User talk:SouthernNights/Archive 3

As a result of the recent actions (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop, Wikipedia's racial climate is probably at an all time low. In an attempt to help ease tensions, I have started a discussion on Healing Wikipedia. Anyone interested can take part.

Society for Scientific Exploration

On January 20, 2006 SouthernNights deleted an article titled "Society for Scientific Exploration" with the comment "copyright violation of www.skepticalinvestigations.org/openorgs and other places". I contributed that deleted article. I chose to use the "Message from our Founding President" (at the official homepage of the Society for Scientific Exploration http://www.scientificExploration.org ) as an authoritative source for the history and purpose of this Society. Other web sites, including the one cited in SouthernNights's deletion comment, have also used that "message from the founding president" as a basis for a brief description of the Society. I also added a list of names from the Founding Committee ( found at http://www.scientificExploration.org/council.php ). I believe that the article should be restored, perhaps with citations to indicate the source. My goal was to present a balanced description of this Society and rely on descriptions and quotations from the founders, especially the primary founder. I will appreciate your consideration of this matter and suggestions that you might have. - (ChipChat) Marty Cawthon, mrc@chipchat.com (Information Officer, Society for Scientific Exploration).

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

DC Arb

Well said. (if you celebrate christmas have a merry one and if not, best wishes from me) :) - FrancisTyers 03:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Deecee Arb

I'm sorry your so exasperated with the procedure that you feel you must withdraw from it, though I certainly understand why you would. However I think that the comment is inappropriate, lynching was a brutal crime against humanity that killed thousands of people and I wish you wouldn't envoke its evil specter at people who would do everything in there power to stop a lynching if they ever came across it. Justforasecond is being far to obsessive but its not fair to call him or the Arbcom racist when he became obsessive after Deeceevoice directed comments like- Let's have a lynch party! Martha, you bring the picnic basket, Tommy 'll get the kerosene, and Dickie 'll bring the camera," at him. If Jfs and the Arbcom are racist for that then by the same criteria Deeceevoice would be as well- and we both know that she most definetly is not. May you and yours have a blessed Christmas day. -JCarriker 05:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Left my response on your talk page. In short, I politely disagree and think the use of the word "lynch" is totally appropriate in this case. I will state, though, that I don't think the Arbcom are racist but are merely continuing what other racists started. Best, --SouthernNights 15:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi Protection ?

I'm a newish admin and I wanted to ask you about the {{sprotect}} tag I've been seeing on a number of articles in recent days (Such as the article Nigger). I always thought protecting a page was supposed to be done only occasionally but this type of protecting now seems to be almost trendy. Has the threshhold for doing this limited protection been lowered? Is the consensus that we can semiprotect a page if it merely is a target for frequent vandalism? Thanks for passing on any info on this. Best,--SouthernNights 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion is very split over this, just see here and here! Some articles - GWB is a well known one, Nigger less so - just get constant IP vandalism all the time, so I'd prefer to see Semi-protection being near permanent for those pages. Personally, I put it on articles when I think they need it, and then leave it. There are admins who regularly check protected pages so I leave it to them to judge when to unprotect. Dan100 (Talk) 09:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Southern culture

Some time ago I was shocked to learn that there is not an article of Southern culture and since it has been such an important concept in the South I think it is about time was created. Think you feel like collaborating on one? -JCarriker 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Since you prefer to create whole articles rather than stubs we can work here until the article is sizable. Also about Southern lit, I found it somewhat odd that Alice Walker, Zora Neale Hurston, and Richard Wright were ommited from the list of Southern writers given the flavor of their work, is their a reason that they are ommited? Also you may find this article intersting, which talks about the Southern vs. Western traditions in Texas literature. -JCarriker 18:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Help

Please vote here, I do not want Robchurch as an admin. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 08:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello from a fellow Alabamian

Keep fighting the oppressors man. I'm impressed with you.

I found your page on wikipideans interested in health issues, and thought you'd be interested in my work in Alabama on the issue. see my user page: NickDupree 13:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Any interest in collaborating on any health articles? What we are talking about is nothing short of eugenics. I'm out to save Americans with disabilities from the de facto eugenics policy of the US government, which is increasingly cutting budgets, withdrawing support and watching people die. I already got some policies changed in Alabama, but that is not even a flake of the iceberg. While Wikipedia is unquestionably NOT the place for activism, it is the place for knowledge. And if we had more knowledge out there about disability history: institutionalization of people with disabilities, court-ordered forced sterilization of black people and people with disabilities until the 1970s, Tuskeegee experiments, etc. that knowledge could change the world. NickDupree 16:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Word. I'll take a look at Culture of the Southern United States and see what I can add! Ever been to Mobile? It has a very unique culture, more New Orleans than Alabama.

Did you know that in 1860, the Clotilde, the last known ship to arrive in the Americas with a cargo of slaves, was abandoned by its captain near Mobile and the slaves escaped and formed their own community on the banks of the Mobile River, which became known as Africatown? To this day the people from there retain aspects of West African phonology, like saying "gwuan" for "going" etc. This is an awesome bit of history, similar to the Gullahs in South Carolina. NickDupree 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Culture of the Southern United States article

I spent all day on Culture of the Southern United States, adding stuff. I redid the overview, added a big new "People" section and doubled the size of the language section. I like how I made one section flow into the next. I already see more I want to add. Will do that tomorrow.

