User talk:Plrk/Archive 4

...to Sweden for msg. --Boongoman 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woaah. Now you are making stuff confusing. Please stick to en-wiki for en-wiki matters, it took me a while to figure out "Sweden" meant "Swedish Wikipedia". But well: what kind of document is it? From what office? If it's an official document, it's bound to be published somewhere. And, remember, that it's true doesn't mean it should be included - if there has been no news reports or anything about it, it's hardly notable enough for inclusion. Stating that "Infon ska in, så enkelt är det" will ~hardly promote healthy discussion about it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed your edit to Mikael Odenberg, so I thought I should drop by and tell you about the wonders of {{DEFAULTSORT}}.

A sortkey is an alternative term the article should be sorted by when listed in a category. For example to add an article called Albert Einstein to the category "people" and have the article sorted by "Einstein, Albert". You would type "[[Category:People|Einstein, Albert]]". This kind of sortkey you successfully added to Mikael Odenberg in your edit.

But, I reverted most of your edit! Why? Because there is a feature called "Default sort key", which changes the default sort key used by categories from the name of the article to the one specified with the magic word {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Instead of adding |Odenberg, Mikael you simply add {{DEFAULTSORT:Odenberg, Mikael}} above the categories, which I had already done in this case.

Thank you for your otherwise very valuable contribution! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, neat. I didn't see that. Apparently, this is a new function in MediaWiki 1.10. That's really handy knowledge for the other Wikimedia projects that I'm involved in as well. Thanks for letting me know! —LX (talk, contribs) 11:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you seem to spend a lot of time commenting on chemistry articles, claiming that they need to be either put in context or wikified. I was wondering if you could put in context your own level of knowledge in chemistry, so that the articles can be reeditted to be applicable to your own level of knowledge. With the chemical reaction stubs, I have been assuming that people will generally be looking at them if they have a basic level of chemical knowledge (i.e. one of about an A-Level student in England) and will not need a full explanation of why the reaction proceeds as it does. If this does not fulfil your ideals what else will I need to add, complete mechanisms with comments of facial and stereo selectivities and such. If so this is simply not possible as there will be a large amount of repeated information on Wikipedia. Please get back to me on this topic. - Curious Gregor

Hello! Eh. Lately I've indeed been editing chemistry articles; BUT only to remove improper categories (such as those you added to, well, a damn lot of articles). Using

AutoWikiBrowser. On some, tags such as {{wikify}} have been posted, but not many. I may have edited one or two chemical reaction stubs, but I don't know which ones. Point out more specifically which articles you refer to and I'll see what I can do. Do note, however, that my knowledge of chemistry is extremely basic, and my contributions to chemistry articles have only been clean-up/maintenance work. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Its okay. I'm a qualified chemist, but you seem to be suggesting for example on the

suggestions in the ways to improve wikipedia about categorisation as it is currently a very poor set up. I would appreciate your help in getting this idea across to m ore people so we can rectify our disagreement about categorisation. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your thinking, but the current classification guidelines state that they shouldn't be included in top-level categories if lower-level categories are available. Why? Because otherwise the categories would become mindbogglingly big. Not in the case of Category:Chemists perhaps, but think of Category:Politicians... see Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines, point 3. As you do have a point, we still have List of chemists - which you suggested be deleted (or, well, merged into the Category namespace). You should know, however, that there are ways to extract data from a category and its subcategories using some tools, see for example User:PockBot.
Just as a last note, please refrain from adding articles to top-level categories for now, and instead wait to see if you manage to push through your policy changing suggestion - that is however not very likely. Cheers! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I shall continue doing it my way, you can keep doing it yours. For Chemists it is stupid to classify them by country as if they are notable there impact will spread worldwide and they do not necessarily work in the countries they came from. For example the Curies should only be in the category Polish Chemsits by your way of thinking. However, this would confuse many people who incorrectly believe them to be French. Whilst if they are in the uppermost category for Chemists then they an be found. I cannot see why you think the policy change is foolish, I have talked to other users on wikipedia who believe that the idea has some merit and would make it a much more intuitive website. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought some more on your reclassification and think that you would be far better off reclassifiying them all according to their subspecialities. This again would be more intuitive. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you will not keep doing it your way. Doing so, while knowing that it is against community consensus (as expressed in Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines), will be considered disruptive editing (vandalism, in other words) and will get you blocked in no time. However, you seem to have misunderstood my way of thinking: you seem to think I am suggesting that articles be placed in ONE sub-category only. This is not the case. Your example, Marie Curie, is classified under Category:French chemists, Category:French physicists, Category:Polish chemists, Category:Polish physicists, Category:Radioactivity, Category:Discoverers of chemical elements, and many others. In other words, subcategories are not mutually exclusive: however, a inclusion subcategory in a subcategory excludes inclusion in a category higher up in the tree as the article then will be included twice. Do you understand?
Classifying them all by subspecialities might be OK if these subspecialities are outlined with a proper definition, preferrably written in Category:Chemists by subspeciality which I suppose would be a good name for a category that would include your hypothetical speciality-categories. Whatever the case there is no need to replace the Chemists by nationality-categories. Do you understand? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent)

