User talk:Mike Searson/archive4

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)[edit]

Waricon.svg
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ctenosaura pectinata, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for letting me know about the iguana article. To be honest, I've never updated a wiki before. I'm home schooled and my dad chose for me to edit the iguana article and I had... still have no idea what I'm doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almperra (talkcontribs) 00:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Pio of Pietrelcina[edit]

Sorry Michael. I saw the damage yesterday evening and had intended to repair it this morning. It seems you got there before me. My apologies. --Jaimehy (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thank You[edit]

No problem. I've only protected for 2 weeks, and we'll see what happens from there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started[edit]

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Dear Mike Searson, Thanks for your feedback on this article. I am going to make the additions you requested maybe sometime today or tomorrow. In your opinion, it this article ready for FA after these additions? NancyHeise (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have already added a lot on Latin America in three different sections in History. I will add California missions after I do some research on that. I think my additions have sufficiently addressed Sandy Georgia's comments, I mean there really is a lot of expansion and content on that subject now. NancyHeise (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your constant support and encouragement. NancyHeise (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mike, I nominated this for FA yesterday. There is only one vote so far, I was looking forward to see how you would vote. NancyHeise (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro Image[edit]

Hi Mike, I don’t know what gave you the impression of any religious motivations behind my concerns, but I assure that my concerns regard only fair use policy (if the image were free, I would have no issue with its use, content, subject, etc.). To bore you for a moment, historical images become free (public domain) in the following instances (summary):

  • Published or registered in the U.S. before 1923
  • Published or registered in the U.S. from and including 1923 through, unless the copyright was renewed
  • Created before January 1, 1978, but not published or registered by that date are protected by copyright law for the life of the creator plus 70 years

The image is from November 23, 1927, and has been published, so the first and third are out. I haven’t been able to determine whether the copyright was renewed, but, when unsure, we need to assume it was. Mexican copyright law may differ; I'd be happy to check whether it's more lenient, if you're truly passionate about the image.

As I’ve said, however, it looks like the image is meant to illustrate religious devotion to the Christ in the face of persecution. That’s just fine, but it’s something that could be accomplished with a free image, which means we can’t utilize a fair use image. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addresing the image situation. I liked Miguel Pro better but the new image is OK too. Im not the most knowledgeable person on the image situation on wikipedia so I was glad to have your help here. NancyHeise (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have done something correctly, thanks for helping to answer the FA comments. I guess that means that you are in support of its FA nomination? NancyHeise (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Peter#Outside The Ring[edit]

Hello, Mike Searson. There is a citation needed for the above section of Samuel Peter's article which concerns him being a Christian. I have a link which you can use as a source to put there. I'll give you the link below. Please leve me a message on my talk page.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church changes[edit]

Hi Mike, I just wanted to thank you for making those changes to the Roman Catholic Church article. I appear to make Nancy really uncomfortable, and I thought that by detailing my concerns and letting her respond rather than make changes myself (which I would have rather done) she would not feel so defensive. Apparently that wasn't a great decision on my part. Anyway, thanks for your help. Karanacs (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

References on RCC[edit]

Dear Mike, I am following the example you gave me on the St. Francis of Assisi page and going through all the refs on RCC right now. I have finished the first one, the National Geographic Society book by Tyler Hitchcock. Could you please come take a look and let me know if these refs need any more information. The original ref is at the top of the page with all the info, the subsequent refs are way down below in numbers 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, etc and they just have the authors last name, copyright date and page number. Are you sure that is enough info and that this is going to be OK at FA? NancyHeise (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found the actual wikipedia policy and copied and pasted it on the bottom of the FA comments page just to let everyone know what I was following and asking for help if I was doing something wrong. Thanks. I think I am almost done with the first book. NancyHeise (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Evander Holyfield#The Quest To Unify The Titles[edit]

Hello, Mike. I have a couple links here concerning Holyfield and a possible third bout with Mike Tyson, and some comments that Holyfield has stated. If you don't mind, this link here should go after the quote "It's u to me as an adult what I want to do.", and this one should go after the other quote. I'd put it down myself except for the fact that I can't seem to find who exactly wrote the article. Please leave me a message. Thanks.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Hi Mike, did you add these two sources to the page? ^ Fletcher, A History of Architecture on the Comparative method (2001) ^ Swaan, The Gothic Cathedral (1998) ? If you did, I need page numbers for your quotes. Can you please add that info or let me know if these arent your edits. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Forget this request, I had a book that I replace it with - I had to change the content a little. NancyHeise (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what you have in mind to improve the article so I can work with you to win your support vote NancyHeise (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BLUEIGUANA.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:BLUEIGUANA.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I wanted to thank you for generally trying to understand my concerns regarding the Roman Catholic Church article and especially for addressing the tagged issues so quickly. I've made a relatively minor revision to the previously OR tagged sentence to address the remaining OR concerns I had (by sticking strictly to the source). I should also mention that the Tobin source information you added is exactly the kind of sourcing I am requesting. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to see third-party academic sources used when possible, but Roman Catholic teachings (in any form) are certainly reliable sources of Roman Catholic belief. I hope that answers your question sufficiently. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added new sources to the page and will recieve an new university press source suggested by my Yale Grad student friend tomorrow. I also ordered Annuario Pontificio which will give us statistics to add. I hope that will satisfy your concerns. Also, the references you added are not in a consistent format with the others. I will change them if you dont have time - let me know. NancyHeise (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC cleanup[edit]

Dude, you rock. Have at it. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike, did you copyedit the lead? It looks like you took care of Tony's comments. Can you respond to the individual remarks he made or put a note at the bottom of whatever part of his list you accomplished? Am I supposed to do that since I am the nominator? NancyHeise (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

Appreciate your efforts in order to present objective information about ("traditionalist") Roman Catholic devotions, themes and subjects, often too distorted by media and ignorants' coverage. Or by pure anti-Catholic bias. Please continue! A fellow Roman Catholic!Smith2006 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

hand washing[edit]

Washing your hands of the article, or of the ad hominem attacks? I hope the latter and not the former. We need you. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

Wow. You need to learn to stop pulling punches like that. ;-) The history section was cut by karanacs i think, since it was huge. I dunno about the controversies.Ling.Nut (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC History[edit]

I completely agree with you about deficiencies in the history section. I've done what I could with the information that was already in the article and done a little independent research on things that were obviously (to me) missing or wrong, but since I am not incredibly well-versed in Church history or in pre-Renaissance history, I'm sure there are lots of other gaps. I chopped out a lot of the inconsequentials, and my hope is that as we fill in more of the gaps, other pieces of the history section will suddenly seem a lot less importance and can be stripped out of this summary. I can't do it all on my own, though. Please unwash (redirty?) your hands - we could use the help! I think the whole article needs to be broken up section by section with a lot of debate as to what goes in each section. Getting everyone to agree to do that, though...just the idea gives me a headache. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Novus Ordo[edit]

  • (Don't miss Karancs' comments above) I commented out my own cite that (I had thought) backed up the statement. It seems from your comments that the waters are far deeper than I, as both non-Catholic and completely uninformed about matters of Catholic doctrine etc., could appreciate. I hope you'll find a way to rectify the situation. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your changes to the Mass on RCC[edit]

Mike, I dont like your changes to the Mass on RCC. I think it is confusing. I know your strong feelings about the Tridentine Mass and I think it deserves mention in the history section after Vatican II. Is there any way you can make the Mass section more clear? Non-Catholics are not going to be helped by what is written there. Maybe you could state what the Mass is in the top of the section and then discuss the evolution of the vernacular Mass in a couple of sentences at the end of the section. That way you dont detract from the more important issue of explaining to the reader what the Mass is. NancyHeise (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your not understanding what I am asking. I would like to know if you are OK with having a more elementary description of the Mass in the section on Mass, with a two sentence history of its evolution at the bottom (or top) to not distract from the definition for people who want to know what it is. The controversy is a notable controversy that should be in history and could include all the Novus ordo wikilinks. NancyHeise (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Komodo dragon[edit]

Thanks for looking at it. I've removed source number ten, since it isn't of much use anyway, and it's already cited. However, I've checked the information on #3 before and found it accurate. I don't see much problem with citing the sign either, and all the sources I've seen talk about expecting the eggs to hatch. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 05:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, if you have any other sources to cite, please do! bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 05:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it before on an encyclopedia on reptiles, but the ISBN I copied didn't work and I couldn't find the encyclopedia series. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 06:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC[edit]

That was just my evil plot to get a replacement ;) I usually take the weekends off from wiki-work anyway (and this week my weekend starts tonight!!). Hopefully by Monday I will be in a better frame of mind and won't be in danger of saying something I might regret later. Thanks for the invite back - that did make me feel better. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Happy First Day of Spring![edit]

Continued from "lies"[edit]

Yeah, I've heard about that whole deal with JPI's death; it was kind of silly, really. I've never heard about that thing with JPII until now, though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nautical Mongoose (talkcontribs) 04:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tridentine Mass[edit]

I don't think I can be of much help in the way you mention. I have never learned how to indicate references in your professional way. I'll watch and see if I can assist, but I think the only help I can give now is some encouragement. Lima (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Dear Mike, I am considering renomination of this article for FA. I would like to know if you see any obvious problems with the article before I resubmit. I am contacting you on the advice of Karanacs who suggested I ask previous commentors to take a look and see if previous FAC issues have been sufficiently addressed. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs take on this was as clear as it was last time.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reptile Barnstar[edit]

For your outstanding work on reptile related articles, specifically Blue Iguana, here is the "unofficial" Reptile Barnstar! bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and well done!--GrahamColmTalk 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to promote you on April Fools, but it is an auspicious Wiki-day :-) Congrats !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"Oh sod", you guys beat me to it. Cool barnstar Biblio, make sure you stick it on an award page or something...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh sod? and I thought it was only me that used British English! Bloody good article I say. But I don't know how to make a "Bloody Good Article" barnstar. :-( Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you go for amphibians, you might also be able to get The "unofficial" amphibian barnstar. You're the second awardee of the Reptile barnstar, which I'd like to promote. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 04:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope; I'd never pull an April Fools with this page. I 'spose Raul might "fire me" on the spot if I did :-) I considered holding off for a day, so you wouldn't feel fooled, but I knew today would be a busy day for me. Congrats again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I've had some slow evenings here, so been doing a fair bit of editing.

Do you have some overarching concept for want you want done with the Cutlery portion of Wiki? I've mainly been focusing on cleaning up pocketknife issues. The Gravity knife article was a total mess; improved slightly by moving a good chunk of it to Out-the-front Knife, but still dense.

The [Category:Knives] was way too crowded, so I created the "Machetes" category and dumped a dozen articles (mostly Phillipine blades) into that, another dozen into "Daggers", and moved all the manufacturers into their own category.

I'm open to any knife ideas you have, so drop me a line if there's any master plan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tuatara[edit]

Hey, Mike, would you mind peer reviewing Tuatara for me? The page is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tuatara/archive2. bibliomaniac15 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Law Enforcement Barnstar Proposal Poll[edit]


--Mifter (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)[edit]

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

Image on Ernest Emerson[edit]

No trouble at all. I'm glad I was able to help. --Hydraton31 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Name dropper[edit]

At Talk:Elderly Instruments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to add any thoughts here, about the idea of writing a Dispatch entry for the SignPost? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike, I'm going to be traveling at the end of the month, returning about June 3. I believe the Dispatches for May 26 and June 2 are allocated, and the 9th will probably be open. Raul left a note on my talk page that he won't be around, so I'm not sure how you feel about writing it without him (see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch34#name dropping and User talk:SandyGeorgia#Schedule). If you and Laser decide to do it, it can be written in the temp file at WP:FCDW/June 9, 2008 and you can find older sample dispatches at {{FCDW}}; Tony1 and Jbmurray will copyedit as needed, so you can plop in any old text and count on getting help pre-publication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mike, when you start writing, you'll find Jbmurray (talk · contribs) will be very helpful. He's worked on several dispatches, and has followed this debate. The confusion surrounding notability needs to be sorted out, and it will be a fine line to walk, but the horrific attacks made on you and Laser, now on Laser's talk page as well as Talk:Elderly Instruments, need to be mentioned without overly emphasizing those delicate points. It should be a challenging article, but you're all capable writers, so I look forward to seeing it. One goal will be an article that deals with notability in relation to WP:FAC and WP:TFA/R, that will hopefully be of use if we're faced with this unfounded unpleasantry the next time a company or product is run on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Another piece at User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts#The main page featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mike, have you started thinking about this? I'd be interested in collaborating with you. Want to lay down a rough draft? Or do you want me to? --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have something started at Wikipedia:FCDW/June 9, 2008. I was thinking about fleshing out the "Preparing" heading and adding more headings for answering questions, dealing with vandalism, choosing which criticisms to ignore or address, etc. Feel free to add whatever you think of, I'm off for the night. One thing did occur to me though.. how exactly do people get notified their article is scheduled to appear if they didn't request it? Sandy dropped me a note about Elderly, but I don't think I would have noticed otherwise until it actually appeared on the main page. --Laser brain (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Elcobbola or Gimmetrow adds the maindate= parameter to the articlehistory, and theoretically you'll see that on your watchlist. Off to the airport, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm.. for Elderly, Gimmebot added it. Bot edits are visible on my watchlist but what is the default setting? --Laser brain (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm...[edit]

I recognize there's some tension involved in the whole discussion of the featured article yesterday, but I have to suggest that the second and last sentences here are leaning into personal attack territory. Could I please request that you refactor those to remove the attacks? Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I also resented this as a personal attack against me, as well as accusations of naysayers and others, because I opened the ANI thread following the protection of the article and expressed my opinion that TFAs should be chosen by the community. But as you see, I also support Laser brain and attempt to dedramatize the situation. I sincerely hope that an increased involvement of the community in the TFA process will prevent these kind of things to happen. I also do not like general notability requirements, and prefer a case by case analysis (in the form of a community debate over a proposed TFA). I see that you suggested that I get more involved in FAC/FAR at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#arbitrary_section_break, as I said, this is not about FA, but about TFA. I spent enough time on Wikipedia actually, and I'm logically attracted by the areas I'm more at my ease (and where I'm the most useful I suppose). We also have backlogs in plenty other places. I'll try to make some peer reviews for a start. By the way, I like the Blue Iguana article. Cenarium (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Then it's all right, it's just that I've been upset by a spur of generalizations (naysayers and so) and I had doubts on where was lying the line. I cited these three articles because they are regularly cited for having led to criticisms while on the Main Page. I've not read all the debates around them, and it's very possible that the criticism was not so widespread for Emerson. I know however that for Elderly, a good number of users were disappointed. And I think that a good way to solve these problems is to increase the involvement of the community. Indeed I think that the existence of an article in several languages is a good indicator for a certain class of articles, but I wouldn't make a general criteria of this. Cenarium (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TFA reform[edit]

Hi, I’ve just made a comment on possible reform of the TFA system on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. I’d appreciate if you had a look and perhaps weighed in. Cheers! Lampman Talk to me! 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was polite to inform you, as you were already involved in the wider debate. I like to get input from everybody, not just those who agree with me. The Blue Iguana article looks great, I'm looking forward to seeing it on the Main Page. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "people like me", and as for notability, I never made an argument based on that. But I do wonder why an obviously skilled editor like you insists on making this an issue of crazy, bleeding-heart, leftist peaceniks versus red-blooded, meat-eating, gun-toting Americans. To me the conflict on Wikipedia is not about left versus right, it's about those who chose to bring their political agenda into the editing process and those who rise above that. I prefer to simply ignore those who haven't understood this, and engage in dialogue with the rest. Lampman Talk to me! 02:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I didn't see the whole picture then, I could only judge by what was on the talk page. It's obviously shitty when stuff like that happens, and I can see how it can be disheartening. When I said the issue was to replace the article on the Main Page, I was talking only about the straw poll that I set up, but I'm aware that others went a lot further than that. Lampman Talk to me! 13:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Boxing Trainer[edit]

You say on the Wikiproject: Boxing page that you are a trainer is that true? The K.O. King (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just curious because I am a boxer and I need a trainer. The K.O. King (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is my school record, I box at my school, and I was thinking of going to the golden gloves in about a year or two and I really need a trainer. The K.O. King (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)