NickDupree 12:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Was what I added ok? NickDupree 01:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Ed Poor RfA

Well, we can't stop people from editing the RfA and thus from voting in it. However, there was a comparatively recent change to RfA procedure such that a nomination should not be added to the main page until it is accepted (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate). This is to avoid the stacks of oppose-until/neutral-until votes that always, rather pointlessly, turned up. It also gives a reluctant candidate a chance to decline before being thrown to the wolves. Then, and most importantly in this case, there is the fact that someone won't be made an admin unless they accept the nomination, so there is no point adding it to the RfA page until acceptance. Since Ed Poor is not editing at present, would be unlikely to call by to defend himself (as he will surely need to), and procedure recommends against it, it's probably best to avoid adding it to RfA unless/until he accepts. -Splash^talk 14:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your support

Greetings SouthernNights, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia R/E

Please remember that there is an ongoing conversation at User talk:JCarriker/Wikipedia: Race and Ethnicity. Please add it to your watchlist and/or check for new posts regularly. Also as a side note to you SouthernNights, there is going to be an expansion of the Regent at Wikipediolgy would you please consider as serving as one of them. Thanks.-JCarriker 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Assisstance

Go to User:Bumpumills1's User page, then to his talk page. Martial Law 01:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate another set of eyes in this matter, but quite frankly, I'm not seeing what the issue is here. I have no issues with the content of the edits of Bumpusmills1 (talk · contribs). I made the page conform to WP:MoS and I'm unsure what the dispute is about after that. Thanks. -Scm83x 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to cut him slack when he vandalizes my user page. This article just has serious WP:OWN issues that I was hoping I could make him aware of. He showed me some goodwill in the past, asking for my advice on the article, so I gave him some constructive criticism on article ownership because he will probably have other editors make edits to the article in the future. He has rejected this help and assumed bad faith on my part. -Scm83x 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

With SouthernNights's assistance I want to comply to Wikipedia standards. As for User:Scm83x he seemed to want to help, but instead of him showing me by examples on the talk page and letting me do the work too learn he jumped in and did it himself. I do apologize for the vandalism. I also apologize for my bad temper. Sometimes it gets the better of me. Some folks may be passive, but, unfortunately I'm not one of them. Hopefully, with SouthernNights's help, in the right manner, I'll learn and do okay. Apologies again to User:Scm83x. --Bumpusmills1 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

King James Version (disambiguation)

I'd just like to say good job with the disambig page for King James Version. It resolves the issue nicely. -- Rmrfstar 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had nothing against having a disambig page. I just thought placing a disambig for that album alone at the top of the page was silly. Once I realized how many other KJV articles there were the problem solved itself.--SouthernNights 15:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I depart Wikipedia?

Should I depart Wikipedia? There are those who don't want me here. I'm really starting too feel really unwelcome and some have offended me. What do you think? Best, --Bumpusmills1 20:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I had said, NOT every Wikipedian is like what you had ran into. Those guys are anon. editors with "Borg" designations. Martial Law 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Thanks

Wado, --Bumpusmills1 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

See User:Bumpusmills1's entire history section. You'll see why he has had a hard time here. Martial Law 05:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond added to Deeceevoice arb

No question, I've been watching the page and my support has already been noted :) Now if only there were a way of getting JFAS to stop harassing us. ;) - FrancisTyers 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw your project on Francis's page and did a little digging of my own. I hadn't noticed this before, but it appears that DCV's history with JFAS goes back much farther than we had thought. Check out this edit (JFAS's first): [1]. It's a clear continuation of the argument he had just been having with her as an anonymous editor (an edit war over Woody Allen also continued from one account to the next, in case this isn't conclusive enough). As it happens the argument was on whether to include the openly racist website www.white-history.com as a link from Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians. Disappointingly, JFAS was in favor [2], [3], to the point where it threatened to become an edit war [4]. Anyway, I'm not sure how helpful or not helpful this is--it does seem to me time for DCV to stand or fall on her own merits. However, if you're putting together a bit about JFAS, I thought you certainly ought to see this, too. Cheers, --Dvyost 17:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw JFAS's comment on Rob's RFA (El_C added a link to it higher up on the same page). Coupled with Dvyost's comments here, I think that the recommendation doesn't go nearly far enough. I wonder if JFAS is actually someone like Wareware. Guettarda 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

All of you should check out Cool (African philosophy). The same people who are pushing the DCV stuff are pushing to delete this article.--SouthernNights 20:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is, Wow. Thanks for the heads up on this, SouthernNights. I have voted to Keep. I don't know all of the background on this dispute, but I trust you as a source. The article that is being proposed for deletion is a very common type of article in the socio-cultural field, and the article is very well-referenced at that. Eliminating such an article seems almost like a racial effort, though I would of course hope that that isn't the case. Anyway, thanks for making me and others aware of it. Berenise 11:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Greetings! Sorry for the delayed reply. I don't have checkuser myself to look at the evidence, but User:Kelly Martin, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Raul654, User:The Epopt, and User:David Gerard all do and can take a look for you. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Healing Wikipedia

I happened to see your message on my watch list. I have only one response. See[5]. deeceevoice 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks

hey SouthernNights,

thanks for removing the lynching comment. i really appreciate it.

