User talk:SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay/Archive/Archive 01

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

==Removing warnings from your talk page==

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Crossmr 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why can't someone edit their own talk page? Thats a dumb rule and I think you're making it up in order to assert your meaningless ego. What would prevent someone, such as a random user like myself, from removing the warnings instead of this person? He wouldn't get in trouble, I have nothing to lose, and I could effect the same change. 70.251.134.22 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! He can go to hell. I will keep this up for a few days though because it's hilarious. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 00:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay, I would, with the utmost respect, recommend that you visit WP:CIVIL. Regards, smileguy91^talk 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Civility

It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on User:NamelessCowardice. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --Crossmr 23:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that you are defending a sockpuppet that was created less than an hour ago? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That's no reason to respond with uncivil behaviour. He doesn't control your actions.--Crossmr 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It was quite civil. He's bringing some other flamewar from another VfD into this discussion, and it was clear-cut destructive vandalism. If he has a vote, he should make it. Maybe argue some threads. But 3rd person marking each Delete view as somehow invalid kind of subverts the voting process, doesn't it?--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, which I don't see any sockpuppet tags on, its still not an excuse for uncivil behaviour. There is no excuse for uncivil behaviour.--Crossmr 23:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't have sockpuppet tags on. It's brand new, created for the sole purpose of vandalization. It's somebody breaking the rules. And BTW, I was not being uncivil. It wasn't a threat, it was a very specific promise of how I would follow up with his continued disruption, and I will. You are being uncivil by continuing to harrass me, and also unreasonable in thinking somehow a sockpuppet created for the sole intention of vandalization actually can have its feelings hurt. This is what I would at this point consider the end of the discussion. Anything else would be a sign of uncivility. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 23:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being remotely uncivil. I left a message and asked you not to be. You've now continued your uncivil behaviour by blanking warnings from your talk page. Promise or threat amounts to the same uncivil behaviour. There was no reason to threaten them with an IP ban.--Crossmr 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are attacking me with warnings and attempting to set me up for behaving in an uncivil manner so you can complain about me, probably to subvert the vote for deletion against the Michael Everson article. You responded to my warning the vandal about his vandalism so quickly, it raises my suspicion that it may be in retaliation for my very quick reversion of the vandalism that occured at the AfD. You are behaving in such a manner that seems to be attempting to troll me by continued action after being warned to leave me alone. I disagree with you plainly that I behaved uncivily. It is not required of me to agree with you. I also consider your warning of me behaving uncivily a personal attack and am removing it.

If you want to find an arbitrator for arguing over nothing, that is directly your next step as per the arbitration guidelines. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving a warning template for obviously uncivil behaviour isn't uncivil. Otherwise no one could leave them. Retaliating with that template however is uncivil. I've pointed out the issue with your behaviour, you can correct it or not, but launching a personal attack against me won't help you. As for the AfD you're involved in, I could care less, I have no interest in it.--Crossmr 00:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And again I'll remind you: You are in charge of how you behave and respond. "set me up for behaving in an uncivil manner". If you behave uncivily, its your fault, no one else's. No one has held a gun to your head to force you to act in the manner you are.--Crossmr 00:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, leave me alone. You are bothering me for the sake of bothering me.--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 00:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A note to any 3rd parties reading this, it would seem that User:Crossmr has a rather abusive pattern of putting all kinds of warnings on people's userpages, most particularly the civility one. He has loads of users complaining about him weekly on his User:Talk page. I feel stupid for taking the bait, but all he is is nothing more than a beaurecratic troll, somebody who has found a way to vandalize by using the Warning template (which you can't remove from your userpage even if he's wrong) to annoy. He is making Wikipedia a less enjoyable place to be through annoyance, esotericism and wikilawyering, and as he keeps reminding me, is in charge of his own actions and chooses to be the way he is. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

loads and weekly? I think not. For as many genuine complaints that I've had, I've had an equal number of genuine praises for my behaviour. Your behaviour was inappropriate. You could have accepted that and moved on, instead you chose to continually escalate the situation by responding in an uncivil manner and removing warnings. --Crossmr 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment is placed to note that I have read the comment with no response to your statement. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 04:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Crossmr 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Roy A.A. 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazingly, all the Wikipedia admins have done here is make personal attack after personal attack on this user and when he calls them out on it, not only do they deny it, in the usual clever backtracking fashion, they accuse him of the very same behavior. Since a mere user can't do anything about it, he has to "take it in the rear", so to speak, and endure a punishment for daring to speak out. This user has made exceptionally well thought out statements to only be punished by a crowd that doesn't want to hear what it most fears: The Truth. Its sorta like the French Revolution - anyone who expressed a dissenting opinion about the Revolution got their head chopped off. On Wikipedia, your head frequently gets "chopped off" for daring not to tow the party line. (and as I have already seen, my Talk Page has been vandalized already, and I suspect a Nazi Censorship Ban is coming soon thereafter). I think Wikipedia is a good concept but it suffers from egomania, as this whole shameful debacle is cleverly showing. 70.251.134.22 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

