User talk:Jeepday

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Patriarch Alexius II article

Biophys has already reverted first attempts at correcting the NPOV violations in the article. I made my edits step by step, noting in my edit summaries the reasons. Without comment, he reverted almost all of them. We are not going to get very far at this rate. We are not dealing with a constructive editor who wishes to have a neutral article. I held off trying to make any corrections prior to your intervention, because I new this would happen. Until something is done here from the outside, there is no point in going any further. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish I shared your optimism about the direction the article is heading, but at present we now have Muscovite99 reinserting more WP:BLP violations into the article. You can see his lack of balance on this subject rather clearly at this edit. For more on that, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99.

I am also not sure I understand your instructions about what we are going to do. Are you saying that I can now edit the entire "Criticism" section? Because I can assure you, my edits are going to be reverted by Muscovite99. Or are you suggesting I come up with a draft, and present it to you, but not by actually editing the article itself? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

These reverts occurred after your note... the article was moving in a much more positive direction when you made your comments. Can you let me know whether you would prefer me to stand back and let you handle these reinsertions, or should I feel free to revert them myself? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit by adding or clarify not removing, leave all references in place as appropriate. Do not remove references or referenced material unless you added it. When everyone gets done adding we can look at removing content as needed. If you feel that specific contend is untrue, or not supported by references and you beleive that other editors may not agree with your assessment. Bring it to my attention and I will offer a neutral perspective. Will that work? Jeepday (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I have previously addressed some of the insertions in question. The question of the commentary about the Patriarch's Marriage is a matter of a few basic facts, with a lot of judgment and commentary that are not based on facts. See this comment.

The question of the nuns who clean the Patriarch's residence, I address here, and here. This is not a well sourced comment. It is original research. The sources do not substantiate the assertions made.

The comments about "Rodina" being a KGB Front Organization are also not facts, but commentary disguised as fact. The "Mitrokhin Files" are themselves a controversial source. Doing Revisionist History based on new tidbits allegedly taken from the KGB archives has been a cottage industry, and there are serious doubts about the authenticity of the information from that particular source.

Now, back to my work on the Criticism section. There is no way for me to rework the section as it currently exists without removing or modifying some of the content. Biophys has also restructured the entire section in a very strange way, and so I need more precise guidance on what you want me to do with it. If you just want me to add material, I can add somemore on the defense side... but this is not going to get anywhere near the 500 words or less limit for the whole section. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for mediating this issue! I guess main question is what we consider reliable sources per WP:Source. Do we consider a scholarly book published by Christopher Andrew, who is one of the best world historians on intelligence issues and Cambridge University professor (second coauthor is Vasily Mitrokhin), a reliable source? If that is not a reliable secondary source, then there are no any reliable sources. That is not something Mitrokhin said or brought with him from KGB archives. The books by Andrew are based on many hundreds of other primary and secondary sources, as any good scholarly book.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know any sources who would call Christopher Andrew "a history revisionist" as Frjohnwhiteford just did. Of course there are historians who proudly claim themselves to be "revisionists" like Arch Getty, but Andrew is not one of them. Some reviewers actually criticized Andrew's book for re-telling some obvious things that everyone already knows (one of them is collaboration of Russian Church with KGB).Biophys (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For criticisms of the reliability of the above, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive#Criticism This particular claim also has the problem of being based on this one source alone... although two references are in the article, they are two references to the same source.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the work of Christopher Andrew would constitute a reliable source. But would only be a single source, so you have one reliable source but all or some work needs at least one more reference. It is questionable if the work of Christopher Andrew would be a primary or a secondary source in this context. If other references from generally reliable sources are found based in whole or part on the Andrew work that would make Andrew a primary and you would still need two of these (working under the assumption that these secondary works verified facts in the primary source (see WP:PSTS)) Is this acceptable to both of you? Jeepday (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable... though I think, even if an additional source can be found, the wording of the text would still need some work to make it a bit more neutral. I don't doubt that the KGB used all sorts of organizations for their own purposes, but I do doubt whether this was a "front organization" or that Patriarch Alexei knew full well what the KGB was using it for. I'm not sure even being a Cambridge Professor gives one the ability to read minds. But in any case, we shall see if another source can be found. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure your suggestion is consistent with WP policies. It would be extremely laborious to provide multiple sources for every statement in the articles. WP rules only require content to be sourced, that is supported by at least one primary or secondary reliable source (reliable primary sources are acceptable per WP:Source although secondary sources are preferred). Could you please provide any link to an official WP policy that explains which exactly statements should be supported by multiple sources? I did not find any clear-cut definitions. In this particular case we could make a better attribution and exact citation. The fact that Alexius was an organizer of "Motherland" is supported by multiple reliable sources. The assertion that "Motherland" was a KGB front is nothing unusual and the Andrew book is sufficient (almost any Soviet-sponsored organization abroad was a KGB front). The claim that Alexius knew about the true purpose of this organization is Andrew's view (he said: of course Alexii knew because he was himself a KGB agent).Biophys (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Content that is challenged or likely to be challenged, is subject to increased verifiability. (note that WP:V requests reference singular, but others below require multiple sources)

