User talk:Hipal/Archive 14

Bosniaks

Greetings. I've noticed you are one of the editors who has edited the Bosniaks article. I was wondering if you would have any input into a few "revert wars" happening lately over there. Here's a diff. Personally, I think the changes are biased, a little racist/xenophobic, but mostly, they are wrong.

P.S, I've sent this message to a few of the users I've seen in the page history to try to get a discussion started. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've noticed that the problems are heating up there again. I'm on break, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to get others to help given the history of the article. --Ronz (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How to handle WP:V WP:RS on Fractal Compression

Given these threads a and b and the reversion of any edit based on good sources without counter-sources (most recently), how should I precede? Thanks, Spot (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't have the time to look at the references, but the points in the discussions seem to be based upon WP:OR rather than other sources/references. I'm still on break, so don't have time to help much. I suggest getting others involved. Use WP:RSN to get feedback on the sources. The RFC didn't seem to get any response at all. Look through WP:DR to find other ways to get others involved. WP:MEDCAB might be worth a try, but I'd concentrate on getting more editors involved first. --Ronz (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

discussion page Bates method natural vision improvement article.

To Ronz, Which alinea and which line in WP.Talk validates your removal in the discussionpage of the bates method / natural vision improvement article ? ( In my opinion my contributions are not of topic ! They are new topics. The topic is constant improvement of the article.) So again which alinea and which line in WP.Talk. Have a nice day. Seeyou (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take it up with someone else. I've made myself clear in your RFC. --Ronz (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam: number of pages?

I'm feeling dumb, and reading the two applicable pages are not enlightening me. Is this linkspam? First 8 edits adding the site www.e-turkeytravel.com with various texts. I look at WP:LINKSPAM and then WP:LINKSTOAVOID and wonder, what 'definite' definition did I miss? Shenme (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I looked at your user page, but then looked at your contributions, and you're "still here". Can't hide from your fans... :-) Shenme (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely spam. He's adding the same link (and a promotional one at that) to multiple articles while adding nothing else. Even if the link wasn't inappropriate in itself, it should still be removed because of the way it was added. The editing behavior definitely fits WP:SPAMMER. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's the 'pattern' determination that throws me. I am unsure of myself because once I felt semi-strongly one way and you another, way back, on a computer-knowledgeable guy, who added/edited text, but that was also putting in lots of references to his and associated (client?) websites. Gray areas are hard - breaks are needed - have a rest if not fun. Shenme (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee

I responded to your request for help from an admin. The article is already semi-protected, so I presume that what you wanted was action on individuals rather than on the article. Frankly, there wasn't much here that called for an admin.

I've given two people 3-day blocks. I've given a lot of warnings that you could have given yourself. It took me over 30 minutes wading through this, seeing what each person had done and what warnings they had already received. Some of these were IPs with exactly one edit, and that not recent, and been warned appropriately. In the future, when you ask for admin assistance, could you be a bit clearer about what you need? - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm sorry that I didn't (and still don't) have the time to make it clearer. I'm utterly amazed that this has been allowed to drag out this long after multiple BLPN and ANI requests. I'm sorry that it took you so much time. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit on the Invention page

Hi Ronz, Thanks for your note. How do I view the change you made to the invention page? Also, specifically what did / do you see as a conflict of interest. I have not got a clue as to what that might be. I am having a hard time trying to figure out what you thought I did incorrectly that violated Wikipedia rules. Please tell me specifically rather than direct me to general pages with lots of rules about proper Wikipedia form that do not identify the specifc problem. In a nutshell, I am confused by what you did and would like to understand it. Please let me know. Thank you. --Sara USA (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I am shocked that you chose to delete my note instead of reply to it. It was just sincere desire to understand your action(s). So from your last note, are you saying that the problem you found was on those 3 pages and not on the Invention page? --Sara USA (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Shocked? Please note the the instructions at the top, "Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Such comments may be immediately deleted. (See WP:TALK)" --Ronz (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cabal case header change discussion page bates method

I have created a cabalcase. Have fun.Seeyou (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)