-jfas

Glad you appreciate it--but I didn't do it for you. However, as my comment on the arb page says I still believe this stuff against DCV is a racist attack. On your part, will you admit that you have obsessed on DCV too much and are willing to not comment upon her or harass her for a while?--SouthernNights 17:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I had only read the edit summary when i wrote this. i was all wrong. changing "lynching" to "racist attack" is not a very big improvement. it's an rfar, mate. its how we're supposed to do things here. now there's an "investigation" into me. geez. what kind of a way to heal wikipedia is this?

if you could point to some harassment so I'd know what you were talking about it would be a little easier for me to promise not to do it anymore. jimbo himself ruled her talkpage a disruption. pretty good proof that mentioning it at the administrator's noticeboard was appropriate, i'd gander.

-Justforasecond 23:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Information: New Help Group

This message is to inform you about a new group whose aim is to try and answer Wikipedians' questions. The group is based here, and is so far nameless. If you can offer any help by improving the pages or by answering any questions, then you are very welcom to do so. You are also welcome to raise any questions.

If you know of anyone who would either like to know about this or could benefit from it, then please tell them. Thank you. The Neokid 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Save evidence

In regards to User Bumpusmills1, SAVE all evidence. It will be needed. Martial Law 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What's up? E-mail me if you need to. --SouthernNights 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bumpusmills will need a print copy of the racist material to take to the USDOJ's Hate Crimes Unit, since the attacks had taken place here. It has the racist's contact data on it.

I Hope I'm doing the right thing by everyone on Wikipedia. Its just that attacks like that have no place here, nor anywhere else.

The whole thing started out when he said that he had a hard time here, so I investigated, to find out why, thus is how I had found the sickening material.

What is Wikipedia's policy regarding criminal matters, such as those racist, hate filled attacks ? Just trying to help out someone who is in need of assisstance. Martial Law 20:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly, sincerely, humbly apologise to Wikipedia if I had violated any protocol in this matter. Martial Law 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is appropriate, can you advise User:Bumpusmills1 to use the Federal Civil Rights Statutes as well, if these attacks continue. When that User comes out from being blocked, he/she will do this again. I regularly work with law enforcement, and some police officers "talk shop". Martial Law 01:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

10 - 4. Martial Law 01:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Apologise for that, been around police officers regularly. Martial Law 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Check User ?

What is the nature of this tool ? Martial Law 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how it works but it compares ISP numbers to user accounts. Only a few admins have access to it (I don't).--SouthernNights 01:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good way to locate sockpuppets. Martial Law 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. That's mainly what it's used for.--SouthernNights 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for your note, I didn't want to spam anyone so I just thought I'd let it take its course :) - FrancisTyers 02:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Question

Per our discussion on the admin discussion board, you said, "Note that deleting the edits removes the IP edit history (meaning we can't find the underlying IP from which a logged in editor made the edit). I don't know if the IPs are restored when the edits are undeleted; perhaps a developer can answer that. (As an aside: it would be really nice if CheckUser searched deleted edits, too.)"

Since I'm still a new admin, I was wondering if I did the right thing in deleting the page? The user was frantic about removing his personal info (actually, his parent's address) before people starting sending threaten stuff and the only other way I knew to remove the info was to bring a developer into the game (which seemed unlikely). Just for future reference, what's the best way to handle stuff like this? Thanks in advance.--SouthernNights 14:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal. Deleting the inappropriate content is more important than preserving the IP address history. Although you should consider undeleting selected revisions so that the page history is maintained. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ingagi

Hi, I came across this story about a black exploitation film from 1930 called "Ingagi" - I know you have done African-American articles, and this one seems very relevant to current events given the recent re-release of the movie King Kong; most people probably dont know the racist heritage behind Kong, new to me anyway. I wrote up a quick one-paragraph under "Influences" in King Kong (1933 film) but certainly Ingagi could deserve its own article. --Stbalbach 18:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Urgent!

