:::Editors at AfD interpret policy in their own way; the [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus view]] is, by and large, what we follow. If I felt that those arguing for deletion were doing so on some basis that didn't follow policy, I would have discounted them; but maintainability is a valid concern. If information has the potential to change too quickly, as this does, then verifiability effectively decays rapidly from the date the source(s) are published. It only takes one beetle of a species that wasn't in the area before to scuttle across the border - or, for that matter, for the border to shift again across the only Israeli habitat of some newt - and the article is instantly wrong. With the sources you took the information from, that's acceptable for their readers - they've got the date they were published and believed to be correct printed on the inside of the sleeve, and readers can decide how much to trust the information now. But Wikipedia is published 'continuously', and everything is supposed to be current and up-to-date, and if that isn't possible it can't carry it. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Editors at AfD interpret policy in their own way; the [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus view]] is, by and large, what we follow. If I felt that those arguing for deletion were doing so on some basis that didn't follow policy, I would have discounted them; but maintainability is a valid concern. If information has the potential to change too quickly, as this does, then verifiability effectively decays rapidly from the date the source(s) are published. It only takes one beetle of a species that wasn't in the area before to scuttle across the border - or, for that matter, for the border to shift again across the only Israeli habitat of some newt - and the article is instantly wrong. With the sources you took the information from, that's acceptable for their readers - they've got the date they were published and believed to be correct printed on the inside of the sleeve, and readers can decide how much to trust the information now. But Wikipedia is published 'continuously', and everything is supposed to be current and up-to-date, and if that isn't possible it can't carry it. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: 1. You did not point me to where in the policies is '''maintainability''' or '''excessive detail''' mentioned. If they are mentioned, please point them out for me. If they are not mentioned, then why do you use them as a reason for deletion. The plocy is clear and creating new standards foe deletion is not a "different understanding of the policy" but a mis-use of it.
:::: 2. You are wrong on this issue of maintainability. '''A.''' Every article in wikipedia is prone to be updated every now and then. Many of wiki articles are about current events or evolving issues. I find your talk on the need to update these lists as a cause to delete them very contradictory to Wikipedia spirits. Actually you mix things up, it is the paper encyclopedia that should be worried about updates and not wikipedia which is an updatable encyclopedia. '''B.''' It is not true that these lists need fequent updates. Species lists rarely need updates. So they are among the most stable lists in wikipedia. This issue was brought up in the AfD. The chance of a new species being discovered in the area or a one going extenct is very minimal. If any changes to the list happen, we are here to update it. --[[User:Thameen|Thameen]] 15:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi I noticed that you protected Emmalina as a redirect. Is this in response to something I did? I created a history for Emmalina per unclosed request of everyone in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. I was waiting for a closure since it seems that this article will be deleted. This way I can revert edit so cited information will not be lost on Wikipedia. Also shouldn't Emmalina be a redirect to Notable YouTube memes since that is her main article? Valoemtalk23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's because, unless I'm wrong, the redirect is intended as a softer version of {{deletedpage}}. Otherwise, the history shouldn't have been deleted (there are 175 edits still deleted). It prevents people from wasting their time creating a new article when it will just be redirected again.
I can redirect it to Notable YouTube memes if you want, but as you say that article is probably going to be deleted soon, so I don't really see the point.