replying to a comment isn't vandalism and anyone can view your talk page to see that. Play the victim if you like, but no one forced him to behave in the manner he did. I certainly didn't hold a gun to his head.--Crossmr 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment is placed to note that I have read the comment with no response to your statement. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|I strongly contest what has happened here. This was from the very start a setup for Crossmr to continue to annoy me and vandalize my page despite repeated requests for him to stop with the sole intention of getting me to type something, no matter how very mild it was, that might vaguely be seen as a personal attack. I will be leaving this page up forever as a testament to how Wikipedia really works. Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Royboycrashfan for the following reason (see our blocking policy): incivility and personal attacks Your IP address is 69.76.168.158. }}

Review of block. I have some sympathy for what you are saying and feel the block was a tad severe, but nevertheless I can't see it as unjustified in a way that would merit its removal. I think you could benefit from 24 hours to cool off. Your conduct on the current AfD is somewhat excessive and I advise you to exercise more restraint there too. Tyrenius 03:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

CK

When checking up on someone, you might want to do your homework Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#CoolKatt_number_99999_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. The user has a very long history of disruptive behaviour and a long block history for it. --Crossmr 05:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment is placed to note that I have read the comment with no response to your statement.--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 05:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

After saying I can goto hell, you'll forgive me if I don't assume your comment left on CKs page wasn't dripping with sarcasm, combined with your cold reply on your talk page, it certainly didn't come across as a compliment. I would also say it was your interest in my comment there that prompted I check your talk page as you felt the need to reply to a comment I made. Upon doing so I noted the archive set up in a manner to remove content you already tried to remove once. 7 days is a usual standard (that I've observed and discussed on the help desk) used for user pages that archive regularly. It gives enough time for any open discussions to be considered closed and a week is a reasonable time for warnings to stay on a talk page. It might be nice if you didn't give conflicting messages would appreciate any technical support you would like to offer me and Please cease and desist your continued interest in me leave a person confused. The code is placed properly on your page, just target it for Archive 1 and remove the links to Archive 2 and 3. Once the Acrhive page hits 32 KB then switch to the next archive as thats the size it starts complaining that any given page might be "too long".--Crossmr 07:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your technical support on the issue. I think I have fixed it so the directory exists now. I didn't know how to set it up right, that is all. Crossmr, I don't have even 1% of the experience with Wikipedia that you do. I am not attempting to act in bad faith and would appreciate a comment, not a judgement like a giant sign on my userpage or direct requests for action from an admin. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 07:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any chance I could just ask you nicely to please back off and catch some breath? You have left comments in the double digits in the past 32 hours on my userpage, and have very, very significantly increased its length. Please take a cooling off period and let somebody else catch me if I "act up". There are plenty of other, more constructive things both of us could be doing. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 07:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we can do that. I don't hold any malice towards you. I do new page patrol and leave a lot of templates for a lot of things, I rarely see people twice unless something comes out of it (whihc occasionally happens) but never hold a long term grudge. The popups info should be handy for you, and make sure you change the age on the archival code in both places, you've just changed it in the display field and not the field that werdnabot reads.--Crossmr 07:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read this message. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popupsThis is extremely handy for telling how large a page is. Hovering over any link will give you a bunch of information about the page including file size. Just add the code to User:SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay/monobook.js--Crossmr 07:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read this message. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 08:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Everson (2nd Nomination)

