User talk:Radiant!/Goodbye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search





This is disgraceful.

The way blocks are carelessly made over matters of opinion, or in retaliation.
The way people are attacked for disagreeing with the boss about whether or not a newbie is a troll.
The way admins are made an example of, not for extraordinary actions, but for being noticed at the wrong time.
The way the already controversial clerk office is misrepresenting or editorializing evidence.
And the way the ArbCom has become an instrument of punishment.

This is disgraceful. I do not think I shall be editing for the forseeable future.
- Radiant, 23:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)











Flowers left at Radiant!'s wake:

WikiThanks.png Wild tulip in the steppe of Kazakhstan.jpg Tulip-blossom.jpg Clivia miniata1.jpg Claret Cup cactus.jpg Fleur de lotus.jpg Lilac.head.600pix.jpg

Sorry to see you leave[edit]

Hi Radiant!, I'm sorry to see you leave. I'd really like it if you could expand on your parting comments (via email if you like). Talrias (t | e | c) 23:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I think you were incredibly important to the community (and by extension, the encyclopedia). —Locke Coletc 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, you have my sympathies. I also find recent behaviors to be atrocious, and after Jimbo's answer to those of us arguing that Joeyramoney was a well-intentioned newbie unfairly caught up in this mess, I was so inflamed that I contemplated a bit of editorial seppuku to remove the block myself. My more cowardly side caught up with me, and I ended up merely purging my watchlist of everything to do with damned process and conflict (more than 150 pages in total). There is still an encyclopedia under all this shit, and I am going to try and get back to it for at least a while, and ignore the lunatics running the asylum. Maybe you could try doing the same? Regardless, I hope you take pleasure in whatever you are doing now. Dragons flight 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The coolest goodbye ever[edit]

But also the saddest. You have represented some of the finest qualities in Wikipedia to me. Bold in editing and creating space for new ideas, thoughtful in your examinations of problems, willing to listen and absorb opinions different from your own. You've occasionally been snappy, but mostly when faced with determined and obstinate rejection of discourse. I can only hope that your wiki-addiction is as incurable as my own, and that we will see you back soon, for we will all be much the poorer for your absence.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go; I hope you're only taking a temporary break. Quarl (talk) 2006-02-08 00:08Z

I'm also sorry to see you leave, Radiant. Although I was not personally witness to many of the stupid events that you have enumerated, I empathise with your contention that far too many actions are being taken against the will of the community and even out of malice or revenge, and I hope that your statement will have some impact. I hope you will at least consider contributing in the capacity of an ordinary or anonymous editor in areas far removed from the political circle of Wikipedia, or perhaps on another Mediawiki project. Take care. Deco 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your sparkling history of contribution to the Wiki, and on your spectacular exit. Well done. Coffee 04:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh*[edit]

I need you around to help work on that! How come our best people are always the ones to leave? :-( Stay well, and please at least keep contact by email! :-) Kim Bruning 00:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you have the willpower to stay away from this place for a while, then I'm envious. But you will be missed. --Doc ask? 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I was very sorry to see the message from Jimbo criticizing your decision to assume good faith about the template, and the blocking wars and desysopping are also very unpleasant to see. But please consider that it was a template about pedophilia, and naturally it provokes anger and revulsion. It's only human that people will respond strongly and be less able to see the other fellow's POV and more likely to over-react. It's a tragedy if this issue does us permanent damage instead of being able to put things back together by talking it through, and move on. Kappa 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
How come our best people are always the ones to leave? :-( Because the best people have the least need and least desire to put up with intimidation, inane power struggles and bureaucratic infighting from lesser people with ego problems. If Radiant and WP's other best editors and admins won't be treated with respect here, they'll go someplace else where they will be, and everyone else can sit around and fight about userboxes all day without anyone left who will dare to question their actions. --Aaron 02:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Also I'm guessing because they take it seriously and invest emotionally in the project, which makes this crap harder to live with, especially when it seems to go directly to the heart of what you understand the project to be about. But that is speculation. I want Radiant back too. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope[edit]

Radiant, I understand your feelings and have been struggling with similar thoughts myself. However, I also see reasons to remain hopeful. Despite the fact that Jimbo and several of the more 'senior' admins (plus scattered regular users/admins) presented a stark and somewhat intimidating position on these issues a large portion of the community was willing to stick their necks out and say, 'there is more to this situation than that'. Ultimately, it will always be the community which builds and therefor shapes Wikipedia. The administration can attempt to nudge the overall course of the community or act with great expediency on specific issues, but they cannot negate the hearts and minds of hundreds with any edict. Most people understood that there were other issues to be considered and no need for over-reaction... and that gives me hope. Too there have been some positive signs from above today. The dust is settling and many people (myself included) are re-evaluating their recent comments and looking for better ways forward. All that being said, even if the majority did not 'get it' and arbitrary 'punishments' were to become a matter of course I'd urge you to stay anyway... because the goal of this project is worthwhile no matter what the environment in which it is built. I do hope you come back, because you've done alot of good here and hope is only strengthened when people work together to with-stand the slings and arrows. --CBD 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WTH?[edit]

Seriously is this worth leaving over? Why don't you organise something against this if you are that upset? Leaving just means that they win. When people like you give up the whole community looses. -Ravedave 02:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You need this more than I do[edit]

Wild tulip in the steppe of Kazakhstan.jpg

A while ago you left something on my talk page, which was an aw'fly nice thing to do... I've decided to give it back...(1) You need it more than I do, my friend.


