User talk:Random user 39849958: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Archive 0; Archive 1; Archive 2; Archive 3; Archive 4; Archive 5;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:11, 17 January 2008

Starting fresh

Winter is here. Time to archive. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning box

FYI, it's not very good form to leave boilerplate warning messages on seasoned users' talk pages. Your message to ScienceApologist struck me as very incendiary, whereas a personalized message emphasizing your thoughts on the subject would have been more readily received. I haven't spoken to SA about this, but I felt it was important to let you know my thoughts. I would encourage you to remove the warning box and replace it with a more personal message. Antelan ^talk 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I placed one of TheDoctorIsIn's page as well. I will personalize the message more. Do you think given the warring that was going on, the issuance of a warning (in some form) was justified? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether justified or not, in my experience "warning" messages come off as officious, and are never productive. By placing the blame squarely on someone else, you ensure that they will react defensively. I use warnings sometimes, but it is usually only for vandalism. When possible, I find it works best to use language that emphasizes the joint nature of the conflict. Instead of saying, "You are edit warring," one might say, "How can we stop warring against one another," or something like that. It doesn't always work, but if you're willing to hear an answer, this approach usually at the very least prevents people from getting more angry. Antelan ^talk 00:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my current phrasing on each of their talk pages? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning looks conciliatory; the end, less so. How about this: another thing that I find useful is to be specific. If there is one specific thing he did to make you upset, name that specific thing so he understands why exactly you are messaging him. That will let him respond to the issue that matters to you. On the other hand, if your message's purpose is to vent your frustration, he probably already knows that you're frustrated, and he probably feels the same about you. In such a case, no message is necessary unless you can find a workable suggestion towards resolving the conflict. Rarely, in a disagreement, does someone see their opponent as blameless. Antelan ^talk 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't frustrated. I was merely trying the most civil route which I know to end their edit war. The specific thing which "upset" me was that they were edit warring. The article is in such a delicate state having just become unlocked. Looking back at the edit history, what grieves me most is that the edit warring began by Ronz the moment the article was unlocked. I wouldn't bother to warn him because any time I place even the most neutral message on his talk page, he writes it off as harassment and deletes it. Anyhow, if there is a way to phrase the personalized warning in such a way that it incorporates that it was specifically their edit warring which was upsetting and still doesn't become non-conciliatory, I am open to suggestions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way I see things, you are only warning the people with whom you disagree. Since you were also a participant in the "edit war," I don't see how you could achieve your goal of warning them about edit warring, since you would have to warn yourself, too, to seem sincere. It is easy to accuse others of warring, and much more difficult to recognize your own role in that warring. We all war on these articles, I think, but are loathe to admit it. Regarding leaving messages, the only approach that I could see working is to recognize that there is a problem, admit to them that you are part of the problem, and then try to find a resolution to the problem together. Short of that, I don't see any other personal message being particularly constructive. Thanks for letting me give you my thoughts. Antelan ^talk 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan, I encourage you to look closer at the situation. I was definitely not involved in the edit war in the slightest. If you disagree, please provide me with diffs. Second, I was not only warning the people with whom I disagree (unless you mean that I disagree with "edit warring" - then yes, I disagree with both ScienceApologist and DoctorIsIn for edit warring). They were on opposite sides and hence, an edit war. If I had to chose sides, content-wise I was/am on DoctorIsIn's side; regardless, edit warring applies across the board regardless of your POV on the actual content and that is why I issued equal warnings to both of them. Again, please look at the situation closer and respond back to me if you disagree with my assessment here. I do appreciate the advice about warning templates. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I wrote that last message I thought you had warned Ronz instead of TheDoctor. Regarding diffs, this is where you ask SA to abide by your view of the consensus, an act of explicitly taking sides (totally fine, but makes it implausible that he'll think you're trying to just be helpful when you warn him about edit warring). This is where you insert the line about Quackwatch not being peer-reviewed, a demonstration of your involvement in the edit war. My point is not that you are wrong and he is right, or that you have wronged him, or that he has wronged you. It is simply that when you are involved in an issue, the best private messages are conciliatory and future-looking; sometimes, it's best to leave none at all. Antelan ^talk 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I need you to be more clear. You are telling me that I was a participant in the edit war but the diff which you provided was from last month before the article was locked and our dis[ute resolution proceedings began. I just want to make sure that you recognize that I was not part of the edit war since the article was unlocked today. And despite being on DoctorIsIn's "side" of the content dispute, I warned him/her equally as I warned ScienceApologist. One of my pet peeves is when editors only warn editors from the opposing camp of edit warring (or incivility, or whatever) and seemingly ignore parties from their side committing the exact same offense. By warning both parties equally today, I feel I was being as judicious and fair as one could hope for. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you see things, I'm not going to spin my wheels trying to convince you otherwise. Best regards, Antelan ^talk 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your comment that you "see no reason why we shouldn't go back to just including Quackwatch's lack of peer review in the "Mission" section of our article as it is in Quackwatch's own Mission Statement where they tell us that their articles are not peer reviewed. Something to chew on folks. I was really hoping that we had a consensus and finally some peace yesterday. " can easily be interpreted as a threat to disruptively edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"can easily be interpreted as a threat" - Only if you are assuming bad faith. Please reconsider. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Levine2112 is a disruptive editor You may wish to defend yourself. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist is missing the forest for the trees. Pete St.John (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and, please read over re the dispute at QW when you get a chance. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Quackery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAM article