Alabama, go to this userpage and see this bs. Urgent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blackmanheartiez --Bumpusmills1 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation of you on Bumpusmills1's talk page

Note this impersonation of you: [6]

I added a level 4 warning to this user's talk page, as they seem to be joining in the harassment campaign. Ohnoitsjamie 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare DOB/DOD

I noticed in the edit summary that you wanted to remove the old style dates. April 26 and April 23 are the OS dates, May 7 and May 3 are the modern calendar dates. From what I've seen, the standard on WP is to list both NS and OS dates for persons born when the Julian calendar was in use, to avoid confusion over which date is corrent.--Fallout boy 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If the standard is to list both dates then I'm fine with that. I removed the old style dates b/c that was all there was in the article. If both are listed that's fine. Best, --SouthernNights 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

I notice you are interested in preventing bias at wiki.That is why I have come to ask for your help.I was wondering how you feel about anti-Christian bias.I originally came to wiki by contributing to a list of Christian Entertainers.It has been deleted.But the list of atheists remains.The list of born again Christians is now controlled by LULU of the lotus eaters.LULU erases conversations, has his or her own evidence/vanity page and refuses to allow new additions, that don't meet LULU's personal standards.Now we have people taking Richard Kiel's name from the Christian actors page.When evidence is presented proving he identifies as a Christian another person removes the link from RK'S page saying the category is idiotic.Well if wiki has the category why can't Kiel's name be added to it? It doesn't make any sense that if a category exist you can't add names. Isn't this prejudice ? As a Christian I have no interest in twiddling with or removing the list of atheists, so I don't understand this.Can you help ? Could the Christian link on RK'S page be protected? I offered proof when I reverted it that he identifies as a Christian.Thanks --California 12 23:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in this. Personally, I don't understand why a list of christian entertainers would be deleted b/c this is probably a valid list, provided the entertainer makes their Christianity a public part of who they are (like Mel Gibson). Best, --SouthernNights 14:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick update: Some wikipedians have brought to my attention the possibility that this list would be better as a category, and I'm looking into this.Apparently a Christian actors category exists, but there is no place for entertainers other than actors and there are far fewer names than on the original list.What a shame the names were not merged before it was removed.It will take a lot of work to rebuild and given what was going on with the RK link may be an uphill battle even when evidence is presented.The people that were removing the link from Richard Kiel's page seem to have backed off (I hope).I am going to try to reach a peaceful compromise (truce ?)on the born again Christian page with LULU and company later tonight.However there is so much anger on that page, it may require outside help.I was at wits end last night when I asked for help and I thank you for your interest.I will provide an update as soon as I see how things go.It still just astounds me that they (whoever they are) would not see the hypocrisy in keeping the atheists list and deleting the Christian entertainers.If this category thing works out for the Christian list, then I think that the atheists list should be changed to a category as well.It would appear to be terribly biased otherwise. --California 12 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well user BBlackmoor has reverted Richard Kiel again.I don't understand.The category exist.Proof has been offered from RK's own website that he belongs in the Christian Actors category, yet this gentleman is reverting because he dislikes the category.Isn't that a violation of something? If a user decides he doesn't like a category enough to allow him to block names from being added?--California 12 10:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bumpusmills1.2C_legal_threats.2C_and_the_FBI Guettarda 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Feedback Request

SouthernNights. Please view Bumpus Mills, Tennessee and give me some feedback. Note, there is no topic for Saline Creek so it is not linked or bold. Wado, --Bumpusmills1 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Threats

Threats removed as requested. Wado, --Bumpusmills1 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Youth vs. Old Heads

Please read my comments to Scm83x on his talkpage. I read the things on the noticeboard. I mean no harm in this but Scm83x is a young chap. I will openly admit that I have challenges with taking criticism and instruction from somebody 20 years my junior. I was reared in an environment that teaches that younger folks have not had the life experiences necessary and do not have the wisdom required to instruct someone who has been around a great deal longer and has experienced a great many more life experiences. I'm not knocking the chap. I believe he's an okay person. Just like I need to learn how to be diplomatic, likewise he needs to learn how to ease issue's with those many years his senior. Bring out points too them, but in a manner of respect. I'm okay with his reporting me too the administrators. He done the right thing. Wado, --Bumpusmills1 20:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

Thanks for the apology, completely accepted without question. I will support your compromise, and I think it will be a test of both of them to see how well they respond to this decision.--Urthogie 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist

SouthernNights please check my watchlist. Why? I merely wanted you too realize that I have been reading the ownership and personal attack info for wikipedia. It is just a way for me to cover my, as Forrest Gump would say, "Buttocks". Wado, --Bumpusmills1 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

An Apology from SouthernNights

In recent weeks I have been consumed with issues surrounding User:Deeceevoice, specifically her Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice and her Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Workshop. From the start I saw this as an example of the continual problem with systemic bias and racism here at Wikipedia. That said, I have now realized that while racism and systemic bias exist here (and is probably the root issue with why one editor is pushing the case against Deeceevoice), Deeceevoice's actions can no longer be tolerated at Wikipedia. She continually ignores Wikipedia guidelines and attacks anyone who dares to not agree with her. DCV's extreme comments in recent days are what made me realize that I can no longer support her or her actions.

That said, User:Justforasecond has also behaved very poorly throughout this entire affair (if not to DCv's extreme degree). In recent days JFAS has placed comments on DCV's talk page merely to stir up trouble. As such, I am proposing that both DCV and JFAS be placed on personal attack parole for a year at [7] Perhaps this is a compromise that a majority of the parties involved can agree to.