You have my warmest wishes. Here's hoping you come back soon, but in any case I thank you very very much for all you've done for all of us. Be well. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1 - well, most of it anyway, I kept a little tiny bit. :)

It Is Disgraceful[edit]

Radiant, you've done with your poll what I could only hope to dream of, we're a stone's throw away from preventing things like this sad episode in the future thanks to your poll giving a clear direction towards real rules that we can all follow and be protected by instead of this popularity contest free for all. All those things you've said above are disgraceful, but it's disgraceful more than anything that you don't see this and understand how valuable you are to Wikipedia. I hope once things cool off in a few days you come back to us. Karmafist 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

sigh[edit]

I'm sorry to see you feel the need to leave. I have to wonder if I walked into the worst possible time at Wikipedia (last Sept-Oct, when I started editing in project space, to now), or if it's something bigger. You've always been a bright spot (literally) of trying to find a solution, third path, reasonable compromise, action instead of endless whinging. If you come back, the project will be better for it; I hope if you stay away, you will be better for it. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

I apologize for the tone of my remarks yesterday. I had a talk with several members of the ArbCom, who persuaded me that if I look at the timeline of events, your action in unblocking was not what I thought it was. My tone yesterday was something that I regret.

We may, may have a disagreement on some substantive issues here, I am not really sure. I think clearly the act of placing that userbox would warrant a 24 hour block for trolling, obviously not an infinite block. Unblocking, with an eye towards discussing with others what to do, leaving open the possibility of a 24 hour reblock, was perfectly fine.

--Jimbo Wales 04:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Return[edit]

Please make this a temporary WikiBreak. I want to be able to seek your advice as an admin. Superm401 - Talk 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason to come back[edit]

5 items to work on.

I'm also sure that i need your help in the future. Mion 06:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sad, but is there hope at nl?[edit]

This a truly sad day, and your departure is a great loss to Wikipedia. I got pretty stressed out by what has happened as well lately and retreated to the pristine Norwegian Wikipedia, chemically free of ArbCom and RFC. Paradise isn't it? Is the Dutch version any good? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Although still a newbie (maybe forever) I would like to personally thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I hope to see you here again. Take a wiki-break and come back. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just have to add my sympathy also[edit]

This is not worth leaving over. Or, at least, I hope to see you working on a fork. As DF said above, the content is still here, and still worth it. And PROD is a great idea, and it's great that it seems to have been accepted. I wish you the best of luck and good fortune in your future endevours. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a break for a few days, but please come back! there are areas of the encyclopedia that will fall apart without you around! Martin 10:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely hope[edit]

that you will be back. —Nightstallion (?) 11:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Black box[edit]

The text Radiant! wrote is illegible to me; on my browser it looks like a blank black box. I edited the version on the user page to remove the formatting, but someone restored the blank version.

I'd prefer the wording to be plain text. Radiant's message is in the words, not his odd choice of colors. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the "odd choice of colors" is indeed part, a huge part, of the message, else why would he have bothered to create stuff in that color scheme? Others report it works in a number of browsers, perhaps not yours though... what browser do you use? Is the text visible if you drag the highlight cursor through the area where it is? Perhaps there is a technical compromise that might work? What if the text were replaced with an image (that had the text as alt text?) User pages are supposed to be primarily under the control of that particular user in general. Radiant sent a message with his words and color choices, one which has caused some of us to reflect. (the irony of someone named Radiant choosing black, the ABSENCE of radiance, is intense, at least to me) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. This note replaces a chunk of text that was fairly malicious and dead wrong from me agaisnt Tony Sideway. He is right about the black - look issue.

The troll is right. I use Firefox. I also use Cologneblue skin. The page is still black on black. When I edited to remove the style information (which the troll reverted with false accusations) this made the text legible in all skins. --Tony Sidaway 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies once again, I fixed the issue, as far as I can see it's the best of both worlds, still black and still visible under all skins.


Glad it all ended well. Thank you for proving that my suspicions of malice on your part were misplaced. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Parting comments[edit]

Your comments are thoughtful. I feel much the same. And yet...

The events of the last few weeks have proved that it isn't Jimbo, peace be upon him and his descendants, that runs this place. It's you. Tattvamasi. And all of us. Jimbo (pbuh) may have shown up, shouted a bit, blocked a newbie, deleted a template, arbitrarily desysopped some people and left the ArbCom to pick up the pieces. But in the same week you reformed our deletion process. Which is more important? I know my answer. - Haukur 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He's right you know. I hope you come to understand this. Also, I hope you don't mind, but i've borrowed your black box and put it on my talk page. You're not alone, my friend. Karmafist 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

encouragement to stay[edit]

