User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive04

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the month of July 2005.

Please add any new comments to my current talk page at User talk:TenOfAllTrades. Thanks!

No need to apologize; in fact, I'm quite thankful for your response to that user. I received his/her message but chose not to respond to it right away, because I was both tired and busy. Your explanation was excellent and saved me from another headache. Thanks! -- Hadal 1 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA nomination. I appreciate the vote of confidence you have provided me. --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 14:27 (UTC)

The page was deleted yet again. I managed to recover the deleted page from google cache, costed me an hour or so but oh well.

You know the alleged page, the copy just before it got deleted is avalible here: User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp

I value peoples opinions. I dont know how much of it is copy vio. I don't want to rewrite the page as I dont think there is a way for me to satisfy the copy vio team. They will keep deleting everything... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 2 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

Hey Ten: One more bit of advice, if you have the time now that you're busy mopping. What needs to be done with the DG policy proposal? It seems to have come to as much of a consensus as it's going to, so what do we do now? Do we have a vote? What qualifies as due diligence/due process? -- Essjay · Talk July 3, 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Some Wiktionarians want to delete surnames from Wiktionary. I'm opposing, on the grounds that this is a long-standing arrangement between Wiktionary and Wikipedia, where Wiktionary handles the lexicography and Wikipedia handles the people and places. Please come to Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Surnames and contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 2005-07-03 13:43:21 (UTC)

I've set up two separate votes on the "merge" templates' discussion page. One pertains to the templates' wording, and the other pertains to the templates' visual design. Users may vote on neither, either or both of these issues.

Please note that I've posted this invitation on the talk pages of everyone who has expressed a preference for either wording and/or visual design. —

3 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Hey TenOfAllTrades, thanks for the encouraging words on my RfA! I'm pleased that I've finally found a project that doesn't bore me after a few months of work, and I hope to continue helping the project improve now that I'm an administrator. Have a good one! --Spangineer (háblame) July 4, 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Hi Ten, I just wanted to say thanks for the support of my RfA :-) Craigy (talk) July 5, 2005 20:43 (UTC)

AI, I noticed your new RfC regarding Irmgard, and thought I might pass on a few words of advice. I haven't investigated the dispute and consequently will not comment on the substance of the statements presented.

Might I recommend making use of the format from

. (Note that you can be considerably briefer than that, as long as you still use the standard sections.)

It is also normal to endorse (sign) your contributions to the RfC. Although the entries on the

main RfC index page

are left unsigned, editors should sign their additions to the individual RfCs.

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

TenofAllTrades, thank you very much for this help on how to place an RfC entry, this is my first time using this feature of Wikipedia. I updated the RfC regarding Irmgard accordingly and to the best of my knowledge. BTW, I know it is not really relevant, but do you think Irmgard could be Irmgard Möller?--AI 6 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at

7 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)

Hi there! You expressed an opinion on the recent TFD of {{coolmerge}}. A vote is presently being held on which appearance is preferable for the merge template; you may want to join it. See Template_talk:Merge for details. Yours, Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Hey Ten: Sorry to bother you (I bet I'm in the top 5 contributors to your talk page) but I was wondering if you'd do me a favor. I got a rather wierd message today from a newbie I've been helping out, and frankly, it's a bit out of my field. Since you've been here longer, I was wondering if you'd take a look at it and tell me what you think. Honestly, I think he may be somewhat "disturbed." If you don't mind, would you leave your thoughts here instead of on my talk page, so I don't have to worry about him seeinng them? Thanks! -- Essjay · Talk July 8, 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Hi. Could you reply to my latest post on: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Guide to layout -- changing the section. Thanks =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ten, you always know just what to say. By the way, I want you to know you made the list. -- Essjay · Talk 11:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"He's got 'em on the list,

He's got 'em on the list!"

