User talk:Kmweber

WikiProject Indiana Alerts have been posted:

• Popular page listing

Articles for deletion

• 10 Aug 2024 – Purdue Homeland Security Institute (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Longhornsg (t · c); see discussion (0 participants)
• 06 Aug 2024 – Thomas, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
• 05 Aug 2024 – Waco, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
• 24 Jul 2024 – Mifflin, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
• 23 Jul 2024 – Temple, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
• 30 Jul 2024 – Carefree, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as delete by Sandstein (t · c) on 06 Aug 2024; see discussion (4 participants)
• 30 Jul 2024 – Deuchars, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 06 Aug 2024; see discussion (3 participants)
• 28 Jul 2024 – John McDonald (American football) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Let'srun (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 05 Aug 2024; see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
• 24 Jul 2024 – Pilot Knob, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mangoe (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 05 Aug 2024; see discussion (3 participants; relisted)

Articles to be merged

• 30 Jul 2024 – Ironton Sandstone (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Munising Group by Zigismon (t · c); see discussion
• 30 Jul 2024 – Galesville Sandstone (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Munising Group by Zigismon (t · c); see discussion

Articles for creation

• 04 Jun 2024 – Draft:2024 Evansville Purple Aces baseball team (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Iwaqarhashmi (t · c)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Thank you for your help

I have reply on the disussion, we will see if he's willing to come to a common ground.Yajaec 17:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again, I have made new post on the discussion, I will need some help on setting "that" up, thank you.Yajaec 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All that we could see is that you refused to come to a common ground, Yajaec. Folken de Fanel 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Common ground on your(Folken) term is NOT a common ground, and please be respectful as this particular section isn't for pointing fingers.Yajaec 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Kmweber, I hate to see you getting the unwelcomed comments from this topic, I really appriciate your helps. At this point I don't really see things will work out in a way that both users will be happy with. Is there anything else you could suggest as I am certain even though Wiki is open for any one to edit, there should be the "owner(s)" who can make the final says on messy situations like this, is it possible to have someone on that level to review this situation?(I know there are prob a whole bunch of cases going on, but I'll wait in line as long as it take to get it resolved once for all no matter what the out come is.) Since the last chat, there've been close to 2 more new situations that "discussions" flared. I'm getting really frustrated as it leaves bad taste to my mouth with the subjects that I'm passionated about and tanted those good memories. I know you're prob getting bad taste too as you had good intension to help disputs between users, please let me know what else can I do, thank you again.Yajaec 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I read a bit about the Arbitration, sounds pretty serious as serious result to blocking. I understand that might come to be but it seem like even with consensus we are at dead lock as it seem that no one else wanted to be "invovled" and the article is still at his own edition as he seem dominating the piece, I'm willing to accept the Arbitration result either way and go from there, please let me know what I need or need to do on that, thank you.Yajaec 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no high ranking wikipedians with enough Saint Seiya knowledge. Arbitration is useless and won't happen here. By the way, yajaec, I've already said the only way you could win was to prove your point. If you're unable or reluctant to do so, then please don't try anything more. Folken de Fanel 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken, it's not about who "win", you (folken) by stating that means you intended to "win" but this is not the wiki's way. It does not matter if they know about the topic or not, it's about examinating users' actions in all these, I will follow this through till all means are exusted you can bet on it.Yajaec 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to "win", I want the articles to be accurate. It's only you who want to "win". It does matter if they know the topic or not, because Wikipedia is not like playing in a casino, the aim here is not to throw the dices and write the result.

Examining user's actions ? You mean examining your various harrassments, insults, threats, the bad faith you assumed on me, your subjective way you've tried to bring Kmweber in the argument with your exagerations ?

"I will follow this through till all means are exusted you can bet on it " : why, if it doesn't look like a desperate attempt at "winning", if not a threat...Folken de Fanel 22:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You have shown that you only want the article to be accurate in your own POV way of writing

Here comes Yajeac, in all his own provocative and conflict-seeking way.

