User talk:Patstuart/Archive 6

User talk:219.78.221.58

I've been trying to decide if this is simple confusion or your garden variety trolling; now I'm leaning to trolling. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I really appreciate the backup. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If user needs to get reported, please do the honors yourself, as you are more familiar with trolling under previous IP. It may not help much, being and IP, but at least the person will have to restart their computer. :| -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you reported this girl right now for personal attacks and disruption (that's exactly what person is doing, looking for a reason to disrupt; picking out a small comment and calling me a nazi, etc. is only done to provoke), I would whole-heartedly support you. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Patstuart, in light of your blatant sexism, I've decided to change my signature.  ;) -- Merope 16:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You scared me a minute there, Merope. Thank God for popups, so I could see where that link really went. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I couldn't resist! It's rare that trolling makes me giggle. You're doing fine; keep up the good work. And I'm happy to extend a block for anyone who insists on disruption and personal attacks. -- Merope 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not it's quite cool. I'm glad I could, um, be of assistance in helping you find the proper signature. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Merope. Keep up the FANTASTIC work Pat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.79.213.234 (talk • contribs).

you bet. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seanviola spamming AGAIN today

Please take a lookhere. He's linking to Marvel wallpaper pages designed solely as promotion/advertising. This isn't the same as the useful links other editors put to Marvel.com's character bios. I've tried to stop him, I understand why you intervened, but look what's happening. He's behaving like a Wikitroll. I'm going to ask to have him banned. --Tenebrae 16:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, I just want to say thank you for being a gentleman. You handle things politely, the other guy is more of a jump down your throat type of personality. I just want you to know that I left him a response to the thing he posted on the admin guys page and your name is in it. I'm sorry if this is inappropriate but I just don't appreciate the way he is handling this whole thing. It should not be this huge problem yet somehow he is making it one. -Sean- 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Patstuart. I do not wish to deadlock the mediation. However, I can neither state that I agree with something that I believe is wrong, nor can I encourage others to do so. I do not understand the value in asking for my assent in this case, or why it should hold up mediation. However, if we are to mediate an issue, wouldn't it be wrong of me not to present my opinion of the matter? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't belong to the first group? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

Hi Patstuart. DocEss would probably state that he belongs in the first group, and I probably would as well. ALM scientist would probably state that he belongs in the second group. However, I have had constant conflict with DocEss and none with ALM scientist. Does that not say that the groupings don't accurately reflect the actual conflict? Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No; it's only talking about the past, which was more of a conflict based on which images were informative. Looking ahead to the future, I don't think that Aguierro is necessarily striving for a full out definition of the conflict; just trying to get people to agree on some basic terms. If you can come up with better wording, I encourage you to do so; but that may be difficult, seeing as we've already tried, and it doesn't look like it's worked. But if you think you can, please do. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I will try to think of an alternative formulation, but it will be a few hours. I need to run. --BostonMA ^talk 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I notice Aguierro didn't say "do you think this is a valid summary of the argument?" The only thing he said was "do you fall into this group or not?" You can still say "I agree to that statement, even if I don't agree it fully explains the conflict". We all know what the conflict entailed.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

2nd Noms

Ah, I guess I should lament the good old days before automatic tools. I've sorted it out. It's pretty simple, more or less follow the instructions on WP:AFD. So subst {{afd1}} (and the right parameter for the 2nd nom page) onto the article (as had been done), create the second nom page and Subst in the {tl|afd2}} template complete with the parameters for a normal AFD, I then edit it (like this) to reflect the proper title. Then put the {{afd3}} tag onto the correc page referencing the new page you created. Looking at the history it needs to be sorted, since it currently lists someone else rather than your nom.... --pgk 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My head's still spinning. Is it fixed yet then? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be ok now, take a look I just restored your original nomination comment. --pgk 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Usually, as a programmer, I'm good at this; but I got as lost as a little kid in the woods on this one. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

concerning a recent delete

Hi, you recently deleted an article i had made about one of our towns most notable resident, i hope you could possibly reconsider what you did because besides the maple syrup festivle he is the biggest thing that ever happened to our town —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amishmafia (talk • contribs)

Hi Amish. While I'm not the one who deleted it, I would advise you to try again, but before you save the file, make sure it's long enough to say why someone is notable. For example, "Andrew goedert is this and this in this town. He did this to help the town, etc.." I hope that helps, and I'm sorry if we were too quick to delete last time. If that fails, you might go to deletion review. :) Please also read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines for individuals. Thanks. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Spolsky article