He doesn't agree with you, you got rid of diocese of Canterbury and kept Church of England, he did the opposite. Also I feel that subsections of the church of england are good categorised in that manner, whilst chemists are best not categorised by location. If you think of a famous chemist, do you immediately think, "Oooh I know where he came from". No you think "Oooh I know what work he is famous for carrying out, therefore identifying the field." This is where your reclassification fails. Hence, you are in fact making wikipedia less user friendly. Also from Marie Curie you can see taht people have incorrectly indentified her as French, which she most definitely was not. Rather she should be categorised in Category:Chemists who worked in France - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed the Diocese of Canterbury category, it did not exist. It does now, and it is a subcategory of Church of England - and as thus Church of England should be removed. And TerriersFan did remove it. Whatever the case, I don't think you see my point: I'm not saying "no" to categorizing chemists by sub-speciality, as you can do... both! So go ahead, classify them according to sub-speciality. Just don't try putting them in a top-level category when a more specific low-level category exists, just as Wikipedia:Categorization states. Category:Chemists who worked in France does not exist and should probably not either, as Category:French chemists will do - Marie Curie lived most of her life in France and was as thus French. She was ALSO Polish, as she was born there. The category name is "French chemists", not "Chemists born in France". Do you see my point? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this correct. If you loved in America for a portion of your life you would consider yourself American? A French chemist would be a Chemist who is french, not a chemist who worked in france, this is just the way the english language works. So it may just be a misunderstanding on your behalf. I also still contest that chemsits can not be defined by geographical regions, like politicians can. This is because politicians will work for one specific nation (geographical entity) whilst chemists do not. I have asked a number of fellow chemists if they would ever categorise chemists by natiojnality and they all agreed that it would be a clunky categorisation, with little or no meaning. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 08:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(section break without actual use)

No, but if I lived in America for most of my life, I would consider myself American. In example, I was born in

WP:ATT: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
Categorizing chemists by nationality is of meaning. I can image thousands upon thousands of Swedish children being asked to write about a Swedish chemist in school. Or Portuguese children writing about Portuguese chemists. It is of interest to historians - and I do think historians have more use of Wikipedia than chemists do. Nevertheless, this categorization by geographical entity is not in conflict with your proposal to categorize them by subspeciality. Let's have both! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Code: {{User:UBX/Gotland}}
• Result: . - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very beautiful. However, I must say I'd rather use the one I just created:

• Code: {{User:UBX/Gotland2}}
• Result:

Thank you anyways though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should've put {{User:UBX/Gotland2}} instead of {{User:UBX/Gotland}}. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Please feel free to go ahead and do it yourself. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should consider archiving your talk page once in a while... see

Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to. I don't really want a archived talk page. Hope you understand. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 13:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.}

- Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should really look up the facts before writing and especially before reverting to your own version. Sabuni was a member of the Riksdag from 2002 until 2006. She was not re-elected in 2006 but instead became a minister in the new government. If you don't believe me, the facts are to be seen at the web page of the Riksdag: [1]. I will correct this again (!!) once and for all. Please don't revert the article anymore. // 83.183.124.123 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I am sorry. It was this edit which confused things for me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gregor. I see you reverted my removal of the copyrighted University of Sussex logo (

1. Image:Imperial logo.gif
2. Image:University of sussex small logo.gif
3. Image:UCL-logo-new.png
4. Image:Drexciyathereturnofdrexciya.JPG

Thanks in advance. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That you have made an edit (to your userpage, even) after my posting of the above message indicates that you have read it. Any response, or will you continue ignoring me? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it takes me time to find alternative images, I also have written to UCL to see if I can permission to use the logo. If I was a member of staff then the use of the logo would be fine, however, the rules seem less clear if you are a graduate student. I would fix things sooner if you were less vexatious. - Synthesis for all 13:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your failure to respond coupled with your earlier reverting of my removal of copyrighted content led me to (wrongly) assume you were going to ignore my inquiries. I am glad we have sorted it out now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Jobjörn, tack, I'll do it that way nasta.. —The preceding