Before you start spreading anymore lies and false allegations about me, let me remind you what are your words : "then it should both be stated as the way I did. "

See ? You're always basing on "what you did" always ignoring any other concrete fact, just to do the way you want, and not the way it has to be...Folken de Fanel

due to the fact that you are unwilling to edit the article in the most neutral way that both user can agree to

I've agreed to edit the article in a most neutral way, actually I did it twice. However what you don't understand is that what you'll agree will be POV, and there is no consensus or compromise is forcing me to write the articles in the way only you want.

You don't agree with my edits, but who says you're the perfect representative of the NPOV ? I'm willing to edit the article in neutral ways, however i'm not willing to do as you would personally like. that's 2 different things.Folken de Fanel

unwilling to talk without accusation (of me manipulating Kmweber)

So let's review what your message is consituted of :

• assuming bad faith on me
• accusing me of POV writing, while I'm merely stating facts and using common spelling rules
• pretending I'm unwilling to assume a NPOV, while I'm simply not agreeing with your views
• pretending I have insulted you while it's not the case
• Accusing me of "accusing you", while you were the only one who initiated a talk with Kmweber in which you introcude the previously mentionned points, thus making false accusations about me

And with all that, I would be accusing you ? What a joke !

"and insults (using words like "stupid hope")."

I can't see any insult here.Folken de Fanel

After all the talk post that will be reviewed, it will show who insulted, threated and assumed bad faith on who.

That is, you. Folken de Fanel

I'm only following wiki's rule in dealing with another user by asking for mediation, admin's help and now arbutration, if you did not do anything wrong, why should you take that as a threat?Yajaec 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because I didn't do anything wrong and you're still making threats, because you were perfectly unable to back up your claims with solid proofs and now you're ressorting to threats of external intervention just to avenge yourself because you can't stand people contradicting you. If you word your sentences as threats, they will be taken as threats. Don't try to cheat me with manipulations as "if you're against me, then it's becauise you've done something wrong"'. You're obviously assuming on me bad faith. But that's not the way you're going to win. Folken de Fanel 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kmweber/List of Everyone Who Has Ever Lived

I think you may want to see WP:NOT. JoshuaZ 00:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it; it doesn't apply to userspace; and that particular part of my userpage has been brought up several times in the 2+ years I've had it there and consensus has always been to leave it alone. Kurt Weber 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOT does apply to userspace. -- Ned Scott 09:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere, click here to reply.AstroBoy 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Deadline for entries is December 15th

What "Sports Fans system"?

Please read and respond to Template talk:User MLB-Cardinals#What "Sports Fans system"?. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Loretta Swit

Your comment on Talk:Loretta Swit is not conducive to civility nor does it adhere to talk page guidelines. Since it does not address the topic, I will remove it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Random access memory Metropolitan School District of Lawrence Township Huntington County Community School Corporation (HCCSC) Marapets Mater Dei High School (Evansville, Indiana) Amanda Walsh Ted Marchibroda Andover Central High School Interstate 469 Interstate 164 Toyota Sequoia Elmhurst High School Indiana State House Indiana Ice Matt Wong Tony Siragusa Wilmer Valderrama Al Hillah Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145

Cleanup E-123 Omega Lower Ohio Valley Tornado Outbreak Trial of Saddam Hussein Merge Statistical thermodynamics John Prescott Interstate 74 Add Sources Brad Garton Marvin Bush Logansport, Indiana Wikify Trinity Valley School Peace Learning Center Piracy in the Caribbean Expand WTSN-LP Zebra Owasippe Scout Reservation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Closing of School Articles?

