Hello, I am Wikipedian MPLX/MH, a pen name which represents my main interests. I welcome any comments (good or bad) about any article that I have contributed towards. However, because the comments are messages and not articles, I will remove them once they have served their intended purpose. MPLX/MH 20:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) See also: MPLX Talk: 2004; MPLX Talk: 2005-1
Please note: I am no longer contributing towards any article relating to the subject of Sealand. Please do not attempt to involve me in discussions on Wikipedia relating to that subject. If you have a very specific and very narrow question requiring source material regarding anything that I have previously written about that subject, then I suggest that you redirect your enquiry to firstname.lastname@example.org which possibly has access to the information you are seeking. This is not my email address and your enquiries should be both topic and question specific. MPLX/MH 15:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- 1 Your comments
- 2 Then for now
- 3 Re:
- 4 Talk:Freedom of worship
- 5 Wikipedia wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses
- 6 Ciudad Acuña
- 7 Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four
- 8 Hi MPLX
- 9 Diggers
- 10 Gloucester City A.F.C.
- 11 Six flags over Texas
- 12 Carolanas
- 13 Thank you for the support
- 14 Misplaced archive...?
- 15 Pinewood Studios
- 16 re: Four Freedoms Federation
- 17 Maps
- 18 Charter88
- 19 Carolina Province Map
- 20 Have added this to WP:AN/I
- 21 User:188.8.131.52
- 22 Regarding that banned fellow
- 23 SOCKPUPPET INFORMATION
- 24 Your talk page archives
- 25 Yusuf Islam
To live in the hearts of those that you have loved is not to die. But when I heard that silence is golden, I never knew why. Summer feels like its over Winter is on the way. Summer takes all the glory. Love songs get in the way. -- Badly Drawn Boy
Thanks for work on United States of Europe
Not much to say, just that really. What seemed like a fairly irrelevant stub has now become an interesting and perfectly valid article, and I've learned quite a lot from it too! Thanks. Wombat 23:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
>>Myth surrounds the BBC because it is supported by brainwashing that it is the best system in the world: I for one say that it is the worst system in the world. Before anyone attacks me I was born in Britain, went to school in Britain, suffered with the BBC in Britain and at the half-way point in my life I packed up and moved to the USA! Yes, I have friends in Britain, yes I keep in contact and yes I am and have been very involved in both journalism and broadcasting with regards to Britain and the subject of free speech.<<
Not going to attack or condone what you said, just interested in what aspect of the BBC system you thik is the worst. I ahave lived in both the UK and for a time in the US, and while I don't like the licensing system 100% I though the standard of journalism aand presentation on BBC has always been good and that it enbcouraged good presentation in the commercial sector (I like channel 4 News programmes best incidentally) I also think the BBC got the balance right with their new digital TV and Radio channels BBC 3, 4 and Parliament (which also show a lot of what goes on in congress as well are brilliant). The one biggest cultural icon whiuch is not equalled (in my oppinion) is Radio 4. My own ojectiion the US was the iiritatingly higher frequency of commeicials and what appeared to be weaker analysis, particularly on perjoratively edited channels like FOX News. On the other hand the Drama and comedy in the last decade coming from the US is superior to the UK as a whole, but I'd rather be watching them on British TV which doesn't cut up so muich of it for commercials even on commerical TV stations. That may be off the pouints you had in mind, but I would be interested in knowing speciifcally where you think the BBC systems fails. Dainamo 01:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Dainamo! Thanks for the question. It is not so much about the best of a bad lot (I listen to NPR and a local affilate which also carries the BBC World Service in FM overnight and it is true, I would never learn anything from US commercial radio.) However, what the governments of the UK and USA have created is nothing short of a fascist system (I use that term in its historical sense, not in any Nazi sense), where government has got into bed with big business and destroyed capitalism in a true Orwellian manner (while claiming to promote capitalism.) That is precisely what Eisenhower warned against in his now very famous "industrial-military-complex" speech. (The emblems of fascism even adorn the US House of Representatives either side of the Speaker's chair next to the US flags. I once drew this to the attention of the curator - I asked if this was now the 'Fascist House of Representatives'? He did not like that. But if they had stuck a swastika up there - or even a crown - well, people would have jumped up and down with anger. But in the 1950s when they did this no one had a clue as to what it represented.)
- In short there was no reason to silence Captain Plugge and his 10 pre-WWII continental stations - but they tried. They did not want Luxembourg to restart after WWII. The offshore stations of the 60s could have come on land - but they passed a censorship law to shut them down. They jammed RNI in 1970. They wasted a fortune on 'Euro-siege' to kill Laser with its 5 million listeners. Yet pirate radio on land still thrives in the UK like illegal drugs and now the two often go hand in glove with each other.
- There was never a medium shortage - just a shortage of free speech. Orwell worked for the BBC and wrote 1984 immediately afterwards to mock the 'Ministry of Truth'. John Reith with all of his cries of morality was screwing young women much to the dismay of his wife - a Jimmy Swaggart of his day and Reith was the founder of the BBC.
- What I object to is fascism and the BBC is the voice of fascism. But even fascists have enemies and sometimes their enemies are my enemies, if you get my drift. The US airwaves have been sold off to the makers of brain dead, warmongering nonsense. That is why I listen to NPR and the BBC. But there could be hundreds of rival NPR systems.
- I am also a cynic. The masses are told what to buy and where to look. Take Indonesia with its massive military machine, for example. Why is the West pouring in money to save a nation that sqaunders its wealth on guns instead of helping its own people? Probably because the gun sales employ a lot of manufacturers who employ a lot of people in the West. I shop at Wal-Mart because of the selection and low prices, but Wal-Mart has destroyed high streets across America.
- I went through my phase of trying to change the world and now I am resigned to the fact that it is what it is because everyone likes it this way, no matter what a few noisemakers say. If Bob Geldorf's projects were so worthwhile famine would have disappeared from the nations he set out to help. But no, the begging bowl is out again from the same hands.
- If everyone wanted a wonderful world it could happen because we have the technology to make it happen - clean water, good food, good clothing, good housing and even a bountiful media spectrum for all. Unfortunately everyone forgot about niumbers 3 and 4 of President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms dream of 1941.
- I will leave this up until you have had a chance to read it and then archive it on last year's page before I get a lot of complaints from others by return. I would like to read your take on it though. MPLX/MH 04:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Evidentally your thoughts run much deeper than a critque of broadcasting practise. Many of our freedoms now being curbed and the fact that there are those who gain from an atmosphere and injustice. As you rightly point out, so many ongoing problems seem unnessary given our technology. Another disturbing notion which is new is that of non achievers being somehow unworthy as we are all told that we should live in a meritocracy. But who sets what merits are the right ones? You may have human qualities beyond these merits but they will not be considered important. It is this notion that is different to societies before us. Feudalism meant privalege or poverty by birth, but at least it built in (at least philosophically if not always in practice) the sense that the higher strata had a duty to those lower. If I look at Islamic societies objectively, despite many faults, their economic theory seeks to be just to all. I am not sure i would go as far as saying that the BBC is institutionally fascist, but I foolow the Eisenhower reference 100% as we enter a world where coporate power undermines freedom and democrac. I was also intrigued by your mention of the fsacist symnbols in congress, which ones are they? Dainamo 22:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response - I agree with your viewpoint: all of it. As for the BBC, it was set up by General Electric USA with the help of the British Government and via a series of law changes it was allowed to entrench itself in the UK. ( ... anyway I listen to it because it is the only thing to listen to. GE was the ultimate crime against humanity that put us where we are today. Now you are going to ask me what I meant by that - :)
- As for the symbols, I don't know whether you are in the UK or USA, but if you have access to CSPAN which covers the House (CSPAN2 covers the Senate), look at the Speaker's chair then look left and right along the wall. You will see a US flag either side of the chair and either side of the flag you will see two giant fascist symbols - which date back to the Roman Empire as the symbol of power. The French adopted something similar and it was from the French that the US originally got the idea. But in the 50s during renovation a designer went crazy and stuck two giant wall symbols either side of the flag and almost as big as the flag. If they were crowns, a swastika, Star of David or an Islamic moon everyone would get the idea of what they represented. I like to think of them as the truth that is "out there" in plain sight! MPLX/MH 23:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh pleeeeeeeeease expand on the GE story I know nothing about that one. (don't worry about posting on my talk page I will come back here). To clarify my location, I am in the UK although I have spent time working in, and also have family in the US.
Hi again I'm still intigued by the GE thing can you answer please? Dainamo 00:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I started to answer here and then I realized that I was writing an article on my Talk page so I wiped it off before saving it. Tell you what I will do. I just checked and discovered that the British Broadcasting Company is a redirect to the British Broadcasting Corporation. I will active a separate article under British Broadcasting Company and establish links to other articles. I do have some old pirate radio broadcasts that I contributed to during the time of Charter 88 concerning the history of British broadcasting that cover all of this and if you send me an email to = email@example.com = with your address, I will get some CD copies made and send them to you. MPLX/MH 07:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I may well do what you suggest there, but as I want to retain anonimity I will have to organisie a pseudenym and third party adress.
Regarding Fear od Edit Wars Please do not forsake the spread of knowledge to avoid conflict. If a person does revert make life easier by entering a note on the discussion page or even a reowrding to avoid unnecessary controversy that ins't part of the substance of the text. I will watch this page and will back you up against POV reverts. Additionally if I think you are being POV or off on a tenuous tangent I will say so. Dainamo 14:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Then for now
Hi MPLX, I just want to say how much I like your edits at George Orwell. Your description of double-think has me almost in tears (actually, not almost), because I have been very frustrated of late, and depressed today, about the amount of nonsense that some editors insert into Wikipedia, and how it gets spread, some of it really quite dangerous nonsense; and your description of double-think seems to match it very closely, as does your description of "nunc pro tunc". The courts are not meant to do harm with this procedure, and nor is Wikipedia. But we do. We do. SlimVirgin 00:16, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
From Nineteen Eighty-Four: "One essential consequence of doublethink is that The Party was able to reach down and say that this event never happened, or if it chose to bring back an event that it said never happened, to state that it had happened without ever acknowledging the contradiction of saying that it had not happened. This procedure was explained by Orwell when he wrote: "... The Party is never wrong". There is a foundation in actual legal procedure similar to this which is called in Latin Nunc pro tunc. It means "then for now" and a court can change records along the lines illustrated by Orwell, with one basic exception. The Courts are not supposed to do harm by this procedure, they are only supposed to correct something that should have been done originally. Unfortunately nunc pro tunc does not always work that way in practice and the term "nunc pro tunc" is strikingly similar to the procedure explained by Orwell," (written by MPLX).
- Ha, interesting that you should invite me to discuss Solomon's Temple. In fact, it is Wikipedia's treatment of Jewish-related subjects that had me (has me) so depressed. I've read too much in these pages, particularly Talk pages, about how Jews were supposedly text-messaged to get out of the World Trade Center; are in control of the U.S. govt; the world's banks. Everything bad, in fact. Sometimes I wonder where I am and what year it is, because this is the kind of stuff I've read in collections of Nazi memorabilia for sale in Berlin antique markets. So while I applaud and support your efforts to question, I cannot stomach any more questioning in those areas, because it is abused by people who do not mean well, and there are too many of them. Any other subject that gets the same treatment, then please do give me a call. SlimVirgin 00:57, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to delete my rant at this article. That would sort of orphan your response, though, so if you don't mind, I'd like to remove that too. Your call, though. -Ben 17:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No problem here. I am in the middle of trying to address your comments (and others) on Nineteen Eighty Four Talk right now and I see that someone else from Nineteen Eighty Four Talk has raised a related question of Four Freedoms Talk, so I will respond to that by redirecting them back to Nineteen Eighty Four Talk to keep everything in one place. So in keeping with all of that just clean up the entire thing on Freedom of worship. MPLX/MH 18:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Done. I think I remember directing that user towards the NEF talk page on his user talk, as well. -Ben 19:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia wikiproject Jehovah's Witnesses
- Well, then, you may be called on for some assistance!
- george 13:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I reverted you here. Changing a page to a redirect like that, instead of using the "move" command, destroys the entire edit history, which is a shame. The edits you're doing to Acuña are good, though -- perhaps you could incorporate them into Ciudad Acuña when you're finished, and then we could decide whether the article should be at Acuña or Ciudad Acuña. Cheers, –Hajor 19:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, I understand. Fwiw, I think the article should be at Ciudad Acuña -- that's where the previous revisions were and (see Municipalities of Coahuila) the hypercorrect terminology is to use Cd. Acuña for the town and Acuña on its own for the municipality. Once you've finished your work on Acuña, do you think you could cut-and-paste the text over to Ciudad Acuña and leave Acuña as a redirect? That way the earlier history will be preserved and you'll get credit for the new additions. Cool? –Hajor 19:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, there. Maps -- I was looking at Image:Mx-map.png, which should be editable to suit our purposes, at least the top half. Might give it a try if I have a quiet moment. Afraid I'm no expert with graphics programs, though. I honestly never knew there were so many of these stations; I thought it was Cd. Acuña's and that was all. Fascinating; I'm glad to have bumped into you. Oh, and Acuña -- are you going to c&p it back, or would you like me to do it? If I do it, it appears as an edit of mine, not yours, but maybe you're not too worried about that? Cheers, –Hajor 00:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up about "Boys' Towns". I'm sure there is a whole article about the seedier side of the symbiotic borderland culture to be written, but I'm don't think I'm the man -- never even been to Tijuana and Cd. Juárez just creeps me out (I have a fondness for the Coahuila towns, though). Glad you liked the map! Cheers, –Hajor 02:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey, take a breather and re-read my comment. I suspect you're reacting largely to Melitus's removal of your reworked section and insulting comments. I'd be frustrated too if I were you. However, I didn't write the "desultory" stuff, nor did I remove your reworded section. I'll be back with some more comments next week, and hope you're around. -Ben 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've just spent some time disambiguating links to 'British', mostly to United Kingdom but a few to Kingdom of Great Britain (pre 1800) and fewer still to Britain or British Isles. The biggest element of this was the Victoria Cross project which had a link to 'British' on each page of every person who's been awarded the VC, about 1300 in all. Most of my recent edits, apart form that, are to pages I read, often simply unwikified dates or minor factual additions. Clearly a lot of your articles are UK based, which is why there's so much overlap. (British was the most linked to disambiguation page a while back.) Keep up the good work on the UK articles. Rich Farmbrough 10:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lets talk about the name on the Diggers page. Philip Baird Shearer 23:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Forbsey here. Just wanted to tell you that i have created at article on Gloucester City as you requested however it is only basic information at present. The clubs website is very detailed therefore I will add more at a later date when i have longer to read all of the information and transfer it to an article. Forbsey 12:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Rick. I am writing an article in tandom with another article all about Texas history and in particular about the governments that have ruled Texas. I am not writing about theme parks, etc. The article that I am creating is unique and not a duplication of text because it relates to geo-politics not fun and entertainment. The other article that I am writing links to this subject and it deals with a land patent granted prior to that for the Carolinas, but including and predating that to that claim. I know all about the theme park, its company and history from first hand observation, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am writing about. I will be adding more detailed information in the coming days about the missing flags that have been known to fly over Texas (and I will be documenting sources.) MPLX/MH 07:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My point is that Kenneth Brown is the chair of the Department of Anthropology at UH. He is an Archaeologist, and did make the Buffalo Bayou discovery. But there's no "Department of Archaeology". Other than that (and some silliness about six flags presenting a "problem facing Dr. Brown"), the article looks good -- lots of great attribution for something that only seems to have been covered in print! -Ben 16:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Wow -- interesting stuff! You might be interested in more interviews with Brown here: http://www.webarchaeology.com/html/kennethl.htm They're don't deal much with his Buffalo Bayou work in the 80's, though. -Ben 17:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the support
Thank you for the support. I am willing to let go of the issues against the editor in question, and, indeed, have deleted any and all attacks against him that I have placed on my pages (not to mention attacks against him on the public internet). I do not wish to post personal attacks against him nor any other editor anymore. I want to let you know that the edit you made to my page really made my day. Samboy 18:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct. Thanks for the heads-up, I will correct it immediately! MPLX/MH 05:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi MPLX - I see you undid some of the changes I made to Pinewood Studios, so I'll try justify them to you here: I consolidated the material that was under several subheadings into a single introductory text. With such a small amount of text here, its more easily read as one block. Also, there's no need to disambiguate London in the context of a British film studio. Mind if I remake those specific changes? Jihg 23:31, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
re: Four Freedoms Federation
Howdy, I just read the article Four Freedoms Federation and noticed you were mainly responsible for it. Just thought I would mention that I was living in Arlington, Texas at the time of George Gimarc's Rock and Roll Alternative show, and that I was at the Sept. 12, 1986 "First Wave" concert that you listed under "Publications and recordings." (It was one of the few things to do in Arlington that did not involve a shopping mall or driving all the way to Dallas.) IIRC the concert admission included membership in 4FWS' "First Wave" — at any rate I got on their mailing list for a while, and wound up with a cassette tape about John Lilburne. (Of course, Freeborn John was never mentioned in history class, but I can say that I did graduate from the public school system knowing who John Lilburne was.) I used to watch 4FWS's TV show on Arlington Telecable's public access (late '86 - early '87). My parents seemed to think that my interest in all of this was not very healthy (or more accurately, sublimated adolescent rebellion) but on the other hand they couldn't really argue with it. Well enough of my reminiscing — to keep this related to Wikipedia doings, it's possibly worth noting that there was some discussion of 4FWS/First Wave starting a cooperative/community-based radio station in the D/FW area, similar to Dallas' KNON-FM (where George Gimarc had his show for awhile after the format change at KZEW). Well, back to the day job. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the statement of confidence in my abilities, but can I let you into a secret? That border-blaster map took me far too long to churn out. Can I suggest you get in touch with User:Jacobolus, who was offering to do some state maps for Mexico and seems a bit more at home with the graphics side of things. OK? Cheers, –Hajor 16:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I redirected Charter 88 to Charter88. I copied the text into the talk page to enable a good merge tot be done by whoever does it. In particulatr I merged the info on charter 99. The rest I may look at later, but mostly seems to be there, if you think it need mergeing in go ahead. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Carolina Province Map
Hi, I'm a bit confused about the history. I thought that a lot of that land was claimed by spain during that time period (mid 17th century). For example: italian map. In any case, you really want the terrirory to be coast-to-coast? Did the English even know that the Pacific coast existed at that point? Is it useful to show the territory extending that far? I can really make a map however you want it, but I dunno, it just seems kinda unrealistic to have it stretch all the way to the other coast! Anyway, if you could give a teeny bit more description and/or a tiny sketch of what you're looking for (doesn't have to be fancy.. like MS Paint style would be fine. I'd be glad to make a map though. It might take a week or two to get around to it, though. Anyway, thanks for the request. I've really got to work on making some other maps I make for wikipedia more readable/visible. I keep getting sucked into other wikipedia projects--that's my problem with the darn thing.. too much interesting stuff to work on :-). --jacobolus (t) 02:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Update: actually, all of these historical maps are pretty nifty. Maybe we should steal some of them for wikipedia ;-). This one seems somewhat relevant (though it's a bit later date). --jacobolus (t) 02:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Update #2. It seems from this map that they did know the geography coast to coast. But it looks like all that land is claimed by spain. Maybe a map of the carolina province should show that? --jacobolus (t) 02:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm no longer an admin and I am no longer really part of this project. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-21/Top admin leaves :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi MP, I'm not entirely sure of the problem here. So far as I can tell, the original user asked that the user name be deleted, and he created another. I don't think the second user account is banned. If s/he has actually carried out an act of vandalism or has violated policy in some way, can you send me some specific diffs, please, so I can look at them? In the meantime, I've left a friendly note on his/her page asking that s/he edit within our policies. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- The user account was blocked, it seems permanently, by an admin, but this is not the same as the user being banned. Only the arbitration committee or Jimbo Wales can do the latter. What has this IP address actually done that is causing you a problem? Please send me the links to the problematic edits. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:51, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi again MP, thanks for your note. You'd need to send me the diffs (the specific links) to problem edits, because I can't see any. Admins aren't allowed to intervene regarding regular content disputes; we can only act if a behavior-related policy has been violated. If this person wasn't banned by the arbcom, but only had a user account blocked by an admin, then s/he is allowed to set up a new account and continue editing, so long as they edit within WP's policies. Perhaps you could try to engage this editor in a discussion of the issues on talk? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Moved comments about Hugo Black to the Hugo Black Talk page. MPLX/MH 05:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Regarding that banned fellow
If you are talking about Blasphemous, I know who you are talking about. I believe he is Noah Peters, whom I had a rather unpleasant debate with a few months ago about what should be on the Miranda page. The problem with him is that he is an uneducated layperson who has a rather dogmatic and simple view on how to look at certain U.S. Supreme Court cases. Most lawyers and judges would engage in a much more sophisticated analysis of those cases.
He hasn't damaged the Miranda article too badly since his return (actually his last edit to the Miranda article was mostly correct as I conceded on the talk page upon rereading the case). But I agree that if he goes back to his old ways then we might have to ban him. In reviewing the recent history of the Miranda, Black, and Douglas articles, I noticed how someone (probably NP) edited out an important comment by Justice William Douglas about world federalism that RadRacer had just added to the article.
I need to point out something important, though. See the talk page on John Lilburne for more of my concerns there.
--Coolcaesar 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BlasphemousBlasphemous has many identities on Wikipedia. Originally Noah Peters' ("Please change my user name and all attributions from Noah Peters to 5440orFight.") he became 5440orFight. But he has also used more than one IP address is or was Blasphemous. As Noah Peters he had a habit of reverting pages or removing the texts of others, was warned and switched to 5440orFight and got blocked by an Admin under that name for continuing the same practice: "User has had many confirmed sock puppets: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; User has impersonated another user: ; "
Your talk page archives
Hi there. I noticed that your talk page archives were in the article namespace. These should really be in user talk subpages, so I've moved them both for you to User talk:MPLX/2004 and User talk:MPLX/2005-1. Hope you don't mind. BillyH 20:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) MPLX: I am having the same problem with Suleyman Ahmad Schwartz better known as Stephen Schwartz (historian) that you are having with Yusuf Islam. Perhaps we can assist each other. Nobs 04:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see that you've put a great deal of effort into editing the Yusuf Islam article. I made some major copyedits tonight - but I did not remove content (at least nothing substantial). The changes I made were mostly to bring the article into something in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Please don't take these changes as a personal offense. The content is fine - I am just fixing the format and style. Kingturtle 04:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I was referring to all the work you did back on April 10th on that article. It seemed like you were the one who had done the most work on the article, so I wanted to write you about my actions. Kingturtle 05:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)