The main thing is, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (3rd nomination) came up with a clear result, that the subject does not merit its own article, and that can only be overturned by a full discussion at deletion review. Otherwise the history behind the redirect wouldn't have been deleted. If an article is to be put in place of the redirect again, the deleted history has to be restored by DRV. It can't be done as an uncontroversial 'History only' undeletion - indeed, I refused a request to do just that, which led me to then fully protect the redirect after discussion here. I think it should have been fully protected when the history was deleted in the first place, but I didn't close the AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat unusual situation, so if you do ask for a deletion review, please make clear in your nomination that you are looking to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmalina (3rd nomination) which resulted in the deletion of the history before the redirect. Otherwise we could get confusion over whether the request is an uncontroversial 'history only' undeletion, or whether deletion review is even relevant because it's a redirect at issue (normally to redirect or not to redirect is a matter for talk pages, not for deletion fora, but not when the history behind it is deleted). --Sam Blanning(talk)23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, however this article initially passed an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emmalina, the second nomination was only done one month after initial nomination which, if I am correct, is a violation of Wikipedia policy since you can't repeatly nominate an article thats has passed in a short period of time. The 3rd nomination was done by a user with a history of not researching before nominating. I feel this article has passed an should be keep esp since she passes WP:BIO "cited by multiple indepedent sources". Valoemtalk23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change - only the most recent discussion is relevant. You can't repeatedly renominate articles, but 'one month' is a long time on Wikipedia and certainly isn't 'repeated'. I shouldn't really have mentioned deletion review, as I'd forgotten that deletion review endorsed the status quo only twelve hours ago. You'd need something pretty convincing to start a review this soon after that. "Multiple independent sources" were presented in the AfD, were obviously considered by all participants, and it still resulted in deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait so in otherwords, an article that passes AfD can get renominated again and again as long as the user waits for sometime, but once an article is deleted it cant get recreated? Valoemtalk06:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright it looks like Notable YouTube memes has finally been deleted. This calls for an "emergence" recall of the Deletion Review of Emmalina since a strong argument was that she has been redirected because Notable YouTube memes has already covered her. Other than that she is certain notable per WP:BIO. It think the article should be restored now. Valoemtalk15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Emmalina has adequate coverage in YouTube, where it currently redirects. You're welcome to try for another deletion review, but if by "emergence" you mean "without discussion", not a chance, IMO. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By "emergency" I mean that the reason for maintaining the delete to redirect is no longer valid (per deletion review), therefore what you said about requiring a very convincing argument to reenact a deletion review within 12 hours exists. Valoemtalk19:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sam i would like to offically report User gerrado for vandalising my user page he was warned any more attacks and i would report him to an admin so now i am reporting him to you an admin. Please deal apropriatly with gerrado as he is a thorn i thought i had removed please permenantly get him off my case. Thanks --Lucy-marie12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've left him an explicit warning which I intend to be the last. Occasional, even rare vandalism from a contributor who otherwise attempts to edit positively is the most frustrating kind, but it can't be tolerated. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there were 5 votes for "keep" and 5 votes for "delete," and the guidelines say to err on the side of inclusion. How did you come to the decision to delete the article? It seems Wikipedia is just that bit less informative and useful now - the article would only improve - but then again I'm an eventualist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HunterAmor (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Of the five arguments you're referring to (AfD is not a vote), RFerreira said "Keep if and only if the best selling claims can be sourced. Otherwise...", and that didn't happen (indeed, AnonEMouse stated quite convincingly that this was not only unverified but actually wrong). That makes him explictly on the side of deletion. User:Cdcdoc didn't back up his opinion at all, despite being challenged by another editor. Architectsf said "Surely she has numerous newspaper articles during the campaign. The author role would qualify as well", which isn't sufficient - the burden of proof is on those who want to keep the article, which means you actually have to come up with some credible non-trivial coverage. Your and User:Admiralwaugh's arguments are less flimsy, inasmuch as they rely on the simple fact of her candidacy which is essentially a matter of opinion - and Marriedtofilm (who didn't argue one way or the other) had a solid-sounding argument against Admiralwaugh's claim that the race was inherently notable, which wasn't contested. Policy, not votes is what decides AfDs and it was clearly on the 'delete' side.
"Harmless" is not a very good argument for keeping an article, incidentally - if we keep articles that no-one has any interest in maintaining (which applies to all articles on candidates with no other claim to notability once they lose the election), readers can't be expected to know which of our articles were written and checked by independent editors and which were posted by a campaign group.
I admit I should probably have included my reasoning in the closing summary in the first place - sometimes I get into the habit of seeing closes like this as sufficiently obvious not to need one, when it isn't going to be obvious to people who went for 'keep'. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stannington First School
No consensus? In a split of merge and delete, I don't think keep is a viable option. Choose one of merge or delete, and go with it. └OzLawyer / talk┐18:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to merge if you want, but articles for deletion does not make binding decisions on merges. Quite rightly, as it is grossly poor on doing so, rarely making any more than the vaguest suggestion on how much should be merged, where in the target article it should be merged (if a target is even specified!) and why it should be merged at all. In an AfD discussion, 'merge' is equivalent to 'keep' - the content is merely moved to a different place and the page itself turned into a redirect. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you, but you were so spot-on with User: Edward Saint-Ivan. The self-promo problem has cropped up again, but with another user--an anon using two IPs. This time I have some personal knowledge--it's a father vandalizing a son's page. Please believe me when I say it's more malicious and disturbing than it looks. The son will not get involved, out of fear of encouraging stalking behavior on the part of the father, to whom he does not speak (father may be encouraged if he thinks this is a form of "contact" with son). That's the subtext--on the face of it, the father/anon has still made a a number of violations--patent nonsense, 3RR, WP:VAIN, etc. He has ignored all of my attempts to get him to discuss anything, or to read any Wiki policies or guidelines. I made a report about him here: [1] but nothing is being done, meanwhile the father continues to "edit" the page...