Please come vote here: [1] There appears to be an ongoing onslaught of deleting with schools articles. Kukini 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been "borrowing" your wonderful statement regarding school article deletions. I hope you don't mind. Best, Kukini 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Empire novel

I have moved Gore Vidal's novel to Empire (1987 novel), to allow for Empire (2006 novel). -- Beardo 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the AMA

Hello Kmweber. I am Wikiwoohoo, deputy co-ordinator of the AMA. I wanted to say extend my thanks to you for joining the AMA. Just a note, the association's current meeting is now on at AMA Meeting/December 2006. If you would like to comment on any of the ongoing discussion then you are very welcome to. I hope to see you around. Wikiwoohoo 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurt

You probably actually delayed the deletion of this article. Articles tagged with {{db-attack}} are put into a separate attack page category, and many admins patrol that category more frequently. By changing the tag, you removed it from the category. Just FYI. Fan-1967 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Need help with wordless reverts and bullying behavior

I'd be delighted if you could help me with this. At the Quran Desecration Controversy article, I have been trying to add a cross-reference to the Piss Christ article, which speaks about a similar incident where a Crucifix was desecrated with urine.

The change is additive, small, and relevant, yet it's been met with bullying behavior from a couple of editors, including repeated wordles reverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an_desecration_controversy_of_2005&diff=97518851&oldid=97512050

Any help you can impart would be greatly appreciated.

67.175.216.90 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

67.175.216.90 (talk · contribs) is disrupting this article with an unrelated reference. He was asked to stop months ago, and the dispute over the alleged relevance of the reference was settled at that time. He is now revert-warring to get his way. csloat 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

• Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
• Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Cardinals project

Please accept this invite to join WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals, a project dedicated to improving the quality of St. Louis Cardinals related articles. Simply click here to accept!

Joseph Zikry

It's very odd. First I read a very nice little note in favor of giving articles a chance and not biting the newbies, but then I see that the article cited in the subject line as an example is Yet Another Teenager Vanity Article--one that serves as a poster child for the exact opposite point of view.

I realize that I distribute speedy tags a little more readily than some. Most of these come from patrolling the new pages list, meaning the article have been around for a few minutes at most. Most of the rest come from scanning the deletion logs for blue links, where the article has been previously deleted but the author didn't get the hint. In either case, the odds that the author has left already is smaller than you think. All tagged articles remain on my watchlist until they are deleted, the speedy is denied (rare), or the article has been improved to the point where I feel safe removing the speedy tag myself (very rare).

I try to keep my naturally snarky tendencies in check. When sending an initial warning message to a user, I start at the level below the one I think is warranted. I answer questions and deal with complaints courteously. In other words, I am aware of my biases and adjust my behavoir accordingly. Not perfectly, mind you, but I do my best. What more do you want? --Finngall ^talk 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-noms at RfA

Gaff brought up an issue that I agree with; accusing self-noms of being power hunger is an assumption of bad faith while ignoring their contribution history. I don't know what else I could suggest to you to other than to review their contributions to find evidence of being power hungry, but hope you would consider looking at their contribs anyway. Leebo ^T/C 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Kurt, I suggest that you stop spamming the same message at every selfnom you see without examining the user and his conduct/contributions. You're angering the community right now, and that's not something advisable to do. Regards, SalaSkan 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am spamming nothing. I am merely contributing my viewpoint on a matter to a discussion. I really don't see how it's worth making a big fuss over. If you disagree with me, fine, but I don't understand all this hostility. I have been nothing but polite this whole time. Kurt Weber 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship instead of trolling others' RfAs. Thank you. SalaSkan 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurt, it's my opinion that accusing people you don't know of being power hungry is not polite. That's what I see as the issue. Leebo ^T/C 11:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you visiting and commenting at my RfA, although I am a little bemused by your reason for oppose. All admins have to agree to become admins, so by that measure they must all to some extent desire power. Whether they are self-noms or not is irrelevant. From reading your user page, I think where you're coming from maybe related to your "extreme inclusionist" stance – you see admins as wanting to delete material. In response to this I can only say: Yes, ideally we would want to house all human knowledge. But, unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Wikipedia simply doesn't have the money or the technology to house that amount of information. Consequently, some is lost, for the benefit of the remainder. If wikipedia grew too large because non-notable information was added, the servers would not be able to cope, we would run out of disk space, and bandwidth, and essentially the entire project would collapse. In essence then, the "non-notable" is sacrificed for the "notable". I do hope that my extra comments address your concerns. Even if they don't, thanks for stopping by! DrKiernan 11:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, your assertions aren't true. Accepting a nomination hardly constitutes evidence of power-hunger: witness Cincinnatus or George Washington, both of whom utterly abhorred power and only accepted it reluctantly, to serve their countrymen. That's what I'm looking for. Furthermore, the power to delete is only a very small part of the potential for power-tripping: the power to block and to protect provides much more potential for abuse. Yes, admin actions can be overturned, and admins can be desysopped, but by that point the damage--if not to the content, then to the individual victim or victims--has already been done.