For some reason, that goes through my head whenever I hear about lists.... :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awww...Here I was being all mushy, and you're quoting Gilbert & Sullivan...Sheesh! ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 12:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Holy Jesus, Ten, I got nominated for admin! (Okay, okay, he told me he was going to do it when I hit 2000, but still, I can't believe he actually did it!)-- Essjay · Talk 13:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ten! It means a lot. -- Essjay · Talk 15:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Since you commented positively on this merge, I wanted to let you know that Lowellian (talk) has reverted all the articles involved in the merge. Please join the discussion and see if we can all come to an agreement. This note is to alert you -- I hope that future discussion of this can mostly take place at talk:The Wheel of Time#Book Merge. I will be following that page. DES 16:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of constructive criticism and helpful suggestions, and it is a rare case if I don't respond to them. However, the one thing I will not condone on my talk page is pointless personal attacks. One particular user is posting an almost daily attack against me (including childish namecalling and 'helpful suggestions' that I stop editing) and while I must (and do) tolerate that everywhere else that he posts it, I see no reason to allow it in my userspace. Yours, Radiant_>|< 21:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:HisHoliness solved the long-running problem of Papal styles by moving the pope's life title to a "Trivia" section. This solution is non-controversial and is useful when the style after death differs greatly from that in life, eg. "Saint" or "Servant of God" or "Venerable". User:jtdirl, who has been involved in edit warring, reverted the edits of HisHoliness without discussion and blocked the editor.

This diff is an example of a typical edit. How is this vandalism? What justifies undiscussed reversion and blocking by an admin involved in an ongoing edit war? WikiKangaroo 22:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up on my RfA. Did you not want to vote, or did you forget. I would appreciate it if you did, support or oppose.

I just haven't gotten around to it yet. :-) I was intrigued by the comment, so I thought I'd quickly check it out. It's a busy day today, so I haven't been able to give the rest of your RFA proper consideration. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. I'll be looking forward to your vote.

16:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA; I promise I'll wield my

15:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

RFM

Good luck, but please see Wikipedia:Wikimediation/Everyking, TINMC and RFAr, none of which worked either. I think your suggestions are good but may be better aimed at reworking the five dysfunctional mediation systems we presently have; having a single one that works would be far preferable. See the talk page of RFC for details. Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Please count the number of personal attacks and snide remarks made by EK in the last week (several of which he made in response to your last effort to calm things down), compare that to the single-word remark I made, and consider which of us you should be attacking. I am not aware that he's "down" in any way, nor would I consider this "kicking" him. I didn't know he was under RFAr again either, but I'll read up on that. Radiant_>|< 20:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

There you go. Radiant_>|< 15:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• <grIn> feel free to move the page to NPOV'ize the title. It used to be 'deletion policy/thingy' but people were complaining about that since generally those discussions don't propose to delete anything :) Radiant_>|< 15:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

clever choice of name. Gabrielsimon 02:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I mailed Libbrecht:

Hi there.
I just read your fascinating page on ice spike formation, and was
wondering if you'd mind if I uploaded one of the photographs to the
Wikipedia community encyclopedia?  The credit would read:
 This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use
 it for any purpose.
 Photographer: Kenneth G. Libbrecht <[email protected]>

This was his reply:

You can use an ice spike picture, but with a different credit line:
Photo provided by Kenneth Libbrecht (http://www.snowcrystals.com)
**********************************************************
Kenneth G. Libbrecht
Professor of Physics
  and Physics Executive Officer
Office: 263 W. Bridge
Address: 264-33 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
e-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/
**********************************************************

How about you gather up the evidence and start the RfC? I have enough to do without wasting time starting a process against someone which is doomed to fail because that person has solid backing from the ArbCom. But if you'd like to do it, I'll be happy to endorse. Everyking 05:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolcat.

I noticed that you created an Office page to keep track of your tasks and tools. It's an excellent idea.

One thing you might want to do, however, is create it as a subpage of your User page (for example, as User:Coolcat/Office) rather than in its present location at User Office:Coolcat. The latter creates a new apparent namespace ("User Office": really a pseudo-namespace), which is generally frowned upon. Let me know if you need any help with the move; I'd be glad to get rid of the old redirect for you once the page move is done.

Happy editing, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you asked. I also placed the redirect on a quickie delete. Lets see how fast can you delete the redirect :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh an you are welcome to "steal" my ideas :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too late; MTG beat me to it to delete the redirect page. Thanks for moving it over. :) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Oh and btw (something completely unrelated), I am trying to rename and move all images on the page

Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers to commons. I could move every image individualy but hope to find a faster and more fficent method. I have already moved images of Turkey UK and US. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm. I'm not an expert on the fastest or best way to move the images over; perhaps you could post a note at Wikipedia:Help desk? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ten; I wasn't the target of those rather scathing comments, but as a new admin, I was offended. I went through CSD yesterday, and left quite a few articles because I was unsure; the ones I deleted, I felt like were valid CSD. For an experienced admin to berate a new admin (MTG got his powers this morning, for Christ's sake) is just inexcusable. I understand very well why so many people leave the project: The attacks come from the vandals and the people who are supposed to back you up. Thanks for being one of the people who is slow to criticize and quick to praise. I knew you were a good egg when I voted for you. : - ) -- Essjay · Talk 20:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're too kind. I've actually berated a couple of admins in the last few days...but mostly for their childish behaviour or attitude on WP:AN. It shouldn't feel like tilting at windmills to ask for basic civility; especially from our admins who should be setting a good example. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY! I need not say "Dominus vobiscum" to you, as He quite obviously is. Pax tecum. -- Essjay · Talk 20:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure you remember, but someone created a discussion on

regarding my person. A request for removal of my sysop powers. I'm also not sure you kept an eye on that page, but it was archived due to lack of comments. Since my comment, nobody else felt like saying anything. That's not why I'm writing this message to you, though. You did analyze the entire case, and organized all ideas expressed there. Seems like you did really get into things. For that reason, I'd like to ask something of you.

On that same page, I made a prediction. It wasn't really a prediction, though. More like stating the obvious. I said the user that was accusing me, user:Mateusc, would attempt to edit the orkut article once again, and re-add everything that was decided to be inappropriate for that article, and for Wikipedia as a whole. That consensus was reached on the talk page of that same article. I knew he'd do so, because, well, he said so. It would happen as soon as things cooled down for him. That happened just now. The content is back.

Now, that happened before. We're dealing with a contumacious person. The block I put on that user was reverted exactly because I couldn't take him anymore. Because, as it seems, Wikipedia asked of me for much more patience than I have, or had at the time. I do remember all the advices you gave me. It's still there on my talk page. You told me to refrain from taking actions (admin actions) in disputes I'm already involved with. I am not going to do that now. I'll choose your own advice. I'll seek the help of another sysop. The sysop I chose is you. The reason is that you already seem to understand the situation, and, from the little I saw, I think you're a good person.

This is why I'm formally asking you to go there and take an action against that user. I think you'll agree with me. Agree that such content cannot exist here. It's nocive. His recent changes can be seen in detail here. He made two edits there. The second one, marked as minor, removed a part that mentions "trolling". Apparently, he judged that to be a little too rough. I'll ask you to read them carefully, and apply your common sense on them. Also, remember the consensus. I am asking your help, so that I won't need to go there and do anything (I already said I don't plan to do that), and so that nobody will be able to say I'm a bad admin or whatever people like saying.

That's it. Hope you'll understand my request.

Thank you in advance.--Kaonashi 02:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question. You didn't really care about this message, did you? I hate to ask this, and perhaps I'm being inopportune, but what I said a week ago is going on freely on that article. If you could just take a look, you'd understand it pretty fast. If other people (administrators as well) just forget what's going on there, or maybe not even see it, that information will stay there, because that user is die-hard, and I do not think that kind of content has place there. It only serves to make Wikipedia look even less reliable to the eyes of people from outside.--Kaonashi 00:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, could you be more careful about how you're entering the dates? By leaving the trailing space inside the wikilink (

), the date format customization for users who have set their preferences doesn't work

That's the point -- he's doing so deliberately, to force that format regardless of user preferences.

BTW, I wrote you a reply regarding Everyking, but it's on my computer at home. I'll post it when I get home (assuming I don't just go straight to bed again). --Calton | Talk 04:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please

WP:AGF, even in silly revert wars. ;) I'm willing to assume that Jtdirl just did a sloppy cut and paste job rearranging the dates which inadvertently left the trailing space. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Tell that to Jtdirl. His sloppiness, I should point out, led him to repeat his error -- if that's what it was -- and then slander me because he was too lazy to bother to check. His response to being confronted with behaving like a jackass is to behave like a bigger jackass: my detailing his sloppiness/cupidity led him to start screaming about my "dillusions".

And considering that I had brought up this very issue four days before makes it very hard to assume good faith. --Calton | Talk 06:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I did a rollback. But as my preferences are set, the fact that there was an error in that earlier version did not show up on the screen. In fact the error was done by this user [1] The reason why it was not spotted was because a banned user called Skyring who had been bombarding Wikipedia with his sockpuppets, which I and others had to revert on sight and blocking, was the person to do the next edit. Their edit was rolled back, meaning that the version with the error in the dates got used as the alternative to the sockpuppet's edits. (Rollback rolls back to the previous user without offering a chance to see if the previous user's edits are themselves OK.)

