User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re: Condi and Katrina rumor

I'm sorry, I feel that I just don't have the experience necessary to change the entire citation. If I were to do so, then I would also have to cut the Spike Lee quote as well. Furthermore, I believe it should remain as-is in case someone else wants to resurrect the popular rumor. If we keep the rumor posted as just that, it will divert more non-NPOV posts. I hope you understand.

Also, I'm unclear as to the specific rule that says I cannot change just the URL when it leads to citations on both articles. All Snopes does is say that "this article is undetermined" and then cites the article with a URL. Hopefully, you can make the more delicate cuts as needed. Mine were rather clumsy, I admit. Obiwanjacoby

Re {{Fact}}

No need to apologize to me. That wasn't my writing. My drawing attention to the uncited claims had the desired effect. --Dystopos 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I know it wasn't your writing. I'm pretty anal about enforcing that particular policy and wanted to make sure you didn't take it personally. Some folks here (and everywhere else, too) can get pretty defensive since textual communications lack all non-verbal cues and subtleties. I think we're pretty much on the same page! --ElKevbo 23:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

revert vandalism

Can you explain your edit? Normally we only revert obvious vandalism. --JWSchmidt 22:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty strong consensus that the blatant fawning that has been occuring on that Talk page is undesirable and inappropriate, even on a user's Talk page. You're more than welcome to revert my edit if you feel strongly and we'll see what others think! --ElKevbo 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you mean that, "there's a pretty strong consensus among a group of editors who think they own the page". My guess is that if ALL Wikipedia editors were allowed to edit the page (according to policy), then the content of the page would settle into a stable configuration. When every edit is reverted, the "owners" of the page are just creating a growing confrontation with other editors who have the right to edit the page. --JWSchmidt 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion and we obviously disagree. --ElKevbo 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a sense of territoriality on some pages, giving some users the false impression they can edit it as they chose. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Stephencolbert

There is a lot of speculation going on at User talk:Stephencolbert. I see that you know that you were the editor who reverted all of his vandalism edits. Good job. NoSeptember 11:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

clutter

"Can we move almost all of this discussion somewhere else?" <-- Why not wait and see if the person who created the account ever comes back? What you view as "clutter" might be viewed as valid user talk page content by others. I find it interesting that some editors have been so eager to remove/revert/hide the contents of the Stephencolbert user talk page. --JWSchmidt 21:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think much of the discussion belongs on that particular page. I wouldn't be too happy if a bunch of people crashed my Talk page and began discussing Wikipedia policies and I would like to extend that courtesy to other users. --ElKevbo 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe edits that seem to be honest attempts by Wikipedians to communicate with the creator of the Stephencolbert account could be left on the talk page. Other meta-discussion about the account could be moved to a subpage. --JWSchmidt 02:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me! --ElKevbo 02:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Æon ^{Insane Ward} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 22:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University and Citations

Would you add the citation needed tags for the "History" section of the article as well? In the next day or two (when I get a free half hour or so possibly tonight), I intend to add citations for what you've previously tagged. However, if you tagged the rest of the article for "guidance," I could kill a few birds with one stone. Be brutal. It would be a help, thanks. —ExplorerCDT 18:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Apologies for the delay! --ElKevbo 07:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks again, 'twill be a good guideline in the major edit I've been doing over the last few days. —ExplorerCDT 07:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

About the Rutgers University article...I can't seem to put repetitive footnotes (i.e. citing the same sources multiple times) in their proper place. Could you periodically check over the next few days, as I finish the article, and clean up what I can't seem to figure out how to do right? Things are coming along, albeit slowly. What are your thoughts (as to progress, quality, content you'd like to see) so far? Thanks again. —ExplorerCDT 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

alma mater reverts

I see you're active right now, so i just wanted to pop in and thank you for helping me battle the fem-nazi's trying to change the alma mater lyrics. 'tis much appreciated. —ExplorerCDT 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I don't care to fight "fem-nazi's" and if "they" ever come up with a reliable, verifiable source supporting their edits then our opinions may diverge. But right now there are several editors editing the article and changing cited text without changing the referenced source AND without even trying to engage in conversation and that's just not right. --ElKevbo 21:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. They come up with a cited source, and I'll bend. However, they won't...because the university won't make such a change official, and there are no such sources. Right now, knowing Rutgers as I do, I gather this is just a few girls from the Queen's Chorale who add their own lyrics to the alma mater. (heck, we did so in Glee Club too...especially lines about My father sent me to old Rutgers...'cuz he refused to pay ol' Princeton...and you don't see me adding that to the article). A tradition of 20 girls in a school of 50,000 is not a tradition, nor does it make it official. —ExplorerCDT 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