Hi - I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus. I'd rather you not go, but if you must you must and I wish you the best in whatever future endeavors you undertake. IMO Wikipedia is currently experiencing some growing pains. I believe we'll get through it and eventually come out on the other side. I don't exactly know what it will look like, but I think there are enough reasonable people around that it will be more or less reasonable. If you do go away, please come back and visit some time. I suspect you've turned off your email address on purpose, but if not it might be nice to turn it back on (perhaps eventually) so you don't remain completely incommunicado. Sincerely best wishes. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes[edit]

I was saddened to read your notice at the top of your talk page. You're one of the project's best admins and contributors, and I'd hate for us to lose you. Whatever your decision is, best wishes. Crotalus horridus (TALKCONTRIBS) 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving[edit]

I once got held up at work by a bloke with a gun. I did not let that incident make me leave the job, I refused to let that person take anything more away from me than I was prepared to give; it made me more determined to do the job I enjoyed, to do what I believed was right. We don't always see eye to eye, but all the best. Steve block talk 20:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a sad day[edit]

...for Wikipedia, with such a fine editor leaving. I hope the WikiBreak is only temporary. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mailer Diablo, come back --Jaranda wat's sup 03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is very unfortunate[edit]

Even as a relative newbie to watching admin stuff, you've stood out for consistently acted as a voice of reason and positive contribution. I add my voice to those hoping you return to contribute more as you have so well in the past. Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"please don't go"[edit]

It would be demeaning to suggest that I have some divine knowledge as to why you shouldn't leave. I don't. I rather dislike all the "please don't go" that is showered on some users when they threaten to leave. My take is usually, "well go, then." In your case, though, I feel the need to make an exception. You have helped me a lot in becoming more a part of the community, instead of some nameless, faceless editor doing his own thing. I hope you find what you're looking for, out there, and stop in from time to time to say hello.

Take care.

aa v ^ 00:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't come to say hello. I miss your wisdom and guidance on this project, Radiant. I wish you'd come back to us and bring your ... radiance with you. It is sorely needed. ... aa:talk 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Come back. —Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Now more than ever, you would add a lot! ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Radiant[edit]

I'm glad to see your comments, standing up and being the voice of reason as usual. I'm heartbroken to see you leaving. the wub "?!" 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

meh..[edit]

I don't know you very well, but I see your sig everywhere. I gather that you were very involved here. It's a sad day when we lose such a dedicated wikipedian. I hope after some time passes you'll come back. --Fang Aili 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


On the actual reasons for leaving[edit]

I've seen lots of expressions of real regard here, but little in the way of comment on what you wrote. Because I find it quite extraordinary, I thought I'd address it here and now in the hope that, when you do return, you'll take my comments into account and perhaps turn it into a dialog. I recently recused myself from the userbox case as a clerk. I'll number your points for ease of discussion:

1) The way blocks are carelessly made over matters of opinion, or in retaliation.

2) The way people are attacked for disagreeing with the boss about whether or not a newbie is a troll.

3) The way admins are made an example of, not for extraordinary actions, but for being noticed at the wrong time.

4) The way the already controversial clerk office is misrepresenting or editorializing evidence.

5) And the way the ArbCom has become an instrument of punishment.

On point 1, I agree that the block war was pretty appalling. However it was dealt with pretty decisively, at the highest level. On point 2, I think it would help if you gave an example of someone being attacked solely for disagreeing with Jimbo, rather than his conduct.

You say admins were "made an example of" (point 3). Well their bits were temporarily flipped, which is hardly making an example of someone, particularly if they're engaged in abuse of their sysop powers. On "being noticed at the wrong time", well bear in mind that, by participating in this war, those sysops acted so as to make it "the wrong time." Without that whole silly war, there would not have been reason to intervene.

On point 4, well I'm a member of the clerk's office, and if there are inaccuracies, omissions or bias in the accounts issued, it would be very welcome and useful to me and the other clerks, and above all to Wikipedia if you or someone else were to point out those inaccuracies. I've looked and I've seen no sign of your commenting on this. I do see this in which you give your opinion that Carnildo should be rrquired to apply at RFA if he wants to be sysop again, and Ashibaka not (which also happens to be the aggregate opinion, at present, of the Committee).

On point 5, I think it's based on our different views of the situation. In my opinion we've seen some people demonstrate very poor judgement as administrators so it does seem reasonable to say "we don't think this person should be an administrator at all." I don't see that as punishment--administrators have powers that must not be abused. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Tony, on point 5: Do you consider Karmafist's unblock of User:Joeyramoney to have been in error? Haukur 17:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder about this as well. I find it odd that he's getting desysopped over something that it sounds like most people agree should have been done. —Locke Coletc 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Without commenting on the material itself, on Tony's point on 2), I think Radiant is referring to Jimbo's "Let me straighten you out on something", which Jimbo later followed up with an apology (Radiant had already departed by that time). -Splashtalk 17:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I view Karmafist's unblock of Joeyramoney, in the circumstances pertaining, as well below the level of conduct I consider unacceptable in an administrator. It is, however, consistent with my previous experience of Karmafist's chronic display of poor judgement in stressful situations.