BTW all UK monarchs should be on one dating style, as should all UK topics, all US presidents, all American topics, etc. They should be, as the MoS says, in the form of English that is used by local users. The George VI page slipped through because preferences had been set on my a/c. While dealing with a series of sockpuppets from that banned user I discovered the error in the dating as did others.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That you were too lazy to bother checking before reverting is not my problem (My God! He killed Queen Elizabeth!). That you were too lazy to check your facts before accusing someone of vandalism is. --Calton | Talk 06:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

A warning is (at least) what I was wanting to begin with, but no one would even comment on it. I didn't want to approach him myself because I believed he would simply see it as sour grapes. His attitude reflects a want to personally attack users and it wouldn't help matters. Thanks for taking a look. --TJive 06:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Our short-fused colleague User:Jtdirl has now blocked a new User:FreeAccount on basis of that being someone banned's sockpuppet. Of the veracity of that I do not know enough, but I realized that Jtdirl did it also clearly because they have different opinions, and I realized from earlier discussions that Jtdirl has been reprimanded for more-or-less unfounded blocks. I have seen Jtdirl's general behavior, and I can easily believe that he does things without deeper consideration, without prudent caution, hastily, without proof, often on basis of his own error, and generally in midst of hotness. (It could be proper if Jtdirl is asked not to made any admin actions in situations he has himself been involved, nor to users he himself feels to have been victim to. In such situations, it would always be better if a more objective admin makes the findings and decisions, not the one who "feels threatened" or "wants revenge".) Could you elaborate what are the sufficient proofs to make such bans, and did Jtdirl actually have such proof at the case. 217.140.193.123 08:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the spaces-and-punctuation issue,my formatting preferences on the

]

You didn't answer my responses at the

National longevity recordholders talk page.Anyway,under no circumstances will I make contributions to that article without simultaneously removing the alphabetized format and all the inappropriately-included material in that version.--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 01:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

RFA, The GAP project

Hi Coolcat, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek you state; Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source.

Could you please cite your source and identify the PD publication, or remove the claim that this material is PD.

I'm the Copyvio people deleted the page anyway and there was no evidence persented at the time showing that this material is PD. If you can demonstrate that this material is PD then please do and I'll reconsider, otherwise stop claiming that it was improperly deleted. --

]

Why are you bothering me with this? It is old argument which we discussed. You are a bit to defensive and this is starting to bother me. The stuff you are throwing me is coppied from the RfC. GEEEZ! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's trying to harass you, Coolcat. If you feel that Davenbelle unfairly or inaccurately marked the article as a copyvio, then it would help if you made more information available about the source of the material. Without evidence to back up the assertion that the material is public domain, Duk had no choice to but to delete it as a copyright violation. He's bringing it up because you mentioned it in your RfArb case, and is hoping to clarify if you still believe the material to be public domain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can prove copyrights by sacrificing my identity, which I do not want to do. From his (duks) prespective what he did is right even though I wasn't violating copyrights but as he pointed out it would be retarded to accept "annonymous" copyrights. Since I can't/don't want to proove copyright status I had rested my case earlier on. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rfc entry was about the same material appearing on a Canadian PD source of which a Copy vio expert like duk would notice when checking for copy vios. That would be a proper "assume good faith" enviorment. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am just mad I see duk "defending" himself again as I havent suggested/pushed the copyrights to arbcom evidence. The material on arbcom was coppied from the RfC which duk and several others discussed this matter to death. This was coppied to Arbcom listing, then was coppied to where it is now by an arbcom member as that is the porper procedure. So I am being yelled at by duk yet again. :( --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might want to explicitly withdraw that claim from the RFArb. It's very difficult to demonstrate that Davenbelle was harassing you with the copyvio notice (unless he said "ha ha! sucker!" in the edit summary) when we all seem to be agreed that the authorship of the material is still in question. As far as I can tell, there were two sources for the article material. One was clearly public domain—the Canadian government reprint of the U.S. government document. The other source–www.adiyamanli.org–represented a significant chunk of the article, and included substantial material not on the public domain pages. We still don't have evidence of who wrote it (and you aren't able to provide any), so I still don't see how Duk wasn't behaving reasonably in deleting the material.