UCR Highlander

_{Moved from User page} ElKevbo,

I am an editor with the UCR Highlander. I have assigned coverage of this wiki article to one of my staff. She, like most people, has limited knowledge of the wiki interface, so she asked me to contact potential interview candidates. Essentially, we are trying to write a non-biased account of the UCR wikipedia article, complete with the motivations of both sides, student reaction and then faculty verification of some of the facts.

You appear to be more on the pro-UCR side, which I why I am contacting you. I also have messages into UCR Grad and Belltower. We want both viewpoints expressed equally, so I'd like to hear what you have to say. If you wouldn't mind answering a few questions, anonymously or otherwise, please drop me an email at features@highlander.ucr.edu

Ryan

Affirmative response sent via e-mail. --ElKevbo 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello ElKevbo,

I think, with the Highlander writing a story on this, we should move within the next week with the next RFARB. I'm anticiating the story will set off a small colbert effect in the form of a deluge of inexperenced and hostile editors swarming the article, which would significantly further muddy the POV waters we've been treading in and cause an exponential # of petty conflicts to occur. --Amerique 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Why did you endorse both sides of RFC"

Oops! I didn't realize I was doing that. I'll go back and delete what appears to be support for UCRGrad. Thanks for the heads up. And if I don't do it right, get back to me. I'm still new to this. starkt 17:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for participating in the RFC! --ElKevbo 22:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please edit my edits instead of the article itself

I don't know whether you can do this, but I seem to be the anti-UCRGrad editor making the most changes, so it would be easier for me to stick to my guns in my opposition to UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower if you edited my latest page in the history section instead of the main article. That way, I could revert to my edit later without having to worry about eliminating your edits. I'm passing this message on to WHS, Teknosoul02, and other sympathetic editors. starkt 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba ditto (talk • contribs) 17:37, August 18, 2006

Nice try. Reverting vandalism isn't a violation of the 3RR. And please sign your posts on Talk pages. --ElKevbo 22:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University protected

Hello, I requested and received full protection on the Rutgers University article because of the recent edit warring regarding the alma mater. Please bring discussion to the talk page of the article at Talk:Rutgers University. The protecting admin said:

Protected Rutgers University: Users engaging in edit warring. And everyone, please don't call everything "vandalism". Voice of All.

So please take this to the talk page and hopefully both sides can have a positive discussion. Thanks, Metros232 23:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Working on it... --ElKevbo 23:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and your comment on the article talk page. I'm just sending everyone who's been involved with it the same generic message so I'm not seeming biased and so that I get everyone involved who has a desire to be involved :) Metros232 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your talks with Bubba ditto have reached an impasse of mysterious disappearance. Is it possible the vandals may have disappeared? —ExplorerCDT 00:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good guess. They may have left as quickly and mysteriously as they swooped in. I think it would okay to try unprotecting the article and take it from there. --ElKevbo 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't for their little ideological stunt, the article would have been finished last week. —ExplorerCDT 01:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. The article will *never* be finished. :) --ElKevbo 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but you know what I meant. ;) —ExplorerCDT 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The next RFARB