I stumbled upon the above article and noticed you seem to be fighting a large number of single purpose accounts pushing a similar POV. This set alarm bells off in my head and I had a checkuser run to examine the accounts. As a result of the CU, we found 39 sockpuppets from two IP addresses. Most likely from the same person who has a dynamic address. See here for a list of all the accounts. Right now the latest IP address is hardblocked for 3 months, and the accounts it created are indef blocked. The second address and its accounts have not been blocked yet, as they appear to be stale at the moment. Once I get some time tomorrow I will go through those and decide if I should block them as well. I have added the article to my watchlist and am going to monitor it closely in case the socks return. If you notice anymore accounts pushing the same POV let me know ASAP and hopefully we can deal with the situation in a quicker fashion with less work. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for being unclear with my explanation. What I meant was that since only 1 IP has been active the last few days, he should be blocked rather than putting protection on the article (since that would effect all IP editors). I see that he was blocked yesterday, so right now I think the best thing we can do is wait. If he should come back using another IP, let me know and I'd be happy to protect the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I didn't notice the recent editors have also been blocked as socks. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

notice update

I replied to you update at [[1]]. You know how I can make an internal link with that ? --DynV (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bates Method and Civility

With reference to your edit at 19:33 on 11 May 2008 when you wrote "Please read and follow WP:CIVIL when you write your edit summaries - removed as off-topic, promotional", although it wasn't clear whom you were addressing as "you", it was my inclusion of further reading which you removed. I see this is some sort of test of my civility, since

1. The article in question is the "Bates Method". Presumably we accept that this is the "topic".
2. All the books to which the references were removed were about the Bates method. One of them was called "The Bates Method". It's the same Bates and the same method.
3. It is usually taken as an axiom in mathematical logic that things are equal to themselves, that is, that "The Bates Method" is the same as "The Bates Method".
4. The phrase "off-topic" must mean that the topic to which you took exception, the books on "The Bates Method", was different from the topic of the article, "The Bates Method".
5. With the utmost civility, could I suggest that there is a logical contradiction here? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You can suggest whatever you want. I see no contradiction. See WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPAM applies only to those who are pushing some commercial interest. I have no commercial interest in any business related to eyesight. WP:NPOV is indeed an issue throughout this article. None of the books and papers currently referred to in this article are themselves NPOV, which is a pity, but inevitable. I don't think I have ever read anything about Bates method which I felt to be NPOV. By including references to those four books I was not endorsing them, just drawing attention to the fact that they exist. The existence of a considerable modern literature promoting Bates Method is an undeniable fact, relevant to the discussion of the method, and ought to be included. Exactly how to include that information in the article is a matter for legitimate debate amongst the editors, and if you are willing to discuss it sensibly, I will be happy to co-operate. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"WP:SPAM applies only to those who are pushing some commercial interest." Read it again. --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"None of the books and papers currently referred to in this article are themselves NPOV, which is a pity, but inevitable." Which indicates a WP:FRINGE topic. If we cannot find independent, third-party sources to support much of the article, then it needs to be trimmed back. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting large portions of Edward de Bono

Hello Ronz,

Please see my notes in the discussion on Edward de Bono:

Was it necessary to delete large portions of my work without discussing it first?

Do you think that the article is so much better simply because there is now less of it?

What do you think might be the effect on authors to have their work removed with no attempt made at a constructive alternative?

--Pbachmann (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I was quick and dirty in trying to start some cleanup. Wish I had more time to assist, but I don't. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ronz!

I am just popping in to say hello. It's been awhile since our paths have crossed. I hope you are doing ok and that our paths cross again soon. Take care as always, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks. I've been meaning to drop you a line, but I'm just so busy these days... I've seen you doing some good work here recently, asking good questions and directing discussions back on track! --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your opinion here if you would