Jimbo's comments to Radiant on 6 February were very misplaced, and completely explain Radiant's tone in point 2. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why you thought it was "well below etc."? To me it seems like a pretty good admin call - a newbie had been blocked for a week over a trifle without any warning or attempt to engage him in dialogue. Karmafist's unblock summary said that we should assume good faith. - Haukur 23:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It was not a trifle. as subsequent events that day show. His actions were extremely disruptive. The first block was wrong because it was implemented in the belief that he was a pedophile; Radiant was right to lift it. The second block was right in the circumstances because his own statements suggested that he had trolled the community. If he hadn't shown clear evidence of recognising that his actions had been disruptive and acting xwiftly to limit the damage I would still support a continuation of the block. That key act--removal of the template from his userpage--changes everything. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How badly can one really "troll the community" by copying a template from Wikipedia:Userboxes that Paroxysm had placed there [1]? It was stupid kid stuff. Like the templates on Joey's page declaring he is a mutant, pyromaniac and in favor of assaulting people with cigarette smoke. Nothing in his statement [2] suggests anything to me other than poor taste in humor and inexperience with the community. AGF. The fact that the events were "extremely disruptive" is hardly his fault. If a half-dozen or so admins had behaved in a reasonable manner, it could have been largely a non-issue. Dragons flight 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How badly? The events of February 5th and 6th show quite graphically how easily the community can be spooked by this. You ask that "a half-dozen or so admins" reactions be taken into account. No can do. A user who provokes overreaction on that scale must be isolated from editing until we know what we're dealing with. "Assume Good Faith" only lasts until the user says, as this user did, " i put it on my user page as just a joke". What? Nobodys is allowed to find a joke offensive? This is Wikipedia. If people want to play silly jokes, they can do so somewhere else. Saying that people shouldn't be spooked isn't an option. Maybe we could have told Mr Seigenthaler not to get so anal about a false accusation, or that the person currently being stalked in Wikipedia space should learn how to take a joke. No. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm offended by most of the things that come out of your mouth Tony, but that doesn't mean you don't have the right to say them as long as you have civil intent. Karmafist 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh right, I forgot that people should be held accountable for the overreactions of others. Next time someone rants at me that creationism deserves equal billing in scientific articles, I'll be sure to remember it is all my fault. And since when is making a joke a sign of bad faith? I can think of dozens of templates and more than a few user pages that shouldn't be deleted in that case. As far as offensive, I do find it an offensive thing to joke about. I'm in favor of deleting it. This doesn't mean I am favor of whacking a kid for somehow getting the impression that it is okay to use userboxes to make crass jokes. TFD could have deleted it, or an admin could have speedied it, or someone could have even asked him to remove it. There are a whole range of sensible behaviors, none of which required wheel/block wars. Or are wheel wars just something we have to accept and expect now? If admins actually did something resembling their job this could have been resolved with a lot less fuss. And lastly, I find that your comparison of placing a stupid template on one's userpage to overt stalking unfairly belittles the actual harm created by real harrasment. Dragons flight 02:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting blocks as punishment, and administrative actions as a means of enforcing accountability. In fact blocks are usually purely pragmatic decisions, made on the basis of ad hoc risk assessments. This is all that was done. You're right to state that there was no need for a block war; a simple block in circumstances like this should never be controversial. We need our administrators to be more sensitive and to act quicker to defend the encyclopedia. I'm sure that this is achievable in time. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I can forgive someone making a snap judgment out of a desire to protect Wikipedia, but I can't see how anyone can take a serious look at Joey's background, actions, and contributions and honestly conclude he constituted any serious or ongoing danger to Wikipedia. Hence the blocks (both of them) were in error. This should have been explained (and was) and the blocks should have been quickly lifted (which they weren't). Dragons flight 02:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one, Tony. I think that the block was completely unnecessary and counterproductive. The user had not made a single detrimental edit to the encyclopedia so I don't see a need to "act quicker to defend the encyclopedia". Blocking was overkill, discussing the matter with the bloke was enough. - Haukur 08:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How was blocking Joeyramoney "defending the encyclopedia"? Other than placing the controversial userbox on his userpage, the user had made contributions to the encyclopedia. If anything, the block against him hurt the encyclopedia more than it helped (with Radiant! and Karmafist's subsequent unblocks being totally appropriate, even if Jimbo disagreed (he should have, instead of flying off the handle and desysopping Karmafist, maybe considered that he was wrong about Joeyramoney)). —Locke Coletc 09:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In the cirumstances of the ongoing warring, blocking Joeyramoney was absolutely the correct thing to do. Although we know now that he was blameless, it was not apparent at the time. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wikipedia is not a troll haven. -ZeroTalk 18:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re point 4: I think Radiant may be referring to this, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence#Summary of dispute, written by the Clerks:

Template:User pedophile was created by Paroxysm (talk · contribs · logs) and first used by Joeyramoney (talk · contribs · logs) (who as far as I can tell is the only one who has ever used the template). Carbonite (talk · contribs · logs) blocked Joey indefinitely and posted about it to WP:AN. Many users immediately expressed support for this. When Dbiv (talk · contribs · logs) asked for justification from policy, Carbonite invoked common sense. It soon emerged Joeyramoney enjoys placing humourous and otherwise fake userboxes (i.e. "This user is a mutant") on his userpage. Nevertheless, Carbonite refused to unblock. Carbonite continued justifying his block by implying pedophilia is just as blockable offense as a hatred of Blacks.