"Remove apparent copyright violations" has to trump "assume good faith"; everything that we do on Wikipedia is predicated on having unencumbered contributions. You've repeatedly challenged his judgement in deleting the material, and you've left the statement in the RFArb; he's defending himself because he feels that you're still insisting he's in the wrong. As a show of good faith, drop him a note that you accept that he did do the right thing under Wikipedia policy. If you want to edit the arbitration page with the claim, I would suggest striking out the comment (like this) and adding an explanatory note rather than just erasing it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to stop writting the sexual orientation of musicans in the header when its a fact. I thought this site was about facts?

Why dont you respond, you had no problem deleting my facts right away?

(unsigned)

unless its stated by said musician, the n its liable, and should be placed, in the first place. Gabrielsimon 01:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well every edit I did was stated by the musician, Elton is married to a man, George M came out after the bathroom incident and Michael has admiddit he is gay since about 2 years ago? So why the edit?

(unsigned)

use homoswxual , the proper, non insulting term, and you might get better results. Gabrielsimon 01:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly think saying someone is gay is more insulting than calling them a homosexual ?01:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've replied over on User talk:198.74.20.118. Briefly, the information was already in the biographical articles—no facts were removed. I may have been a bit quick to undo the anon's work since he started off with a personal attack ([2]) for his first edit today. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I try to edit something that is true admins always find away to justify deleting it and it just pisses me off198.74.20.118 01:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and the info! Sorry about the mix-up, I just saw it and thought it wrong, so I marked it to be rid of. Thanks also for the link to the criteria page and the info regarding the fiction rules. Most helpful! Anyway, sorry about not doing the right thing - I'm still learning here, but enjoying it lots! HowardBerry 01:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TenOfAllTrades. Thank you for supporting my RfA! I am honored to have your endoresment and hope to make good use of the mop. Sango123 01:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed, as occurs elsewhere, that you and some other editors voted to merge the article. To me this implies the same thing that I and Nobs voted for, deleting the article and merging the content with Harry Magdoff. Is it implicit in the administrator's mind who finalizes this Vfd that merge and delete in this case mean the same thing as far as establishing consensus? --TJive 02:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have the same question, what is the timeframe that all votes must be counted at

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff and when does the next action occur? nobs 20:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I was actually basing the block mostly on the Lim Bo Seng edit. The revert on Relativistic mass was my error; I thought it was a deletion of a source instead of an addition of a bunch of ones - I'll revert that momentarily. The reason I gave the 1 week block is to get their attention. It's obviously a shared IP but it seems to be coming from a single school. Unfortunately, as I know far too well from my own schooldays (I'm back in Singapore), talking reasonably to these kids will only get you so far. Punitive measures will get their attention and hopefully there'll be discussion on that end how to police themselves (that is why I invited the administrators/teachers to get in touch with me). The 1 week block is not, in my view, unreasonable, considering the types of edits that have been emerging from that IP, and after that, we'll see. My position is to let the block stand, and see where it gets us from there. --

03:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about collatoral damage and actually do share them. I can only assure you that my threat towards an indefinite ban is simply to get their attention... for the moment. I will monitor the situation and act judiciously, I promise. Honest. --

khaosworks

03:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Snowspinner 04:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC

(anon's second-level headings moved to fourth level; remarks consolidated here to save space)

I agree that does sound good! I supose this will be removed and I'll be blocked too! 19:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Het tenofalltrades, why are you such a hater?

Personal attacks

You accused me of making personal attacks on your talk page, were did I do that?

I guess you just like to accuse people.

mover

I see ya like to move and remove peoples comments as you see fit

well

I see your deleting and moving stuff but still no proof that I personaly attacked you on your talk page, you should be removed

Thanks very much for the cooking tips! Throw out charred remains and fry up the pufferfish for dinner instead, huh? I've still got the pufferbish trophy safe on my userpage, it was a fine thought indeed! Had JRM rolling in the aisles, IIRC. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes one does not realize one is biting until the other person says they feel bitten. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ten. I just wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence in my RfA. I will not let you down! Thanks again. Redux 01:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I am still a novice when it comes to copyright, and I think I always be.

01:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've put a new 3RR violation listing up on

]

The nonsense continues.

The

04:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)