has a source for this stuff, it would be nice to know what it is. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Jackson, Michigan

BK: Weird stuff in the history. Your revision undoing certain items isn't there. There are some odd entries. Hard to figure out what's going on. FYI. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Flint, Michigan

Notability issues in 'notable people'. This article has a lot of people listed who are not easily identifiable, so far as I can tell. OTOH, I don't follow rap and basketball, especially form a Flint perspective. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Explain your position please

I'd appreciate your weighing in on this question, relative to the CDPs in navboxes question — essentially, do you believe that listing CDPs with other unincorporated communities should be required or only permitted? Omnedon and I both are reading your comments in support of our respective positions. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Michigan townships

Just curious: what's the difference between civil townships and general law townships? I understand the difference between civil townships and charter townships, but there's not even an article on general law townships to explain the difference to me. And by the way: would you please answer on my talk page? Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A general law township is mostly just localized terminology for the same concept as a civil township. olderwiser 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


While I understand your removal of this addition, I kinda liked his example :-) Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake St. Helen

BK: The link to the DNR website isn't working. Truth to tell, I grabbed it from another lake, and tried to make it work by substituting names, and failed. Your assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Thanks for following up on the Long. Lat. repairs. I didn't know how to do that. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

FYI: Mississippi Election Page

    • Did you see where I wrote this before you responded:

The use of the word "declined" comes from the fact that they declined to file for the election in spite of speculation from the local media. If Steelbeard has a problem with the word "declined" then we can change it to something else, but he doesn't want to do that, he wants to remove the information entirely. If you have a problem with the word "declined" then we can usea different term but I don't want the names completely deleted.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • If the only source is some speculation that the persons might have been considering a candidacy, that is not worth noting, even under the heading of "declined". If there is some reliable source saying that the persons themselves were actively interested in running and then later declined to run, then perhaps it is worth mentioning. olderwiser 20:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Ford lead

Hi there. I removed the "only president and VP not elected to either" phrase from the lead because it is already mentioned in the article, and trivial info for the lead. Don't get me wrong: it is a true fact and belongs in the article. But it is already in there and the lead is supposed to provide a general overview of Mr. Ford's life, per WP:LEAD. Mentioning it in the lead is merely distracting from the general topic of Gerald Ford's life, and putting too much weight on a specific, very minor issue issue. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was not explicitly mentioned in the lead and not only is it not trivial, it is one of the more significant facets of Ford's presidency. olderwiser 22:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It is mentioned explicitly under: Presidency, 1974–77 - Presidency, 1974–77 - When Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal on August 9, 1974, Ford assumed the presidency making him the only person to assume the vice-presidency and the presidency without having been voted into either office. ... --Oldnag85 (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't mentioned elsewhere in the article -- I said it was not explicitly mentioned in the lead, and it is a significant enough detail to mention in the lead. olderwiser 12:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Murphy

BK: I don't know that he is your subject, but I've worked hard on this, and would like to get it reviewed. It is rated as "Start" class, which I think underrates what is there. In any event, I would like your advice/input. Among other things, I did not take all of he external sources (which are used in references as noted) and put them into the "External links" section. Is that something that should be done? Thanks. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Treaty of Tripoli

You have posted in the Treaty of Tripoli and its discussion page for a while, so I titled this message with that general title. But, my purpose in visiting your talk page now regards the question of whether the controversy over Article XI means that the government of the United States should be religiously sterile or religiously neutral. You don't like the use of the word, "sterile," claiming that it is a loaded word. Yet, that is exactly what this controversy regards. The fact that this is the controversy is hidden behind the claim that it is a debate between those who would argue for a theocracy; but that is not the debate. David Barton is not arguing for a theocracy; Brooke Allen is arguing for the sterilization of religion from government.

