User talk:Laser brain

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

Steve Zakuani[edit]

Do you have a few moments to take another look at Steve Zakuani. It isn't ready yet but I want to see if it is on the right track. I addressed some sourcing, English variances, and other MOS while cutting out some of the more "fluffier" language. More importantly, I wanted to address your concern over the breadth of content and expanded the section on his professional career along with a few other shorter paragraphs.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I know you have other stuff on your plate but I plan on putting this to FAC again. Wanted to make sure there were no major objections.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Cptnono: At a quick glance, it seems much improved but I admittedly have not taken the time to look to see if you have made use of all the good sources available. Are you confident you have found all the good sources (done a library search, prominent football periodicals, etc.)? You might also consider finding a non-involved editor to just read through it and give you a second opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for giving it a quick look and good idea. I was able to pull up articles from around the world ranging from small operations with press passes to Sports Illustrated to English press. There is a line in a paper "FIFA Eligibility Rules and the Impact on the U.S. Men's National" that I found the abstract to. I'll see if I can get access.Cptnono (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, maybe I'm jumping the gun on this, but...[edit]

I thought you might want to know that The Rambling Man is circling around Medeis again suddenly. After being absent from the Ref Desks since the last time he was accused of following her there to hound her (connecting with the same ANI discussion in which you blocked or unblocked him; the events also caused a fair amount of disruptive discussion on the Ref Desk talk pages at the time)...anyway, after being absent from that point on, he's suddenly shown up again and, without any other kind of activity on the desks first, has joined a discussion about a topic which Medeis is being generally criticized for right now. He doesn't mention her by name, but he does lambast the very activity she's being described as engaging in, and just scatter-shot insults anybody who happens to be standing nearby at the same time, in that way of his so that he can't be technically said to be engaging with her directly.

Like I told him, I don't know that it's a screaming violation of his IBAN, but he doesn't seem to be there for constructive purposes in any event, and with his ill regard for the place generally, I should think he would want to avoid that space, given two users he has IBANs with contribute there more or less daily. Especially as said IBANS have collectively garnered 9 or 10 ANI inquieries -- I forget exactly how many exactly; 9 or 10 more than should have been necessary if they could act like editors should, in any event. Anyway I thought you might want to be aware of it, in case it's destined to explode on to ANI -- once again, almost immediately after the last one closed. Honestly, if it does (and I don't care which of them starts it or which of them overreacts this time), my only lowly (but I suspect popular) recommendation from the outset is going to be ArbCom. I know they have their hands full with larger issues right now, but this needs to at least be presented to them next if those parties (TRM and Medeis in particular) can't learn to stay out of eachother's way. Or at least that's what I think.