Furthermore, resource availability is hardly a reason to oppose keeping everything. Bandwidth and storage space are cheap, and get cheaper all the time. Kurt Weber 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Maybe you should expand like this when you oppose self-noms, it may prevent some of the accusations of spamming and trolling made against you. DrKiernan 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello Kmweber, I just wanted to thank you for giving your comments at my recent RFA. While it didnt pass (I withdrew after it became apparent that the RFA was "sinking like the titanic" =]), I will try to focus on and build upon your comments, and the comments of all the other Wikipedians who participated. Thanks again for voicing your opinion, and I wish you very happy editing! Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Canoe Narrows

I don't even know what I wrote about Canoe Narrows. All I did was create a ton of new places that were not on Wikipedia in hopes someone with more knowledge then me, or what I could find, would improve them. I am not sure you added any facts from looking at it, but you do what you have to do. I am not sure what someone in Indiana knows about Canoe Narrows, but probably not much less then what I do. It's a bizzare place and you cannot get there by road or train. You can only fly in. I have been to many remote areas of Canada from Labrador to the Yukon, and it's really fascinating. I would like for someone who is from Canoe Narrows to elaborate on their village and it is very interesting. eternalsleeper

Ck lostsword's RfA - Thanks

Thank you for your comment on my recent RfA, which passed successfully at 40/2/1, making me Wikipedia's 1,250th administrator. I recognise your right to an opinion on self-noms, and feel that some of the reactions on mine and others discussions was somewhat over-the-top. I feel that since everyone has their own standards for admins, and self-noms do not match yours, you are well within your rights to oppose those who self-nom. Meanwhile, I hope that my actions as an admin can live up to the expectations of the community. Regards. ck lostsword • T • C

File:Ck lostsword copy.png

ck lostsword • T • C 18:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

AGF (re your oppose votes)

The very idea of "prima facie evidence of power-hunger" is an assumption of bad faith. --Random832 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your systematic opposes to self noms are prima facie evidence of cluelessness. It's completely unfair to oppose irrespective of the candidate's past contributions and it's perpetuating the idea that RfA is an absurd process where the tiniest of details will generate opposition. You have already been invited quite a few times to discuss the issue on WT:RFA but I get the feeling you're not exactly open-minded about the whole thing. Please remember that RfA should be a constructive discussion about an editor's ability to use the extra tools responsibly. You are essentially disrupting the process to prove your point about self-noms. Pascal.Tesson 15:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at this draft proposal on notability of certain subjects

Hi Kmweber,

I noticed your comments on a recent deletion discussion for an Australian school and I thought you might find this proposed change to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) something you could support. I'm asking various people to look at it before I stick it on the talk page. I think if we can make this change, we can avoid a lot of repetitive deletion discussions.