I'd like to get your opinion on the revert by OrangeMarlin. Anthon01 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into the actual content, I will say that his/her edit summary was inflammatory. Get real dude? That's not a nice thing to say. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance to look at the text, I would appreciate it. I have just recently come across the insistence that a quote from an article needs to reflect the entire article. Is their a policy/guideline that confirms this? Anthon01 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is. If so, how could we very possibly quote anything other than by quoiting it in its entirety. This seems like one of those (nonexistent?) policy/guidelines which people bring up only when it suits their arguments. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain?

In light of your comments here: [1], could you explain: [2]? --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two don't seem to correlate. What do you mean? Please be as specific as possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion

You aren't a perfect editor, and I've criticised you on things before, but I don't want to see you indef blocked when there are so many people who are actually and actively disruptive who get clemency and help.

To this end, I would suggest you get an informal mentor, just to protect you from your critics. I'd be willing to do it, if you trust me to. Here's what I think would be necessary for mentorship:

Try to be careful with Stephen Barrett-related articles. Edit them, by all means, but remember, WP:BLP applies, so try to use sources above reproach, and present the views of the source fairly. If I should feel your sources are poor, or misrepresented, I will tell you, and explain why. And I think that's all we really need to say on Barrett and sources unless this becomes a major problem, in which case we'll discuss it at the at the first review.

Really egregious behaviour might result in a short block, but not by me. I will waive any administrative power over you.

I'll need to look at your behaviour enough to be able to advise you, but I don't think it's necessary or helpful for me to be digging through with a fine-toothed comb. To that end, I'll look at anything you bring to my attention. I'd put your talk page on my watchlist, and would appreciate if you'd tell me about any major disputes or heated discussions you get into. And I think that would be enough.

We'll review this in February, and either end it, discuss whether anything needs to change about it, or whatever.

If you wanted to end this at any time, you could. You are not under any punishment or restriction.

If you want to do this, let me know. I'm going on holiday tomorrow, and won't be back until the 28th, so take what time you need to think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is requested

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck

-- John Gohde (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch

Isn't their a 3RR violation at the QW page? Anthon01 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Is the proper procedure to warn him first? Anthon01 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is not worth warning because he/she has been warned before and simply blanks any warning he/she gets on his/her talk page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/3RR? —Whig (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not technically, but you don't have to actually commit three reversions to be considered to be engaged in edit war. I am going to stand down though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see three editors at 3RR. Also note that blocks to stop an edit war are usually given to all warring parties. Avb 01:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I only see one editor at 3RR (QuackGuru). Avb, can you explain your position? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained 3RR to you before. I'll try to improve on what I said back then. It's really very simple. I'll limit it to the basics, leaving e.g. page moves out. Note that this is not only my position but also the position held by virtually all admins at AN/3RR since it's spelled out very clearly in WP:3RR.

A series of edits that has not been interrupted by another editor counts as one edit. With the exception of the addition of material that has never been in the article before, all edits are reverts. Reverts that are clearly not part of an edit war do not count. When the number of remaining reverts by the same editor to a single article within any 24-hour period exceeds 3, the editor has violated WP:3RR. When ongoing, it's blockworthy. That's all.