Yeah, I had no idea till I read the talk page. No harm done, though :) --137.205.76.44 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

wot vandalism huh?--Smelly begger 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We can start with you adding "Fuck" all over the Introduction page; then the message "will you fuck off?" to an edit summary, when we were reverting you (after half of your other edits were vandalous, can you be surprised that we might goof?), then there's this comment: [1] and this one: [2], and finally, you'll be banned for your inappropriate username anyway. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Ok thanks for informing mr on that, sry for bothering you. one more thing, how do you become a patroler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amishmafia (talk • contribs)

See WP:RPP. It has all the information you need. You don't have to sign up or anything, you just go through the recent changes and revert the nonsense people give. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Miranda v Arizona

The article states:

"The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court reversed and remanded."

The Fifth Amendment provides the right against self-incrimination, however it is the Sixth Amendment that provides for the right of council. The article, as it was, stated that the Fifth Amendment gives the right to council which is completely false.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.196.87 (talk • contribs)

OK; I apologize. I'm looking at the thing, and to be honest, it's a bit wordy, but perhaps it should say both fifth and sixth. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to you...

Hmm...I'm glad someone noticed. Thanks for your note - that was an atypical block of mine. I'm not convinced that the account was primarily used for constructive purposes. In this case, the poor behaviour and attention seeking in the edit summaries outweighed the benefit from the vandalism cleanup it was doing for some edits. A reasonably well intentioned new Wikipedian would not have this characteristic in their first few edits to this project. Feel free to let me know if you'd like me to follow up on this further. --HappyCamper 04:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree; but a few recent notable examples (that shall not be spoken by name) have shown me we need to be careful. I'm also worried that he thinks he was banned because I asked for it, not because of his behavior. Perhaps he just needed a very stern warning to knock it off, and that would have been enough. That being said, it was out of line... Thanks for responding. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are referring to with respect to your notable examples. Not to worry, I didn't block the account indefinitely because of your warnings. I actually was reverting earlier (see here) and waiting a bit to see what would happen before the block. Let me say that your response above strikes me as quite thoughtful. The impression I get is that you are observing a number of administrative actions on Wikipedia of late to make you feel a bit weary. I think what I will is lift the block sometime between 24 and 48 hours or so. I have some rationale regarding this a little higher on my talk page, although the situation is not entirely analogous. By the way, keep up the good work here - if you have an inclination that the extra buttons might be of use to you, I think a number of Wikipedians would be happy to hear about it! --HappyCamper 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...actually, I'm going to change my mind on this one again. I checked the deletion logs carefully and noticed that this user also repeatedly made a number of pages which were deleted. Anyway, I think this should wrap it up then. --HappyCamper 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, and the new information. Is there a way I can see those logs, or are they hidden from me? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, take a look at my logs [3] and note the time stamps. Now I remember how I came across the account to begin with!! Pages with long names are very troublesome to deal with. --HappyCamper 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I was wasting my time...

...with this attempt to treat our friend like a potential grownup. I don't know why I bothered, with this rapsheet. And I'm embarrassed that this guy is Canadian. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wholly criminy. That guy needs a 6 month block, not a one week block! Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Address is non-portable; and edits, while genuine at first, show same personality. You wanna re-report to AIV? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm baffled at his motivation, Pat. But I guess ultimately it doesn't matter; he's a vandal and a troll, and he just used up all of the WP:AGF that I was willing to extend to him. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's reasonable. Luna's last two blocks were only for 31 hours, so a week seems like a reasonable escalation. I'm willing to let him earn a longer block next time he comes back. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's your call. Considering he's been going on for like 5 months, I'm fairly sure that one week won't deter him from coming back. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he's definitely a long term vandal; four months and counting so far. I just don't feel right going back to WP:AIV to say a one-week block isn't enough. OTOH, I know damned well he's just going to be right back to the trolling in a week. I dunno, I'm inclined to wait out the week, let him demonstrate the need for a long term block, and request the longer block when he returns. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld

BTW, I noticed earlier today that the nonsense edits are also going on over on the United States Secretary of Defense article. I didn't think to look there before today. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiGuard Bug 1593931

Hey, thanks for submitting a bug. Yeah, right now there's an issue with the window scrolling back to the selected edit when a new edit is inserted into the list. Kinda annoying, but I'm not sure how to fix it just yet. I've asked the people over at CocoaDev [4] and I'm hoping to get some insight there. For now, the best work around is to sort by risk (descending), go to the top of the list, and just start working from there.