Thanks ^^ This article needed clean up and had so much useless information... Glad to help! See you later, friend! Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, The figures are from the Nordisk familjebok, suppl. ed. (1926). I'll add some notes to the article. If you are interested in the official figures for all Swedish legislative elections, the Riksdagstrycket is the source to use. Riksdagstrycket may provide you with all relevant information for legislative elections since 1866 (at least), when the bi-cameral system was introduced. Best regards, --Odengatan 11:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Members of the Riksdag for present members only or for both past and present? Thanks, 97198 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is for the present members, those listed here:

List of members of the Riksdag, 2002-2006 (the preceding term) up to featured list status, so I'm not working with Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Members of the Riksdag right now. I'm soon done with 2002-06, though, so I'll get back to the current MPs then. I've noticed your contributions btw, I'm glad to get some help! Thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note that

our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights

.

I do see that we can't keep the picture there indefinately (although I notice there are a huge number of publicity photos on Wikipedia - are they all impossible to replace?). How do you think we should proceed? Tamino 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the LUF website is contradictory, it's best to assume the worst - otherwise we might get into trouble. Sadly, that will mean the photos of the Members of the Riksdag included in the 200+ articles I've created in them will be gone soon...

The publicity photos will probably be gone in due time. One could argue it's quite hard to snap a picture of, say, Madonna, though, as celebrities tend to shy away from photographers...

In any case. As my plans for the evening are ruined and I have nothing better to do, I can contact LUF and explain the problem. You can leave it to me. :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot - I hope it's not too much trouble. As to the Riksdag pictures, don't delete them unless you're absolutely sure, because freedom of information law should mean that they are free use (at least free publication, rather than modification or sale). One last question: if you create an image on Commons with the same name as an image in Wikipedia, does the Commons image override and delete the Wikipedia one? Tamino 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sure won't delete them, but the commons guys will. It's just that they are released with the text Bilden är fri att använda i sammanhang där riksdagen och riksdagens arbete beskrivs. Reproduktion i reklam och marknadsföring är inte tillåten. which complies with Offentlighetsprincipen but not with Wikipedia's licensing rules. The licensing of the Riksdag pictures was more vague earlier, which allowed for the upload of all these images, but it has now been clarified and found to be in breach of Commons rules. So, off they go :/

As for your question, no. If there is a local copy of an image, the article will use that one first, and if there isn't, it will use the commons one. Often, however, images on Wikipedia are deleted if there is a similar image on commons. The process is however not automatic. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Someone will need to copy all the pictures to Wikipedia. Hope they understand that at Commons otherwise there'll be a lot of red links to non-existant images in articles.... Tamino 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be done, as they suffer from the same problem as the Metso image - they can't be used as we can get free replacements. However, there are bots that remove deleted images from articles, so there's no need to worry about that. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've mailed LUF now. I'll send you a copy right away. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got the e-mail, it looks great. Nu håller vi tummarna :) Tamino 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tamino. I just thought you'd like to know that during my abscence in Stockholm I received an e-mail saying:

Hej Jobjörn

De pressbilder som finns på vår webb är fria i enlighet med cc-by-sa-2.5-se, det vill säga att det står er fritt att kopiera, distribuera, visa och framföra verket under förutsättning att ni erkänner upphovsmannen, i detta fall Alex Taylor. Räcker detta besked eller krävs det att formalisera detta?

/Anders

In other words, press images from luf.se are to be considered released under an acceptable Creative Commons license! I have forwarded the e-mail to [email protected], hopefully they'll accept even though it's in Swedish. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! When will we know whether the permissions people have accepted it? Then the picture can be moved to Commons. Great work! Tamino 19:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need something to do! Ever since the disputes on anarchism ended I've had an unemployed feeling, I share many of your views and I would like you to take me on as some sort of apprentice to pick up some of the lag. I have never associated with you before (except a brief praise of your view of anarchistic behavior) but I now wish to help you with your work, you are one of the greatest wikipedians I have ever met and I need to do some work and you need to do less work (I meant that in the sense that you work too hard not that your work is a nuisance) so I feel this is a good idea please respond on my talk page and tell me how you feel about this. I'm Randy (Randy6767) specialist in subcultures, social sciences, anarchism, religion, God, the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, and some constitutional politics. Randy6767 00:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edit to Anarchism in Sweden right after I noticed that the article could use some major cleanup and expansion. Would you have time to work on this? Skal! Murderbike 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been thinking about that for a long time now. It'll take some research though - I know a lot of the history of

Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden and Swedish anarcho-syndicalism but my knowledge of Swedish anarchist history in general is more limited. But hey, what's summer for? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hah! Exactly! I always find shitty articles give me an excuse to read up on the subject, though unfortunately, I don't think there's too much info available in the US on Swedish anarchism. Alas, glad there's Anarcho-Swedes around! Hey, if you have time, could you weigh in here: Template_talk:AnarchismOpenTask#new_section and here: Template_talk:Anarchism#Removal_of_USA_from_regions? Thanks! Murderbike 00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, use that time to exercise some propaganda of the deed? One thing we're doing here in Visby is arranging an "Alternative Politician's Week" as a response to the yearly parlamentarian propaganda event "Politican's Week in Almedalen" in Visby every summer. Still going strong after five years we're housing speakers, groups and networks that in turn speak, hold workshops on, or whatever on a diverse array of subjects. A lot to think of there! If you're ever dropping by Sweden, coming to Gotland in the beginning of july might be a fun idea. ;)

I'll look into the talk pages. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I actually just got out of jail, so that may be a bad idea. but i do some mellower stuff with a group called Books to Prisoners, sending well, books to prisoners, and I try to use the excuse that my band does benefits for a lot of projects that I don't have the time to participate in myself. I'm thinking of coming back to Europe later this year actually, unless other things come up. I visited a friend in Linkoping last time. It was nice, but the city seems kind of boring. I'd love to check out other parts of the country. Murderbike 02:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, jail? What was it for, something that would result in jail in most Western countries or something that only the US would throw you there for?

Anarchists in Linköping? I know some. May I inquire as to whom you were visiting? :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here it's legal for someone to physically detain you if they think you're shoplifting, and I thought that I had a right to defend myself against that, but I don't, so they gave me the same charge that they give to people who assault cops. It was pretty much bullshit, but I couldn't afford a lawyer. Oh well, lesson learned. In Linköping I stayed with my friend Mats, he does zines. But I also hung out with this girl named Lisa who was living in Barcelona at the same time I was. Both really nice straight-edge kids. Murderbike 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have Commons accepted the e-mail from LUF yet? If they accept it how will we know (or if they reject it for that matter)? Tamino 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received an e-mail from them a few days that I've only just replied to:

Dear Jobjörn Folkesson,

Thank you for your mail.

The form of the permission you forwarded to us would be enough if it wasn't for the ambiguity of their choice of license and their own explanation of its terms.

They agree to cc-by-sa-2.5-se, mentioning that copying, distributing, displaying, and performing the work is allowed, and that they have to be attributed for the images. They however don't say anything about derivative works being allowed or sharealike conditions, as mentioned in the Creative Commons deed http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/se/deed.se .

Could you please clear this up with them? Thank you.

Yours sincerely,
Antti Aaltonen

I've replied to Commons, inquiring what exactly I should ask LUF for, in order to not bother LUF all too much. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if LUF specified cc-by-sa-2.5-se then the images are released under the conditions of that licence? I don't know what more Permissions want really, but I suppose it'll be cleared up eventually. Tamino 13:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urban dictionary is a valid and reliable source as new entries are subjected to a review by administrators and then community moderated. Just because this form of English or 'slang' is not part of your vocabulary, does not mean it is not common place in some communities and hence notable enough for inclusion in this article. If you feel that the information is not relevent in this article, it would be more pratical for you to start a new disambiguated page containing the relevant information, rather than just reverting or deleting other users contributions. Please do not make this revert again unless you can prove that the information is incorrect. Your justification that the source is not a 'very' reliable source is not a valid reason. Tim.Boyle 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so, it shouldn't be in the article anyways. It should be in a new article, linked to from Bennelong (disambiguation). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point. If you do not think the information belongs in that article, create the new one. I have noticed that you have a tendency to revert or delete information. This is vandalism

If the information does not belong in the article, it should be removed from that article. Putting it elsewhere is a separate matter. I'll be back with some policy-citing later, let's see if we can work it out then. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I am interested in participating in Wikiproject Sweden, what can I do to help/how to I join?EnglishEfternamn^talk_contribs 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner (game) article

Hello! I have written some comments at the talk page to an article which you have previously seen; would you like to add to them somewhat? In my view the article is above that of a Start class; probably at B-class for now. Is there an importance rating for videogames? We will need a couple of positive opinions in addition to mine own to get it up there. See what you think;

here is the talk page. Thanks! - D-Katana 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair use rationale for Image:SUF-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

here

.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lichtenstein

Aw, shucks, just doin' mah duty! --Tenebrae 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Watanabe list

The David Watanabe list is proposed for deletion. You have made edits to the talk page, so I have informed you as a courtesy. Bpringlemeir 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cortana

Well, I had to make sure you were wrong to try and delete it at some point... :P the Master Chief was much easier to write about though, so I think this one is more of a challenge. Thanks for the encouragement! David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]