"here" The comments made by Levine sounds uncalled for and rude. Am I over reacting, and yes I am upset by the comments made. The Rfc was made and many outsiders commented including myself. I don't edit this article, I just usually watch because I am interest in the article for personal reasons. I am not against chiroprators at all and actually was being helped by an editor to understand what was happening or going to happen in RL so as I was not surprised by anything. This editor is well respected by me and others but for obvious reasons I am not going to name this person. I found the changes helped me personally understand the profession much better than the previous version which is why I commented in the first place. Your opinion on this would be appreciated. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but never mind, I don't work on this article and I let my emotions get involved which is usually when I take a break from here. I've calmed down since my initial reading and I am ok with it, that doesn't change my opinion though for the record, but it isn't important. I guess I needed to vent or get a reality check that I was reading correctly. Thanks for listening to me though. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic has been a big POV mess for a very long time. It's sad to see the same old trolls continue on the path to being banned from Wikipedia completely while setting a horrible example for other editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you check this out for me?

[2] It is an attorney site that I reverted as an advertisement. The person just readded it and I don't like to revert more than once on something like this. I'd appreciate your help, thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they were good faith edits, but the link obviously fails WP:SPAM. He's replaced it with a better link, though I think it needs a better one per WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated. You know spam better than I but I knew the lawyer site was an absolute no. I just didn't want to get into an edit war over it. I again appreciate your helping out. I haven't gotten to the newer one yet but I will also take a look so I can see what it is and how it doesn't fit in with WP:NPOV. This is how I found out I can learn policies and so far it seems to have served me well! :) Have a good day, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

I'd appreciate your input on this, since you are familiar with these problems from this user's other account. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to notify any other editors that you think would be able to contribute to this, as I'm only familiar with one of these accounts contributions. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Assuming good faith

Yes, ok, I didn't assume good faith on this particular comment, I'm sorry, I just presumed (in bad faith) that you were becoming frustrated with the discussion. I formally appoligise for my lack of good faith.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get back to this at some point, if necessary. I'm hoping that others with get involved, such as yourself, and help get the problems resolved in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

About mediation

Judging from your comment on Seeyou's talk page, you do not wish to participate in this discussion, which I fully understand. My suggestion is that your problem may need formal mediation to solve. Before I tell Seeyou to go ahead with formal mediation (as he/she wishes to do), I extend the courtesy of asking one last time if you wish to participate in the discussion, possibly solving the problem before it goes to formal mediation. A continuous silence of more than a week will imply that you do not wish to participate in the discussion, if you wish to participate, please say so. Thankyou for your time.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued silence?!! Until Seeyou can actually conduct dispute resolution in a civil manner, there is no dispute resolution. Your efforts at arbitrating from the role of a mediator are appreciated, though I believe Seeyou is just gaming you and the system to help him continue his attacks on other editors. When Seeyou can act in good faith towards others and be civil, I'm sure any dispute resolution he then tries will go much differently. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

a continuous silence not continued silence - meaning that not replying to this message will make me assume you do not wish to participate, not you have been silent during this discussion and continuing to do so will make me assume you do not wish to participate. At the asking of PSWG1920 I would like you to please consider this proposal. If you agree with it please just say Yes and will be implemented and the case will be closed. If you dislike it please say No and give a reason why you dislike it, not that it is against policy (as I have discussed before, it doesn't apply), remember, simple improvements to it, like removing punctuation or shortening it and then adding an infobox at the top explaining the shortened version are all acceptable. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's part of SeeYou's continued warring and should not be tolerated by anyone. I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of behavioral policy that you've allowed him to continue this charade. Perhaps you should drop this as you certainly are not acting as a mediator. I'd be happy to give you some assistance on what mediation means: start with being impartial and limiting your involvement. Mediation is not about compromise, but about getting the parties involved to view and treat each other as human beings worthy of respect. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll refer Seeyou to formal mediation if he/she wishes and personally I wouldn't go as far as saying Seeyou is "warring", he just wants some headings (and that is all the mediation case is about). Also, I have read WP:Mediation a formal document that outlines what mediation is, it states mediators are not obligated to utilize methodologies set out herein, besides that I don't understand how I am not being impartial so and limiting involvement is not even mentioned there; Seeyou and Famousdog were prepared to compromise so I did have to talk to you more, giving the inpression that I was being "hard" on you. Also, going as far as saying that Seeyou is not treating other users as human beings worthy of respect is going a bit too far. I have been watching the discussion between the two of you (well, all of it that I can find) and you both have barely said a word to each other, unless you are communicating via other means. You also didn't answer the question but it doesn't matter anymore. Thankyou for your continued patience throughout this mediation.  Atyndall93 | talk  22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Seeyou when I wrote, "but about getting the parties involved to view and treat each other as human beings worthy of respect" but about some real, basic training in mediation. Again, you're making assumptions of what I think of Seeyou that are only making the situation worse. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately I respect your opinions enough to not get angry. But don't worry, you won't have to deal with my inability to treat others with respect again and my bad mediation skills, next time i'll remember to never volunteer to help others, it only leads to trouble :-D.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's going to be your attitude, then you should avoid such mediation. Again, you're making incorrect and negative assumptions of me - not something you should be doing as a Wikipedia editor at all, let alone a mediator. You're are trying to push a compromise on a mediation request that is nothing more than harassment, retaliation, and gaming the system. Your good faith attempts to deal with Seeyou have been taken advantage of to continue more of the same. I'm sorry that you're upset, but I've done more than enough to deal with Seeyou - taking it all the way to an RfC. His continued attempts to disrupt Wikipedia will eventually get him banned. --Ronz (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:Seeyou's MedCab case.

