User talk:McGeddon/Archive 4

Latest comment: 16 years ago by The Missing Piece in topic Preview feature

Zioncheck edit

  • Hi, as I am still new to wiki, at least creating articles and editing articles (I hope I'm "talk"ing right). I have a question for you, my article Zioncheck, which is based on a set of rules described from learning from generations, and finding through research that the only information I can find anywhere that I've searched, is that the game contract rummy was based on this game, it seems to me that the original rules as described by Ruth Armson, of Zioncheck were lost over the years. How do I get more sources for this article? Or perhaps I can ask it like this, how long do I have to find sources for this article before it would be deleted?

Awkronym (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply


  • John McLeod

<---> Attachment Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 5:17 AM To: James Keel <awkronym(edited to remove my email)>

Thanks very much for your message.

In fact you are right that there were six contracts - my memory was at fault and I will change the page. I am attaching a scan of Ruth Armson's 1940 rule leaflet in which the contracts are exactly as you remember them. I have not yet been able to find an earlier edition of the rules unfortunately. Only 10 cards were dealt for each hand, though there is a 14-card variation for the last hand mentioned at the end. I suppose that the deal was kept at 10 cards for hand five because, even without buying, you could complete the contract provided that you went out without a discard, but I can see the logic of increasing the number of cards dealt to 11.

Best regards, John McLeod

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, James Keel <---> wrote: >"The original game of the group was Zioncheck, invented by Ruth Armson >in the 1930's, which had just five contracts." > >Do you have a source for this statement? I'm writing a wiki page for >this game based off the rules that were passed down to me by my >Grandmother who learned how to play the game in the 1930s. The game >she taught me has six contracts (named Zioncheck). The six hands are >as follows: 2 groups (sets of 3), 1 run (4 in a row same suit) and 1 >group, 2 runs, 2 groups and 1 run, 2 runs and 1 group, and finally the >last hand of 2 runs and 2 groups. Each hand had 10 cards, except for >the last two, which had 11 cards and 14 cards. I made a wiki page >about it called Zioncheck, but they told me it will be deleted in a >few days, I'm not sure if you can reach this link (they told me to >move it to personal user page until I had more sources), >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Awkronym/Zioncheck or if it's still >up, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zioncheck. > >I was wondering if you could refer me to your source on that quote >from above so I can find out more about this game that seems to have >been lost through the years. -- John McLeod For information on card games visit john@pagat.com http://www.pagat.com/

Can you help me source this in the document? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkronym (talkcontribs) 18:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Migrating quotes edit

  • Hi, since you apparently know more than me about the transwiki process, could you possibly take care of the rest of the quote-heavy articles? (Dumb Britain is still being added to). Cheers mate, Jdcooper 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

AfD nomination of Energy blast edit

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Energy blast, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy blast. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Richard Dawkins edit

The South Park thing was brought to the help desk, as the anon IP who added it to the intro did not understand how to format references, and the article was messed up due to this. I fixed it, and moved it out of the introduction and far down into the page under "other". So you removed the properly formatted, and already moved item out. However, I would say that it is probably pretty inappropriate for the article, as I stated in my edit summary, I am not sure it even belongs in the article at all. And looking into it, he did not actually "appear" in the episode, as the anon claimed, he was portrayed, not in a good light, and Mr. Dawkins was not amused by it, judging from the reference given. Anyway I just wanted to let you know that the item was already moved out of the intro, but you can decide if it is appropriate for the article, as I would tend to be on the side of those who dislike the whole trivia/pop culture additions in serious biographies, lol. ArielGold 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good, lol. And yeah I figured it was a few seconds short of being an edit conflict between us, lol. No biggie, I thought that if you kept an eye on the page, you could remove it, as my doing so would not be appropriate since I've no idea if it is relevant or not, and I tend to be opposed to the whole pop culture references anyway, lol. I'm glad to see it is taken care of, thank you so much! ArielGold 14:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