As I note in the article's discussion page, there are many Christians who do not regard this as the controversy. They think they are fighting for religious freedom (neutrality) by citing Brooke Allen, or using the arguments of various atheists and humanists. But, the agenda of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and others of the same persuasion is very clear. The Left is trying to remove any functional religious influence from government. They would have no laws based on Christian ideals, no "religiously-informed" voting, no religious activism. They would like to remove all references to God from government. And, they make stupid, lying statements, like Brooke Allen's claim that "The Founding Fathers were not religious men." So, I think that using the word, "sterile" in the controversy section is entirely appropriate. Pooua (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, you are putting words into their mouths. That is not allowed. olderwiser 01:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Claiming that Brooke Allen is arguing for religious neutrality *is* putting a word in her mouth, and that is what you are doing. Pooua (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, while she doesn't in fact use the word "neutral", I'm hard-pressed to see that the article is not an argument that the founders intended the government to be neutral in matters of religion. However, I see "sterile" as a rather prejudicial interpretation. olderwiser 02:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to claim that the debate is concerning religious neutrality, you should link to an article that actually argues for religious neutrality. If you take at face value the title of the cited work, "Our Godless Constitution," does that sound like a plea for religious neutrality, or the exclusion of religion? I would have to say that claiming something is godless is not a statement of religious neutrality. The first thing the cited author, Brooke Allen, says in her article is to portray George Bush as an Orwellian monster for claiming that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles. Every historical example that Brooke Allen cites, including the Treaty of Tripoli, she uses to argue that Christianity--and God--is not part of the Founding of the U.S. She claims "The Founding Fathers were not religious men" and they "fought hard to erect ... a wall of separation between church and state." Where in any of this do you see religious neutrality? These are very definite arguments for the exclusion of religion from government. You cannot reasonably claim in the Treaty of Tripoli article that the debate is regarding religious neutrality when the only cited work to support that statement is definitely beyond neutrality and well into antipathy. Pooua (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the title as tongue-in-cheek. The constitution is "godless" in that god is not explicitly mentioned. You are the one reading this as an attack on something or other that you value. The other side of the coin it to see the article as a defense against those who want to use the apparatus of government to foist their religious values onto others. olderwiser 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the meaning of Article XI, the arguments of Brooke Allen are clearly not for religious neutrality. She really is arguing for a godless government. That is her theme, not just in this one article, but in her other books on the subject. Pooua (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Template:US state seal and deleted images

I went to your commons talk page to ask you to visit my deletion nomination for Template:US state seal. Once there, I noticed that some of your images were mistakenly deleted, so I left a undeletion request at Commons:Undeletion_requests#Images_of_User:Bkonrad. Best, Superm401 - Talk 08:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Wikipedia. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, reliable (I chose the New York Times version.)

Circumcision may decrease a man's risk of getting HIV but it may also INCREASE a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia. (and some doctors even say other STD's too but I won't get into that and I wouldn't put caps on INCREASE.)

The article on circumcision mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once. Click on the article. You tell me if it's an article on the procedure called circumcision or a pro-circumcision propaganda pamphlet.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew (the site's dictators) from deleting my one sentence I want to add? Or possibly get new Admins to take over this article, which has fallen way below Wikipedia standards.

here's the New York Times piece...

I used to love Wikipedia until I went to add a sentence, you know? Well, thanks. (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Your 3RR report

Please see my response to your report. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of violating WP:3RR when I didn't. My first revert was at 05:06, February 16, 2008, with my third revert at 06:54, February 17, 2008, which is outside of the 24-hour period, and therefore not a violation. I don't appreciate this accusation. Either way, I'm no longer going to use the guideline page as a vehicle for expressing my objections to "general references", even though I still feel strongly that they are not compatible with Wikipedia's editing model, and don't belong here. I've taken this up in a new discussion at WT:CITE, which you're welcome to post comments to if you wish. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is indisputable that you were edit-warring over that page, which is what 3RR is about. Getting legalistic about technicalities is a poor excuse for continuing to revert without any clear support for your change. And I don't appreciate being accused of sock puppetry. I think we both went over the line in this interaction, which is unfortunate because I can see that you are a good editor and valuable contributor to the Wikipedia. I don't agree with you about general references, but that is a matter for further discussion. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources‎. olderwiser 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar WikiMSHP.png The Michigan State Highways Barnstar
For fixing life's little broken links along the way... thank you! Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Roscommon County, Michigan

Since you were so adept at cleaning up Alger County, Michigan, would you please make sure that the list of towns, etc. is complete in Roscommon County. I rebuilt that and am not sure. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Back to the CDPs