Hiya - just a quick note about the Michael Everson article. I agree with you that the person doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic; I don't yet understand all the enthusiasm over the article about him. But, you seem to be pursuing the issue with a dogged determination that might be better directed elsewhere. Some of the language you've used on the nom page borders on personal attacks - please be careful with that. And the majority of edits from your account (which you've only had for a few days) are regarding this issue, as is the content of your User page. I think you're too close to the issue, and could benefit from a step back and some time out to regain perspective. I also think this isn't an all-or-nothing situation; if the article stays (and it probably will), there is probably a way to present the information so that it doesn't come across like a vanity page. - Brian Kendig 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian, first I wanted to thank you for your input as an experienced Wikipedia administrator. You're showing fairness and a refreshingly unbiased stance on the subject. I don't have anything against Michael Everson the man, the problem is how terribly, terribly difficult it is not to be personal when it's an autobiography and the subject is actively defending his notability. On that note, I will see if I can set things straight in my intentions right now: --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 05:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, if you read this, I'm sure you are a wonderful font designer, and apologize for anything you or anyone else believes was going too far. I just don't think a Michael Everson article should exist, and am open to a merge. Many have accused the Delete requesters of acting in "bad faith", however I think the same should be asked of the Keep requesters, who seem to be more focused on an agenda separate from the subject of the article's qualifications for Wikipedia. Regardless, the best of luck to you and Namaste. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 05:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I don't believe you. I might do, if you were to say this here and here. Whether you are one of the Encyclopædia Dramaticists who despise me or not I do not know, but it is certainly true that they have made much of this. I find it tedious, and I think that each of your specific accusations was unfounded, as is the content of your "review" of my User page. I have changed that page, by the way, noting some things that might be of interest to you. It is difficult to assume good faith about you, however, so I shall sign this guardedly. Evertype 08:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. Like I said, the inherent nature of questioning your autobiography's notability makes the distinction between you personally and the article itself quite vague, if not indistinguishable. The article actually becomes you the living person every time you defend it, so I can understand why you feel the way you do and this is also one of many reasons autobiographies are frowned upon. I read your updated userpage yesterday, but I chose not to continue this by responding because my involvement is over. I have said all that needs to be said on the issue. I've told you it's nothing personal and you don't accept it; that's fine, you can not accept it all you want. That's that. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 14:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your contrition about it not being personal would mean something more if you were to say it here and here, where your attack was really quite personal indeed. This is a private space. Your unkindness was public, and loud. Evertype 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You've made it clear you don't accept my apology for personal attacks. Fine, don't take it. I'm done with your spurious behavior. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)] 16:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you weren't serious about the apology or about leaving this matter. That's fine. I don't accept your non-apology. I wish you would find out things before you go off half-cocked, though. On the back cover of the Unicode Standard 4.0 it says "The principle authors and editors of The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0, are..." and then it names them. I have no idea why you are pursuing your vendetta on me, but pretty much every accusation you have made has been based on exactly this kind of error of fact or misapprehension. You're not making the Wikipedia a better place. Evertype 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, dude, you have some major hostility issues. I'm collaborating with another editor right now. You back off. You are not in charge of a page about you. We are citing sources and making it more readible and credible. If you don't like it, that's what userpages are for. I'm doing the right thing for Wikipedia. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, really I'm rather blythe about things. My complaint above was about what was on your user page, where you were making a big to-do about how the Unicode book didn't use the word "authors". But it does. You were mistaken. You've been mistaken about a great number of things, including how I "controlled" the article. Evertype 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You write about yourself as if you are St. Everson here to heal the sick and cure the blind. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because I'm a Buddhist ;-). Evertype 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, just for the record, if anything, you have a vendetta for being counterproductive to Wikipedia. Imagine for a moment if you had just said, "Whoops, my mistake" and had somebody else write it for you. Think of all the hours and hours of time that has been wasted, the emotions riled up, the questions raised, the bans, the vandalism, the trolling, all because you decided you were going to be difficult. Now it's not an issue. We've cited and moved around your article to where it's not really yours anymore, and actually I think it's rather improved. Know what would be great? If you have some edits you would like to request, not demand, put them in the Discussion page and editors will consider if they will work with the article. It's over. You may have won the deletion war, but it's not a narcissist page anymore either. If you want to go be mad or something, kick a can or punch a wall. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I object to your going on and on about how it was a "narcissism page". It wasn't. None of the three edits I made to it in 2006 were "narcissistic". The last one (before your VfD) deleted vandalism about my beard and moustache and an erroneous assertion about my star sign. You object to that? Well, Wikipedia allows me to make such an edit. Explicitly. Whoops? You've made a lot of mistaken assumptions in this whole thing, and on the whole it's you who have been alarmist and inflammatory in your claims and language and general tone. It's that which has been more aggravating that anything else. Evertype 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you had this weird clique unicode fanclub not to mention editors reverting anything as "vandalism" due to unrelated matters having to do with that encyclopedia dramatica crap. I still say you don't need an article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you come up with this? (1) It's OK for people to have friends and to be respected and even popular. (2) You have yet to provide an actual list of specific examples of "reverting anything as vandalism". Can you point to three specific instances? Evertype 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I farted and a pea rolled out. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian, you're right, I'm backing off because it seems enough people are aware of what's going on to at least have my stance on the issue heard. I'm mostly into copy-editing, and used to do it without an account, so my history is not as descriptive as it should be, but be that as it may, I'll go find something else to do. Thanks again.--SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 05:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your determination in cleaning up useless vanity articles is admirable. You have my support. --NEMT 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya

Well, using the term 'non-physical data' I think is just a direct translation from the Japanese source and if there was a better term to use, then I bet it would have been used before. Remember, this is a science fiction series so there should be some new terms presented, especially if they're as original as 'non-physical data'.