As for the resizing issue, I know what's causing that and I'll fix it tonight. :) Thanks for the input. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 08:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism revert

Thanks for your recent reverting of vandalism to my user page - much appreciated. Best, Gwernol 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey message

Hello, I' am Professor Sunderland a new user and already a heavy contributer to Wikipedeia, I would like some people to help me out in a new "expansion" act on Wikipedia, By expanding all the tyne and wear location articles, crack down on vandalisim, and create new articles. I was browsing, and found your page. Please, drop by some ideas on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Sunderland (talk • contribs)

If you're interested in cracking down on vandalism, you can find a good bit on information on WP:RCP - there is a good number of recent page patrollers. As for the other material, I can't promise much - I'm a Pennsylvania boy who's experience of Britain was three days in downtown London during my senior year of high school. But good luck, and if you need help, feel free to contact me - I will get back in touch if I'm available. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Revisit Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Image_Criteria:_Sandbox please

After some immediate feedback of people not liking my third bullet, I removed it, and also edited the last bullet. Please revisit and make sure you still agree. Thanks :) --Aguerriero (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld

Heh, so what you you giggling about? I'm a bit embarrassed that I seem to be unable to get the wikilinks right in the edit summary, but at least the article is right. And yeah, I reinstated my change and send the editor a note explaining why. I think I'm right here -- all of the debate about Guantanamo has been about treatment of POWs; that's the third convention. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I removed the comment. I thought he'd put the Nov 8 date back. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, no, he was reverting my correction to his reference to the "Geneva Convention" (common mistake, but wrong). I get grumpy when I'm reverted by an editor who doesn't bother with an edit summary, and who seems a bit shaky on the details of the subject himself. And I had already posted {{summary}} to his page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, apparently someone doesn't take no for an answer. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah! It's a never ending struggle. What do these people think? "Hey! The resignation was announced three days ago, and I'm the first person on Earth who thought to change the entry on Wikipedia! I must change it NOW!" -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well now it's clearly vandalism

He's just amusing himself here. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, just trying to get on my nerves... Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, but now that you know it's simple vandalism, you know how to deal with it. He got every benefit of the doubt he was entitled to, and then some. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really glad User:Dinnerbone jumped in there...it's clearly vandalism, but I'd still prefer to not revert any more if I can avoid it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, I am sorely, awfully, and hugely tempted to place this link on his page: a helpful hint. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I love it! Is that what they mean by uncivil? I hope nobody gets upset at me, but I just uncommented the {{adminbacklog}}. There are only two vandals on the page, but this is getting stupid. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Second thoughts? :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it was out of line given the context, but better safe than sorry. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He's moved on to a new IP. Can you go back and review those edits again? Now the game is to add that text to a different section of the article. I don't follow the Super Bowl; do you know which version, if any, is actually correct? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That's clear vandalism; I say it's OK to 3RR; reporting to aiv Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, he's obviously screwing around...the problem is now I'm not sure what version of the article is correct! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

go back to one of the first reversions by you or me. It's that simple. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He's baaaack. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you know why I messaged you. :) I left a message on AIV about it being full. It's been 2.5 hours! Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Luna & Khoikhoi are clearing the backlog. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Why didn't I think of that? Dohhh! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because sprotecting an article for one person and one sentence is stupid. He'll just be back in a week anyway. If we'd just kept on blocking the IPs now, he'd eventually have just gotten sick of it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase; I'm not calling Luna stupid. It's just a shame to sprotect an article for one guy. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at Weis Markets. It's been semiprotected for the past month because a single insane AOL user insisted on repeatedly adding the same nonsense text. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader

I'm not saying I didn't make a mistake here (and I'm actually double checking in case I have) but I don't see where exactly he reverted back to another vandalized copy. *Is confused.* -WarthogDemon 02:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened was someone else vandalized; he removed part of the vandalism, and you removed the rest. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah okay. When he mentioned editing, I thought he meant reverting the way we did. I'll post an apology on the talk page. -WarthogDemon 02:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to check back :)