Anyway, I'm going to try not to get further enured in the petty drama between them on this go around, but before I began ducking the whole affair entirely I thought someone with oversight privileges best be aware of where things seemed they might be headed. I couldn't recall exactly if you were the admin who blocked him or unblocked him (blocked, I think), but I've seen you engage him more than any other single admin at ANI, so I figured you were the one to inform. For obvious reasons, I didn't want to ANI it. Hope I'm not just bringing you a giant headache.... Snow talk 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I appreciate the time you've taken to examine this situation and attempt a reasonable response. I'm not willing to waste any more time on it—and it is a waste because neither the community nor the belligerents have any real interest in solving the problem. The community did not back me up when I took administrative action against TRM for violating the IBAN, so I won't be doing it again, even though the thread you linked is an obvious violation. Jehochman made a good faith effort to mediate at the time he unblocked TRM, but that didn't go anywhere and I'm positive TRM did not interpret any of what has happened as negative reinforcement of his behavior. If anything, they've all been shown that the community will continue to tolerate it. Maybe it will end up at ArbCom, at which time I'll file a statement and evidence, but until then I've got more productive things to do. I advise you do the same. --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, alright -- I can't rightly say I blame you for not wanting to be the one to put yourself out there again in that context. Certainly I couldn't agree more with most everything you've said, especially as regards the fact that the community has largely enabled, rather than restrained, this whole affair and that the disruptive parties have only been emboldened as a result. TRM in particular is so consistently insulting in his dealings with others (especially when his behaviour is under direct scrutiny), that it's just jarring to me; I can't imagine anyone else getting away with 1/100th as much without a block. Perhaps Jehochman will be willing to take a look at the matter, if only to follow the discussion on the talk page and make sure things do not get out of hand; TRM didn't exactly utilize the unblock in the spirit Jehochman had intended, after-all. But I rather got the impression from the last ANI that they were as fed-up up with the matter as you. Well, I hope somebody with a mop follows it in any event, because once that ball gets rolling, nothing short of tools is going to stop it. Good luck to the regular editors who get caught in that gravity well in the meantime... Snow talk 16:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's past time to take this matter to arbitration and get it settled finally. There needs to be a deep look at who's doing what wrong and craft a mandatory solution. Noticeboards aren't good for complex, multi-party disputes, especially when an admin is involved. Jehochman Talk 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jehochman: I'm fairly well certain that there is going to be broad community support for this approach if this has to be addressed (which is looking, unsurprisingly, like it's going to be sooner rather than later). The only question is, who is going to bring the matter to them? I don't mean to pass the buck here, gentleman, but I think it needs to be an admin. TRM has a habit of slandering anybody who takes issue with his behaviour as essentially out for his blood, even if they just happen to be bystanders to his main conflict with someone else entirely and are simply asking him to reflect a little on whether his actions might be contributing the problem. As a personal example, here's where I came to appreciate just how big and long-standing this conflict has been. Note that prior to this flare-up, I'd had no experience or knowledge of TRM or his issues with Medeis and Bugs; the sum total of my experience with him before commenting at the ANI is that about a week before I had asked him a half-dozen times to please try to be more civil in his discussion with others, all of this transpiring in a single discussion on a single talk page. Nonetheless, when I commented at ANI, TRM had absolutely no reservations about misrepresenting -- no, outright lying about -- our past involvement, saying "Snow has used various venues to berate me and my approach to trying to improve the Ref Desk" and saying my behaviour is "indicative of someone with a serious grudge."
He does this with everyone who takes issue with his behaviour, however tangentially; he goes WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the issue he is asked to address, and then instantly switches the discussion to be about the party that asked him to examine his own behaviour, implying that they have an axe to grind with him. In fact, almost as invariably he actually accuses them of being a part of some conspiracy/club/plot/what-have-you that are explicitly out to see him blocked from the site or otherwise thwarted just because he is sharing unpopular truths and thus isn't popular himself ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]; this is just a portion of the available diffs from just two of the involved threads). He's been told a number of times that these comments often take the form of WP:AGF and WP:NPA violations, but he just doesn't see it that way, or just doesn't care. And the beauty of his system is that it works, because once he's made enough of these accusations, he can therefore say the parties he has directed them at are "involved" in the conflict, just because he heaped enough abuse upon them while they were trying to separate him from others. This is his ubiquitous response to criticism; the only people I've ever seen directly call his behaviour without triggering this sort of response (well mostly without doing so) are the two of you, and I don't think it's just a coincidence that you two just happen to be the only two administrators I've seen him interact with.
In short, if this issue does need to go to ArbCom, it needs to be taken there by someone with a broad enough profile in the community for known impartiality that they cannot just be disparaged as someone acting out a personal vendetta. Ideally, someone who has a community mandate to be be assessing user behaviour. That is to say, an admin. I certainly understand if neither of you wants to be that person -- and indeed the two of you have done far more already than any other admins -- but someone at ANI needs to step up to the plate, or this will never end. And by the way, Medeis has been no paragon herself -- I could easily reference as many times that she had protracted this whole affair. But her problematic behaviour is different from TRM's and I don't view her as the one who has the potential to make an ArbCom case a nightmare for a non-admin bringing it to ArbCom, dragging them into the mud, no matter that their only real aim was to bring a close to this un-ending disruption surrounding this pair and their IBAN.
But that's it, I've done my due diligence here. I've taken this as far up the chain as I can and made every effort I could to summarize for the community what has passed between these parties. Hopefully someone else picks up this thread and takes enough interest to take it ArbCom so they can unravel things altogether. If not, I think it's a dimn omen of just how little control over disruptive behaviour we are going to have as the administrative process becomes even more undermanned and stressed. So, I'm at your disposal if either of you wants me to clarify my position here, but otherwise I'm going to keep a wide birth of the above-mentioned parties until their issues are taken somewhere where something might actually be done about them. Apologies as to the length of this post on your talk page, LB, but I wanted to summarize my observations of this matter for an admin (and make it clear why I think some admin needs to lead any approach to ArbCom) before I divested myself of involvement. Snow talk 04:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, Laser Brain: I'm sorry to have had to do it when you so clearly wanted to be left clear of this thing, but I did invoke your above opinion while talking to TRM on the talk page. He's not exiting his involvement there but rather showing all signs of again manning the guns to make this a thing. And, much as predicted, he's accusing me of "stalking" him (even though I am a regular in that space, and he is not and only commented because he is being disruptive in violation of the IBAN yet again). In order to make sure his specious claim did not get traction, I decided to point out to him that an administrator found his behaviour to be once again violation of his ban (regardless of whether they chose to personally take action on it). I did it knowing it entailed more direct involvement of your opinion than you anticipated, and for that I'm sorry, but I'm at my wit's end here in how to make this editor see that his behaviour is not appropriate. Every other editor there is trying to tell him the same thing, but he just can't hear it and no one knows what to do. I don't want to take this to ANI and I don't want to keep personally engaging other admins or TRM himself. What can be done here? Can you recommend, in an oversight capacity, another admin who might be able to engage here and bring some resolution? Regular editors are getting swamped by this matter and are tired of having their good names (established through consistent and good-faith behaviour over years) dragged through the mud simply because they want to see an end to this incivility from an editor who is willing to say anything about anyone who tries to shine a light on his hostility.