Hello, I am Atyndall and I have taken it upon myself to mediate User:Seeyou's MedCab case here, just letting you know that I have reviewed your side of the story and have compiled a report containing facts and suggestions about the situation, it can be found here. I will also be writing a similar report addressed to User:Famousdog when time permits. Feel free to discuss your report under the provided heading (Discussion of User:Ronz's report) here. Happy editing!

Thanks for the help. I'm refusing to participate until SeeYou actually writes a MedCab case per the directions there, learns to follow WP:TALK, especially WP:CIVIL, and stops using the MedCab case as a forum to harass others. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by I'm refusing to participate until SeeYou actually writes a MedCab case per the directions there, the case may be all over the place, but I have managed to produce some facts from it and assess the situation. It is important to try and talk to others to help reach consensus and work these things out, I have told User:Seeyou about the policy regarding your changes etc. Just in case you are still unwilling to discuss the matter at or goto the MedCab page I am posting both your and User:Seeyou's reports below where you can discuss them here. If you wish to move the discussion back to the MedCab page feel free to remove the below information and resume the discussion there.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You should also consider archiving your talk page, its very large and hard to navigate (it took a large amount of scrolling to find my entry in your talk page's table of contents), as a rule of thumb, I never let mine go over 30 discussions.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on Wikibreak. What little editing I'm doing is mainly to help resolve problems where there there are few or no other editors involved, or to help with long-standing problems that are at a stalemate.

I'm trying to keep up with the discussions in the MedCab case, and appreciate your help. However, the requirements for MedCab are very clear and Seeyou isn't following them, and is instead using it as a forum to be uncivil and harassing. I refuse to put up with his continued abuse of other editors, and will not participate in a MedCab until this problem is brought under control. Further, he's using MedCab to avoid proper dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I need to find time to archive this page too. It's not a priority for me while on Wikibreak. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Seeyou has stopped with his/her ranting, in fact it stopped about 2 days ago, right now he/she is more mature and is trying to discuss a solution, the suggested solution (for the headings) can be found here. Also, he/she has been warned on his/her talk page about being uncivil, making accusations etc. I have also suggested that User:Seeyou not talk to you until I think you are both calm enough to do so. Remember, if User:Seeyou doesn't follow my suggestions (which he/she should and probably will), she/he will be in the wrong, feel free to reply here or at MedCab. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