About revert edit

WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. The only reason why there is registration on LSNWiki is spam-avoidance, but it seems you're right with the last point - there is indeed a lack of contributors. Ironically, i was aiming at some flow of them from the link on en.wiki... --Duke B. Garland 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks...have any advice? edit

hey...thanks for helping me with that link... I'm still new to editing wikipedia, and kinda got jumped on the first time i tried to do something. now i have gone back to do something else, and you warned me of conflict of interest/advertising. I am not sure what to do to avoid this perception...I was focusing on WILL Interactive, mostly as a first example of a page to make and work on (i didn't want to do more work and have it all be deleted as it had been). I have branched out to a few other pages, to show a varied history and that I am interested in more than that one company. I believe my comments have all been neutral... Any suggestions on avoiding this perception? Or in creating a new page (even with legitimate references) are you assumed to be a part of the company? I don't want to get a bad reputation on wiki! Mlcblj 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your "last warning" edit

Why did you give me a last warning for my edits on Conservapedia? I'm not a persistent editor. Curiously enough, you say that my citations violate the copyright rules, and yet another citation --against Rational Wiki-- that are copied word by word are ignored by you. Flor Silvestre 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

FFF System notability edit

Regarding the {{notability}} tag in FFF System: I have removed the tag, as I don't believe it's likely that notability will be further asserted. If you feel the article is non-notable, I'd recommend taking it to AfD. Mark Chovain 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome Message edit

Hey there, cheers for the welcome message and advice. Will save me time on copyediting!! Take it easy mate! Noosentaal (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your tendency edit

You seem to have a tendency to post 3RR warnings irresponsibly before adequately identifying the problem. As Excirial wrote he was mistaken, and you have made the same mistake. Flor Silvestre (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Apostrophes edit

I just wanted to let you know that I have answered your comment on my talk page. — Lars Trebing (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dawkins edit

Page 234 of "A Devil's Chaplain", of 2003, says that Dawkins left Kenya in 1943. This is in the paragraph entitled "Still", in the Dawkins Talk page. It will be interesting to see your proof that Dawkins left Kenya in 1949 or any time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.0 (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

PC GAMER Podcast edit

This is the second time all the information that I've written has been removed. I'm not suggesting you've done it twice to spite me, but can I have a reason as to why. No copyright infingement that I can see, and its hard to reference a podcast as a whole Dragon909 (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just read the comment on my talk page, and I've just realised that I did put the context of the joke in, and its traditional place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon909 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dumb Britain edit

Hi McGeddon, I was wondering if you could migrate the Dumb Britain quotes to wikiquote like you did for the other similar articles. I would do it myself, but I can't make head nor tail of the instructions, and all I found was people moaning about inexperienced users doing it wrong. I feel we're making progress on the whole series of articles now, its all pretty pleasing! Jdcooper (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Trolling Sub-cultures edit

Hi, I saw that you reversed my changes, that's cool but I was making a legitimate attempt at enhancing the article and I think that there is a significant element of contemporary trolling that isn't addressed in the article as-is.

Like most people who post on internet forums I've seen some trolling, and the Wiki article helped me become wiser to it. But I'm seeing a lot of ORGANIZED Trolling, where multiple trolls work together and have some form of identity, such as "ACA", "SWS" etc. These are pretty skilled and notorious trolls.

I don't think the ACA or SWS (defunct?) deserve their own article, but I do think that they are excellent examples of trolling subcultures, or organized trolling. And I don't think the current article gives the reader many tangible examples of what organized trolls actually do.

So I admit that my portion could be better worded and cross referenced - how can I make it fit your requirements?