Radiant! (talk · contribs · logs) then unblocked Joeyramoney as per the objections of some on AN.

I have to say, I find it to be somewhat out of kilter with our NPOV and weasel word policies myself. To state many users immediately expressed support is something extraordinary. I count two. Note that after forty minutes Carnildo is rethinking the block. I think it is somewhat unfair to also refuse to mention that although Carnildo refused to overturn the block, he noted he "won't reblock. I'm not going to wheel war over this". I think it's also unfair to describe two people as "many" in describing support, but at least 6 people supporting unblocking or objecting to the unblock as "some". I also find the summary to place disproportinate emphasis on Radiant's action, as though it occurred without consideration and some rough consensus. Steve block talk 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think those are valid criticisms. I wish Radiant himself had made them at the time. I'm recused from clerking in the case but I've asked the clerks to review your comments and correct the account if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tony. I also wish Radiant had made the criticisms. I don't really want to speculate on why he didn't, I'm hoping he'll tell us why at some point. Steve block talk 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't actually have a secret cabal or anything (I'm not even in email contact with any of the other clerks, and we don't discuss cases privately on IRC or anywhere else--maybe we should be indicted for inefficiency!) but I'll try to make sure the other, unrecused, clerks notice this error and do something about it. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile I have contacted one of the arbitrators online and informed him of your concerns about the summary, and gave him to understand that I think they're valid. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the conclusion that my edit summary inaccurately represented the discussion on WP:AN. It was my understanding that the arbcom wanted the summary as soon as possible, so my evidence summary was naturally rough around the edges, to say the least. This is a very good lesson for all of us on how not to represent a dispute or write an evidence summary. If Radiant left because of my evidence summary (whether he did or not, I definitely feel responsible — it is my belief Jimbo reacted the way he did because of my summary) I wish to express my very strong apologies. This was far from intentional -- if anything, I agreed with Radiant's actions. I was very surprised when I was informed people were reading a bias in my summary against Radiant, especially considering this was based only on a couple of words -- a very good lesson to learn from. As a couple of IRCers and fellow Cabal members know, I was very upset over Radiant's departure -- and this was before I was made aware that I was possibly at fault. No malice was certainly meant towards Radiant, and I will not fault anyone who lays the bulk -- if not all -- of the blame for this debacle on my shoulders. Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's very gracious of you John, and I apologise for wording my criticism so strongly. It's perhaps possible that your agreement with Radiant's actions caused you to balance too strongly in the opposite direction, I sometimes find that reverse bias creeps into my head at times. Steve block talk 19:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect your decision[edit]

There have been days I've come close to hanging it up myself. Fortunately, whatever caused me the distress was rectified on short notice. I hope the same happens to you, although from reading your note, I fear it might not. If you're lurking, please accept my thanks for all of the work you've done, and know that you'll be sorely missed. --Kbdank71 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go[edit]

Although we've most certainly had our differences in the past, I've always believed that your heart was in the right place; from a distance, our goals have always been the same, we just disagreed on how to go about achieving them and by what means. Please know that you will be missed by many of us here, and that I personally hope you reconsider your decision after some healthy time away from the project. Take care of yourself. Bahn Mi 04:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. You're very welcome back any time. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Troll high-five[edit]

Don't make the trolls happy. Please stick around.--Jondel 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving?![edit]

I came here to ask whether there was some manifesto, some poll, some shred of resistance you had organized. One which I, and judging by your talk page many others as well, could sign or join. Was this a vain hope? The Minister of War (Peace) 11:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One more[edit]

Wikipedia policy will be the poorer without you. Don't stay away too long. Stevage 18:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay TalkContact, Chairman, 12:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)
Recently... ? - 80.134.216.118 22:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bumps in the road[edit]

I agree with you, to some extent, about what has unfolded. However, what is past is past. What has happened has happened. You have done so much excellent work, it would be a shame to leave in a huff. Ponder, reflect, consider- I think you'll see that, in the long run, this is just another bump in a long road. Hoping to see you around, Sean Black (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheerio[edit]

I remember you. I voted in support of your adminship nomination. [3] The reason I did so was because a chap I don't like had voted against you. It distresses me that you have gone and people like that chap are still here; people like that have a dreadful persistence. What a useless thing Wikipedia turned out to be. Looking at the rest of the nomination page I notice that a chap called Mel Etitis was "put off by one or two support votes (especially Ashley Pomeroy's)". I sincerely hope that Wikipedia goes bust, the whole autistic mess of it. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whaaaat!!!![edit]

OMG Radiant I just now saw that you had... er, "become inactive"... "passed on to a better place".... "ate the hot-pocket"... whatever... Nooooooooooo! Who am I gonna fight with? Without you it's just INSAAAAAAAAAAANE! Herostratus 18:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. I hope you come back after a break. Herostratus 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
"Ate the hot-pocket" That's hilarious! Gotta remember that. --Kbdank71 14:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One more[edit]

Without you PROD most likely would have never been launched... So please come back. We know we are ungrateful and sinful, but we miss you. Renata 18:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Radiant, you are one of the pillars of Wikipedia. LordViD 20:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