61.69.12.xx range

I know, terrible isn't it.. They occasionally were a little er 'bad' when I was there.. but gosh this is awful. I can see full revocation of editing priveliges.. — Deon555^talk_Review 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be unheard of. If I'm not mistaken, didn't that happen to the US House and Senate, where politicians' secretaries were vandalizing opponents' sites? You're not an admin; how do you have power to do any of that? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the Abuse Reports team. We work to contact the owners of the IP addresses (in this case the Catholic Education Office (Education Dept) in Melbourne). I would contact the Ed Dept, and they would block Wikipedia on their end. ie: block all students from accessing any page containing

*.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=*&action=edit

in the URL, which would allow students to read the material but not edit it. But I don't need to now, as an admin has blocked the entire range for 2 years :D'Slater — Deon555^talk 08:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But it might have been a good idea to at least get in touch with the Catholic office, so that the principal can get mad, and an Official Memo will be sent out, and Everyone Will Know Why This Happened and All Will Make Sure It Will Never Happen Again. I think you get my jist, eh? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how do you do these reports? As a non-admin, how do you have access to range vandalism and the like? I find your work interesting. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's great fun :) Take a look at the page at WP:AbRep. We wade through diffs of all the edits an editor has made (often lots) and then based on that we write up a report (See [5]). After that, either myself or another "contactor" will look through the report, and use the whois information to find out who the IP address (or range) belong to, and if they have an abuse dept etc. Then we send an email to them like this [6], and await their reply. Then they can either instruct us (which I would forward to an admin) to block the IP address/range indef, or they can block it on their end (as I was saying before). If you're interested feel free to join either as an investigator or contactor, or just drop by and go through some of the reports to see how it goes. — Deon555^talk 23:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Gaining status

Hi its me, professor Sunderland, and I've already got an abusive sockpuppet noted, but I need advice, I want to gain status as an Wikipedia Administrator, and I'd like to know how to gain the status. So can you pop a message on my talk page on getting this status and what I have to do Professor Sunderland 14:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC) 11th November 2006 14:41

See WP:ADMIN, and it will talk about that. See also WP:RFA to see the process. Let me warn you though: it's not a quick process. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your dedication to fighting the vandals of Wikipedia, I, Sharkface217, hereby award you with this barnstar.Sharkface217 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings! Thank you so much, Patstuart, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 20:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Any time, chief. Keep it up, and congrats. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush#Trivia

After going through it item-by-item, I'm inclined to leave it out of the article and see how the Talk:George_W._Bush#Trivia discussion shakes out. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Patstuart,

Would you please let me know what changes should be applied to this section[7] so that you agree with its addition (to *reformer* section here or to some other article). Thanks very much. I would like to chat with editors individually and when a consensus is achieved, request them to comment on the talk page that they agree with the section. --Aminz 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Third Holiest Site

The article, until a few hours ago, made no mention of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Hope that helps. --BostonMA ^talk 00:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Genesis of Shannara

I see we are simultaneously jumping on the new titles of Brooks' novels. Shouldn't we redirect the Great Wars page to The Genesis of Shannara instead of Genesis of Shannara Trilogy? This is more consistent with the other trilogies (High Druid of Shannara, Voyage of the Jerle Shannara, etc), and Trilogy isn't technically part of the title, nor is it needed to distinguish it from something else (like The Genesis of Shannara breakfast cereal). Sraan 03:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just made the changes because I saw you made them, and I wanted to help out. I looked at the titles, and I guess I didn't check hard enough where they were directing to. I'll have to go back and change it (for the third time). BTW, we don't need all the information right away; people can find it at the website. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hold up a sec on un-italicizing all of the book titles. The link you provided (WP:MOS#Article_titles) even says to use italics in these situations:

"Follow the normal rules for italics in choosing whether to put part or all of the title in italics:

Tattoo You is an album by The Rolling Stones, released in 1981."

And take a look at nearly ever other book article, like Lord of the Rings, The Catcher in the Rye. Sraan 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shoot; sorry, my bad. I goofed :( -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

{{protected}}

Oops, thanks for that (force of habit - Im usually a vandal fighter and it was actually the constant edits popping up in RC patrol that brought me to the page). Appreciated  Glen  04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How I spent my Saturday night

This is sad: User talk:75.80.63.244 -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:OP

Done: WP:OP#Suspected open proxies to be checked. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 08:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

You tell me not to post nonsense on wikipedia right?