When I wrote the above at 01:15, QuackGuru, Levine2112 ~~and Anthon01~~ were at 3RR, while Anthon01 went on to 3RR half an hour later: a subsequent revert would have been a WP:3RR violation unless clearly not part of the edit war. I was at ~~1RR~~ 0RR and went to 1RR 20 minutes later due to an edit that partially reverted QG; the same edit also inserted new material which does not count as a revert. FWIW, I try to keep 1RR as per my membership of the WP:Harmonious Editing Club. I hope this helps. Avb 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify where I had 3RR? Thank you. The times would be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a tad off there; you were at 2RR (and I at 0RR) at 01:15; you went to 3RR 30 minutes later. Updated above. Avb 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count at 1 rvt only. That revert was at 23:59, December 21, 2007. Please clarify since I may be counting wrong. If you could get the time stamps it would be greatly appreciated. Please clarify the timestamps of the second and third revert. Anthon01 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I just stumbled over Anthon01's 01:12 AN/3RR report. That was quite unnecessary (note that I did even warn anyone, hoping this talk page conversation would suffice). Editing oneself after reporting an edit war may not be the wisest thing to do. I have added my opinion to the ANI thread. Avb 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mind the last one (probably unlike QG) until I discovered that it came only 30 minutes after you had reported QG for edit warring on AN/3RR without 3RR vio. Avb 16:51, 22 December

2007 (UTC)

The first one was an edit. I was not reverting anyone's edit. The second one was an revert. The third one was building on your edit of your new text. I see one revert only Anthon01 (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the next Avb entry as he removed it. Anthon01 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR and my explanation above. You were edit warring. Do not edit war. Consider this a warning. Avb 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:3RR Please read it as I think you are confused about the meaning. Anthon01 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at your talk page. Please respond there and without theories about what goes on in my mind please. Avb 17:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete my text on Levine page. I don't think it is your place to do that. Anthon01 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it an insult. But since you're so keen on having it here, I'll let it stand. Avb 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies. I will reread 3RR as you suggest. I think you should also reread 3RR as I believe that your interpretation is slightly incorrect. Anthon01 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. FWIW, I've reread it twice before commenting here. Where do you feel my interpretation is incorrect? Avb 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit you mention above was just an edit on Quackwatch being cited in a scholarly journal. It has nothing to do with the paragraph in question. Anthon01 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit reverted to an earlier version (namely one where the content you replaced or changed was not present). It became part of the edit war when QuackGuru reverted it (the very next edit, one of QG's edits you reported on AN/3RR as a revert).

Relevant policy text:

An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted,
A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors
Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.

Relevant statements from my policy summary (above):

With the exception of the addition of material that has never been in the article before, all edits are reverts
Reverts that are clearly not part of an edit war do not count. Avb 12:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I appreciate your attempts to help me understand this. And you may be right but I think you're wrong. You said "The first edit reverted to an earlier version." Are you talking about my first edit? If so then I think that you are incorrect. My first edit was simply a change in text not an undo. You're calling my first edit a revert just because my edit changed existing text as opposed to adding new text? If so, according to your interpretation, every edit that modifies existing text is a revert. The first edit was just an edit on my part. I didn't revert text that some one had edited in the past 24 hours. The fact that it was later reverted by someome else doesn't turn my first edit into a revert. See my point? Anthon01 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling my first edit a revert just because my edit changed existing text as opposed to adding new text? If so, according to your interpretation, every edit that modifies existing text is a revert. --> Yes.

I didn't revert text that some one had edited in the past 24 hours. --> that is not a requirement.

The fact that it was later reverted by someome else doesn't turn my first edit into a revert. --> No, it doesn't, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your edit was reverted which made it part of the ongoing edit war reported by you. Avb 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First I came here to wish Levine a happy and health holiday. Why is this conversation here at Levine's talk page when it doesn't appear that the last part of this has anything to do with him? I have to say, this conversation between Anoth01 and Avb should be on either of their talk pages but oh well, I guess this is a decision for Levine to make. Happy, Healthy Holidays everyone! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on Anthon01's talk page. I copied it there but he removed it and repeated on the related AN/3RR thread that the discussion could be found on Levine2112's talk page. Avb 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I can't undersatnd that ANI you asked me to look at. It's a total mess to my feeble mind. Sorry. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bulk reverts

Your bulk reverts to my edits on various pages would appear to be wikistalking if not vandalism. May I request that you desist, use discussion pages and only revert what you consider to be worthy of reverting - NOT my whole edits, which you will agree, in a spirit of cooperation, are of value. In other words you are reverting valuable contributions to wikipedia based on your personal views. Let's work together to overcome this. I don't want to escalate this to administrators. Mccready (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mccready, you are making bulk edits and it's simply easier to revert them all and let you make smaller edits. Just take it a little at a time, that's all. It will be much easier to discuss individual edits and you will also be in a much better position to defend individual edits than a whole lot of edits of very mixed quality. If you take this to admins and try to escalate a conflict, you will surely lose, so just be collaborative and work things out. -- Fyslee / talk 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question

SAndbox is a place to practice editing. It is regularly cleared by robot editors so no worries on the silliness. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barrett <Unsourced negative assertion removed per WP:BLP>

"which means that I can prescribe for myself and my immediate family" http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/faq.html#license . Anyone who self-prescribes, or prescribes to family members should have their license revoked for failing to meet the generally accepted standards of care. [3], [4] 180-6., [5], [6]: 5-2. b), [7], [8], 502. (1), [9].

