Hello! You may recall that I was the silly person who initiated the AfD on the Spy vs Spy article -- I subsequently withdrew the AfD. Today I have a new identity: I am the not-so-silly person who verified your DYK on that very same article -- and I wanted to say that I am very happy that the article has been saved and is on its way to an award. You did a great job, and a great job deserve praise:

		The Original Barnstar
		In appreciation of your wonderful contributions to improving the content and character of Wikipedia. Job well done! talk) 04:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply ]

On Spy vs Spy (Australian band), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Cirt (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a message

Hi! You tagged an article of mine for questioning neutrality and it is not a personal problem as I respect all opinions and admit I am still learning the ropes, so to speak, but may I recommend that it helps those of us new to actually authoring articles (vs. editing them) to have an idea what the problem was. I truly want to become a good and respected Wiki Editor and Author so all advice is welcome. In the case of this article I struggled with neutrality, actually sought out sources on both side of issue. But happy to get your input OneHappyHusky (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Brainerd is not mentioned in the history section of The Seattle Times. I think that althought it needs rewriting, the article could be merged with The Seattle Times. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And some of it's information could be put into the Erastus Brainerd article, because it

definitely could have more added to it. Hi878 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you deleted all of the NCIS episode summaries. lol I was going to point you to Wikipedia guidelines about tagging the pages first, but fortunately I checked the histories right before posting this message and saw that they were already tagged. Thank goodness I avoided sticking my foot in my mouth. :) But, I digress. If notability issues are addressed in the episode summary pages, do you mind having your edits reverted? A lot of information was removed by your deletions that could be of help to readers, not to mention I hate to see so many people's hard work go for naught.

I also do not feel that a consensus was reached on the characters. The responses look more like

- So, it's been a couple months. I figured you needed some time off. Where then is the fervor for deleting the episode summaries for CSI now that you've gotten your way with NCIS? Or, is it just something about NCIS itself that requires the rules to be selectively enforced? Mentor397 (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{

• I restored the original redirect you placed on Leroy Jethro Gibbs after reviewing the comment of the person who undid this move. The redirect should point people to the information we have and encourage the addition of referenced facts until the time it's ready to be broken out again. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merging histories won't work here. It would cause the histories of the several characters and the list itself to overlap which would make the history for that period useless. Why are you so opposed to having the redirects? It's common practice to retain redirects for words and names that are likely search terms for the article it redirects to. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask. Where is your righteous indignation over the CSI episode summaries? Obviously you have something against NCIS. I would like to know what the difference between the two are. Mentor397 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Per the checkuser findings at

I am sorry that this had to happen, no one else had to go through this much harassment over their votes. Arma virumque cano (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]