• WP:BLP "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth."

• WP:N "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

• WP:NPOV The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

• BLP requires "multiple, highly reliable sources", Notability (which is usually used to speak about a complete article) also requires multiple sources, NPOV requires "that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader". Does this address your questions? Jeepday (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer. Obviously, the rules do not require that every single claim in a BLP should be supported by multiple sources. I asked if there are any formal rules that define exactly which claims (in a BLP or otherwise) must be supported by multiple sources. The rule you cited tells: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation". Then, simply telling that "Motherland" was a KGB front would not require multiple sources, as long as this is not a statement about a person. However, telling that Alexius was a KGB agent should be confirmed by multiple sources. So, this answers my question. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When you insert such comments into this article, and then assert that he knew what the KGB was up to, the BLP issues kick in, and thus the two sources. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.. If the material or an attribute is challenged there should be multiple resources to cite. Jeepday (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you encourage Muscovite99 to stop deleted the NPOV tage, and to stop reinserting the text you had removed. For more on him, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The deal

I guess we had a deal with Frjohnwhiteford that we both stop editing this article for a few days and that everyone will work on his own portion of text. That is exactly what I am doing. But Frjohnwhiteford started edit warring there with another user. Does it meant that the deal is off? Or perhaps your inetervention is needed? I would prefer if everyone followed the agreement. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a request Diff for User:Muscovite99. I think the deal is still on. I am trying to let you work among yourselves as much as possible and intervene as little is possible. The goal would be create a working relationship within boundaries you can all live with. I am pretty sure you will all see each other on different articles in the future. Let me know if you think there are any other issues that need my attention. Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not care about Muscovite99. The deal was with Frjohnwhiteford, not with Muscovite99. Since he started editing this article after our agreement, I can do the same. I appreciate your neutrality on this issue.Biophys (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not edit warring when you are undoing unilateral edits, that are contrary to the instructions on the talk page. I have not been editing the article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you "have not been editing the article". That is really amazing. Do you need the diffs? Here they are:[1],[2].. You repeatedly "undid" segments of sourced text without any consensus. More important, you deleted it when we both agreed to step aside.Biophys (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Either you really do not see the distinction, or simply refuse to see it. However, I was simply reverting the attempt to reinsert a text that Jeepday had already agreed was original research and had removed. I was not making any unilateral decision... simply abiding by the one already reached. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are both correct you had a deal not to edit the page directly and the edit John made was a simple change back to where I left the page. John could have chosen to resist the urge to revert the edits and Bio could have chosen to accept that John was not trying to violate the ideal of the deal. What should have happened is I should have reverted the edit and directed User:Muscovite99 to Talk:Patriarch Alexius II#Nuns Removed by Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC) per comments below to address improvement of the section with all involved. John is incorrect in his statement above "Jeepday had already agreed was original research" please review my statement at "It has been suggested that the content on nuns below represents WP:OR, it does not appear that there is previously published reference supporting the claim". I did not agree that it is OR, that would be an assumption of bad faith on my part. In all likelihood it will be shown to a true and accurate statement that needs to be reworded and more references to satisfy the requirements of WP:NOR an WP:BLP and would be replaced in the article. The fault on Johns misunderstanding may stem from my use of WP:OR instead of WP:NOR as the short cut to the policy page that discusses the rules when the possibility of Original Research exists. Jeepday (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an assumption of bad faith to reach the obvious conclusion that when you cite two sources which make two different points, in order to make a third point that is contained in neither source, that is original research... that is simply a fact. That an editor would do such a thing might only reflect a failure to be aware of the policy against original research in wikipedia, or a failure to properly understand it. The fact is, no source has been provided which asserts that Patriarch Alexei is violating the ecumenical canons by having nuns clean his residence. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Disregard