I'm trying to get consensus for a standard format for county navboxes, especially related to CDPs, but only four people have participated in the discussion. You participated in the earlier discussion; would you please join the second one so that we can have a broader consensus? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:All-America_City_Logo.png

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:All-America_City_Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Naruto (disambiguation)

Can you compare both my revision and Abtract's? I don't think I'm in the wrong. I'd like to know if you can explain the DAB guidelines further to the opposing user who, IMHO, still doesn't seem to get it. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 16:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And there's a discussion where I've mentioned you here. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Port Sanilac lighthouse

BK: New article. I'm sure you can assist when you find the time. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

Forty Mile Point Light

BK: Substantially updated article. I'm sure you can assist when you find the time. I always appreciate yor editorial help. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Stan

HP dab comments

What part of 'comment on the edits and not on the editor' was unclear to you? Attacking the editor doesn't do anything to resolve the issue, and just sets you up for a devastating retaliation by someone more rude than you, or an incivility block. I asked you once before to stay focused. This is hopefully the last time I will have to do so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When you make claims such as your POV being the determination of a great many others, that is baloney and I will call it as such. When you attempt to justify your POV by asserting that no one will search for HP looking for Harry Potter, as if you are somehow able to intuit how the rest of the world thinks, that is a type of appeal to personal authority which invites a more direct personal response. When you attempt to justify your POV by deprecating the values of a substantial number of people as being mere fan-boy cruft, that similarly brings it down to the level of personal values (i.e., from a certain perspective, your argument is little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And so you don't get the wrong idea, I'm by no means a fan of Harry Potter, but I fail to see why some editors seem to see it as so important to suppress what they deprecate as fan-boy cruft. olderwiser 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A. We don't use cruft, fanboy or otherwise. B. We don't use cruft a all, as it isn't encyclopedic. C. See A and B.
So you are saying your behavior was predicated on what you perceived as mine. Stellar thinking, that - 'he did it, so I'm going to do it'. You can perhaps see how this doesn't really impart to you any high ground, right? And I never said that my interpretation of policy (notice the proper terminology of the practice, and not "POV") was the determining factor of a great many others. I said that a great many others are likely to agree with me, as my interpretation of policy is pretty much spot-on. Perhaps you might want to brush up on AGF, BKonrad, before you run into an editor who will not only knock you down a peg, but take the pegboard away and beat you about the head with it, editorially. Not saying that I would be inclined to do that, but your behavior isn't winning any arguments with me. In fact, it is having quite the opposite effect.
""It isn't my "POV" that it doesn't belong, it's simply policy. It isn't my opinion, it isn't 'I don't like it.' It is simply how Wikipedia rules in these sorts of things. HP being used for Harry Potter isn't notable enough. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is policy as interpreted by you. There are hearty and good-faith disagreements. Simply because YOU are convinced something is policy doesn't necessarily make it so. olderwiser 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it is the unrelated editors who correctly interpret policy to disinclude it that makes it so. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, it appears that you take the actions of a vanishingly small number of editors obsessed with keeping Harry Potter off the HP disambiguation page as proof of the correctness of your interpretation of policy. There are also a considerable number of unrelated editors who disagree with that overly narrow interpretation. olderwiser 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You have a colorful way of describing the situation. It's wrong, but its still very colorful.:) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
(after ec) Oh, and BTW, while I appreciate your offer of advice, I've been around long enough to see a lot of editors come and go and a great many disputes of considerable intensity. I really don't care much about winning arguments with you. I think you're wrong in the particular case (although the locus of the dispute should really be on the Harry Potter page, since I agree with JHunter that if the usage is sourced on the primary target page, there is no good reason not to include it on the disambiguation page). olderwiser 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why the fuck are you still wasting my time bitching about it, then? Find a better use of your time. My time isn't yours to waste. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmpphh. Now look who's being uncivil. Please. You are under no obligation to respond to what I write. Good grief, I mean I think you are wrong about the state of affairs at HP disambiguation, and I said so, and now you're all huffy about it. Sheesh. olderwiser 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
For polishing up the articles I expand for the WP:MISH. It can be a tedious process, and it is appreacited! Cheers!  Stratosphere [Chat] 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

warning vandals

Information.svg Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Dan Burton: 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! 22:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).