However, what concerns me most is a statement I made during the course of this debate. While I have gone out of my way not to personally insult anyone, I did refer to the actions against DCV as a lynching. The use of this word was wrong, painted everyone opposed to DCV's actions with a broad and incorrect paintbrush, and needlessly stirred up trouble. I hope everyone involved in this case and everyone at Wikipedia will accept my apology. While I will continue to try and help editors here who appear to be victims of systemic bias and racism, DCV is no such victim and has created her own problems. I apologize for not living up to my own standards of behavior in using the word lynching and will strive to do better in the future. --SouthernNights 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of the blue. El_C 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What convinced you? Can you give diffs for DCV's bad bahavior?

What about her behavior in the last few days is different from her bahavior before? Jim Apple 01:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hard to pinpoint any single instance. Just days of reading comments on her talk page. Still, I hope DCV will stay and keep editing articles b/c I think she is a good editor. She just needs to cut off the insults and attacks.--SouthernNights 01:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it surprizing that you would change your mind but not have examples. Whenever I change my mind about something, I have some new evidence or some new line of reasoning I didn't have before.

Oh well. It takes all kinds.

Please tell me and the Arbitrators if you come up with any examples.

You might also tell deecee, though she might not care. Jim Apple 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

deeceevoice's departure

If you're interested in speculating about deeceevoice's departure. -- Jim Apple 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Racist vandal

Cooliomccool has been vandalising India related pages since yesterday [8], [9], [10] . When i confronted him on his talkpage, he racially abused me [11] and Indians in general. Longhorn has blocked him, but methinks he dhould be banned. Dangerous-Boy referred me to you btw! अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to ban the user we'd have to go through the entire Arb. Committee or get a ruling. Probably the easier thing to do is to keep an eye on the situation. Once this user's block is up tomorrow, we'll see if he continues to vandalize and issue racist statements. If so, I'll increase his block to a week and then to a month.--SouthernNights 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably worth documenting at WP:AN/I. Guettarda 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. The user has been permanently blocked by someone. Not sure that is legal here in this case without going through process (can anyone let me know if it is) but I'm not going to cry over it. --SouthernNights 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There are times when one admin indef blocks and editor, and not a single other admin of the 700+ we have wants to lift that block. In that kind of case, the editor is blocked from editing idefinitely by community consensus. Any admin can of course change their minds later, at which point the normal dispute resolution schemes might need to be used. -Splash^talk 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, --SouthernNights 02:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

moving on

I'm as tired of this as you are. It seems like you don't support DCV anymore, so I don't see any reason for this to continue. Whatever has been said along the way has all come from the DCV dispute. One of the original reasons I asked Matt about filing the RfC is DCV's penchant for bringing other Af-Am editors into disputes that they would otherwise not be involved in. As far as I know you are a fine editor on other articles.

I'll reissue the offer I presented some time ago. If there is a statement about you that you want me to withdraw point it out and I'll pull it. I'd appreciate it if you pulled your request that I be placed on probation, but that is not a pre-requisite.

I would also appreciate if you withdrew anything about racism being a motive for editors working through the dispute resolution process. DCV has been ruder than just about any long-term editor and engages regularly in original research, POV-pushing, placing of copyrighted images, and now disruption. Most of this has not been covered in the RfAr. Gathering evidence is tedious and I could not see whether enough was there already or whether more needed to be summarized. As far as I can tell, these are not independant violations -- they are for the most part tools to furthering an agenda. I am fairly certain that a good number of editors know who DCV is in real life but did not come forward to state that her additions are unquestionably original research. Stopping her behavior, which runs counter to the letter and spirit of nearly every wikipedia policy, has been my only motivation. Unfortunately, even with the volumes of evidence against her, the arbitration committee seems to think that she should be given extra leeway in future personal attacks. However, withdrawing the phrases about racist motivations is also not a pre-requisite for pulling any statement about you.

I would also appreciate if you de-endorsed the investigation into my history. I do not know if you have read about it in any detail yet, but I can assure you my motivations were not racist. I will gladly discuss it with you if need be, though to avoid any later misinterpreation it will need to be through email. Any or all of striking through your signature, making a statement about it, or contacting Dvyost on on his talk page would all be appreciated. This also is not a pre-requisite for withdrawing my comments.

Usually an apology is issued not to the people on the sidelines but to the person who is wronged. It looked suspicious to me that you would contact folks that may not have even noticed your statements, but I had responded to it specifically and was not contacted. There are several statements on the healing wikipedia page that seem to try to blame me. I would appreciate and would accept an explanation for this and a retraction of the wording mentioning me or blaming any unnamed editors, but again, not a pre-requisite.

I will strike-through and leave a short note about how the comments you select were not helping things. It may go without saying that I will not move to close the RfAr. I assume you would not want it to end at this point anyway, and I don't know if I have the authority to end it. I apologize ahead of time if any of the actions I have requested above are offensive to you. That is not my intention. I cannot emphasize enough that I do not require your action as a pre-requisite for mine.