Please, I know WP:CHOICE is as relevant to admins as any other volunteer, but please, no one without privileges and a clear community mandate that protects their involvement should have to be left to deal with this mess just because they can't stand by and say nothing while this goes on in front of them. Especially when the party necessitating this oversight is an admin themselves. Any kind of advice -- any kind of referral to a further forum that has not been explored, or an administrator you trust to look into this impartially, will be appreciated here to a degree I can't express. Snow talk 07:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I believe the situation has risen firmly above the purview of any single admin. As I said, when I took action in the past I was not supported. That does not mean I did something wrong, but it is an indication that broader consensus and discussion (and probably authority) are needed to take further action. The only thing left is ArbCom, which anyone can file and participate in. I'm not a good candidate to launch an ArbCom effort because I simply have better things to do than try to impose self-control on a group of adults. Consider un-watching AN/I, Ref Desk, and ITN. You might find your blood pressure dropping precipitously. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't blame any one single admin for not wanting to get involved. You seem convinced that conventional remedies will continue to fail -- and ANI is tapped, there's no doubt there -- but that doesn't mean rank and file editors should just "get out of his way" and let him do what he wants. With respect, sir, it's easy for you to advise patience with waiting until he lands himself at ArbCom; I have to watch him come repeatedly into that space to insult or hound other editors and generally raise a hornet's nest -- and then somehow convince himself he's actually a champion guarding against trolls. Are you really advising that I turn a blind eye to that?
That's a tall order when he couples this behaviour with personal attacks. You know what he's doing right now on that talk page? In the most recent ANI, Medeis at one point compared herself to a rape victim in an overzealous metaphor to try to explain how she felt "blamed by the police"; I was the only person there, the only one, who (despite feeling that Medeis is being hounded), took the time to tell Medeis that her metaphor was hyperbolic and then spent a moment showing her that her own behaviour was not exactly helpful. I was the only person to question that metaphor as excessive. So what does TRM do? He references that event in a way that suggests that I was "on the bandwagon" with Medeis' accusation, rather than the only person who was trying to get Medeis to keep things real. Since I told him not to do this once before, and made clear this is a subject matter I do not take light, and since he's made this comment once again without a diff, this is without a doubt a personal attack under our policies. He can't prove what says, but he just says it, leaves it out there and never addresses it if you demand proof. And this has got to be the 30th time at least that I've seen him do this with another editor just in the few short weeks I've been aware of him. Are you telling me that the only way any one of us can get this addressed is to file it at ArbCom? That's a tough one to swallow.
But mind you, my blood pressure is really quite fine over this issue, please try to believe me. I know I've been, well, verbose to say the least here. But I'm just trying to cross my t's and dot my i's so that no accusation I make is not well supported by evidence. Because that's the only option a non-admin has when they have to engage tendentious editor at length.
You're right of course, it seems inevitable that he will wreck himself on ArbCom sooner or later, via one party or another. But neither am I exactly content in the meantime to just watch him pollute a valuable part of the project with his histrionics and temper. Or just sit back and accept his personal attacks upon anyone who just tries to get him to back off from his targets.
I think I'm overdue to not trouble your talk space with it at all from this point forward. But I want to part noting this is not a case of someone just getting under my skin. He's a real problem, and he's an admin. That makes him doubly an administrative issue in these circumstances. That's the only reason I've bothered you and the only reason I've gone on at such length. I'm sorry if all I accomplished was to hound you with something that you (understandably) want no part of. I thought it was important to try this instead of ANI this time. I'm not sure what to do at this point. Snow talk 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Snow Rise: Don't worry that you are bothering or hounding me—I'm more than happy to engage with pretty much anyone, even if they just want a sounding board. I have taken previous action, so it's appropriate to discuss potential further actions with me. If an ArbCom case is opened, I would be involved, so I certainly would like to stay in the loop. Your verbosity is not a problem for me either. It's your discourse style and I can't fault you for that.
Since you are concerned and you have indicated that this conflict affects your spheres of interest on a regular basis, have you considered filing an ArbCom case? It would be a constructive way forward. --Laser brain (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I considered it from the very start when I first saw him treating people uncivilly on the Ref Desk talk page and then followed the matter back to ANI and saw the whole sordid history there. Looking through the archives and watching first-hand in the then-present thread as TRM misrepresented his behaviour and the parties involved, I was pretty appalled and I even told TRM if he kept harassing users in the manner I had observed that I would take the matter to ArbCom. I shouldn't have hesitated to follow through on that (because of course he did continue to treat other uncivily) and at that time I was still relatively uninvolved. At this point, seven weeks, three ANI's and a couple of talk threads later and I just made to many attempts to try to reign in his personal attacks. Nevermind the fact that I've never had a content disagreement with TRM and have only ever engaged him when I felt there was a major civility issue inolved. He'll still find a way to try make it seem that my request for ArbCom attention is somehow a vendetta against him.
Mind you, I don't doubt ArbCom's ability to quickly parse his nonsense once they've taken the case, but he'll do everything in his power in the interim to discredit whoever brings the action against him, to try to make the matter look frivolous and personal. That's why I've settled on another course of action if he proves incapable of backing away from this discussion that involves Medeis or persists in personal attacks against anyone. I'm really hoping he sees common sense and lets the matter go, but if this has to go before ArbCom, it should do so as a community recommendation, so that he can't point to the person making the filing and imply a grudge, as he is wont to do. I believe I know the way to do that in the most open and above-board manner possible. Hopefully TRM will not force the issue, but I'll keep you posted in any event. Snow talk 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Interstate 8[edit]