... so as to not be noticed by the cabal...[edit]

dxoxnxtx'tx gxox. Wxex nxexexdx yxoxux hxexrxex. Dxaxmxnx, Ix'vxex bxexexnx pxixsxsxexdx axnxdx sxox hxaxvxex mxaxnxyx oxtxhxexrxsx bxuxtx qxuxixtxtxixnxgx wxoxnxtx mxaxkxex yxoxux fxexexlx axnxyx bxextxtxexrx ...sxtxaxyxixnxgx wxixlxlx! hydnjo talk 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation: don't go. We need you here. Damn, I've been pissed and so have many others but quitting wont make you feel any better ...staying will! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcoetzee (talkcontribs) Good going you crypto-master you!  ;-) hydnjo talk 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

a (slightly egotistical) confession[edit]

Wikpedia is one of those places where everyone is supposed to be equal, have equal say, and be equally worthy in terms of their edits, their common sense, and their general worth as wikipedians. This is a comfortable fiction, of course, but one we all try to live up to. I often (somewhat egotistically) think of myself as a "senior editor" here - simply because I have edited so much an taken part in so many discussions in wikispace. As such - again egotistically - I do look on my abilities and worth to wikipedia as being a little higher than many of the editors here. There are also a lot of other editors here that I see as being of equal ability and worth to the project to me - some a little better, some a little worse. There are a very, very tiny number of editors that I look up to as being the true core of Wikipedia - people that can always be relied on and who are always helpful on those occasions when someone like me gets in too deep. You, Radiant, are one of those rare few, and I will be sorely sorry if you don't reconsider and come back to Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope to see you back[edit]

Hope to see you back on Wikipedia editing soon, even if only to serve as an example of the qualities that you believe Wikipedians should have.

BTW, we don't know each other, but you did post a friendly welcome message on my talk page when I first registered. --Takeel 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with ya Takeel ! 80.134.249.53 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go[edit]

Please write me if you return. Septentrionalis 18:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you left[edit]

Here's some C code you can read through while you're gone...

Enjoy!

--EllenFoster 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

(Moved by alex 06:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

Terugkomst[edit]

Sinds dat je een van de enige was die tegen mijn RfA was (met goede redenen, ik was behoorlijk onervaren) heb ik je contributies gevolgd. Ik betreur het dat de persoon die de beste ideen had om AFD te hervormen heeft besloten om te vertrekken. Ook je werk op het gebied van CSD was uitstekend. Ik hoop dat je ooit terugkeert, en zodien hoop ik nog eens de eer te mogen hebben om met je samen te werken. Met vriendelijke groet, Jaap, jacoplane 04:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Long time, No See[edit]

Hi again!

  • I'm just easing back into Wiki after a long sojourn helping with post-Katrina, and it's amazing both how much I've forgotten, and at some of the changes (Documented cites! Yay!!!). Consequently I sort of slid (tires squeel, glass shattering, metal crumples) accidently into a unfamiliar area (Novel article+Fict standards) looking for something 'easy' and I'm looking for some guidance. Browsing Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) I see you've got some horsepower (tho' it's probably very Ladylike, I'm sure <g>) in the area (no surprise there!), so could you give me a quick brief on any other pertinent guidelines, and better yet, suggest an example or two of 'Great' (made FA stuff) articles of this type. I'd really appreciate it since this has got to be an eightfold expansion so far! (See (first stab expansion) 1632 (novel) for where I'm focused.)
  • I'd love a reaction! Actually, I'd rather NOT do much in the way of a major plot synopsis— given the background I've layed out thus far I think I've suggested enough about the plot, and I wonder whether building a list of 'players' makes any sense at all, given a huge cast. What's your first impression? Ans. on the arty talk if you would.) Thanks!
    • Just to be inconsistantly perverse, I'm going off for a while to build that list of players I 'inituit' isn't needed!FrankB 15:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Save "List of school pranks" From Deletion[edit]

Hi, the article List of school pranks has been targeted by the Wikipedia Thought Police™. Please help preserve this marvellous testament to human inventiveness—and cruelty—from certain extinction by voting Keep at the article's deletion page if you haven't already done so. May algid reason never reign supreme! Thanks, Maikel 15:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC) PS: This is a generic message that has been hand-posted to you as a former contributor—hope you don't mind.

Moving On[edit]

I hope that you return to wikipedia. You have made good contributions to wikipedia. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 11:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

CFD renomination[edit]

For info: a cat you previously voted to delete has been recreated. Please see:

--Mais oui! 17:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Here comes the Spider-Man![edit]

(Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man)

I have threatened to climb the Reichstag, dressed up as and did so, became bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, and then had it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great!

"In extreme cases editors may be tempted to climb the Reichstag building dressed as Spider-Man in order to promote their cause. This is absolutely forbidden and can result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia."

File:ReichstagClimb.jpg
You may not do this.
Nor on Tower bridge either.

This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia! Horay!

Thats what I love about this Wonderful, wonderful website.

Next stop: The Kremlin!


Thankyou!