Then what do you call this: On November 11, 2006, ESPN released a report stating that the Atlanta Braves may have won bidding rights to Matsuzaka with a bid rumored to be between between $43 million and $50 million. However the winner of the posting bidding has not yet been revealed, and there have been claims by many different media outlets as to the victor. An annoncement from the Seibu Lions is expected on November 13 or November 14, 2006.

It's nonsense. Nobody knows anything about who won yet. That part should just be deleted because all it's doing is creating more rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.194.13 (talk • contribs)

The problem was simply putting the words "blah blah blah" onto the page - I realize you may think lowly of it, but that looks like vandalism for most people. If you disagree with something, the best way to handle it would be to remove it from the page, and place something in the edit summary explaining why. As it stands, Wikipedia's policy puts the onus on the poster to provide a source, so you're perfectly well within your rights to remove the content - but I would suggest using an edit summary, and perhaps placing something on the talk page as well. Good luck, and I apologize for any problems. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I realize now I should of just taken it out, I was just frustrated by the people who keep putting false rumors/things onto the page.

Anyway, have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.194.13 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user page! =) --Nehwyn 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reforms under Islam (610-661)‎

Patstuart, if you have time please look at this new article needing more neutral involvement for the NPOV.Opiner 10:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE

You could be right, but I spent the better part of an hour reverting those edits, and he's still saying he was simply "fixing errors". If you think any of my comments crossed a line, go ahead and trim them back. I thought they were pretty mild, though. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dina Lohan

Sorry, have to strongly disagree; she did not have a "role" in any of her daughter's films, she was part of several background scenes and had no lines of dialogue. As stated within the article (and with nothing existing with which to embellish it), we have a mother/manager of a notable actress who's been used in crowd shots, and nothing else. It's a clear WP:CSD #A7. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means, I'm just discussing, but if Paris Hilton's dog gets an article, well, you can finish that sentence. :-D -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In whose cheek? ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in order:

• "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it." (per WP:V);
• Overuse of fair use images—there already is an album cover there and her second album was unremarkable;
• See #1;
• The first part was redundant in the lead, while the second was 1/2 improper exposition (maybe okay for the Bobby article, but not Lohan's) and 1/2 original research/POV;
• No one's ever proven and/or admitted the DL was real.

Further, in each case, the reversion came with an explanation of why the edit was wrong for an encyclopedia article—any encyclopedia article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's start here:

2 - fair enough. I understood the case, but, by your wording, someone adding it to the page would probably think you just don't like the album (i.e., someone unfair with Wiki's fair use criteria, which were not explained in the edit summary).

4, 5 - fair enough; though it could have been improved, the content was excessive, and it would have been difficult to change.

1, 3 - a different story. Firstly, WP:V's wording seems to be saying something more like "the adder needs to prove it's true rather than the remover prove it's not true" (i.e., trying to get people not to say "I'll remove it if you can prove it's not true") - not "anytime somebody adds something unsourced, just go ahead and revert it if you'd rather make the adder look for sources." Secondly, this information was not only relevant, but extremely easy to find (it took me literally about 15 seconds to type world music awards lohan into google and get the appropriate information). Which means that even if you take your own understanding of WP:V to be true, it's using it a bit as a club (and completely ignoring the Wikipedia:Reverting's valid suggestion) when you could just look it up on your own, and add the source tag, or at least, the fact tag, but you just didn't feel like taking the 30 seconds it would need to type it into google. WP:V was written to avoid the speculation of "Lindsay has a brand new boyfriend" or "Lindsay's driver's license says this", not easily verifiable facts. What I'm saying is, I'm not sure there can be a bigger way of biting a newbie than just reverting their edits, and some newbies might not even know how to read a page history to see the reasoning, so we ought to be very careful. And barring all this, at least do them the courtesy of leaving a {{needsource}} tag on their page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

2 - Fair enough. You're correct, I could have worded the summary better.

1, 3 - If I may, your read is not correct; here's the policy en toto:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it.