Hi Andy, was wondering if you could recuse coord duties to give this the once-over for image licensing (there was one at A-Class Review) and also source review. Of course if you want to make general comments as well, feel free! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, although I probably can't get to it for another 24 hours. I'm in the city today for a job. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Publisher in references[edit]

Hi Laser brain - I recently had a disagreement with User:Tomica about supplying publisher in references. My reading of the guidelines at Template:Citation#Publisher is that publisher is not usually required, because that information has no practical value for anyone who's trying to check a reference. And the guidelines explicitly say to omit it when the publisher is substantially the same as the publication - e.g. it's superfluous to be told that Time is published by Time, Inc., or that the publisher of BBC News is the BBC. Popular music articles in Wikipedia seem to often include publisher in this way, despite the guidelines, and in contrast to virtually all other areas of WP, where this superfluous information is uncommon. In the course of the discussion, this user mentioned that he had been picked up in an FA review (Good Girl Gone Bad) for not supplying publisher details. Why do you feel that this is required to achieve FA status? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, publisher is quite helpful if you're checking references - it can tell you if the work is self-published or by an academic press. I agree that with things like newspapers or magazines it's less useful, but for books, it's very useful. There is a world of difference between something published by iUniverse or lulu and something by the Oxford University Press. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: (ec) I was remiss in fully explaining the reason for my request at that particular FAC, but if memory serves, it was a consistency issue. Publishers had been supplied on some of the references but not others. I disagree with the assertion that the publisher has no practical value in the citation. For those who frequently look up sources for verification and spot-checking purposes, the publisher is a very useful clue as to whether the source is reliable. The publisher can also be used to hone in on the correct source when doing library database searches and there are multiple publications with the same or similar name. --Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that publisher for books can be useful - I didn't make clear that I'm talking about periodicals or websites here. Nobody gains anything from being told that Time is (currently) published by Time Inc, or that Jam! is part of That's why the recommendation in the {{cite}} guidelines is to omit it. This kind of superfluous information was removed from the widely used {{singlechart}} template more than a year ago and not one person has objected (nor, I suspect, even noticed). A further complication arises with some magazines because they tend to change hands. For example, that article, Cry_Me_a_River_(Justin_Timberlake_song), credits some Billboard citations (from 2002/03) to Nielsen (who owned it up to 2009), and some to Prometheus, the current owners. So the information is inconsistent as well as useless and would be best just eliminated entirely as the guidelines recommend. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: All fair points. I recommend considering verifiability/reliability first and consistency second. If having publishers helps verify or determine reliability (whatever the medium), they are a benefit. If there is a consistency issue, I'd rather have publishers on all or none of a particular medium than being haphazard. It seems we have a conflict between the template documentation in this case and the culture at FAC, which leans toward asking for publishers. Maybe a centralized discussion at WT:FAC would be useful. --Laser brain (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Wait so I get in trouble for deleting a post from someone, yet that person whom was the one I deleted the post from doesn't get in trouble for deleting my post first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informativepro1 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Informativepro1: You didn't "get in trouble". I posted a standard note to your page that it is unacceptable to delete text from someone's user page in retaliation for a disagreement you had with them. Sam Sailor gave you a perfectly reasonable explanation for what he did. This is a wiki—anything you do is liable to be changed by anyone else. You might visit Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers/Welcome for some more basic information about contributing to our community. --Laser brain (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you still do copyedits?[edit]