User:71.242.186.236 has been blocked for violating WP:3RR on Joshua Clover (not by me, but I was about to issue one when I saw it had already been done). If there are other IPs vandalising or still edit warring, please list them or the page they're vandalising - I can't do anything otherwise. I don't know how block ranges, so if a rangeblock is needed you should try WP:ANI. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn't see the 3RR block from William Connelly before I wrote to you. If anon persists after the 24 hr block, and Bio noticeboard can't resolve things, I will take your advice re WP:ANI. (He seems to have used two IPs, on Joshua Clover page, that begin with 71 and vary only in the last four numbers--so maybe it is not a range but just the two numbers?) Anyway, thanks again for your help and advice.
Cindery18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated that page based on the fact that I read somewhere on here that talk pages needed to be retained if they contained policy violations etc. Your comments straightened it out for me a bit more... SunStarNet; 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm not exactly certain on this point myself - I agree with the principle, but whether it's sufficiently accepted is a different matter - so I would wait for other editors' opinions in the DRV before you trust mine too much. --Sam Blanning(talk)19:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking more about the restoration and then redeletion of all the music lists. As I was the one who closed the second AfD and redeleted the 100+ lists, I think I can call it a waste of time if I like :-). By closing the AfD as I did rather than deleting all the lists and hoping no-one would object, I wanted to prevent that waste of time happening again. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a huge effort collecting these lists and I'm sad cuz they are deleted. Is there any way that I can recover these lists, at least for a while to save them on my PC. I feel shocked that they were deleted after all the efforts I did in research collecting them. If wikipedia do not want them, I do want them, so can you please help me recover them.
Sure. I can email them to you - would you like the full wikitext of the articles (including formatting), or just the lists themselves? I can also restore the articles to your userspace, but I would prefer to email them, as the userspace articles would need to be deleted once you'd saved the contents, so it would be extra work for a lot of pages. --Sam Blanning(talk)16:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good man, I'm less devastated now. plz email me the wiki source of the articles and the template. Thank you for your time. --Thameen16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me share this thought with you. It is really disappointing how in wikipedia the results a lot of effort and research get deleted so easily. When I added these lists to wikipedia after a lot of work and research I was thinking I'm adding to the richness of this encyclopedia. But suddenly few members apear who vote for these lists to be deleted and they get deleted, this easy.
No one thought on improving these lists or putting them in a more suitable format or integrating them in the main article in some way. They just got deleted. This makes me wonder how much of the deleted things are trash and how much is sincere high value work.
And the idea that a dozen of members can vote to delete an article is very interesting. What if these members are coordinating their actions behind the scenes, what if they have other motives than the well being of wikipedia in their minds.
What was I supposed to do to protect the lists that I made, to mobilize my friends in wikipedia to vote in favour of these lists be kept? Will not this form of deletion policy give the upper hand to majority or the more willing and more sincere in mobilising others?
I started writing for wikipedia knowing that it is an editable forum. However, the latest delete disappointed me alot. I see my work of days and nights gone in a second. This is heart breaking.
The fact that we decided on an open-editing system as the best way of growing the encyclopaedia doesn't mean we can expect less of our content than Britannica or Encarta. If there are good reasons to delete something - and I think those brought up in the AfD were valid - then that's what we do. Usually, the fact that something is deleted doesn't mean it's bad - it just doesn't belong here.
Your claim that other users are colluding and acting in bad faith is bizarre bordering on paranoid, and I'm pretty sure you know quite well what I was referring to. As for the "other pages like this exist" argument, it has never been accepted. --Sam Blanning(talk)15:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No do not be pretty sure. I did not understand what you mean by paranoid in your first post until your last reply.