In short, it is the responsibility of the person adding or changing data to provide the source. To be honest, it's irrelevant if it can be proven with one click at Google; we promote bad habits if we say, "oh, let me go check", when we never should have to. Probably my only deficiency here is that I often don't bother with further explanations at IPs' talk pages where I usually do with registered users. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated myself to be an admin

I have took your advice, thought it all over, and have nominated myself to become an admin, I think personally I would do a great job, as I'm very eccentric and wise, being a university professor for 5 years on humanities and economics. I have a very strong imadgination, and I think I can handle the job. Professor Sunderland 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC) at 21:24 on the 12th November 2006

While I applaud your enthusiasm, there is absolutely no possibility of you becoming an admin yet. Your account is only two days old, and you have less than 100 edits in total. Most people who vote on new admin candidates expect to see 3,000 or more edits, and a history of some months of participation. I strongly recommend that you withdraw that nomination and just spend some time learning about Wikipedia. If you're interested in what an admin does, take a look at WP:ADMIN. Have you reviewed the extensive introductory information available through WP:HELP? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I gave you the wrong impression. To be honest, I wish that WP:ADMIN were clearer: it's quite rare for someone to gain adminship who's been on the project for less than about 4 months, unless they have a large edit count, and have shown themselves to be faithful. Good luck in the future; but I think you will probably have to wait much longer and contribute much more. Thanks. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Much thanks for reverting vandalism at user:Seicer and elsewhere. I should file for a block if the IPvandal continues. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

He he, too late. Already reported and blocked. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Given [8] and the user's presence of some good edits prior to his explosion at you I'm tempted to offer to unblock him if he retracts his statement to you and apologizes. However, I wanted to ok it with you before I did so. Given the extreme nature of his threat, I will not take such action unless it is ok with you. -JoshuaZ

Yes, that's quite fine with me; I felt bad about reporting him at first; as long as he adds constructively. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}

Regarding your comment on my talk page- ok, pursuant to that I've offered to unblock him. The reason I did that over email is that I thought that given the nature of the threats you might be offended or disturbed by a public comment advocating an unblock. JoshuaZ 02:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chile with a 58% of Poverty???

A 58% POVERTY? That Percentage is absolutely false, and is ILLOGICAL with a HDI OF 0.859 please they eliminate that information Antarcticwik 05:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

yo no puedo eliminar nada, asi como tu, porque el articulo es protegido. Pero respondi en el talk page que, claro, tienes razon con esto. Ojala que andalus estara de acuerdo. Aunque ustedes tienen mucho en que necesitan... eh... convenir, este es un buen lugar en que comenzar. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, but so that? they eliminated the beautiful images of geography of Chile? Antarcticwik 05:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ustedes mismos necesitan acordar en la pagina Chile; si tienes sugerencias, ponlas alla, por favor. Las reversiones fueron tan grandes que yo no sabia cuales fueron mejores y cuales peores. Sugiero, Antarctic, que dices especificamente los problemas que te molestan con los cambios que hacia Andalus, y todos pueden decir su opinion. Pero, verdaderamente, Jespinos tiene razon. Un articulo no pertenece a nadie, asi tu como el. Que veas a WP:OWN. Con el acuerdo, casi siempre hay que ser concesiones -con la intepretacion de los hechos, con las imagenes, y con la estructura de las frases. Otra vez, eso es para el tanto como tu. Espero que esta sugerencia te puede ayudar. Si ustedes pueden comenzar a acordar, acaso vendre a decir mi opinion en la pagina. Gracias. Espero que esto ayude. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, gracias Pat Antarcticwik 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Warrior on Terrorism?

Are you the above mentioned? If so, I do not have a lot to complain about. Just checked out Ho Chi Minh Trail, a little something I threw together. Thanks for the revisions to PAVN (I was about to do that anyway), but the use of Viet Cong (as opposed to NLF) sort of gets to me. How about I go to the article on the American Civil War and revise every mention of the United States Army or the Union Army and alter them to the "damn Yankee Army?" I know, Americans are used to Viet Cong, a perjorative title devised by President Ngo Dinh Diem, that US forces adopted. But I was under the impression that we were supposed to strive for historical accuracy. Oh, well. Oh yes, get yourself a dictionary and look up the word materiel. RM Gillespie 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for the Warrior on Terrorism

See above! RM Gillespie 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with him, but no, I am not him. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

An apology

I am sorry for what I said to you a few days ago, and I am sorry for creating the Alin Costache article. I promise I will never do it again. --- Efil4tselaer 22:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I am just getting into this and don't have much of a clue.

Who is it that reviews new articles like my one on Stephen Street, Melbourne which I posted on 5 November but does not yet appear anywhere?

--JBurney 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding on help page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

74.134.114.185 reverting vandalism is strange for anonymous...