Dfrg.msc 09:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I was just thinking about how proposed deletion has caught on so successfully. I think this is because it was designed not to conflict with other processes, and not to cause conflict between Wikipedians. So anyway, if you ever read this page, thanks for this beneficial system and I hope you return sometime. Rhobite 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bleh![edit]

It's been a bad day, and I just fancied someone I could moan at who'd understand, so here I am. God I envy you. I hope you're having fun somewhere doing something you enjoy. Take it easy and live a good life. Funny thing is we never got on that well when you were here, but as you once told me, I'd rather b arguing with you... Steve block Talk 12:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

arbitrary fork[edit]

Hmmm. I see Radiant! has announced his or her retirement.

I was going through some old {subst:afd} discussions, and wanted to repeat a question I asked Radiant! and never got an answer. Radiant! voted to delete with the explanation "arbitrary fork". Maybe one of Radiant!'s fans can explain to me what an "arbitrary fork" is. -- Geo Swan 06:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article List of high value detainees is an arbitrary subset (fork) of another article (List of Guantanamo Bay detainees). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Radiant! may have believed that. I believe the earlier discussion made pretty clear that there was very little overlap between the detainees who had been held in military custody at Guantanamo, and those who have been held secretly in secret CIA interrogation centres around the world -- the black sites. Some CIA detainees were transferred to military custody, when the CIA was finished with them. Some were transferred to extrajudicial detention in their home countries. At least one CIA detainee (at the salt pit) died under interrogation. We don't really know what happened to the rest of them. Dana Priest the journalist who won a Pullitzer for breaking the story about the black sites, estimated that there were about 150 detainees in CIA custody. She also estimated most spent six months or less in CIA custody. So, if her guesses were correct, what happened to the rest of them? Bagram maybe? It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that there were more than the one death in custody we know about.
The CIA was so short of experienced officers that the camp commandant of the Salt Pit was a newly graduated CIA officer on his very first assignment. His colleagues described him as "bright and eager". The death in custody had been given a beating, stripped naked, dowsed with water, and left overnight, in a cold cell, to put him in a receptive mood for his interrogation the next day. In the morning it was found that he had frozen to death. That "bright and eager" CIA officer was subsequently promoted, not cashiered.
Thanks for offering your guess at what Radiant! meant.
Radiant!'s page has become kind of a hagiography. This is the only interaction I have had with Radiant!. And, in this particular instance, I think I am entitled to say I think he or she fell short of the standards of collegiality and cooperation we should look for in our fellow wikipedia contributors. I am disappointed he or she didn't offre that answer him or herself. If they had I would have tried another approach to correct the misconception that the new article described a subset of the earlier article.
Cheers. Thanks again for the explanation. -- Geo Swan 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely different[edit]

Hello, welcome ! Bishonen | talk 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, welcome back. Haukur 12:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, what changed around here to warrant this? --Kbdank71 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that would be a certain Dutch wikactivity rather near to where I live. >Radiant< 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, I hope! I have missed you. Nandesuka 05:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And welcome from me too, if you are indeed back in action! Grutness...wha? 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, and hope to see you editing again! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! I hope that whatever time you spend editing Wikipedia is enjoyable. --Interiot 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Feeling better now? Scobell302 20:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back from me as well. Jaranda wat's sup 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you! And yep, I'm indeed back in action. What did I miss? :) (seriously, do tell; I'll probably read up on a Signpost or two but I'd rather hear it here) >Radiant< 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't look too hard, you might want to leave for another 6 months.  ;-) Nice to have you back. Dragons flight 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Toolserver's been down for the past 3 months. Prod moved to an on-wiki process. (there's a non-toolserver way to revive the prod tracker, but I don't know if there's been any movement towards that yet)     If you're curious about wikidrama, User:NoSeptember/Desysop points to some of the stories. --Interiot 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Many folks seem to hang out on IRC, see Wikipedia:IRC channels (I don't). Use of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser has reached epidemic proportions (various folks are suggesting 5000 edits is a reasonable minimum for RFA, since it's so easy using AWB to make hundreds and hundreds of meaningless edits). There's been a changing of the guard with bot folks - lots of processes got at least momentarily constipated due to reliance on dearly departed botters. It's bigger, currently 4,934,945 articles and counting. Template parser functions have arrived (see m:ParserFunctions) and have let any number of folks go truly nuts with templates that are completely inscrutable. Angela resigned from the board (!). Boothy443 got really pissed off and seems to be gone. user:Bobby Boulders was an annoying pest of a vandal for a while (may be the latest incarnation of WoW). Some sort of stable version feature is apparently actually in the works and will be enabled in the German vesion. No one can gain consensus to change virtually anything. You know, pretty much same old. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Welcome back... I am trying to remember exactly what you were active in before you left... I know that a log page was created to keep track of changes on {{cent}}. There has been changes and updates on WP:CSD, especially under the image/media sections... You left at about the same time that Jimbo established WP:OFFICE, so I do not know if you know about that or not. If I think of more, I let you know. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • wb! /me does happy dance. One thing not mentioned so far in the difflist [1] is that the state of javascript automation has advanced quite a bit. Having the toolserver replication DB so lagged means a lot of js based history/count/browse things have been developed, but that's just one facet... check out WP:US, especially if you are going to pick up the admin mantle again... Another thing to note is that IRC is not just for talking, there are channels that are primarily bot traffic speaking of new users and potential edits in need of investigation, with handy links already embedded. WP:1.0 is making great strides, many projects are carrying out article classification (with the help of fairly standard talk page templates to track what's what and display current thinking) and User:Mathbot runs every night to build a vast grand list of all the articles so far classified and how good they are thought to be... For example here is The Beatles summary page... Hope that helps and wow, glad to see you back. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) --Golbez 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, bit late on the scene- another welcome back from me :) Petros471 17:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! I am glad you have returned. Hope things don't piss you off too much too soon. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ an interesting exercise to be sure... note also that citation/reference/footnote technology has advanced... see WP:REF and WP:CITE
  • Glad to see you back also. --CBD 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well that's news! Welcome back. --Ligulem 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (I changed my username in the mean time ;-)
  • Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!! >Radiant< 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! Glad to see you return. —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Really really belated WB! - Ravedave (Adopt a State) 03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Blimey! Hope things are good with you. Yes, I look forward to arguing. Steve block Talk 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at WP:DENY as well. It's like an hellzone. Jaranda wat's sup 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. -Splash - tk 22:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try not to clutter your talk page with another section header, but I'm truly pleased to notice your return. At the time, I thought your departure was a big loss for Wikipedia, and I was dismayed when it appeared to be permanent. Umm, I guess the blocking mechanism has changed a bit and you might want to get used to that, and we've grown a lot more strict on bad (license, source, fair use rationale, etc) images. I'm happy to help if you have any questions getting used to it all again. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