-Justforasecond 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Just dropping by too say hello. Best, --Bumpusmills1 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalisim

I have found some vandalisim placed in the article Phoenix Lights. Can you look at this ? I was going to summarily toss it. A Neutrality Template is on the article. Only that there is nothing to support the template. Should I summarily throw out this template ? Martial Law 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me on my successful RfA! It passed with a final tally of 40/9/1. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask! Sceptre ^(Talk)

Excuse me

"00:25, 19 January 2006 SouthernNights deleted "Crystal Chasm Artistry" (No meaningful content)" "no meaningful content"? Are you the site owner or something? Your.. what you're god or something right? I mean, you must have some kind of higher power or devine authority to tell me that my own words have no meaningful content. Just what exactly does that mean? Who are you to say what's meaningful you are not every person on this god forsaken earth are you? Have I missed something and suddenly you can speak for 6.5 billion people and know that none of them will ever want to look at that article? THE WORD "YUP" has a WikiPedia Article but Crystal Chasm Artistry cannot? That really makes sense. It's a non-profit company, what do we have to do to impress you? And how dare there even be such an excuse, out of kindness you could have at least made something up like "advertising" or "Unpublished Author", but "no meaningful content"??? I think it's really low life of all of you wiki people to just delete stuff that has some legitimacy. You at least could inform people that you think they're meaningless and allow them to rewrite an article that's more impressive. No matter, I'll just rewrite it and post it up until I spark something in your sadistic brain that says it has meaning.

Thank you for degrading me, I enjoy when all of my articles get deleted. It's a real self esteem booster. I also love being ignored, really just wets my whistle. Sixthcrusifix 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this was not about degrading you at all. The article was essentially an advertising link to a website. According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, the article could be speedily deleted b/c 1)Very short articles providing little or no context ; 2) The article was essentially a hyperlink to a site. The article you created had no business being on Wikipedia. And, for the record, "no meaningful content" is a term used frequently to denote articles that lack meaningful, encyclopedic content. No offense is intended in its use against you.--SouthernNights 14:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

well

Well my friend, I had a little talk with Mr. Encyclopedia's best friend, Dictionary.com. And he has something else to say:

en·cy·clo·pe·dic Pronunciation Key (n-skl-pdk) adj.

   1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of an encyclopedia.
   2. Embracing many subjects; comprehensive 
“an ignorance almost as encyclopedic as his erudition”
 (William James).

And this:

---

en·cy·clo·pe·di·a Audio pronunciation of "encyclopedia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-skl-pd-) n.

 
A comprehensive< reference work containing articles 
on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects 
of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

According to that, disagree if you want, an Encyclopedia is a device which covers a wide range of things regardless of popularity but moreso based on their mere existance in nature and what defines/explains them. If google is a good way to check the validity of an article then why don't you guys just shut down and let us use google? I don't go to an encyclopedia to look at stuff I already know about, I generaly use it just to find something new. Then again I am a different person than you. The point in case, tell me what you will about my articles but realise that you and many other people here are constantly misusing the word "encyclopedic".

Appreciate the definition. That said, I am following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Since you are a new user, I suggest you acquaint yourself with how Wikipedia works (the links to this are at the top of your talk page). So far your edits have chiefly consisted of adding vanity articles about yourself and items you are tied in with. This is not what Wikipedia is for.--SouthernNights 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

... O.O ? That's verbatim what somone else said, is this in some type of list of generic things to say to people? Sixthcrusifix 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

SouthernNights, please read my edit history before making bogus accusations.

Hello. I suggest that you take the time to READ my edit history before making bogus accusations. FYI, I am the person who has been REMOVING the links to sites that sell essays (essaytoday.com, bestessays.com, custompapers.com, etc)! However, you have publically accused me of ADDING such links! The only link that I have added is to EssayFraud.org, which is a new site that FIGHTS academic fraud and plagiarism. Don't worry, no need to apologize. --SarahTeach 14:46, PST, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I did analyze your edits and I stand by my statement. If you notice, I'm also not the only one to raise this issue with you.--SouthernNights 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong--period. Can you show everyone here some PROOF of your so-called truths?

1. Show me where I posted a link to www.essaytoday.com.
2. Show me where I posted ANY commercial link.
3. Tell me how posting in the "Academic Dishonesty" section a link to a site that takes a new approach to fighting academic fraud/plagiarism is incorrect and warrants removal by ANYONE.
4. If you have any integrity, you will apologize for insulting mine and admit that I am the person who REMOVED www.essaytoday.com, NOT posted it.

--SarahTeach 17:36, PST, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad, the link you keep posting and which I was refering to is http://www.essayfraud.org. I merely posted the wrong link in my initial message. That said, http://www.essayfraud.org is the linkspam I was refering to and will not be tolerated. BTW, this link is designed to promote certain essay writing sites and not to fight academic fraud. Thanks.--SouthernNights 01:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I believe that you--and others on the "bash EssayFraud.org for no valid reason" bandwagon--are incorrect. Please show me the page on EssayFraud.org that promotes ANY particular Web site. --SarahTeach 17:47, PST, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You are promoting linkspam and several editors have said this. Since there is consensus among us on this, you are advised to stop adding this link. I will not discuss this anymore. You have been warned and if you keep adding this link you will be blocked.--SouthernNights 01:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