Bulllshido. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulllshido (talkcontribs) 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bono edit

Thanks - I missed that there was vandalism in the one I reverted to! Lcarscad (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

David Bowie edit

Hi. If only the editor would either respond to my comments on his talk page, or follow the country-specific usage of English according to the nationality of the subject, there would not be the current spate of reversions. I am about to desist myself, but will return at a later time to fix the damage to the UK English in this article about a UK person. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lack of knowledge of the accepted guidelines, lack of communication, or stubbornness? Who knows? Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Invitation edit

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Canvassing warning edit

Hello

What does "Canvassing warning" mean I read the post you put on my Talk Page but I still dont have a clue what it is, could you explain please? And where have I been aggressive? Please reply as i'm interested to what i've done wrong, which is nothing as far as I can tell. Unless I am mistaken if I am please explain how and what I have done wrong if you would be so kind :)

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 21:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, top marks to you for noticing you observant thing you a Barnstar is coming your way. But I dont see how any of the talk page things I left are aggressive, I didnt demand them to join it was very easy-going entry. It was not pushy. Please reply.

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks, Duly noted.

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hangman & self-reference edit

I think the change you made to Hangman (game) adequately deals with the self-reference. With the K there, I think it is too definitely "Wikipedia." The self-reference guideline, as I read it, discourages use of the word "Wikipedia" as an example; the barcode article also has the self-reference tag for the same reason.

By the way, what do you think of the "other uses" thing at the top of the page? Because of the (game) in the title, it seems silly to me. But I thought I'd ask someone whose been more involved with the page. Matchups (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Move on edit

Why dont you go and hassle someone else.

Police,Mad,Jack 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy art edit

Why remove the other images from the fantasy art page but leave 1 favouring a particular artist? They have all been good enough to donate their own art work, why not show all the pictures for all to enjoy? Is it against wiki rules to add pictures to such a page? I added one because i thought it was a legitimate example of fantasy art by a respected fantasy artist (not my own art work but done with permission from the artist), didn't contain an external link, was not guilty of self promotion more than any of the other artists with pictures there. New to wiki editing, don't want to abuse it, its a great resource i use daily even almost every hour (or minute!). --Timwebtwopointoh (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pirates edit

No, my contribution derives its humour, I suggest, from the fact that it is entirely true- at least according to "The Frigates" by James Henderson. The brain has within it an element called the limbic system which controls our basic animal urges, but is overridden by the frontal lobe, in order to control those urges - similar to Freuds id and super ego. Damage to this region results in the case of a client of mine who had his head stoved in by Saddam Hussein's lads in what would be stereotypical pirate behaviour, had he a West Country accent and not come from Baghdad. As it is he spends much of his time arguing (or fighting) with traffic wardens and hurling their clamps into the canal off the Maida Vale tunnel, attempting to wrestle guns from armed police and on one memorable occasion being involved in a low speed chase with a council "eagle claw" tow away vehicle on three wheels - on his car-{having removed one to get the clamp off). Wechsler-Korsakoff Syndrome is alcoholic dementia, which was presumably part of Robert Newton's Method Acting- although given his earlier acting style, it might be difficult to tell. Streona (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply


Hi MacG. Nice work you've been doing on the Piracy article. I don't like the "brain damage" section, but if there's a reputable quote, what can one do (shrug)? Still, it could do with a clean-up, e.g. changing the style more to reporting rather than statements.

That said, I think the "Life as a pirate" section should be removed - how would you feel about that? It's basically an opinion piece - full of assertions that are uncited (and probably unciteable) and not NPOV. The second paragraph in particular is, IMHO, twaddle. Sorry if you were the original contributor  ;-) --Ossipewsk (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No worries atoll (little pirate joke there). I will have a swing at the LAAP section when I can next crowbar out some free time. Small improvements/corrections I can do instantly - rewrites tax my poor brane.--Ossipewsk (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jurgen Ziewe edit