didn't think I would see your name on my watchlist again... welcome back... --T-rex 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Muaha! You are a veritable force of clean, sweeping my watchlist with unerring boldness and purpose! Huzzah I say! Huzzah!
(welcome back! I've seen your contributions throughout the talkpages, and like you already ;) The only thing I have to add to the ultra-condensed-Signpost-synopsis above is, there are new people with unrecognizable names everywhere! --Quiddity 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good news to spot you here. Pavel Vozenilek 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Holy %&$^#^, it's >Radiant!< - can we get an amen? -- nae'blis 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Welcome back, Radiant. Deco 10:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This news makes my day! :) Xoloz 18:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yippee! Hey, glad you're back! :-) --HappyCamper 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're back! I had no idea! Welcome back, fellow Wikipedian. It's always good to see a longtimer arise from the pits of departure. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hot damn I didn't realize you were back til now. So here is a welcome just for you! KOS | talk 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A very belated welcome back, because no one tells me anything anymore. Seriously, it's great to see you back! --Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I failed to notice! Well, after what has seemed like a very rough few days this has cheered me right up! the wub "?!" 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (wow, so excited I forgot to sign the first time)

Wow, just noticed. Cool :).Voice-of-All 15:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiant, I am especially pleased to see you back. I don't think you really want to get into the drama of things that have been unfolding here, but you did ask "what did i miss?" YOu might consider having a look at the recent Netoholic arbitrations. He's mostly not around anymore.

But, that aside, I just can't convey how joyous it is to have you back. ... aa:talk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Party!

Hello hello hello! I just saw you show up on my watchlist. What a sight for sore eyes. You're one of the people I've missed most. Welcome back, welcome back! :-)

\o/ \o/ \o/

Kim Bruning 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to remember why I liked you, which is that you keep everyone on their toes, which includes me ;-). I noticed you've semiprotected certain pages. It's certainly tempting to do so, but you should only really do this if there is vandalism. If only because I'm lazy and forget to log in from time to time, but also because we've got some other sane anons on board too. :-) Kim Bruning 20:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh happy day! -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Blimey - you are keeping yourself busy in Wikipedia space. Do you have a list of needed Wikipedia:foo pages that you are going to write? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey! I saw your name scroll by on WP:CSD's talk... it's always nice to see you back. :) On the brief summary of everything that has happened, we also have more than 1,000 featured articles now (currently at 1,103)... Titoxd(?!?) 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your dreams were your ticket out... :P

Seriously, happy editing. It's good to see you - I spotted you on the talk page of WP:DENY. 1ne 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're really back! Welcome Radiant! one! Have a token of my esteem!

Have a field of them please! Whatever color you like, forever fresh and refreshing! Yeah! You're back! Let's have a Parade! Let's get drunk an Party! Yippeee-ee-eee!

Be well, stay well! Stay happy! Best news I've had all month! Best regards, // FrankB 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

... but it's good to see you back again! JYolkowski // talk 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also glad to see you return. Conscious 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of adding to both the spam on this page, and then size of your head, I'm also glad to see you're back, which I only noticed a short while ago. I was trying to think of a contribution to your quilt, and all that springs to mind is Ken and Kenneth from The Fast Show, (Ken: "Good morning, sir. How are we today, sir?" Man: "Fine. You?" Ken: "Radiant, sir, radiant."), which is probably lacking something outside of its cultural context... Alai 02:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, I just discovered this since you returned while I was on vacation. Nice quilt. --Michael Snow 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed :) utcursch | talk 07:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What?[edit]

Sorry to see you go! I believe you were a valuable editor to Wikipedia, and I agree with you. There are some things here that are disgraceful. Sorry to see you leave. Hope you come back soon! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 06:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Never fear - this is a historical page from over a year ago. Radiant! has long since returned to the fold :) Grutness...wha? 07:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)