SouthernNights, I didn't think you'd have the guts to address 1-4 above in order to back-up your bogus claims. You can't prove your false accusations, so you issue threats to BAN me, tuck tail, and basically say, "I don't like you. I don't want to play any more." The only link that I have added is to EssayFraud.org, which is a new site that FIGHTS academic fraud and plagiarism. Be specific. How, EXACTLY, is that linkspam? --SarahTeach 19:51, PST, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your integrity abounds. --SarahTeach 16:08, PST, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Any chance I might persuade you to reconsider your opposition? Since I was nominated, I'd like it to pass. I will continue to strive to bring a number of controversial topics toward NPOV (whether or not promoted to adminship), and the chance of encountering another spurious RfC against me at some point is almost guaranteed. I've found, over time, that most of those threatening to write one get themselves blocked from WP (either long-term or indefinitely, prior to writing it: I can list about ten examples, literally, of editors who threatened an RfC against me, and have been blocked... not by me, obviously, and for reasons little related to anything I ever did).

The chance that I will continue to win "enemies" who wish to push particular POVs on artilce is almost a certainty, since people who want articles to promote their viewpoint are inherently unhappy with NPOV. If you look at my edit history, talk comments, etc. I am certain that you will find that I have maintained better composure and professionalism in the face of insults and extremist argumentation than have or would 95% or existing admins. Frankly, it's a lot easier to avoid conflict by just avoiding articles that might encounter conflict (which are perfectly important to have as well); but it happens that I am interested in a lot of political and "hot button" topics, and want to bring those subjects to NPOV.

I really encourage you to look at my answer to one of the questions about how NPOV editors in conflict-prone topics seem to be de facto prevented from adminship, even though such are very much needed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well spoken. I have examined the issues here more closely and your comments above, and other things I have seen, have caused me to change my vote. Best of luck. --SouthernNights 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to reformat the page so that your Oppose comment is not counted in the tally. Someone else will get around to it, but its always better for the voter to do it. NoSeptember ^talk 19:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NoSeptember's RfA

Thank you, SouthernNights, for your support of my RfA. I appreciate your effort to go through my edits and report your findings to the community :-). I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

your deletion on edmunds.com

Hello SouthernNights. I was the person who created the edmunds.com post. I work for edmunds.com and have permission to put the "ABOUT US" content from edmunds.com onto wikipedia. I've edit the content slightly according to edmunds.com's request. Should i repost this content? or could you un-delete my post? -- julie

As I recently told someone else, to post this copyrighted info your company will have to license their copyrighted text under the GNU Free Documentation License (see the link for info). Unless this is done the text is still considered copyrighted under our Wikipedia:Copyrights policy and we can't accept it. If you want the article to be undeleted, then please go to Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission and place a statement that your organization agrees to the GNU license. Understand, though, that this means you are essentially giving up your copyright for the copy you have on your website. Here's the short blurb:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

Once you have agreed to this and placed a statement to this effect, let me know and I will undelete the article. Be aware, though, that other users may challenge whether or not the article should be here (i.e., is the subject worth having an encyclopedic article or is the article merely advertising.) Hope this helps.--SouthernNights 00:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will make sure with our legal cousel that this is approved. What about Kelly Blue Book? can you let me know how KBB's content was approved? I am just trying to get the hang of this so I can post according to wikipedia's rules. --Juejuebie 18:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Article here don't get approved. However, if copyright violations are found the article will be deleted. After doing a quick Google search on Kelly Blue Book it appears that article is a copyright violation of http://www.oldion.com/articles/Kelley_Blue_Book and I will be marking it for deletion in a moment. (Since it isn't a new article, it has to go through a copyright deletion process. If new articles are found to be copyright violations, they can be deleted immediately). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. BTW, an easy way around this copyright issue is to simply rewrite your companies info so it doesn't infringe the copyright. Best, --SouthernNights 19:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Kelley Blue Book article at oldion.com is a mirror of the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. --Dachannien 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi I've uploaded edmunds.com's profile again. This content is has been re-written so it does have the copyright issues. Please review. Let me know if there anywhere else i need to improve on. Thank you. -- Juejuebie

William Shakespeare

Curious why you reverted Madgoldfish on William Shakespeare. His edits struck me as (minor) improvements. Did you have a specific issue? AndyJones 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted b/c his POV comment "extremely blurry" seemed like a bad edit while Romeo and Juliet wasn't a middle period play (it was earlier, I believe). If you notice, though, it appears another editor is also rving Madgoldfish's edits on the article.--SouthernNights 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but here it looks to me as if you are restoring the very edits you've just said you don't like. I'm off wikipedia until tomorrow. Can I leave this with you? If you're sure you were right there's nothing to do, anyway. Best wishes, AndyJones 18:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

Good catch. Thanks. My bad and I've corrected this.--SouthernNights 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediology Elections

Voting for the positon of Regent Ñ will begin on February 5th at the voting page. All candidates should list themselves there before then. Please take the time to vote, and become more active in the Wikipediology Institute. Thanks - Pureblade | ^Θ 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, SouthernNights, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to keep my vote as oppose. But thanks for the comment.--SouthernNights 14:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Victor Séjour

Thanks for adding that back in to the African American literature article. I only recently learned about him myself, and I think it's something cool to include in Wikipedia.--Cuchullain 18:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. It was interesting to learn about him. --SouthernNights 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

65.182.172.x

I noticed that you have had interactions with the anonymous user 65.182.172.x on Talk:Chicago-style hot dog. Cyberdenizen and I have filed a user conduct RfC on this user and your input would be much appreciated. You can read it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. Thanks! - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice

This request for arbitration is closed. The Arbitration Committe has imposed the following remedies:

• Deeceevoice is placed on personal attack parole. She may be briefly blocked if she engages in personal attacks or racially-related incivility, up to a week in the case of repeat violations.

