User talk:Agne27

Welcome!

Hello, Agne27, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Wine

Greetings, I caught sight of your question about Islam and wine. As I imagine you're aware in Islam consumption of alcohol is generally prohibited. Because this is the case I'm not sure how much information connecting the two you're going to find on Wikipedia but I've prepared this link to hopefully set you off in the right direction for your search. You might check with some of the members of WP:ISLAM or the folks here. Good luck! Netscott 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Metayage

Métayage and complant are the same. Bailleur and prendeur are used to describe the two individuals under métayage. Also your Bailleur and prendeur articles may belong more appropriately under the Wiktionary. Bejnar 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Wiktionary is multilingual and Wiktionary links are easy: use wikt:word in double brackets like this wikt:word, or wikt:réunion, or wikt:alguacil to link. Wiktionary is at wiktionary.org. See also: Wikipedia:Sister projects

  As to métayage, I believe that the term is broader than the usage that you have come across so far. It is used in the French translation of Cato, as well as in the French books (listed in the article) referring to a wide variety of practices, from where the landowner furnishes nothing but the land to where he furnishes everything including the seed and hand tools. From where the landowner has no say in the production, through assisted co-management to almost complete management by the landowner or his bailiff. Bejnar 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Wines

Thank you so much for this article and the link. I had heard of the poem but had never seen a text or a summary! Andrew Dalby 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Métayage

(Copy:) Hey Andrew, I would love to get your thoughts on how to maybe improve the criticism section of the Metayage article. It's taken very heavily from the 1911 encyclopedia and a book by J.Cruveilhier, Étude sur le métayage Paris (1894) and comes across with a sharp POV slant. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Agne27 16:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Agne27, I have to bow out of this one. I feel warm towards the topic, since (to take the first two footnotes) John Crook taught me and I have translated Cato, but warmth doesn't translate into specialist knowledge. Good luck! Andrew Dalby 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support!

Greetings, Agne27. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of (67/0/0)! Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have suggestions or requests - either of an admin nature or otherwise! :) Wknight94 (Talk | contribs) 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Misza13's pile!

Thank you for contributing the impressive the pile of supports gathered on my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 0x0104/0x01/0x00. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. If I ever may be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page. Misza13, the rouge-on-demand admin wishes you happy editing! NOTE: This message has been encrypted with the sophisticated ROT-26 algorithm. Ability to decipher it indicates a properly functioning optical sensor array.

Alternative closures

The material you've been adding to the Alternative wine closure article is good, but we already have articles for Screwcaps and Synthetic closures. Having extensive discussions of them in a separate article duplicates material or fragments the information across several pages. This isn't desirable, don't you agree? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand you like German Riesling. This site will give you a first impression about German wines appreciated (for the last time) by the passangers of the Titanic: http://admin.macher.intrinet.de/service/art19,982.html?fCMS=8c2881a72591fd8e205195fcff409c8d

As far as the prices documented by the wine-lists on board of the Titanic are concerned I'm absolutely sure but I can't give a good quote now, because I havent got the book about me where I read it some years ago. I guess it should have been that one: [1], only avaiable antiquarian today [2]

As you might know, the author Frank Schoonmaker ist considered quite reliable - snapshot. I like Burke's Peerage 07:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

post scriptum: 2001 was great, 2002 fine, but in 2003 German wines quite often contained much to much alcool; I doubt if we should describe 2003 as a great Riesling-vintage in general. I like Burke's Peerage 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply Appreciated

Thanks for responding! I encourage you to continue in the discussion -- the user who has been "stirring the pot" is a former associate who has told me via other channels that his entire intent is simply to sling mud on the project (and me personally) using whatever means necessary (including using wiki resources). At this point I have almost decided to seek and advocate (because I do not have time to fend his effort off singlehandedly). I know you're not a member of the advocate counsel (or whatever it's called), but I welcome the assistance if you are willing to give it. /Blaxthos 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Help in Understanding (a discourse?) ;-)

Appreciate the objective viewpoint regarding the bash.org article. Please note that I did not approach the village pump with the intent of bringing anyone to the bash.org article -- I specifically did not mention the article because I only want to understand, not to win supporters. I support your call and I have a question about wiki that maybe you can help me understand... Sometimes information relavent to a particular subject is not widely dispursed, and likely to go "undiscovered" were it not for those knowledgeholders contributing their information to wikipedia. In many such circumstances, the relavent information may not be of such earth-shattering importance that one would, say, publish an article or write a book about it. Is this information to be lost?