<Unsourced negative assertions removed per WP:BLP> Magnonimous (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just incidentally, I doubt that physicians never prescribing for themselves, is a necessary absolute. For example, suppose physician A diagnoses physician B with adult-onset diabetes, and prescribes glucophage, and determines that B will have to take it indefinitely. To me it would seem merely sensible for B to refill the prescription himself, when it expires. So I'm sceptical that the condemnation is over-broad, and suspicious that the context (the reason given which explains the quoted sentence fragment) is omitted. Pete St.John (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett simply quoted the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine FAQ which says in full: "Active Retired – A physician who wishes to continue to write prescriptions for themselves or immediate family (spouse, children, parents, and siblings who reside with you). If you choose this option, you must submit a letter to the Board and return the active license. If your license is on an active retired status, you are excused from maintaining professional liability insurance and meeting continuing education requirements." Magnonimous is reading entirely too much into this and has been blocked for "WP:BLP violations, talk page abuse, canvassing, recreating deleted content forks repeatedly, general disruption" and "Abusing sock puppet accounts". Avb 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI re QW

So I've been away, not caught up, and swamped. I don't see any of the AN/I items against us, current in my Watchlist; am I missing anything? Was any action taken? Pete St.John (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you've been away for a week, hopefully you are enjoying a great Holiday break, as I did. Pete St.John (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Once, I accidently made a typo when logging in. Now I have an extra account. Could you help in transforming this new account into a doppleganger one.--Angel David (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anyway of combining accounts. I would recommend deleting (if possible) the extraneous account or just cease to use it. You may want to put a note on the "User Page" and "Talk Page" of the extraneous account alerting other users that this account is your secondary account and is not in use and maybe that it was created by accident. There may be a process by which an account can be removed, but you should probably check with an admin to see if that is possible. Hope this helps get you started. Sorry I don't know more. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a page redirect. Anthon01 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use this account and it has no userpage or talkpage. And it has one contribution. I need to ask an admin to remove it. Please help me in doing so.--Angel David (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the extraneous account? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account is called User:Angle David since I made a typo when logging in--Angel David (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found for you: WP:Username_policy#Deleting_your_account. Let me know if this helps, though it doesn't seem as though there is much you can do other than ignore it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant!

You have really hit the nail on the head here:

The point is that we can all present both (or more) sides of this topic if we resolve to use reliable sources and work together with civility. Wikipedia is not a scientific resource. It is an information resource. It is not a collection of facts. It is a collection of verifiable information. This means that there is room to present all notable POVs which are documented by a WP:RS, no matter how grotesque or absurd or offensive you and anyone else deems them to be. I know it can be frustrating, but please consider WP:NPOV. It will help. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [10][reply]

Very well put. I also fully agree that Blackamoor's behavior is atrocious. I just found it too late to comment. -- Fyslee / talk 01:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it is important for new users (and old users) to understand that WP is not a scientific resource and thus all of the information contained within does not have to be scientifically sound or supported. It can be kind of a tough pill to swallow and can cause some editors to lash out due to frustration. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For once, I agree with Fyslee. :) —Whig (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am enjoying this moment. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice, isn't it?! -- Fyslee / talk 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. Seems like some want it to be a science encyclopedia. Anthon01 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, but it is more than just that. -- Fyslee / talk 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of pseudoscience in other encyclopedias

I appreciate your comments on psuedoscience. Please consider commenting here. [11] Antelan believes the discussion should be closed. Anthon01 (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about being in synergy. I think I should just let you finish my sentences. :-) Anthon01 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say the same thing. :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ever post on my talk page again

I will thank you to stay off my user talk page entirely. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 : Talk about being in synergy. I think I should just let you finish my sentences. :-) [[User:Anthon01|Anthon01]] ([[User talk:Anthon01|talk]]) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 :: I was just about to say the same thing. :-) -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">[[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">[[User talk:Levine2112|discuss]]</font></sup> 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
+==Don't ever post on my talk page again==
+I will thank you to stay off my user talk page entirely. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)