• Deeceevoice is reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In addition, her attention is directed to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
• Deeceevoice is counseled to assume good faith and avoid offense, see Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
• Deeceevoice is prohibited from using her user page to publish offensive rants. Any administrator may delete any offensive material from her user page at any time. If she attempts to restore the offensive material, she may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
• Friday (talk · contribs) is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Wikipedia.
• Jim Apple (talk · contribs) is cautioned to avoid suggesting to users who are the subject of Arbitration proceedings that they abandon Wikipedia.
• Deeceevoice is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. She may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or talk page which she disrupts. She may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year by any three administrators for good cause. All bans and blocks together with the basis for them shall be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Documentation_of_bans_or_blocks

For the Arbitration Committee, ⟳ausa کui ^× 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, the spam bots will eat me!

Help, help! I need an admin! I've done something really stoopid: I put my email address on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science#Ballad of Gresham College. (Yeah, I now realise that's what the button "E-mail this user" is for.) Is there anything you can do to amend the version/hist so that the email is no longer correct, and won't end up feeding the spam bots (like replace the o's with 0's)? 'Fraid I'm asking you because my Welcomer and Mentor Dvyost is v sadly no longer active. JackyR 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Why is it strange for me to think that exceptions to the NPOV policy should not be made? Thanks. Courier new 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you are taking an extremely closed view of what makes something NPOV. It is not POV to state (preferably with references) what is generally agreed to by critics, historians, scientists, and so on. I suggest you read NPOV#Undue_weight, which states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Since the vast majority of critical critics place Shakespeare as one of the greatest writers ever, it is not POV to state this. Read the rest of that section. Best, --SouthernNights 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Juice press

I got this strange message when I logged in, saying that you had deleted Juice press entry because of a copyright violation? Color me confused. I don't know, and can't seem to figure out what you're talking about, or what you did, and for that matter, why? Huh?

Smorsepluggy

In short, the entry was copied verbatim from http://www.juice-press.com/poetry. That is a copyright violation and as a result the article had to be deleted. Best, --SouthernNights 00:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I honestly appreciate your enthusiastic protection of copyrights. I've been a Small Press Editor since the mid 1970's. Very small, mostly poetry, though sometimes Art and Fiction as well. As you most certainly know (judging by your areas of expertise), there's little or no money for support of these kinds of efforts, so copyright protection becomes a matter of survival for the Small Press. However, in this case, there is no violation of copyright because I own the site from which I lifted the copy verbatim. I would be happy to rewrite the information. I just have never been a fan of re-inventing the wheel. Probably because I'm getting old and tired and the effort of re-creating something I've already done seems herculean at times. But, whatever, keep up the fight for literature and the neglected poets everywhere.

Best, Stephen Morse

Shakespeare

Thank you very much for your kind comments! Bwithh 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Self-improvement

Holi greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I have been around here for about a year, including being an administrator from 18th September 2006. I request you to kindly do me the favor of providing me your valuable comments and suggestions on my contributions, activities and behavior pattern. I shall be awaiting your free and frank opinion, which you are most welcome to kindly give here. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorial

I think it would be a great idea for the creation of a page set aside for the deceased Wikipedians. On WP:AN they suggested it be a subpage of Wikipedia:Wikipedians, but may I suggest it be a subpage of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians? And, I would be glad to assist in the creation of this page. Moe ε 02:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we take on the project together. I'd prefer we make it at Wikipedia:Wikipedians b/c this seems like a more prominant page to branch off of and people who die aren't literally missing.--SouthernNights 21:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. :-) Moe ε 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When should we start? Moe ε 01:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's start now. I've created the page at Deceased Wikipedians and have linked to it from Wikipedia:Wikipedians. If you see any ways to improve the page or see other ways it should be done, please edit away! Also, I only have the one name for the memorial/list. Know of any other deceased Wikipedians?--SouthernNights 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopkins School

Hi SouthernNights! I don't know if you remember this, but back in September last year you voted on the FAC for Hopkins School. You were very polite despite my newbiness, pointing out the thin history section at the time. I believe I've fixed all the complaints from that FAC, and I'm continuing to tweak the article. It is currently under Peer Review for the 2nd time, but hasn't recieved many comments, and I was wondering if you could give it a once over and LMK what you think! Thanks! Staxringold 01:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get right on it! Staxringold 15:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

favor

Hey buddy, how you doing? I gave the article a temp 24 hour protection, however I'm not sure if my protection button is working. Check it out and let me know. Tony the Marine 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)