Keep in mind that I don't speak Japanese and I've never watched the show. That's actually a good thing because it makes me completely impartial. As a native English reader, I can say that even with grammatical edits, the section makes little sense. However it is getting better with your most recent edits. Thanks for improving it. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this part here, in hidden comments: "And finally, the entity can't accumulate more data because it has already reached its own evolutionary dead end which was already explained in the article and needs no more explanation since it was never throughlly explained in the series." If it was already explained in a fashion clearly enough to be understood, I wouldn't have asked for clarification. I've had four people I work with read the section, all native english speakers. None of us understood it. We also all like science fiction and know exactly what you're talking about when you mention evolution, and still none of us could make any sense of it. Your recent edits have clarified a few things, but not everything. What we don't understand now is "Three years prior to the storyline, an extraordinary explosion of data came from one of the islands of Japan. At the source of this odd, rapid rate of data creation, they found Haruhi Suzumiya." What was she doing that made all of this data? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides that, your welcome for my assistence and I do think that you are indeed helping the article though with all the edits I've already had to do already with minor spelling, grammar and consistency, it makes me wonder just how serious an editor you are. I would suggest you proof read your edits more before submitting them for starters.

I don't mean to be blunt, but it's rather difficult to get the grammar completely correct the first time around due to the sheer volume of grammatical errors in this article. That's what collaboration is for. Copy-editing is supposed to involve more than one editor. I'm going to make mistakes.

The other typical thing about articles written in English by native Japanese speakers is a lack of prose style. One definition of prose style would be "Get to the point!" This article contains virtually everything anybody ever knew about the story, but is very unclear when it comes to the central plot. More summary, less detail. Cut, cut, cut! =) --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I'll try to work on the Integrated Data Entity section and see what I can do. -- (十八|talk) 04:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Something else you can do is try to figure out a way to trim down the size of this article. You could start by trying to brek it into smaller articles or finding out which sections have information that has been repeated in other articles. I'm not going to try to do that because you know more about the subject of the article than I do. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

You addressed me in the second person on your User Page. If you didn't want a reply, you shouldn't have done that. Please leave me alone. I'm not your enemy, and neither am I any of the things you say I am. Evertype 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it just flat out impossible for you to leave an article about yourself alone? You have made numerous "corrections" that were not correcting anything, but rather re-adding your own autobiographical "style" to the article. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject of an article is permitted to participate in the editing of an article on the Wikipedia. In point of fact, I was invited to do so by Brian Kendig, and everyone else involved with the article, including subsequent editors, have been pleased with the results. And yes, re-inserting the fact (which you deleted) that I live in Lecanvey is a correction, because you had left the article giving the impression that I still live in Dublin. Wikipedia rules permit me to make that kind of correction too. Evertype 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Brian Kendig also favored merging your article with Wikipedia and getting rid of a lot of the little personal stuff. He also applauded the edits that happened before you started meddling with it again. You mentioned you're a Buddhist. When it's removed you say it's relevant and needs to be included. Why is it relevant? Don't you think it's a bit unusual for somebody from Arizona to move to Ireland and be a Buddhist? If you're going to mention it, justify the relevance. I'm sure there's a story there that you aren't telling us. Is that subject suddenly "too personal" for you? If so, why even mention it? --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the footnote of that gigantic list of typefaces is just plain silly. You could make a sidebar list, a list below or a list above. But no, you choose to overload a paragraph in such a rediculous fashion as to make a first grade grammar student's eyes roll. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen to me very, very carefully. They are not typefaces. I analyze writing systems and encode them in the Universal Character Set so that people can write their languages using computers and exchange data with other users worldwide. The scripts I have shepherded through the encoding process enable millions of people to put their languages on the World Wide Web, write them with Microsoft Word and Open Office and on and on and on. If you had taken the time to read any of the article or follow any of the links and try to learn about why what it is that I do is notable and interesting (as other people have agreed), you would, perhaps, not be harrassing me with errors of fact like this. Time and time again your accusations against me have been baseless and grounded in error. Evertype 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen to me very, very, very carefully. What you just said completely misses the point. It overloads the paragraph. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as everything else, it's beyond rediculous how you on one hand "apologize" for writing an autobiography then on the other hand continue to edit it rather than letting the article evolve beyond you. You are also predictable, so don't start that diatribe about how you're 'the victim' and you 'have the right to correct false statements about yourself' because clearly that is not what you are doing. You continuously are re-personalizing it and now, thanks to you, it's an autobiography again. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologized in 2004 for putting up a page which is completely different from the one that is there now. The one that is there now is replete with verifiable references and notes, and the corrections I have made to the article have been accepted by the others who have recently edited it. You are responsible for attacking me, for making false statements about me, and I really wish you would just leave me alone. Evertype 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. You are not the article. When I edit the article, you seem to think I'm attacking you. You can't seperate you the person from an article about yourself. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Everson

I just happened upon this nauseating and self-aggrandising vanity page, apparently maintained by its subject. I was thinking about putting it up for afd before noticing that previous attempts hadn't quite worked out. You have my condolences! Pathlessdesert 17:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)