However, the requirements for MedCab are very clear and Seeyou isn't following them - I still cannot find any formal medication cabal policy regarding conduct, could you give me a link, it would be a good read. And please give your opinion on the new proposal for the talk page layout here.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe he even tried to meet Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#How_to_list_a_MedCab_request. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Be as that may, User:Seeyou has ceased his/her disruptive behavior for the time being, it would be helpful if you participated in this discussion as your are an integral part of forming an agreement, would it be possible to put feelings aside for a short time and please tell me your opinion on the current heading suggestion and your report. Thankyou.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(F.t.O.R. x/y) is inappropriate, just an abbreviation of what SeeYou was using to harass others. It is soapboxing as well. --Ronz (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's part of the reason I stopped going to the Bates method page. All I've seen from Seeyou as this has progressed are assumptions of bad faith, vendettas, and soapboxing. Hell, he did the same thing with the user-conduct RfA I started! Is this guy a Scientologist or something? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 05:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou wants some mention of his headings, you don't like them. Is there a middleground that you are willing to take, say having the For the objective reader heading just below the heading (I know you don't like them, but the point of mediation is consensus, or happy comprimise, and if we can't reach a middlegroup this will never end, there is nothing in policy that says that the FOTR can't be WITH an informative heading, and remember policy can be overulled by common sense)? And I don't quite get how that heading is soapboxing (WP:SOAP), the heading isn't Propaganda, advocacy, recruitment, an Opinion piece, Self-promotion or Advertising. Please come and give your opinion, it is valid and others need to head it, the discussion is very unbalanced with Famousdog and Seeyou's opinions and not yours. I need your help to reach an agreement. Thankyou very much.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not compromising on policy. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not immutable and unchangable, in fact, it is far from it, the policies constantly change. At the top of all accepted Wikipolicy pages (such as WP:TALK) in the infobox, it says [this policy] is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. (important part bolded) and it links to Wikipedia's most important policy IAR, IAR (or Ignore all rules) says that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., by viewing essaysby, and endorsed by, other Wikipedian's associated with this rule, IAR in a nutshell means at if we need to avoide a certain part of a rule to help make everyone happy (or at least comprimise), we can. Being as such, stating that you will not comprimise on policy suggests that you think such policy is Law and cannot be broken, as explained above, it is ok to use the exception rule in this circumstance. Also, I do not know if you are ignoring the issue or just have not noticed, but I have asked above for you to please participate in the MedCab case, I really need you to be there, right now both Famousdog and Seeyou have agreed on the current heading suggestion, we just need your opinion (actually, we need some sort of comprimise). Would you be willing to compromise with a heading like this?  Atyndall93 | talk  05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of Seeyou's talk page modifications

Seeyou pointed out a very important point on his/her talk page. If you have time to revert actions you should have time to discuss them, if you do not have time to discuss you actions (knowing that they will cause arguments) you should refrain from reverting those changes. Currently Seeyou and Famousdog are trying to come to an agreement over the heading styles, Seeyou implemented them, you put them back again. If you wish to be a part of this discussion in deciding what should be done, you are welcome to, but reverting Seeyou's changes to the talk page on sight without discussion (and just citing that they are "soapboxing, uncivil and talk violations") has frustrated Seeyou to the point at which s/he may take this to formal mediation or arbitration which is really not helping the discussion. In your reversion summary you stated that Seeyou's heading is soapboxing; would you please care to elaborate on this. You said that the heading is uncivil; uncivility is defined as personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress., I would not say that "obj. information & facts x/y." next to a heading uncivil. You also called it a talk violation, I don't know why you archived the MedCab debate above and nothing else, but a quote from that page (it can also be seen below) explained how it is alright to bend policy to help make editors happy. Please come back to the discussion, if you are busy and do not have time to come back to the discussion just yet, refrain from reverting Seeyou's edits until you both are ready to discuss them.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

“ Wikipedia policy is not immutable and unchangable, in fact, it is far from it, the policies constantly change. At the top of all accepted Wikipolicy pages (such as WP:TALK) in the infobox, it says [this policy] is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. (important part bolded) and it links to Wikipedia's most important policy IAR, IAR (or Ignore all rules) says that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., by viewing essaysby, and endorsed by, other Wikipedian's associated with this rule, IAR in a nutshell means at if we need to avoide a certain part of a rule to help make everyone happy (or at least comprimise), we can. ” — User:Atyndall, User talk:Ronz/Archive 11

RE: Archiving my discussions

Your welcome to, but replying to them helps me to know that you read them and what your views are on them.  Atyndall93 | talk  04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)