Sorry for the delay in this response. I'm not a regular, just an Anonymous. I sometimes revert on WP while waiting for downloads from WP to finish. I'm used to the software from another site (with a FAR slower update rate!) but I don't have the free time to do much useful for WP so I don't bother registering. Besides, names creates identity, and identity creates ego, and ego creates drama. I don't need any more drama right now! ^_^

74.134.114.185 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikih8lulz

Blocked indefintely. Thanks! =) Nishkid64 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Westboro suggestion

I've never heard of that Westboro myself. Digging into it, it appears that Westboro isn't a city; it's merely a neighbourhood or district within the city of Ottawa, Ontario. For consistency with other Ottawa neighbourhoods listed on List of Ottawa neighbourhoods, it looks like the logical proposed move might be to Westboro (Ottawa) -- which, as it happens, already exists as a redirect. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, by all means, make these changes and add your opinion to the page. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Okie, no problem! Didn't want to change it and appear to be contradicting you! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

AN/I request

Thank you for your advice. Is it also correct procedure to repeat a block request at the bottom of the page to catch admin attention? If vandalism and disrupting is an ongoing issue and new reports or updates to the complaint need to be reported, is it appropriate to file new reports and possibly refer to the older requests? - Ekantik 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

DIdnt mean to upset you

Just respond to the Aminz and Truthspreader comments. They didnt look like RfC statements. Im gonna make a new section.Opiner 07:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My comments were relevant. Each person can post a comment suggesting how the article could be improved. I don't think Patstuart was refering to me. --Aminz 08:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference

I did not get the exact difference between Article & Portal? & what things to include under it?Nileema 03 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For now, if you're a new user and creating something new, you probably want to restrict yourself to articles. Creating portals can be a pretty time consuming job, and should only be done if you're ready to work on linking to lots of existing content. But if you truly desire to make a new portal because you think an area is incomplete, I would encourage you to do so, but to look through the list of portals at Portal:List, and get a good feel for them. Then, when you're all ready, go back and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Portal. But first, you probably want to get the hang of writing in Wikipedia by contributing to some articles. Again, I hope this helps, good luck. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Upload

Whether we can upload a file in wikipedia & if yes how tell me in brief.Nileema 03 11:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The only kind of file you can upload is an image; that's in the "toolbox" on the left of your screen under "upload file". Anything that is text, you will need to create as a new article. BTW, I can't promise to answer all your questions, so I would advise you continue to use the help desk. Good luck and happy editing :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article you {{prod}}ed

I un-{{prod}}ed the article MSJ which you marked with a prod, because it's still a new article. I think that all articles should be given a chance at Wikipedia, except those which should be speedy-deleted. Eli Falk 12:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but the point of a prod is that it sits for several days before being deleted. That's why it was written that way. It's actually quite a common practice. If I'd been feeling particularly nasty, I could have given it a {{db-empty}} tag, and it probably would have been speedied. But I purposefully gave it a prod in order to give it a chance. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that an article less than a week old should never be given a prod. Eli Falk 12:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. First, if we don't tag articles as they come in, then they disappear into the nether, and they won't get deleted anyway because no one notices them. Second, the author is less likely to return after one week and see the notice than they are after only a few days. Besides, with the content of this article, it's hardly a sentence long; the author shouldn't have any trouble recreating it, and it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you put it on your watch list for a week, then you can make sure that it doesn't get "disappear into the nether" - and then at the end of the week you can tag it. Eli Falk 12:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Quran

I didn't mean to upset you at the Reforms article. I think the root of the problem is with Aminz, as I said. Anyway, Criticism of the Quran is a somewhat new article that we're having problems with. Help with it would be great. Check out the history to see what's going on. Arrow740 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK; I apologize for over-reacting, and speaking out of frustration in the Reforms article. I just feel like all I've seen is people continue to argue around each other, and it's gone on for months, and people are more concerned with talking than anything else. May I propose something, though? From what I've seen of Aminz, TruthSpreader, and others, they don't have a problem with any citation, as long as it's from a good source. So instead of just removing his changes, add your own well-sourced, scholarly documents that show an opposite point of view; then the article really will be complete. Perhaps a "criticism section" might be in order. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

You left a message accusing me of vandalism. This is a static IP used only by me. Ive made no Wikipedia edits lately. Please tell me what edits you think I made. 68.225.88.31 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you or someone else using your IP address made this comment to the talk page of IP address 24.160.252.59 two days ago, as your contribution log shows. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've led a sheltered life