Allow me to be more specific... I am not the founder of the QDB project, however I have been one of two partners who have run the site for many years. I did not start the wikipedia article on bash.org, however I have contributed my own personal knowledge to the article. In my early wiki experience with the article I admittedly guided existing revisions in the least negative avenue as possible, however only off and on over several years' time (motivated by ignorance of the wiki-way, not intentional misdeed). For the past several months I've gravitated more towards the understanding that many a great deal of wikinfo is either motivated by forces unseen, unverifiable and possibly untrue, and (in most cases) unencyclopaedic and inappropriate for inclusion in the articles.

Long story short (too late!): I would be highly unlikely to publish any sort of document detailing the relavent information about bash.org's history, operation, or future projects. It would be even more unlikely that a primary source would ever publish said information. There are lots of articles on wiki that are about subjects who/that have cult-ish followings (bands, websites, projects, etc). Such subjects are outside the mainstream and unlikely to be written ABOUT. However, there are lots of people around the world who would like to know that information. The information that those "in the know" could share would likely go unpublished and "die with the owner" would it not be contributed to a place like wikipedia...

SO (finally) -- should this info not be included in articles? Does it absolutely always violate NPOV? Without manufacturing artifical "citations" or weasling around the policy, is there any way my info can be included (by myself or others) in a "legal" way. If not (or the old "if people care'd they'd write about it"), is the wiki policy the best solution to make "all the worlds' knowledge available to everyone"?

Thoughts are jumbled right now, so sorry if it's confusing. Any help in understanding would be appreciated.

/Blaxthos 02:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote!

I award you this extra special barnstar for voting to keep the gaymer article alive. Thanks for your support! Nall 12:35, August 18 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little appreciation for helping to keep the gaymer article alive (at least for the moment!). I'm glad I have your support on this issue, and hope the page continues to grow with the help of other fine wikipedians.

"Jim" v "Hawkins"

I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hawkins&diff=70420682&oldid=70398100 that you are suggesting that surnames ONLY should be used in articles. I can't find this in WP MOS, could you show me where please?

I picked three names at random - David Beckham, Pete Sampras and Nigel Mansell - all three have references to them using their firstnames, this makes it more readable IMHO. MikesPlant 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely if the subject himself is editing own entries to change formal US naming to informal UK naming (as deduced from thorough checking of the history from his British Broadcasting Committee IP address) and in show biz he is referred to more often by informal christian name used on the program (like Kylie or Madonna), then we should stick by his wishes, especially seeing full history of his disquiet with wiki? Triviajunkie 23:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page as I think it sits better here:

I agree that the Manual of Style should be more clear but there is several references to writing in a formal tone, which proper usage would dictate that surnames be used for adults as George previously mentioned in the Hawkins history. First names are wholly informal and they give a false impression of "Buddy-buddyness" between the reader and the subject. (as if the subject gave us permission to call him by his first name). On some levels, it is considered disrespectful and an intrusion to automatically assume a first name basis. Especially in light of Wikipedia's history with the subject, who has stated quite clearly his disfavor, a respectful and formal tone is the only proper course. Agne 21:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Triviajunkie has expressed my thoughts pretty well, so I'll leave it at that MikesPlant 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Having checked out MoS (biographies)quite thoroughly I see that it states for subsequent use of names: "After the initial mention of any name, the person may (my embolding) be referred to by surname only". So all this stuff I've been reading about it being law, isn't not true. I commend Agne27 for trying to get consensus on this one - my vote is as Triviajunkie states, he's in showbiz and is referred to as 'Jim Hawkins' not 'Hawkins' (which I have to agree does sound very derogatory, but perhaps things are viewed differenly outside the UK) in his publicity material - so my vote is let's change it to 'Jim Hawkins' as a half-way house. Telemaketr 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

No, they don't. If you bypass your kneejerk reaction and analyze the edits, they're completely in line with policy -- even 100% reasonable according to your own. I'm not illustrating a point, I'm following suit. -Markusbradley 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my edit summaries are pretty tame. cite needed, eliminate, quotes are not recently submitted, and the other three are completely factual and to the point. The initial edit has what maybe, possibly, perhaps be construed as you say, but the rest.. no. I appreciate your desire to be an overzealous hall monitor, and I thank you for looking out for the article and wikipedia in general, but it's really unnecessary in this case. -Markusbradley 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the uncomfortably weird untruths below, I came back here to genuinely say thanks for your efforts with Bash.org. While initially undesirable, I think the push for NPOV and citations helped to improve the quality of the article. I'm amending my wikipedia philosophy to include more emphasis on citations and neutral tone, which I think are good things. -Markusbradley 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

bash.org

can you believe this guy? he is obviously using whatever methods he can to cause static re: bash.org. i'm not really clued enough to know what the proper steps to get this debacle resovled is... can you offer assistance? plz delete upon reception, contact in another method (AIM/yahoo: blaxthos) /Blaxthos 05:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't delete talk page comment. I'm monitoring the article and so far I see nothing alarming. I really don't think Wikipedia is the place for disagreements at bash.org to be played out. My recomendation is to step back and let it be. There is nothing deflamatory about bash.org in the article that would call for a pressing response. Let the dust settle.Agne 16:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

don't you think it's a little rediculous (sp) -- not to mention multiple WP:POINT voilations -- that this ex-moderator of bash.org has made it his life's work to cause problems? i left it alone for over a week, and he continues to delete as much information as he can. i don't want anything but a factually accurate, neutral article. i have never thought wiki was the place for the criticism/response portions, but there is plenty of accurate, factual, and in many cases referenced information that this kid is removing to either (a) cause problems or (b) make a point regarding "hall monitors." let's not forget his tone and obvious intent to "rock the boat" too. this isn't about bash.org article, or wiki policy -- to this guy, it's because he lost out on something that eventually became popular. i have plenty of OOB AIM longs with him where he blatantly admits to only using wikipedia as a means to an end -- annoying/irritating anyone who cares about bash.org. petty & childish...

i asked for it to be deleted because there is no "private" option for wiki mail, afaik. /Blaxthos 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re deletion of Edmund Nelson

If you indeed feel that a review is in order, please let me know. The deletion process had enough time, in my view, and the consensus was to delete, even with the portrait. Having a portrait of oneself in a museum and/or by a famous artist is not an indication of notability, but at most an indication of the notability of the painter (or the technique). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:GA Indonesia

Hey there how are you going? Thanks for reviewing Indonesia at WP:GA. Honestly, since I joined Wikipedia, you are the best reviewer I've ever seen and I'd like to say many thanks for it. So I guess I, or we, better get to work. Okay, can I get back to you again when I have questions about the comments? Cheers, take care -- Imoeng 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. For the last one hour, I've been searching for references, ahahah. Also, I am pretty sure those are verifiable and reliable. Could you take a look at it now and tell me what you think. I mean, whether its enough or not. I'm still looking for those under the Ethnic groups section, its really hard to find. Cheers -- Imoeng 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Indonesia

WP:GA on Ram Vaswani

Hi there. Thanks for taking the time to review the article on Ram Vaswani. I appreciate the amount of time members of the project take in reviewing these.

In regards to your points about reliable sources:

• I would like to suggest that The Hendon Mob tournament links can be considered reliable sources. As Vaswani is one of the members of The Hendon Mob itself, then surely all the information on the site can be considered reliable? (In fact, Robert Butt is an employee of Vaswani.) Links to the Hendon Mob Database are also used in previously-passed GA candidates Joe Beevers, Barny Boatman and Mike Matusow. Further to this, the Hendon Mob's database is by far the most complete poker results database on the web, as many others, including the ones online at Card Player and PokerPages ignore the majority of European results. It is also used by professionals worldwide; is frequently referenced from poker discussion forums including 2+2; by TV broadcasts including ESPN's coverage of the World Series of Poker and by publications including Poker Player Magazine.
• The articles by Joe Beevers are also published on The Hendon Mob site. I feel this can be considered an article rather than a blog, even if it is in diary format.
• The Card Player Magazine article was published in print worldwide, and the online version is just an archived copy.
• I presume there are no issues with the references to which Vaswani is the author. Essexmutant 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

Just a quick update on this. I have also now tried to tidy up the references so they are not always at the end of the paragraph. I have also expanded the introduction to assert notability, and have described the origins of his nicknames. Hope this helps! Essexmutant 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike Matusow good article

Hi Agne,

After some consideration I still stand by my decision to promote Mike Matusow.

Most of the article's personal details come from Poker Player Magazine's Me and My Big Mouth - an interview which presumably remains faithful to what Matusow said. The Hendon Mob references are used largely to report the way particular tournaments have played out something that is less likely to be exposed to rumour.

I imagine it may be difficult to find authoritative references about modern poker players so I am quite comfortable with the choice of references. I also view the good article standard as a more relaxed standard compared to featured articles so that is probably why the issue of reliable sources concerns me less with good articles.

Cedars 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hendon Mob

Agne - It's my pleasure. Keeping wikipedia up to quality standards will ruffle feathers, but those feathers are well worth ruffling. I must admit I didn't realize that the Hendon mob website was being used for anything other than tournament results when I chimed in. I haven't had a chance to look at the relevant parts of the site to see what I think yet. When I do, I'll add my comments to the relevant talk pages. Thanks again for your hard work! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hendon Mob again

My pleasure. Although we disagree here, I like to think I'm one of the more civil members of the Wikipedia community. Essexmutant 06:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia GA comment

Hey again, how are you? Sorry for keep bothering you with this article, heehehe. So, this is your comment, "An area of considerable need for expansion is History prior to the 18th century. There is the link to the main article of History in Indonesia but that link is not meant to replace everything. Rather it's meant to provide more in-depth information on key events and topics that is approached in this article. In a way you can visualize it as a thumbnail or summary presentation that will wet the reader's appetite to want to read more about the subject matter. I would review the History in Indonesia article for more key points that can be added here.. I'd like to improve it now, but I don't really understand what you were saying, and where did you get the number "18". I've checked History of Indonesia but I couldn't find anything related or pointing out the 18th century. You help is greatly appreciated. Take care -- Imoeng 09:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Concern about the GA status of Joe Beevers

I have considered your comments, and Joe Beevers should probably be delisted. I would support such a delisting.--Esprit15d 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if we can leave this till the resolution of the discussion I raised at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. I had already resolved the issues with the lead section, and have just merged the trivia points into the main article. Essexmutant 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ross Boatman

I would just like to quickly point out that Ross Boatman, which followed a similar formatting to the other articles has just been passed through GA. Essexmutant 17:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The King's Regiment (Liverpool)

Hi, thanks for the notification! I appreciate the comprehensivw review you gave, and I'm relieved the only issue raised was image tags ;-) (tis the mood of wikibreak!). I've resolved that issue, replacing the deprecated PD tags with the standard. Again, thanks! SoLando (Talk) 05:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

GA process

Uh... no.. they dont... I have not edited that article, therefore I am an independent editor. Stop trying to distort the GA process. 4.249.0.240 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Your rationale for removing the GA sure changed quickly. Wikipedians can remove the GA when they believe the article does not meet the GA merits. However, given your original stated reason for removing it, you can not remove the GA template. I suggest you get another editor, other than Chacor, to remove it. 4.249.0.240 16:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that edit once so I guess if I revert two more times, I'll consider your thinly veiled threat that I should beware of WP:3RR. While deliberately misrepresenting Wikipedia policies may work with new editors, it won't with me. I suggest you leave me alone before you dig yourself into a bigger hole. 4.249.0.240 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of it, yes. I'm watching the talk page. Cheers. – Chacor 16:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

how to appear friendly

regarding Agne's Statement: "Jannie, I'm more of a friend then you believe and I don't want you to take my comments as an attack. But in the kindest way possible, I have to say that I don't think your comments on AfD is helping your goal of keeping the Toby Meltzer article. Yes there are "politics" to AfD just as there are politics to every other aspect of life (From PTAs to work to family politics). Sometimes with the "fringe votes", it comes down to which side appears more sympathetic and if appear to be hostile to even the very process you are going to steer people into advocating for delete or not even commenting at all. Secondly, I do think you need to re-consider your claims about my ignorance about Andrea James and maybe re-read the comment that is right above yours where I note that I did drop an FYI note on Jokestress page but my intention was to get her help in improving the article to make his notability sufficiently clear. Agne 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)"

In my opinion, one of the ways to be a friend is to act like a friend consistently. For example, your comments in the Meltzer AfD section were entirely unfriendly and needed to refuted. Some times one of the ways for someone in your situation to act like a friend is no say nothing rather than make the unfounded comments you did. I have grown to believe that it is important to cite people exactly as I cited them. I DO NOT take kindly to being accused of plagiarism! That fact the Meltzer AfD is out of bounds should be obvious. I do not consider is politically expedient to "cau tau" in such circumstances. In any event, thus far there are plenty of Keep votes for the article. I have cached a copy in case things go negatively. Just as there is an AfD, it would be a first, if I were to simply re-create the new and improved article later. If you want to apopear friendly, I would suggest that you consider the statements that you make twice as carefully as you seem to think it is your place to tell me that I should carefully consider mine. You may want to take more time to consider how I might respond to what you write.janniejdoe 19:53 17 September 2006

Toby Meltzer AfD

Thanks for the alert-- I brought up a couple of arguments for inclusion. Looks like it should survive. Jokestress 06:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky review

Hi Agne27, as one of the 'nameless' editors you mention in your review, I would like to thank you for the very thorough analysis. It sounds very objective and balanced, and I think I speak for both myself and Tyrenius (the other and main contributor) that we would like to work on improving the article according to your suggestions. I personally accept or can live with most of your recommendations. Hopefully once we are done with the changes we can have you glance at it again. Thanks again, Crum375 18:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crum375 in thanking you for the time to do the review and your balanced fairness in doing so. I am not sure about some points, which I present below. Your response would be much appreciated.

From the outset it is recognised that only the phenomenon of the reaction to her death makes it encyclopedic. I have taken the view that the curious reader will then want to know more things about this person, which do not seem necessarily strictly applicable to the notability, but are either something that will interest the reader, or, in fact, do actually have a relevance.

In this respect, her character would seem to be key, and so certain aspects of this have been stated, as in "fun loving". I should say such statements are not OR or MySpace statements, but aspects which press reports chose to print. A lead has been taken from the press reports as to what personal information is relevant to include, and I am not sure that you are aware that this is the source of them, or whether, even so, you consider that this makes a difference. My argument is that we should not include items out of sentiment, nor should we be averse to including them out of a fear of sentiment, which is something that is integral to the subject (i.e. the subject of mass mourning being catalysed). If we do not show aspects of her character which would be the thing that the mourners responded to (and which the press highlighted) then it will not allow the understanding of how this came about. I would also stress that there has been no direct conclusion drawn as to exactly what has affected people: the reader is presented with the facts and left to draw their own conclusion.

If, for example, we leave out the epithet "fun loving", then less information about her is available to the wiki reader than is availabe to the newspaper reader, and I believe we need to reflect the information that is in the public domain accurately. I defend the second paragraph of the background section, as it is simply a NPOV reflection of the material that the press highlighted about her. There has thus not been a POV preference exercised to not include this.

Again "last words" and the mother's interaction are also items the press reported. This is a difficult decision, as normally such material might be indulgent editing, but in this case, such information is key to understanding the phenomenon. Perhaps it could be reformulated, but it is such details and circumstances that were presented in the public domain that provided the mass mourning catalyst.

I feel the MySpace section is essential for the reader to gain an understanding of what led to the mass reaction, as it is precisely these details that initially did so. It gives an insight into the personality to which people responded. There have been a hundred other MySpace deaths with no equivalent effect.

In Aftermath, the "Shelby" tribute is merely an example of the typical reaction. If we are saying there is a reaction, it seems to me the best way to show that reaction is to quote the exact raw nature of it, rather than a remote interpretation into abstract nouns. Alex Milnes appears purely courtesy of The Guardian. They reported his reaction. The article simply reflects their choice of what is notable to cite, not the wiki editor's choice as such. Perhaps it should be stated that The Guardian said this about Alex Milnes, but this seems to me an unnecessary safeguard.

YouTube and MySpace are only used as references about themselves, and thus the usage seems to me to be following guidelines. YouTube statistics are quoted. Material is quoted from the MySpace page. I think we can accept this is genuinely her MySpace page, as this is the basis of the whole article and all the media reports.

Re. broad coverage - why/how. I think that was where there was a fear of OR that stopped interpretation of the available data to make such explanations! Guidance would be useful here.

NPOV. As I have stated earlier, I contend this article has been written from a NPOV, and it is only this that has forced the inclusion of certain details about her life and personality. NPOV refers to the wiki editor, not to the reported subjects. Thus if a newspaper makes a report of someone's POV (in this case that she was a fun loving person or whatever), it follows editorial NPOV to report that POV. Perhaps it is seen as an editorial comment that she is fun-loving, but it is not. It is a faithful reflection of secondary sources and is tightly referenced.[3]

I see the importance, as you have stated, of getting it right, and contend that in the aspects above, we have actually got it right, though I see how this might easily appear not to be the case.

Thanks again. Please feel free to copy any relevant aspects of this to the article talk page, if you wish to answer it there.

Tyrenius 19:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the above. I have responded to them. However, this may be going beyond the call of duty for you, as I'm sure you have many articles to look at. If this is the case, I do not expect any extensive answer. I believe, though, that there are valid considerations that may demand a specific take on this article, and maybe others if similar conditions apply. Tyrenius 00:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have appended an update of what now seem to be the key points. Tyrenius 00:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Right to a voice on schools

Sorry to bother you, but you are a member of AIW and I have to appeal to you for help. Deletionists are trying disenfranchise those of us who believe that all established and verifiable secondary schools are significant enough to be kept or at least merged. If you agree that it is not an "aburd" belief to hold, please give your opinion here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_22#Finger_Lakes_Christian_School Kappa 22:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)