When I pointed out the idea that some members work in editting gangs I was not refering to the deletion of the lists in question, I do not know those who voted for deletion. But I was talking in general. I have been here for a short while but long enough to know how gangs form behind the scenes, this is not paranoia. I wil be surpirised if you do not see this, you may call it other names; small editting armies, group of people interested in a certain subject to appear or disappear in wiki, a network of edittors. But it exists. I'm not saying it happened in my lists' case, but was sharing a thought with you in general about the complex subject of deletion.
You say deletion does not mean the material was bad, so if it is not bad why delete it? Why not merge it with the main article? why not give us the opportunity to improve it to fit into wikipedia?--Thameen16:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia requires an encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia article is a very specifically-defined thing. Sections 2 through 9 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not explain what material is not suitable for Wikipedia, regardless of merit. Editors do consider the possibility of improving material - if you participate in AfD for any length of time you'll see plenty of 'keep and cleanup/keep and verify/keep and merge' arguments - rather less people willing to actually do the work, though. In this case I don't see what could be done to make the content encyclopaedic, and nor could the AfD participants. --Sam Blanning(talk)18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but did not find in it any reason why my lists were removed. Those were high value lists the result of research I did only for wikipedia benefit. You will not find these lists on the net nor in any book as such. How is a list of all birds living in a spicific geographical region not encyclopedic?
Lets assume a kid opens wikiedia looking for a bird he saw in his garden in say Jerusalem and he wants to know what is this bird called and more info about its life? Lets imagine a student wanting info about what scorpions live in Israel. what can she do? She will need to see each individual species of scorpoins and check if it lives in Israel, and that will take her ages to accomplish.
Aren't ecyclopedias about providing information in an a form easy to collect and refer to? this is what I did.
You said that Wiki aims at being as good as Britanica. Does not Britanica has lists of things that share a coom parameter? Britanica is full of lists.
I think these lists that you deleted were very informative for any one looking for info on the biodiversity in that geographical region. I was hoping that we will see more lists of species for other areas, not to delete my lists ! --Thameen19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you're talking about sounds more like an almanac than an encyclopaedia. So far your argument rests entirely on the fact that the information is useful; no-one disputes that it is, but surely that's a reason to get some free webspace and host it there for everyone's benefit. To host something on Wikipedia, it has to be encyclopaedic, and consensus is that this isn't. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a wikipedia definition of what is Encyclopedic and what is not? On what specific criteria did you base your decision that they are not encyclopedic?
BTW, There was no consensus on deleting these lists or them being non-encyclopedic, there was a majority vote by a slight margin. There were many other votes to keep the lists or merge them which means that some people found them encyclopedic. --Thameen09:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make the decision that they were not encyclopaedic; I gauged the consensus in the AfD that they weren't, and the consensus was far more than a 'slight margin'. The concerns were all in the AfD, but I might as well repeat them: excessive detail and maintainability. --Sam Blanning(talk)11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following up this discussion cuz I want to learn:
1. Is there a wiki poicy regarding excessive detail and maintainability?
2. and what about Wiki policy on what is encyclopedic and what is not, is there any thing? Thanks for your time --Thameen15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You already know about WP:NOT; apart from that, no. I would say it is impossible to construct a policy that defines "excessive detail" and "maintainability" exactly in every instance, so it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis at AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk)20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the WP:NOT again I think strongly that the lists should not have been deleted. Bold face below are qoutes from wiki policies:
1. Strangely I do not find any mention of what you call excessive detail" and "maintainability" as a reason of deletion in any of the deletion related polcy pages.
2. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, thus Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc. This means that in wikipedia we can have more detail, does n't it?
3. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.
4. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, However there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries,. There is a list on consensus of not allowed things, but current consensus of not allowed lists does not include lists of species in a geographical area.
5. The two accepted standards of being Encyclopedic are (verifiability and original research), both are available in my lists. The Deletion policy continues to state that Articles and text which are capable of meeting these (verifiability and original research) should usually be remedied by editing, but content which fails inclusion criteria for Wikipedia, is incapable of verification with reputable sources, or is in breach of copyright policy, is usually deleted. Were not my lists amenable to remedy?
8. In Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Abuse_of_deletion_process the causes of deletion are clearly limited to it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. I see the lists meting all these criteria.