Hey Andy, forgive me if I'm suffering from post-ArbCom senility and have you pegged as the wrong guy, but I was wondering if you'd be willing to get "Space Seed" a once-over with a fresh set of eyes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see the end of your ArbCom tenure is giving you more breathing room for article work! I would be happy to look it over, but it might not be until Monday. I've got two active FARs and some FAC coordinator work on deck. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Forgot you were an FAC coord too, looking over there a lot of hats have changed :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Slow going—at least ten different RL factors have conspired to distract me in the last couple of days. I hope to continue and finish up tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for a ping?[edit]

I was on a business trip so I limited myself to small edits in other articles. And then this. Is it really too much to ask for you to ping the person in question? 01:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: A ping to let you know I was archiving your nomination, or are you asking for more time between when I announced my intentions and when I actually archived it? Either way, I beg your pardon for the misunderstanding. It is quite normal for nominations with outstanding opposition to be archived when more than two weeks have passed, especially when the going consensus is that the article is quite a way from FA quality. I hope it does not deter you from nominating the article in the future. --Laser brain (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a ping so I know it's being archived so I can come back and fix anything remaining. All of the reviewer's points had been addressed, he simply never returned to acknowledge that. Had I known you were going to pull the trigger I might have done something about it, but I wasn't informed, so I couldn't. This should be a basic courtesy, if not policy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
No, all of her points had not been addressed, only some of the examples. I'll suggest again that you should consider taking this through A-class review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
And I could have addressed those had I known it was threatened with closure. Again, is it really too much to ask for a ping? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
FAC delegates/coordinators have never been obliged to ping nominators regarding closures, and they should not be asked to do so. It says in the FAC instructions that speedy reponses to issues raised at FAC are expected. If we had to ping nominators before closing FACs with outstanding issues and/or opposition we would never get anything done in a timely manner and the list of nominations would become unmanageably long. Graham Beards (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
So your concern is that telling people there is a problem would cause more work for you, so you should not have to go through the bother of typing a few characters (while in the midst of typing a few characters). I think you're onto something here Graham, we could quickly solve the problem with health care budgets with this simple suggestion!
Aside from the Little Britain analogs, I would suggest that your argument has it exactly reversed. Because I was not warned, I will have to re-list. So, in the end, there is double the work for the dels/coords, and quite a bit more than that for the noms. The very large number of zero-edit re-lists suggests this is a real problem, not the imaginary one you posit. All to save a few characters. Does this really strike you as a cogent argument?
If your concern really is zombie FACs, put a metric on closure and stick to it. This sort of silent fail does no one any favors, least of all the people you champion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We should not have to, and don't, tell nominators about problems. Nominators are expected to follow their nominations and respond in good time. Most do. Why should you be an exception. You can relist article two weeks after the closing date. In the meantime reviewers and coordinators can spend their precious time on the other candidates on the list. Graham Beards (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you have made your position clear enough. I disagree with it, and I think a lot of other people would too. That being the case, I will open the discussion in a more appropriate place than someone else's talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, now I understand your statement...[edit]

When I first read your reply above, I hadn't carefully examined the timestamps. Now that I have, I change my answer. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I'm not sure I follow. I understood that you were asking to be given a heads-up about an impending archive with enough time to take whatever action you thought was appropriate. Is that not the case? --Laser brain (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's it, I had failed to notice there were only three minutes between A and B. A ping alone would not have been enough, but I see you already took that into account. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Long overdue, I just realized I hadn't offered you a beer yet... Thanks for your help in saving Nine Inch Nails from losing FA status. I found the experience to be very fun and you a pleasure to work with. Here's to industrial rock at it's finest. Cheers! MusikAnimal talk 06:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)