They've both indicated they don't want to undertake WP:Mediation. I am for initiating further data collection this week for the next RFARB, RFARB2.0, for which I've pulled the evidence from the current RFC and saved it on yet another user subpage located here: [1]. I truly think the last one failed mainly for a lack of due process, but we will see. I am not in a rush to do this, but will be working on compiling further evidence and developing a comprehensive statement through this week.--Amerique 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck. I'll jump in and help when I can. If there is some area in which you need specific help, just let me know and I'll do my best to help. If you haven't picked up on it, I'm a full-time university administrator. Classes start this week so things here are a bit busy. But I'll do what I can to help! --ElKevbo 23:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks ElKevbo. I should have formatted the request and provided a general introductory and personal statement by Friday. I would like to file the request by Monday. will let you know when i have the initial draft online.--Amerique 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put up my preliminary draft statement on my afformentioned userpage. You can put yours up there now or wait until after I file the request, which I intend to do next Monday. Best,--Amerique 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad seems to have disappeared in the last several days. Are you still going to follow through with this? I'd recommend holding off until he shows up again in case he has split now that it seems that momentum has finally swung away from him on the UCR article. --ElKevbo 01:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still going to prep the format of the RFARB text to have it ready to go Monday. I will open the question of filing it to discussion on my user page Monday. Best,--Amerique 00:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Demo Tape

Why are you saying on System of a down's page that demo tapes are easy to find? They are not I never see them in stores and ebay's large library only has two… So if you say they are easy to find then please post a link on as to where you can find these…

I'm not. I merely removed the link someone put to their E-bay auction. If the information in the article is incorrect then please correct it! --ElKevbo 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay I changed the information. Maby it was someone else, but someone kept putting the demo tapes were easy to find anywhere...

AU PBK

Hi, I do think it is relevant to include the Phi Beta Kappa on American's entry. --Senordesupremo 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. It might be more appropriate to place in the student organization section or elsewhere. The particular paragraph from which I removed it dealt with admissions and the statement was just way out of place. In addition, the statement had some minor POV problems which also would need to be corrected if it were reinserted. Throw it back in and let's see how it looks - as long as it's put somewhere more appropriate and the POV problem is addressed I'm happy to leave it alone and let others weigh in if they choose to do so. --ElKevbo 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, before I throw it back in there, what POV problems were there? Just so's I know. Thanks! --Senordesupremo 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the word "prestigious" was used and is clearly POV. I tend to agree with that opinion but it remains opinion and thus POV. --ElKevbo 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think including the Phi Beta Kappa bit is pertinent, however I cannot find an adequate place for it except in the history of AU. I don't think this would be a major problem, but I just wanted to know what someone else thought. --Senordesupremo 23:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely there are other honor societies and similar organizations at AU. Why not create a subsection for them? --ElKevbo 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

BARNSTAR

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award ElKevbo with this Barnstar of Diligence because of his perserverance with the article George W. Bush. You've earnt it! Auroranorth Auroranorth 12:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

zOMG

I am terribly sorry! User:Auroranorth was creating dozens of deleted pages originally made by the vandal User:Willy on wheels and there were so many I used my master-rollback function to delete them all. I inadvertently reverted 3 or 4 non-related pages accidentally, yours being one. I apologise as I thought I'd fixed them all (I was wrong). Hope this explains, and again my sincerest apologies. - Glen 09:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I appreciate your response and apology - keep up the good work! --ElKevbo 09:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bootleg recording

Hey Kevbo, looks like we were working on the same article at the same time. I've done a massive edit on the bootleg recording page, including merging in some of the ROIO stuff, but it came up with an edit conflict with you. If you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and save my edit so I don't lose all that work, then you or I can re-edit in the good stuff you were doing too. Would that be okay? — Catherine\^talk 06:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --ElKevbo 06:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rm Vandalism"

Can you please be more careful in what you refer to as "vandalism" in edit summaries? Wikipedia:Vandalism states that Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. and that Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Therefore, this IP addition that you removed [2] was not vandalism.--Jersey Devil 23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - that edit was not vandalism. It was, however, unsourced and not particularly noteworthy, IMHO. There was another edit that I intended to remove at the same time and it was to that edit I was referring as "vandalism". Another user removed the vandalism at the same time as I was making my edit and thus the confusion. I hope that clears it up and I appreciate your message! --ElKevbo 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what was going on. I reverted the actual vandalism edit before you had the chance to and you reverted thinking you were reverting that edit and the edit before that. Yes, it clears up what was going on. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

blog sourcing

OK thanks for the heads up.Aroundthewayboy 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I feel bad undoing some of your work but we really do need a better source for some of your assertions than a blog. Thanks for taking it so well! --ElKevbo 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Majorities, Large and Imagined

"Internationally Bush enjoys a very unfavorable opinion with a large majority of countries judging his administration as negative for world security."

The survey was a survey of 21 countries. Folks in 18 countries didn't like Dubya so much. That's a majority of the countries surveyed-- 18 out of 21. It's not a "large majority of countries" (I believe there are 190-some odd countries, last I check; 18 wouldn't be a majority of any sort, let alone a "large" majority). I suppose one might extrapolate from the sample size, but I think we should allow our readers to do that on their own, don't you think? Blondlieut 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like your analysis is correct. Please go ahead and clarify the statement(s); I missed that entirely. Good call! --ElKevbo 01:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks ElKevbo for recovering footnotes. There are some editors who are relentlessly ripping the article. --Aminz 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! I hope that the semi-protection will help. I would feel (and act) differently if this were a content dispute but this appears to be very emotionally-charged and blind editing of a POV with which some editors disagree. It does appear to be a kind of censorship on the part of some editors as the material in question does appear to be well-sourced and NPOV. I would even understand (to some tiny degree) if the objectionable material were prominently placed in the article. But it's all in footnotes where they belong. In any case, I hope they join us in Talk to work out the issues instead of continuing to edit without discussion. --ElKevbo 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Amish school shooting

I don't see what part of this:

"This is also at least the third school shooting episode in which females were the specific targets, not as individuals, but because of their gender. The Platte Canyon High School shooting, less than a week earlier, involved a gunman who took only female hostages, one of whom he killed when the police broke in. The École Polytechnique massacre of 1989 involved a school gunman in Montreal, Quebec, who specifically targeted and killed fourteen college women and randomly injured thirteen other people, four of whom were men."

requires a citation. The first sentence is explained by the rest of the passage.GiollaUidir 11:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're drawing an explicit connection between these seperate incidents and that requires a cited, verifiable source. Otherwise it's original research. It's not sufficient to cite another Wikipedia article. In fact, in this case it wouldn't even be sufficient to cite the Wikipedia articles of all of the shootings. You must cite a reliable source external to Wikipedia that supports the claim.

I have no problem with you or anyone else including this information if it can be supported by a source. --ElKevbo 12:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no explicit connection being drawn between the incidents; the section is there merely as an observation and for interest to the reader.

• First sentence asserts that there have only been three recorded shootings where females were specifically targetted. (With the Amish shooting the most recent one).
• 2nd Sentence One shooting was the: Platte Canyon HS shooting
• 3rd Sentence Other one was: École Polytechnique massacre

I don't understand what exactly needs ref'd?GiollaUidir 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is where the problem lies. First, the statement "there have only been" should be a sign that the asserted fact requires a citation as that kind of statement almost always falls outside the purvue of what Wikipedia editors can state without supporting evidence (not to mention it being an inherently impossible statement to prove but we can dodge that by stating that "According to so-and-so,..."). Second, the fact that really needs supporting evidence is that these shootings all "specifically targeted" females. That's not an obvious statement and as the key idea of the paragraph it clearly needs to be supported by evidence other than Wikipedia articles. Third, the fact that these shootings are linked at all needs to be "proven" by an outside source; this would almost certainly be done with the source cited for the second fact. But if it were not explicitly stated by an outside source I would oppose including this information in this article at all as drawing a link between these incidents must be done by an outside party and not by Wikipedia editors.

Is all of that clear or have I made this even more confusing? :) --ElKevbo 12:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart page

Thanks for your edits on Derek_Smart. That page is the focus of some serious contentions and perhaps your assistance will also aid us into reaching a general consensus. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 15:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. We'll see where this goes... --ElKevbo 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

btw, our consensus discussion is over here.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Boxrec Issue

ElKevbo--I really hope that I am doing this response correctly and if I am not please forgive me. I just wanted to say thanks for changing you mind on the delete issue. The page itself is a mess and does need cleaning up, but it needs to be data that is valid, which the Criticism comments, both bold and not are irrelevant to describing Boxrec and that part really should be deleted according to Wiki's Criteria for web content. Again...thank you for respopnding back. --Ozzwald35 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like the fair thing to do. It's not looking too good right now but I hope the other editors will see the resources you provided and make the right call. If necessary, you could politely leave a message on the Talk pages of those who have already voted alerting them to new evidence and asking them to evaluate that new evidence - but do *not* be pushy or demanding as that would likely backfire!