Biophys has now again removed the NPOV tag, and reinserted the comments you removed. He has gone ahead and inserted a new section. And now we have a new user Ellol, who has unilateral removed defenses of Patriarch Alexei. This is the sort of contentious POV pushing I have been having to deal with. I will await further instructions from you before taking any further action. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was you who started edit warring with another user after our bilateral agreement to step aside for a while. So, right now you complain about User:Ellol, just as you complained about Marting, Malick, Muscovite99 and me? Please note that User:Ellol is my constant "opponent". He is not on my or Muscovite99 "side". You can not work like that in WP. I still believe the problem is WP:COI as was reported by Martintg.Biophys (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I included NPOV tag back. But if ellol or anyone else removes it, I am not going to fight over it.Biophys (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

I have requested a second opinion, I should have a response in a few hours. Jeepday (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Content defending the Patriarch has been removed. Content which you removed now remains in the article. The article is simply being vandalized at this point. I am refraining from reverting anything lest I be accused of edit warring, but the abuse of wikipolicy is rather egregious. Can we get this rolled back, so we can methodically edit this article? As it is, it is just getting worse. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Page Protected?

Could you clarify whether the article is in fact protected (or will be)? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not protected, and there is not an edit war going on. I am hoping to keep both of those two items true. As long as editors work towards solution on the talk page and reach consensus prior to editing the article everything should be fine. Jeepday (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical that it will go that smoothly, but we shall see. So, just to be clear... do you want us to just propose edits, and let you make the changes, or do you want us to do the editing ourselves? Will you be giving a green light for such things? The problem here is that at present, those who are on the other side of this dispute have no incentive to engage in the discussion, because they like the article as it is now. As you can see, I have been trying to get reasoned discussions about particular issues, with no reply. After a certain amount of time with no response... do you want me to just go ahead and make the changes, or not? Thanks for working with us. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The most appropriate thing is to suggest on the talk page content that is a reasonable combination of both points of view. Anticipate that other editors (on this article) will want to include content that you personal don't agree with. Accept that the final article will not be exactly like anyone person wants and do your best to contribute to a workable middle ground that is a WP:NPOV between all editors and references. When you have worked out a reasonable compromise then post it to the main article. If you make changes to an article that you know are not going to be acceptable to other editors and do not represent consensus, then you would be engaging in and contributing to edit waring. You should be able to stick to the rules at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article but with out the restrictions that relate directly to page protection, and if you can always find consensus before editing the article you will not need to contact me for problem solving. Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But what about the situations in which I simply get no responses to what I post on the talk page... which has happened quite often? Is there a reasonable amount of time that should pass before I go ahead and make the change I proposed, if no one has responded? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are offering on the talk page what you beleive should be a reasonable combination of both points of view, and no one has responded to it on the talk page for a few days you should be able to safely assume that no parties are objecting (assuming it is not just your perspective and other editors are active in Wikipedia during the time) and post it to the article. If you have reason to beleive that a specific editor (i.e. User:Biophys who has agreed to work towards solution) may object or you really do need their input to reach balance, then you should post your proposed text and any questions on the article talk page and post a request at their personal talk page to come participate. Remember there is no deadline so give them a couple days to think about it, you might even check their user contributions to make sure they have edited after you posted the request. You may not always be able to get editors to participate in discussion, so try to offer what you beleive is a reasonable compromise, also if you know that there has been stressful communication occurring allow extra time between communications and decisions. Because of the history on this article I will say that if I am called into mediate I will assume that a week should be sufficient time (assuming major editors are active) for no response to be considered silent consent. If an editor who has a history of editing the article makes a change that is counter to consensus (documented or silent consent) without seeking or finding consent on the article talk page, it would be fair to revert that edit, and in the edit summary and on the users talk page invite them to the appropriate place on the talk page. Jeepday (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Renewed Edit Warring