If you have the time and the interest, please take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks@ Noroton 04:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Have you been paying attention to what's happened to the Ayn Rand and Objectivism articles? ThAtSo 15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Hello. Thanks for stopping by my page and welcoming me!! Odile32Fouettes 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ransis

I replied to your message on my talk page. Are you finished making your improvements to Ransis? I'm sure you wouldn't remove the speedy deletion tag unless you had a good reason, and I'm looking forward to seeing you show me what the article means. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ransis has been added to AfD, so I hope you had good luck in your promised research into this term or company or software. You'll find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ransis, and since you were the one who removed the speedy tag, and had enough confidence in the article not to replace it with a prod or afd tag, I'm sure you'll want to weigh in during the discussion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Not Wikipedia Administrator

Only because you supported as a joke. It's not a genuine RfA. You may wish to check out User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA. Giggy _U^CP 04:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He has 20 edits, and the last one before the RfA was 2.5 years ago. It's not going to pass, regardless of current numbers. Giggy _U^CP 05:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I know for sure it wouldn't have passed. If someone else relists it, and it passes, I've leave Wikipedia ;) Giggy _U^CP 05:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for your participation in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am very grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA voting

Seriously Kurt, you are disrupting wikipedia to make a point, keep doing that prima facie nonsense to all self-noms in WP:RFA, and I will block you. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, National Merit Scholarship Finalist! Seriously, dude, it's not befitting you as a libertarian to run around RfA making an ass out of yourself. All that's going to happen is the crats will start ignoring you, like they have ignored RfA loons in the past - like that dude who voted against any Jew or Hindu, or that other dude that opposed every RfB because we do not need any more bureaucrats. Don't follow their example, to make sure your fellow editors continue to respect you. -- Y not? 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If caving is what I have to do to earn the respect of these people, I do not want it. After talking with Jaranda online, he has agreed that he will not block me me for continuing to do this, because he now understands why I am doing what I am doing--he doesn't agree with me, but he accepts that I'm doing what I have to do, because it's what I hold to be right. Kurt Weber 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to be political if you want respect. Compromise and pragmatism are part of it. By calling it caving, you're being fair and balanced. That Jaranda will not block you doesn't mean I won't. -- Y not? 00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't. Putting forth a legitimate opinion as part of discussion is not a valid cause for blocking. I am doing nothing wrong; I am causing no problems. Those who don't like what I'm saying are entitled to ignore me or attempt to engage me in discussion. Threats are not an appropriate way to get me to change my mind. Kurt Weber 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that was not a threat. I was being cute. I won't block you either. -- Y not? 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But I did attempt to engage you in discussion, perhaps you could come over to the TPH RFA and discuss where I have commented on your comment, if you like. Navou ^banter 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TPH RFA

I have questioned your comment on the TPH RFA. Perhaps you could come shed some light. Thanks, Navou 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Please stop commeting on RfA's about your personal "I view self noms as a power hungry", some people just dont want to draw loads of attention to themselves by having loads of co-noms so please stop this totally idiotic thing, looking at your contribs you dont even both to actually take a look at the user themself just quickly !voting, you made two in one minute recently. So just stop before someone blocks you. Rlest 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT discussion

I have listed a discussion at AN/I here. Regards, Navou 15:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's to you

		This user is OK!
		You are hereby awarded the Infrangible seal of approval for your contributions and overall, mostly not-bad-ness. ~ Infrangible 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologise for accusing you of sour grapes at WT:RFA. I would concede that people's views can change over time, and that there's no evidence of you holding a grudge about something which happened over two years ago. I'm also worried that my comments looked a little like an ad hominem attack - attacking the arguer, not the argument. For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your views on self-noms, I accept the validity of your reasoning, and support your right to express your opinion. I firmly believe that freedom of expression is extremely healthy for any community or society (as a libertarian, you no doubt agree with this principle), and I certainly wouldn't advocate removing your comments from RfAs, a course of action which has been suggested by some editors. Walton^One 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Contract Addition

I removed the contract stuff you added to {{Infobox NFLactive}}. It might be a good thing to discuss that on that talk page first before adding it. It's a good idea, i just don't think it'll hold up well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA comments

Just a polite note to let you know that your behaviour on RfA is, along with that of other editors, proving disruptive to the project and is spilling over into user talk pages and onto noticeboards. I'm prepared to block you for disruption along with other users if any future comments on RfAs get out of hand as is happening at present. Please consider your behaviour and examine the impact it is having on the wider community. Nick 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

idiot. 86.148.190.242 13:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)