I recommend you go ahead and add those resources to the "References" in the article as that should strengthen your case (and the article). Of course, you shouldn't just add the links to the articles but appropriately reference them in the article. It would probably be pretty easy to add a sentence like "Boxrec.com is used as a reference by sportswriters at many large newspapers and magazines across the United States" and tag on those articles as <ref>s at the end of that sentence. Or something like that - you see where I'm going with this.

Best of luck! I'll keep an eye on things to see how they turn out! --ElKevbo 21:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, looks like the tide has turned and the forces of Good are prevailing. Good. --ElKevbo 04:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries and WP:LAME

Nice one... I think that may possibly be the lamest thing I've seen on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 21:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been on my watchlist for several months and I always get a chuckle out of it. :) --ElKevbo 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming the Civil War

You have recently edited Naming the American Civil War. I am stepping back from the article for a day or so to avoid an edit war. My request is that you consider stepping in to apply some peer pressure in the interest of civility, NPOV, assuming good faith, etc. It's up to you. -- Alarob 23:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw your "Have a nice weekend" response in Talk. Good show. We'll see where this goes but a little bit of positive peer pressure can't hurt. I hope... Being a Southerner, I know how downright stupid this particular discussion can get sometimes. :) --ElKevbo 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Boxrec.com

your deletion has been restored and the article vandalised again, it is a waste of time, the whole thing should be deleted.

Can you keep Barbra Streisand on watch

User:Tannim just continues his revert war despite just being blocked for 24 hours and has the nasty habit of using AOL IP sock puppet as well. The behavior on the other pages is similar and so was the behavior of his previous incarnation. KittenKlub 20:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. _{Great, now I'm committing myself to keeping an eye on an ongoing revert war on the *Barbra Streisand* article. Barbra Streisand??? Oh, the things I do for the greater good of this stupid encyclopedia... :)} --ElKevbo 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have her on watch before either (nobody had). I only cleaned up her page a bit a week ago and then noticed the vandal :/ Anyway I reverted vandalism on your user page. Does that account for something... KittenKlub 21:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help! I've got stranger things on my watchlist. People sure like to vandalize the funniest things... --ElKevbo 22:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to discuss it with me. kitten Klub is doing reflexive reverts on my edits. I have backed Them up and if you go to my discussion page you will see the abuse. Thanks.Tannim 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can you fix what my browser did to Jack Thompson (attorney) for me?

Thanks. --Maxamegalon2000 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As a return favor for ElKevbo, I'd fixed it. You did try the same revert and the browser messed it up, right? KittenKlub 22:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --ElKevbo 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. I have to stop using the really old Macs at school. Thanx. --Maxamegalon2000 01:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused

I didn't mind seeing the diatribe on Mohammed's other name removed, but I am not a Muslim. Embarkedaxis took it out because he doesn't like any mention of Mohammed in a negative context, and he was reverted by someone else. Then, the first time I stepped in, I saw he was reverted, but I agreed that some was unnecessary, especially the parts about "the western view of Mohammed was quite incorrect" or something like that, so I removed them. Then I came back, and saw Embarkedaxis had violated 3RR (he's since been 24 hour banned, and possibly more, for that and incivility), and I reverted that bc of 3RR violation. Basically, I don't mind seeing it removed altogether, but I was reverting Embarkedaxis for his 3RR. Kapiche? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We're on the same page. My edit was in error and my summary was directed at embarkedaxis. It would have made sense if I had edited what I mean to edit. Sorry! --ElKevbo 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

That was a mistake on my part, and I didn't mean to do it. My bad. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  03:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No problem! Thanks for the swift response! --ElKevbo 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)