9. The general theme in all Wiki deletion policy pages is the focus on the three main reasons of deletion, NPOV, OR, Verifiablity. While my lists did not abuse any of the three. I wonder why were they removed. --Thameen18:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editors at AfD interpret policy in their own way; the consensus view is, by and large, what we follow. If I felt that those arguing for deletion were doing so on some basis that didn't follow policy, I would have discounted them; but maintainability is a valid concern. If information has the potential to change too quickly, as this does, then verifiability effectively decays rapidly from the date the source(s) are published. It only takes one beetle of a species that wasn't in the area before to scuttle across the border - or, for that matter, for the border to shift again across the only Israeli habitat of some newt - and the article is instantly wrong. With the sources you took the information from, that's acceptable for their readers - they've got the date they were published and believed to be correct printed on the inside of the sleeve, and readers can decide how much to trust the information now. But Wikipedia is published 'continuously', and everything is supposed to be current and up-to-date, and if that isn't possible it can't carry it. --Sam Blanning(talk)20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. You did not point me to where in the policies is maintainability or excessive detail mentioned. If they are mentioned, please point them out for me. If they are not mentioned, then why do you use them as a reason for deletion. The plocy is clear and creating new standards foe deletion is not a "different understanding of the policy" but a mis-use of it.
2. You are wrong on this issue of maintainability. A. Every article in wikipedia is prone to be updated every now and then. Many of wiki articles are about current events or evolving issues. I find your talk on the need to update these lists as a cause to delete them very contradictory to Wikipedia spirits. Actually you mix things up, it is the paper encyclopedia that should be worried about updates and not wikipedia which is an updatable encyclopedia. B. It is not true that these lists need fequent updates. Species lists rarely need updates. So they are among the most stable lists in wikipedia. This issue was brought up in the AfD. The chance of a new species being discovered in the area or a one going extenct is very minimal. If any changes to the list happen, we are here to update it. --Thameen15:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia
いかにウィキペディアに貢献する!? (How do you contribute to Wikipedia?) 悪影丸 (21:39, 2006年10月28日 (UTC))
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the coaching box.
If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.
An vector image that I created with data that I collected, analysed etc. was marked for deletion with a speedy tag by a user who seems to cruise to random articles and place these tags (if I understand the entries on their talk page). I am sure the image had the correct licence as it would have been deleted before now if not. I can assure you I own it as I created it in all senses of the word. I also know that it has been helpful to other users as they have quoted it back at me without realising I made it! The article is on coprostanol, and the history shows what has happened. Are you able to help in any way? Thanks smmudge. --Smmudge22:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're referring to (it's far more helpful if you give the actual page of concern), as far as I can see the image did indeed not have information on licensing or who created it, and it was deleted properly. If you created the image, you can reupload it, this time with an appropriate tag such as {{GFDL-self}}. There is a drop-down box on Special:Upload which will help you find the right tag. You might also want to choose a name more specific to the image than 'Cross-plot' - 'Cross-plot of 5Beta-cop', for example (guessing based on the description you did include). If you don't have the image saved then I can restore it so long as you tell me what license you want to release it under. --Sam Blanning(talk)23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving
Just to let you know (even though I withdrew):
The RFA question was posed last night by AuburnPilot, and I also copied the contents of my response to his/her user talk, and the issue with Bobabobabo was dealt with three times over with the sockpuppetry. I usually don't archive as quickly, but I did not feel a need to really to reply to Bobabobabo, as s/he would have seen my actions on his/her own user talk (reverting threatening edits from the user s/he notified me to).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't really understand. Archiving takes a non-trivial amount of time - cutting from your talk page, saving, pasting to the archive and saving again. Why do it if your talk page isn't cluttered? I do it once a week at most, and only when I get the 'this page is too long' warning. --Sam Blanning(talk)03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would seriously recommend clearing it every week or so at most. Not everyone checks within 24 hours for responses to their post, and there's always the possibility that something might need to be followed up. And a long talk page makes you look popular :-). --Sam Blanning(talk)04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, usually I either copy the response to their talk page, or it's a quick volley. And have you seen my archives? Don't you think I'm popular enough?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you go for the "post on each other's talk page" approach as opposed to "post on one person's talk page", then I guess that's ok (at least, it can't get any more confusing). --Sam Blanning(talk)04:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