Oh my God. I just posted a note on WP:ANI and noticed this. It might be a technically legitimate article, but you'd never see it in Britannica. That's beyond disgusting. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100000% percent. See my comments, which I laid out in pretty direct fashion. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Pat, the reason I was on that page was to post WP:ANI#WP:CHILD. Does that seem like a reasonable place to post that? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. I can't see why it should be reported anywhere else. I've removed information a child posted about herself, but I didn't ask it to be wiped out. It's a personal opinion, I guess. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Countries of origin of article authors

Thanks for your suggestion, I've posted at village pump: technical. little else helpful so far. so links from de.wikipedia have been suggested (I posted there, too) but all are woefully out of date. it just seems to me that this should be so easy to track...sigh

Prairie Dad 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: RefDeskBot

Hmmm - thanks for telling me! The clock on the (sloooooooww) server is indeed six minutes early, which means that it only carries out the tasks 6 minutes late. I'm fixing it now, and hope it doesn't get slow again! Thanks Martinp23 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect] now. Thanks for telling me :) Martinp23 00:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! I've requested for a mediation, here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Reforms under Islam (610-661). Please join it and sign your name. Thanks --Aminz 08:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you are not an involved party, please let me know. Thanks --Aminz 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz, sorry about not getting back to you. Yeah, I'm not sure I have the time and energy to devote to this mediation; I'm already involved in the one about depics on Mohammed, and I'm involved on things outside Wikipedia, so, probably not this time. But thanks anyway. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding back. No worries. Thanks for helping us so far. --Aminz 23:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lokodd Vandalism

Lokodd is changing information about population in many articles. He is climing Brazil has 20 million Germans everywhere ( I am from Brazil and WE DO NOT HAVE 20 million Germans here).

He is also changing information about Japanese people, Polish people, without sources.

I told him not to keep changing population informations without real sources, and he attacked my discussion page with offensive words.

I know it's him, because he posts here using his nickname, Lokodd, and also with his IP Adress, 200.161.82.68.

Please, do something about it...

Xuxo

It appears that Samuel Blanning (talk · contribs) already handled the problem. Thanks for the notice. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Could you please explain again why, after having read the nomination, voting neutral is seen as disruptive. After having read all of these nominations, I walk away cold. I am more likely to support someone I have seen in action, and there are many admins I've encountered that realy don't ... act like admins. I would be interested in knowing where that position is documented. Is that a policy or an opinion? Seems to me like too many Admins get nominated and elected without people having read the nom's. --evrik ^(talk) 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Getting back: it's not really a policy, like I said, but it's not really helpful. If you've read the nomination, and have looked at other responses and have come away cold for a reason, by all means state that. There's also no problem voting neutral. It's stating "never known this user" that makes it look like you didn't bother to read the nomination or to do the research. I hope this clears things up, and sorry to take so long responding. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Chileuropride

Wanna hear something weird? It turned out that Antarcticwik wasn't Chileuropride! I'm not unblocking him however cause he was still a meatpuppet. Cheers, Khoikhoi 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I insist that chileuropide is a invention of Andalus, and request a sanction for Andalus. Antarcticwik 14:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Eso yo no puedo hacer, porque yo no tengo checkuser access. Como te dijo Khoikhoi en tu pagina, necesitaras hablar con alguien que si lo tiene. O podrias pedir a Khoikhoi para su ayuda en el preguntarles. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust - Victims

I think you delited proposed by me edit. I pointed out that due to the Nazi plans of removing and repopulating Slavic lands (Operation Barbarossa,Lebensraum), Slavs were killed systematically and gave some references that would support that opinion. In article is was stating that there is no such evidence. What was your reason for denying my requst ?

Viktor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsosin (talk • contribs)

Sorry, wasn't me! -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup

Look back at the "Apparently I was wasting my time..." thread and check out his edits. He's losing his subtlety; this time he earned himself a one-month block in just 10 minutes. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Replaced page with 'Fuck your mother please'". Well, it would be easier to justify a ban if his vandalism were blatant. ;) BTW, I don't know how you keep track of IP addresses like that... - Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That one stood out...I wasted a lot of time on him. And I had your page to refer to, and a lot of his edits were in Minoan civilization, so I also had the page history there to refer to. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For you...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For great work at the help desk! -- Lost(talk) 06:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)