Moscovite99 has again reverted your deletion of the original research regarding the nuns and the canons. See this. I don't think there is any question of whether or not he understands what he is doing. This is about the 3rd time he has done it since you first removed it. He has also done numerous edits to the text, making it more biased than before. Can we either get a block on him, or protect the page? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Roads

Here is an article that argues for the private ownership of roads http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf . Presumably there are at least some people who like public ownership: does this no qualtify as a disagreement? Larklight (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the topic is notable? Are there multiple independent articles discussing the topic (see WP:V and WP:RS)? Jeepday (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In this edit the topic was reinserted without addressing the questions above. A single essay by an economist does not make a topic worthy of encyclopedic content, While it is true Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, with out multiple references Wikipedia can not maintain a non-negotiable principle of neutral point of view in which all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence A single essay does not represent prominence about a topic as broad as Road. Jeepday (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean we need several sources for all statements? There are many statements that don't have any sources, and rarely does anything have >1. My statement was technically true, and it would also seem that who makes and owns roads is more notable than different words for traffic light or the plasticity requirements of general fill matereal, both of which warrant mention in the article.Larklight (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, why is it imperative of me not to revert you till the debate is over, but not visa versa? Is there any official policy?Larklight (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let me Address your last question first, I apologize for not making it clear. Per WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". No offense is intended by my action of removing the content. Jeepday (talk)

• Statements that are unquestioned and represent main stream knowledge have several references available, but for cleanliness they are not represented by multiple references. When a statement is about a topic that is not mainstream or are question require more references actually be cited. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ask yourself if the referenced essay the best source available to support the statement? Also you may want to read WP:RRR as I see you have appear to not be aware of the ideal. Jeepday (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand about WP:Provit, but what do you mean by the ideal for the RRR rule? The rule is for more than 3 reverts, and I've made less: two reverts, and one some time before.

It may not be the best source, but it was in the first page of google hits. If it counts as an exceptional claim that there is disagreement, surely the existance of a page that inherantly necessitates the existence of such disagreement by virtue of it's own existence proves that there is disagreement? There is no way in which that article could exist at the same time as my statement being false (unless no-one liked public roads)Larklight (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique Jeepday (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The question is not if there is disagreement (there is almost nothing without disagreement see Flat Earth), the question is; Is the disagreement worthy of encyclopedic treatment in Wikipedia? If so does it deserve it's own article or a minor mention in an article? I am suggesting that if the topic is worthy of any encyclopedic treatment in Wikipedia, then better references then you have supplied should be available, as you are the editor who wishes to include the topic the burden of providing references falls to you. Jeepday (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been nearly 3 hours with no further comment from the user Larklight. In this edit I removed the content again. If adequate references can be found the content may be readded, but it may be more appropriate for the article Transport economics. Jeepday (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Patriarch Alexius II

Quite frankly, failed to understand your message. Do you mind him being referred to as Ridiger when he was twentysomething of age? Alexius is his monastic name and when he was being wed he did not have this name in this form and one does not refer to adults by their first names alone.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99

Hi Jeepday. I just wanted to notify you of this AN/I thread involving Muscovite99. As your attempt to mediate the content dispute was recently brought up, some input from you might help shed some light. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeepday, thank you very much for help, but this is too much for me to handle. WP:ANI and WP:BLP complaints, personal offence from this priest at may talk page, DGG and ellol joining the dispute... I would rather stay away of Alexius II article for a while, and then possibly come back, unless someone makes dramatic changes in the article. Sorry. Biophys (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeepday. I wouldn't say the AN/I thread was resolved or settled, so much as went stale. However, as you are taking the larger issue in hand (I like what you're proposing at Talk:Patriarch Alexius II and hope it succeeds), if you just keep an eye on M99's civility then my purpose will have been accomplished. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Flying Head, 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.

--Wizardman 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Message

hey, i got a message from you saying something about citing references when editing a bevis and butt-head article. However, I haven't edited anything on that page (nor even visited it.) I've had a few messages like that from other people (that i've edited a page when I haven't.) I don't know if it's my IP address or yours, but just a heads-up in case there's someone with malicious intent with access to your computer/files/IP address/whatever-else. Figured you should know, in case someone's done something with your stuff. Hope this helps!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.191.80 (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Some IP address change or are shared by multiple users. It looks like the IP 72.152.191.80 in Miami, Florida is used by Bell South. You may wish to create an account if you are bothered by seeing messages for others, it has other benefits as well see {{welcome-anon}}. Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I just noticed that Tax slavery was deleted. In the future, could you notify the WikiProjects (WP:TAX) associated with the article. I don't see any comments from the common tax editors in Wikipedia and nothing was posted to the project. I don't know which way I would have voted but it wasn't cool that it just got deleted with a nom and a weak delete, without even telling the group. I can't monitor all the tax articles on my watchlist... Morphh ^(talk) 13:17, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

As a rule I don't notify projects that I have nominated a specific article for deletion. I do attempt to notify anyone who has significantly contributed to an article. In this case I posted to User talk:EECavazos. It has been my experience that for most articles with a project template on the article talk page, they have little or no desire to actually improve the article, their only goal is to list it under their project heading. I can see that you have an interest and should I in the future notice that an article is part of WP:TAX I will keep your comments in mind. Jeepday (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you regarding wikiprojects - I'm not sure how effective many of them are. For WikiProject Taxation, we have a section on the main page for AFD noms. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 0:59, 04 February 2008 (UTC)

This [3] revert on Whore of Babylon

Thanks for the concern. It seemed pointed rather than genuine good faith editing at the moment, but I'm aware of WP:BITE and will try to be more careful, at second glance I think I was reading too much into that edit. Triona (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It happens :) Jeepday (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Toad (color) Afd

You put an Afd template at Toad (color) but you didn't create the Afd page. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have to finish writing it before I can finish creating it, will post a link to your talk page. Jeepday (talk)

Reference

Do you have a reference for this statement? Jeepday (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Their own website [4] says "The Wall Drug Store got its start during the Depression years by offering Free Ice Water to thirsty travelers." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it as a reference. Jeepday (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hay Jeepday

Hey, I saw your messages on my talk page; Sorry if I have erased a part of the comments on 'Bunjevci' discussion page, it was just a repeated part of one of my previous comments(exactly same as the one following it, I saw it twice, so I erased the first part of the double article). What I am doing now is:, as I promissed a few weeks ago, I will erase (or change) all the most offensive words I was using in some of my comments on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia. I am doing it now, and will also report all the offensive language from a few persons used towards me on some of the discussion pages on wikipedia, requesting for it to be erased as well. Thanks for your observations and all the best. Pozdrav24.86.110.10 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)