You tagged his page for not meet the notability guideline for biographies. I agree it lacks content, further copy is being complied off line, I hope the additional content will allow the tag to be removed, who decided when it should be removed and who is allowed to remove it? Jurgen may not be the most well know artist but he does have a loyal following and is know within his genre. We are working on improving the page, sorry if we have acted out of line. --Timwebtwopointoh (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The WikiProject for correction of Japanese Stuff edit

to be perfectly honest, I have no Idea how it's different from WikiProject Japan, but if you want me to merge them or delete mine, I will! Akira-otomo (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The WikiProject for correction of Japanese Stuff edit

to be perfectly honest, I have no Idea how it's different from WikiProject Japan, but if you want me to merge them or delete mine, I will! I'd just gotten so far on it ... so I'd prefer it if I didn't have to. besides, the one that I created is all about correcting those articles, not creating them. sorry anyway.Akira-otomo (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

but if i dio delete mine, or make it unused for tat matter, will i still be able to use my usr box, but link it to the WikiProject Japan page? or suggest this user box for other users that have joined that wikiproject? Akira-otomo (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

done that, should i suggest mine fo automatic deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akira-otomo (talkcontribs) 18:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help today! Akira-otomo (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

SFO edit

Thanks for tidying the SFO page up a bit mate. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Xbox 360 edit

Sorry bout that bud ;)

Devil / Democracy in the United States edit

Dear Colleague. With respect to your notes on external links and spamming: I would like to note that I am a relatively new member of Wikipedia, but have endeavored to learn the rules as much as possible, and appreciate that with your input you have taken the time to explain your reasons for editing or deleting my external links. I would like to disagree with respect and have you consider the following. 1) The site I have linked to externally (www.aspiritualviewofhistory.org) - is merely an essay, this is not for profit, no advertising, not a commercial site. 2) Wikipedia does welcome some external links "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons" - I believe my external article explains well with references many parts of "the Devil" example: "People of the regions of the world, influenced by christianity or islam, put the concept of the Devil to use in social and political conflicts, claiming that their opponents are influenced by the Devil or even willingly supporting the Devil. The Devil has also been used within Abrahamic religious belief systems other than Judaism to explain why others hold beliefs that are considered to be false and ungodly." - my external link provides more detail, but in its essay format and with its length is not suitable to be actually on the Wiki site. 3) There are external links at the end of the Devil that you left in tact. Here you removed my external link to A Spiritual View of History: Catholic Encyclopedia Children of the Devil The Devil - Unjustly Maligned Origin and Fate of Satan which perhaps also provide more details on various parts of the Devil -- why would you leave these and remove my link only.? I understand there is much graffiti etc and spamming to deal with but would like to assure you my only intent is to improve the articles at Wikipedia and hope we can reach consensus. Bphagan (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stop it edit

Every edit or page i create you mess up or change its like your stalking me and what I do. Stop it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talkcontribs) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually that really was quite quick of me to accuse you of such a thing, i'm sorry I really need to think before I type. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Christ, not you again. Talk pages are the property of the user it belongs to no one else is supposed to edit it. When I want people to edit it I will ask them. Anyway what in the hell has it got to do with you can you just not get involved in my things please just stay away I dont need you keep trying to contact me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But when I look in the history and see another users name what the hell am I supposed to think, Make sure he realises that a user page is out of bounds. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

I realise that, I used the warning accordingly Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its like day of the idiots someone else had edited my userpage now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talkcontribs) 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yet another unreg user has edited my user, dont vandals just make you feel ill because of the fact that they just dont have anything better to do? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your doing the stalking thing again watching my edits like a hawk. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 18:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its not about that, and you know it. You just deviated from the subject everything I edit your their. Your not stupid you know what your doing and what your not doing, dont try and fob me off with some wild story. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thing is though, dont take this rudely but you have a very creepy way of doing it the problem is what makes me a little sort of agitated is your so quick on my edits it makes me think that your just monitoring what I do its. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

For christ sakes i'm not a bloody idiot I have a bloody watchlist for christ sakes. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

IP edit

IP numbers should be used in the case of sock-puppet Laurence Boyce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.11.103 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) There is a certain reluctance to use IP numbers against Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.174.243 (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

CAPTCHA article edit

Why are you keeping to delete my links about Russian researchers? What do you mean saying "spam"? There are no things to sell, there are no banners or adverts. What's your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by STDcall22 (talkcontribs) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

CAPTCHA article edit

Links to the Network-Security-Research.blogspot.com are: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,141545-c,yahoo/article.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080118/tc_cmp/205900620 http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=143620

