User talk:Kaldari

Thank you :)

Thanks for the barnstar. :)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's movement

Do you think this should be merged into Men's rights? Or will that be dependent on the requested move? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Portia schultzi

Heya Kaldari,

I'm reviewing this for GA and was trying to find some good pictures of P. schultzi on the interwebs, because Commons is lacking. Sadly, the really good ones on Flickr are copyrighted and watermarked (blerg), but I found these two. Are they P. schultzi? If not, do you happen to have family photos of your pet spiders that would do the trick? :)

Also, since I don't know much about the subject, it would be awesome if you could glance over the refs and weigh in on what's missing or needs improvement. No pressure, though. Thanks, and seeya tomorrow! Accedie^{talk to me} 16:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Kaldari! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Block of Malleus

Can you please reconsider your block? I don't think it was merited. Civility blocks rarely accomplish anything, the AN/I discussion was against it, and you only seem to have blocked one participant. Please rethink. Thank you. --John (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This block seems ill-considered and would best be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed you said you were not into feeding drama, but by making this ill-considered and one-sided block then disappearing, this was the effect your action had. Please wait for a consensus at AN/I next time. --John (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari has not contested the un-block, and I believe the discussions on ANI and MF's page provide arguments against the block. It's not clear that further posting here will help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kaldari, good to see you again.This and this occurred just a month ago. Do you know why he called me "dickhead" over and over? Merely because I awarded Dank with a star and not him. He felt insulted that I had not noticed that my FAC had been promoted because of him (or so he believes that it was promoted because of him). This guy is all tough because he is safe behind a computer screen and believes he can treat everyone like s%&#$%. He should have been blocked for a far longer time. You can't feel intimidated by his friends. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it might have more to do with the fact that you took entirely objective review comments personally. I've worked on several articles with Malleus and I've never known him to covet barnstars. Parrot of Doom 17:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See my award to Dank here, then Malleus Fatuorum's response here, then Dank's own response here and lastly Malleus' reply here. You may see what I wrote him here and how he became angry because I did not aknowledge his greatness and how ungrateful I was to not realize that I owned my FAC promotion to him here. My reply here and his here. I was never, ever, rude to him. You may excuse his behavior as may times you wish. It's your right. But don't ask me to do the same. --Lecen (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Convenient that you didn't just mention this post, referring to an FAC in which Malleus is critical only of the article you're involved with, and not you. Your links in that post demonstrate quite nicely how wrong you were. You took the wrong end of the stick and got all offended when the person who helped your article through FAC was rightly annoyed. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Malleus is entitled to be annoyed. He is not entitled to called people dickheads because he is annoyed. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

He's entitled to use whatever language he deems acceptable. I can see now why he called you a dickhead. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How mature. --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, another hypocritical civility warrior. Why am I not surprised. Parrot of Doom 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An edit 5 days prior is no reason to block today. I take it from your lack of ability to give a valid block reason that you are ready to apologies for your extremely inappropriate block. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To whom? Malleus Factuorum? You've got to be kidding. He insults everybody and does not have to say a single "I'm sorry" and Kaldari is supposed to apologize? Malleus' friends have a weird double standard. --Lecen (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari has already acknowledged the community consensus. Kaldari is a strong and principled editor, and thicker skinned than even myself (!), but cannot we let this go now, or at least reduce the level of hostility, a bit.

Kaldari has often been the lead editor stopping some unfortunate behavior, which need not be linked here. A human administrator who is usually right and whose informal authority and earned respect have sufficed to establish peace many times, without blocks, should be given some slack.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My sympathies. Been down this road myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there, Kaldari. You made this block in good faith and with reasonable justification (whether people agree or disagree that the behavior warranted blocking, there certainly WAS bad behavior going on and previous warnings HAD been issued), and it pains me to see how viciously people are attacking you for daring to block someone they think ought not to have been blocked. The fact that blocking an editor for attacking another often earns the blocking admin abuse is a bug, not a feature, of this community. I wonder if we can file a bugzilla for "lots of wikipedians are kind of jerky a lot of the time"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffernutter (talk • contribs) 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC) You know, I previewed this three times and somehow managed to miss that I'd forgotten to sign. Herp derp, I'm brilliant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So why weren't both editors blocked? Or neither? Administrators aren't police officers, although I suspect it's easier to get an incompetent police officer removed from his position. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Read the Blocking policy. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your veiled insult and threat to Kaldari was uncalled for, Parrot of Doom. --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what you call for Lecen. Some of us have a rather cynical view of administrators and Kaldari's most recent post does little to assuage that. This wasn't a block for incivility else both editors would have been blocked. Neither was it a block for disruption, because nothing was disrupted. No, it was a punitive block to show who's in charge - or rather, who thinks they're in charge. That's why it was almost immediately reverted. Parrot of Doom 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, re [1], I don't listen to anyone's friends, I do my own research. That's not February; it's October. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink (submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil (submissions)
3. Yellow Evan (submissions)
4. Miyagawa (submissions)
5. Wizardman (submissions)
6. Casliber (submissions)
7. Resolute (submissions)
8. PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The Featured Article Award: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Unblocks and Enabling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your correction to motion 4 as only arbitrators may propose, change or vote on motions. If you would like to comment on the motion, I suggest you enter a statement. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

subquote style proposal

I posted about MOS style. You probably disagree with my preference, so I invite your response there. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	The top of Wikipedia:Geonotice says, send flowers to Kaldari :) Thanks for setting this amazing tool up for all of us to target our event publicity! Deryck C. 18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrator recall

Are you open to an administrator recall discussion? What are your criteria for a good faith request? Thanks, Geometry guy 02:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the above comment grossly inappropiate. RFA Guy (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a comment, but a question: two questions, in fact. Who are you to find it inappropriate? Geometry guy 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, recall is a bad idea when an administrator is taking unpopular but warranted action, for the same reasons that judges often have life terms (subject to impeachment, etc.).

I believe in only a handful of cases, Kaldari has used administrative powers in ways that have not enjoyed community support; in such cases, Kaldari has acquiesced to the community's consensus with much less belly-aching than usual---in fact, Kaldari's comments are usually limited to clarifications (a week or so later, when people are calmer).

Given this context, I believe that Kaldari's time should not go into writing a statement of a recall procedure.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari is more than capable of deciding their own whether or not to be open to a a process that over 200 other administrators are open to.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And of disavowing my modest support without your help? (No doubt 200 administrators have the antibody for a herpes virus: So what?)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What does being "open to an administrator recall discussion" mean? If this is regarding the block of Malleus, you can read the explanation for the block here. Kaldari (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AOR. The question is not about any specific action, but about personal integrity. Geometry guy 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Did I violate some code of ethics or something? What is this about (specifically)? Kaldari (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's a bunch of crap, Kaldari. Ignore it. Doc talk 01:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Forget the TPS and the SPA. I am simply asking a question. Think about the question. Think about accountability. Decide on your position. Articulate it, and stand by it. Geometry guy 01:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the TPS - not sure what SPA has to do with this, really. If you want to start an Administrator recall discussion, are you asking for their permission or something? This thread can be read that you are possibly intending to open such a discussion on your own, with the first question. The second question... I don't even know where to begin. Doc talk 01:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No I am not intending to open a recall discussion. I am only seeking to clarify Kaldari's position. Geometry guy 02:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

On whether they should become open to recall now? Why should they consider this if it's not related to... oh, I don't know, some recent "dramatic" event? The last admin I saw get "recalled" got thrown under a bus because of a mildly unpopular decision. Kaldari earned adminship fair and square. Don't even consider it, IMHO. Doc talk 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually my query was prompted by a minor, undramatic and more recent event; however it is not "about" that. To those seek to be our guards and patrollers, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes is always a valid and honorable question, and one to which the community is entitled to an answer. Geometry guy 12:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The insidious ugliness of this request has only provided me with further evidence that there is a clique of "editors" that are behaving much akin to ones I fought at arbcom 5+ years ago.--MONGO 04:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh... Doc talk 04:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Mongo, you really need to chill out, a bit. I respect your work and sympathize with you in your content editing, but you really have not been helping yourself or WP lately. Geometry guy is an independent thinker, who often agrees with but sometimes firmly disagrees with MF. The same applies to others on MF's talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion.--MONGO 11:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it insidious that a straightforward question is met with such hostility. I do indeed belong to a clique, but its influence derives from the fact that it is motivated by integrity, and it is a clique of one. Geometry guy 12:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How about you just say "No I do not wish to be open to recall"? Seems a lot easier then sniping back and forth.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

GeometryGuy...how many other admins have you posed such a question to? In review of the diff you provided above, what seems to be so problematic about Kaldari issuing a warning in response that might have been a catalyst for you posing the recall question? As far as I know...enforcing policy here is what administrators are supposed to do...MONGO 18:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

More than one, and a bureaucrat as well. It is not the first time and it won't be the last. It is a test of character, like an RfA question. There is no right or wrong answer. However, it is ironic that admins - who regularly deprive other editors of all their editing tools - tend to get rather touchy and evasive at the merest suggestion that their own "hard earned" tools are not theirs by right, for life.

The diff above shows Kaldari policing civility in a user talk discussion where he was not involved. As you point out, he's entitled to do that. As it happens, he made a mistake: the remark he sanctioned was ironic, not abusive. We all make mistakes, and no harm was done, so (as I said above) this thread is not about that diff. However, if you are going to set yourself up as civility policeman, you should have high standards of courtesy yourself, and take care to assume good faith and respect other editors. The diff suggested to me that Kaldari is in the habit of getting involved in civility issues without careful consideration of context. This prompted the recall question. So how civil a response did it elicit?

First of all, a single purpose account was created to describe my straightforward question as "grossly inappropriate". Who did that? If it wasn't Kaldari, who was it, and why didn't Kaldari remove it? There was nothing "grossly inappropriate" about the question, nor was it "insidious". I have been perfectly polite, yet am here maligned and accused of belonging to a clique of destructive editors. Where are the civility police now? Instead, Kaldari regards my question as akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?", a question which explicitly accuses someone of being a violent and abusive husband. I have made no such accusation.

Thanks to Cube lurker for adding some common sense to the discussion. I've learned what I wanted to know. Kaldari is evidently not open to recall and seeks to evade the question. Civility, courtesy and respect for other editors are only truly tested in an uncomfortable situation. Here they appear to have been abandoned at the slightest discomfort. My hope, given the positive character reference from KW, is that Kaldari will learn something from this. It is easy to criticize others for incivility when you are watching from the sidelines, much less easy to maintain your integrity when you are the subject. Geometry guy 21:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari is not the operator of this account. I'm shocked he has not replied to that "SPA" thing you are accusing him of. You can say this is an SPA if you like, but Kaldari is not the operator of this account. I have been following some drama of this situation or situations like this in the recent past and thought I'd respond but without revealing my IP. Back to the SPA thing, the name of this account is RFA guy, if Kaldari were to create an alt account for this matter, why would he name it RFA Guy? Finally, if Kaldari does not want me posting here he is able to remove these posts from me. Thank you. RFA Guy (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this: for further discussion, see User talk:RFA Guy. Geometry guy 02:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I left Seb a warning because Malleus was saying it was a double standard that I was trying to enforce civility on his comments but Seb was being uncivil and no one cared (citing the exact comment I warned Seb for). So if I enforce civility uniformly I'm accused of over-reacting, but if I enforce civility according to common sense, I'm accused of having a double standard. Obviously this has just become a game for you guys. I'm done playing. Please find something better to do. Kaldari (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to read the stuff they wrote to each other in quote a nuanced way to understand how to enforce this policy productively in a case like this. I think your comment "if I enforce civility uniformly I'm accused of over-reacting" is worth analyzing further; being fair doesn't always equate to treating everyone "uniformly"; if it was that easy we could get bots to do it. Civility is a minefield, and has to be approached as such. I'm disappointed in several of the responses above, as it seems to have spiraled from a polite inquiry into defensiveness very quickly. Here's a tip; when neutral observers like GG are asking what's the matter, something is indeed the matter. Please try to act on it. --John (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is indeed something wrong, I would love to address it. But all GG says is that the problem is my "personal integrity". If you guys are just here to discuss my integrity, I'd appreciate it if you find something more useful to do. If you have an actual concern, I'm certainly willing to listen. Kaldari (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence ("I left Seb a warning because...") explains a lot: you sought to establish your neutrality by enforcing civility against an editor apparently opposed to Malleus. In doing so you made a mistake (Seb was not being "uncivil"). Please learn from this. Situations can be more complicated than you might at first believe. It is not a game, it is all about integrity and truly believing that every post you make improves the encyclopedia. I wish you all the best and happy editing. Geometry guy 00:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if Seb is opposed to Malleus or best friends with him. A complaint was made about his comment, it appeared uncivil (as it still does), so I left him a polite note reminding him to be civil. I don't see what the mistake is. If you can explain it, I'm happy to make amends. Also, I vehemently agree with your statement that "Situations can be more complicated than you might at first believe". Despite the fact that everyone on Wikipedia thinks that I blocked Malleus for calling someone an "arse", that is not at all what happened (as I have explained elsewhere). The block was due to Malleus's ongoing harassment of Nick Levinson as well as his repeated insults towards Tbhotch. He had attacked them both repeatedly (in Nick's case without any reciprocal incivility) and had continued his attacks after being warned. I could care less if people use the word "arse", but repeatedly insulting other editors is a clear violation of policy and a blockable offense. If you want to call me the civility police for that, go right ahead. Just make sure you know the facts before getting sucked into the witchhunt. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your reinvention of history is rather unbecoming; the truth would serve you better. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to dig up all the diffs again if you like. Kaldari (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the history. You don't have to take my word for it:

1. Malleus calls Nick a "mindless zealot".[2]
2. I remove Malleus's insult from the page.[3]
3. Parrot of Doom restores the insult.[4]
4. Since my effort to resolve the situation quietly was thwarted, I give Malleus a polite warning about personal attacks instead.[5]
5. Malleus calls Nick an idiot.[6]
6. Malleus calls Nick a pain in the ass.[7]
7. Malleus calls Tbhotch ignorant.[8]
8. Malleus calls Tbhotch an ignorant arse.[9]
9. Tbhotch removes part of the above attack.[10]
10. Malleus restores it.[11]
11. John removes part of the attack.[12]
12. Malleus restores it again.[13]

Of course, now I'm going to be accused of violating WP:POLEMIC. Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Some context is required here, and for anyone interested Kaldari is referring to the long-term disruption caused by User:Nick Levinson at this article, which he has signally failed to deal with because of the foundation's misguided stance on gender equality, preferring instead to focus on naughty words. Malleus Fatuorum

I don't deny that Nick was being difficult. That's why I suggested that you seek dispute resolution. I've had prolonged disputes with Nick myself, so I know it can be frustrating. Resorting to insults doesn't help though. Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia has no effective way of dealing with content disputes, so the recognised tactic is to frustrate your opponent into offering a few naughty words and thus having him blocked by administrators like you. Which is doubly easy if your opponent is unpopular with some of the more vociferous of the contributors to ANI. Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"But Wikipedia has no effective way of dealing with content disputes". This is a very salient point, and one I would like to discuss further at some point. I think your frustrations are legitimate, and I think they should be addressed at a systemic level. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope not, but none of this is relevant to my concerns. Geometry guy 01:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What are your concerns? If I've made any mistakes, please let me know specifically what I did wrong so that I can address it. Asking if I'm willing to be put on trial is a loaded question, especially considering the current circumstances. Feel free to talk to me about recall discussions when I'm not being actively pilloried. Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Badgering are the concerns...it's this kind of group think that has caused so much strife on this website...you made an overdue block on Malleus...his pals didn't like that, so they think since you're a threat, you need to be made to feel leery....or shucks, intimidated(?)...I mean, really. Recall? That is absolutely ridiculous...and the suggestion by one of Malleus's buddies makes it surely insidious. Oh, but I'm to think he's on the up and up since he called Malleus an "arse"...Kaldari, if you wish, I can hat this nonsense away...as this is just a dramafest and not worthy of even being considered.--MONGO 02:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. Just leave it be for now. Hopefully this discussion is winding down anyway. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You continue to condone personal attacks and incivility on your own talk page. Consider your moral compass and stick to it. Geometry guy 05:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do think it's rather shameful Kaldari that you continue to provide MONGO with a platform to continue with his personal attacks, which you claim to be against when uttered by others. As it appears that you have wandered into this issue with MONGO in complete ignorance of the facts, let me draw your attention to this GA reassessment of the 9/11 article, which is the root of MONGO's vendetta against me. As I said, Wikipedia has no effective process to deal with content disputes, and clearly neither does it have an honest process of dealing with so-called civility issues, as you have so amply demonstrated. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

IF I had a vendetta against you Malleus, (as I have mentioned elsewhere) I'd already have filed Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Malleus Fatuorum....notice the redlined link...are we ready to hat this yet, Kaldari?--MONGO 06:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice

Could you please create an edit notice for Pizza in the United States?

Please put this notice on the page:

here: Template:Editnotices/Page/Pizza in the United States

TYVM, Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy

You're right. It IS a tedious discussion. Those pushing the conservative line are trying to win by attrition. Obviously they don't have lives. I wish Wikipedia had better ways of managing such unethical behaviour, but it doesn't. So, nothing else is working. I just reckon a little sarcasm could go a long way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kaldari. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think your timeline's a bit messed up there. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)