For more links just google "Yahoo CAPTCHA". Why didn't you check google before marking my link as a "SPAM"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by STDcall22 (talkcontribs) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE: Vandal edit

Yeah I know what you mean mate, but at the end of the day its not like anyone makes them vandalise its own choices. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its not important I removed them so dont worry about it, and the merge of the firearms unit its not a good idea they are completely different it would confuse terribly. The Firearms Unit Article explains what it is, where as Specialist Firearms Command has a different agenda of policing and has different history, trust me its not a good idea. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To be honest with you McGeddon every thing I edit your always their its like your watching me constantly like a hawk to see what I do, I really dont like it I must say. Why did you merge my article on Policw Whistle which was requested by the Law Enforcement Wikiproject without discussion? Please do not do this in the future I will regard this as vandalism. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know your a hadrd working editor dedicated to improving Wikipedia as i've seen from Edit History the things you add/delete etc usually help, but sometimes you do come on a bit strong. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

CAPTCHA article edit

So was my link in CAPTCHA article a SPAM or it wasn't a SPAM? Will the link be back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by STDcall22 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply


Bit-Tech edit

Hello, thanks for your message. I am a member of several Hardware Enthusiast forums and one of those is Bit-Tech, where I've been a member for a few years. I wanted to fill out some of the history behind the website, as it's a very well-known site in its sector - I believe I'm able to comment on the site neutrally, as I'm a reader, not an employee. Bigz0r (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template warnings edit

You have left that warning already, you'll be blocked too if you keep leaving the same message. STOP THIS CONSTANT HARRASMENT. I NEVER WANT TO HAVE CONTACT WITH YOU ON HERE AGAIN. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT ME - EVER. I DO NOT WANT ANYTHING MORE TO DO WITH YOU. DO NOT CONTACT ME. I HAVE ASKED NICELY IN THE PAST BUT NO YOU STILL DO. BUT PLEASE DO NOT Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Get someone else to do it, not you I am sick of you. Look mate you have no tact whatsoever. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok I shouldnt have put a level 5 warning, but the user isnt stupid they know what they are doing when the delete button is pushed. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll respond here rather than on your talk page, since you'd rather I didn't post there. Saying that you think a user "isn't stupid" and "knows what they're doing" is the polar opposite of assuming good faith, and misses the whole point of the level 1 warnings. You should not be issuing vandal warnings if you don't understand the concept of assuming good faith on Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You should also Wikipedia:Assume good faith your tone is distgusting, and yet so rude "You should not be issuing vandal warnings if you don't unserstand the concept of assuming good faith on Wikipedia" Since when did I show I did not understand the concept? I got a few things wrong sorry I am only human dont slap on the cuffs yet mate. Christ calm down how high is your BP? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I'm careful to keep my tone completely neutral, and don't believe I'm being rude - I think you're just misreading me. As I say, you claimed that an editor "knew what they were doing" when they deleted a section from an article, which is making an unreasonable assumption about their motives - you are assuming bad faith rather than good faith. There are plenty of good-faith reasons why they might have removed the section, and it's important to bear those in mind when deciding whether to go with a level one or a level four warning.
If you decide to continue this conversation further, I'll take it as permission to post on your talk page again. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you can reply on my talk page my anger with you has died down alot since yesterday. Rude was the wrong word. But you do come on strong sometimes and can appear blasé and quick to jump at peoples mistakes. I mean your a good hard working editor but the things above should be taken into consideration, Ok fair enough you may think i'm wrong but thats what I think. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar edit

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your unrelenting hard work on Wikipedia articles, keep it up! And even though sometimes we dont always see eye to eye I still value your hard work. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Preview feature edit

Thanks for pointing that out to me earlier. I was slightly overdoing it, truth be told. The Missing Piece (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It's certainly a tricky article to edit given that most of it easily classed as fancruft. And it still has a way to go! Thanks again. The Missing Piece (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply