User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive05

This page is an archive of talk page comments for the months of August and September 2005.

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

Please take a look on the introduction: "This page is intended as a tool and an archive of such anti-Polish bias. It is by no means an attack page directed at any single user or a group. It is not a personal attack. It should not be treated as such - it is simply a collection of quotes from various talk/discussion pages. We are not responsible for the creation of those quotes, we simply archive them here."--Witkacy 11:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but it was already blanked by Witkacy. Halibutt 15:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I had missed that. There still remains one copy, however. Let me ask you point blank—do you believe it is likely to result in productive discussion? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion about the Black Book - and in my opinion and of most Polish users, the BB is useful and necessary.--Witkacy 21:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for exterminating vandalism on my user page! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TenOfAllTrades--

I'm wondering if I could get your advice on handling a slightly ambiguous situation. Let me give you a little background first.

There has been a rash of modifications to film-related articles to link to the "American Film Foundation" . Most recently, they have been done by JaimeyWB . Before that, they have been done by an anonyomous IP.

For example, on July 23, a user from IP 67.101.217.126 revised the William Goldman article to include the text To those within the industry, he is "the most observant, knowledgeable and intuitive screenwriter in the business." In an on-camera interview, Goldman applies his brutally honest perspective to his industry and in analyzing his screenplay for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. This edit was removed as spam. User JaimeyWB then inserted the text Goldman speaks candidly about his writing process in American Film Foundation's series Screenwriters: Words into Motion into the body of the article, and an a link to the American Film Foundation into the "External Links" segment.

Other examples: spammed Tom Hanks article spammed Robert MacNeil article spammed Peter Norton article spammed Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy article spammed Ray Bradbury article

After cleaning up the spammed articles, I left a polite note on JaimeyWB's user page asking him to stop spamming. He replied on my web page and that of the other user who echoed my request claiming that he was not spamming, and that "My understanding, and that of my wife (Designmotif), is that because their work is considerably valuable we have created the appropriate internal pages about them and their remarkable films because much of Wikipedia is lacking in information about them. "

Note that he is using the third person here to refer to the AFF. Interestingly, the anonymous IP who added the previous IP spam (often using the same words that JaimeyWB is using) referred to the AFF in the first person, saying "In writing a blurb about the person or subject we citied the external work which is the film. This is in keeping with the policy. Some of it is verbatim from AFF's site, which we approve for use on Wikipedia, but now we are getting things removed for Copyright viiolations, but there doesn't seem to be a way to approve the copyright use." (Emphasis added.) It seems rather likely to me that JaimeyWB is the same anonymous IP who indicated a participation in the AFF with that "we," and that he has now started using the third person to sound more objective.

In any case, after leaving the note on my page, JaimeyWB went back and added the deleted American Film Foundation text to all the articles I had removed it from.

So, why am I bothering you with all this lengthy background? For three reasons. First, you've always struck me as a thoughtful and sane guy, and I want to do a quick sanity check on my own behavior by making sure that you agree with me about the inappropriateness of JaimeyWB's behavior. Second, assuming you agree with me, I was wondering if you could contact JaimeyWB via his talk page and ask him to stop; perhaps an explanation from a Wikipedia admin would help convince him that this behavior is inappropriate. And third, if that doesn't alter JaimeyWB's behavior, I'm wondering if you could advise me on what the next step is. I've put a request on the spam blacklist discussion page to conside blocking links to the American Film Foundation, but on reflection, I'm really not sure that's the best approach, especially since such links occasionally are appropriate (as for example in the Maya Lin article.) Best wishes,

— Stevey7788 (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake - you didn't completely support the unblocking. Next time I'll be more careful when reading opinions. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be a TenOfAllTrades but I am a Queen King Ace of all trades. I outrank you.

Thanks.

Redwolf24 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you have some issues with Louis Epstein before, so I thought I'd invite you to comment on the RfC I've set up. He's crossed the line into edit warring over the em-dash thing. — Phil Welch 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving that one. Coqsportif 02:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the indulgence; I saw someone call me a saint there! (While suggesting I be crucified/stone instead of burnt at the stake, admittedly.) I saw the thing about the AOL template; I have my days where I want to try out a range block, often on AOL (I'd also like to block a few ranges in Glasgow, Kentucky. If you need any help with the AOL whackjob, let me know. -- Essjay · Talk 03:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, only the good die young. :) I'll have to remember to run through the "what links here" for the AOL template to look for out-of-range IP addresses; that's how I found most of the misplaced ones the first time around. I'm hoping that the vandal got bored and went away, because it's a bit of a pain to pick up after. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These removals that you call spurious are actually not helping - when I edit in AOL the "You have new messages" appears very frequently - since in most cases you change IP's when you change from one page to another - If I am in the mode I click the "new messages" link and add {{subst:AOL}} since I am viewing the page that generated the message from the IP that is the subject of the message and since I am viewing through AOL - it is clearly an AOL IP address. It is helpful to know which is which - i.e. which IP's are used by multiple users as opposed to a single user. Then you know whether the messages on the talk page apply or not. Hope that explanation was helpful 152.163.100.132 05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that some other AOL user was using the AOL template on no-AOL IP's so revert away - one of us AOL wikipedians will revert back if it is a real AOL IP. 152.163.100.132 05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our internal list of AOL IP address ranges probably needs updating again, and I might have been a bit hasty in removing some of the AOL templates added by apparently malicious users. (Looking through my edits, it seems I inadvertantly removed an AOL template from at least one 64.12.0.0/16 block address.) The vast majority of those addresses don't resolve to AOL addresses, however.

NP re the inadvertant removal - there were plenty of real vandals - thanks for the vandal fighting. 152.163.100.132 11:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have you considered getting yourself a user account? You wouldn't have to worry about messages to anonymous IPs, then. ;) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly just ignore all the User talk page stuff on AOL IP's - there are pro's and cons for each - right now I find the anonymity more attractive. 152.163.100.132 11:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calton is a recovering alcoholic, and I'm trying to steer him away from temptation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

And you're a slanderous, interfering, tone-deaf busybody who should stick his nose elsewhere. Everyking is a big boy -- or is supposed to be -- and he should damn well be willing to taste his own medicine. Save your mindless application of "evenhandness" for the encounter group meetings at your local coffee bar. --Calton | Talk 06:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Calling someone an alcoholic is a "gentle rebuke"? "Tone-deaf" applies, in spades. --Calton | Talk 06:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ten, I think an apology is also due from Calton for the above. Quite abusive. Coqsportif 09:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop patronizing me. Radiant_>|< 00:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• That would be the troll-related incident on AN/I. Radiant_>|< 18:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

You're listed at User:Redwolf24/Friends. Go remove yourself if you see fit ;) Redwolf24 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was a {{logo}} one; the guidelines are at http://www.disciples.org/CM/chalice.htm. I tagged it, so there shouldn't be any more confusion. Thanks for catching it, and thanks for the congrats. By the way, what caused you to be checking images on my page? (Just curious.) -- Essjay · Talk 06:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's gotten to be a bad habit of mine. I saw the link to the

Disciples of Christ, skimmed the article out of curiosity, then checked the logo after I read its description. I've been on a bit of an image attribution binge, trying to get tags on all the pictures that I run across. Believe me, I haven't felt any need to go through your Upload Log looking for untagged images—I'm assuming that the chalice was a one-off slip. (The same cannot be said for some other editors....) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, just curious; I was afraid there was a "stalk Essjay" project somewhere (you know, a lot of new admins are getting quasi-stalked lately!) Wikipedia:WikiProject Stalk-Essjay Now you've made me self-conscious, so I'm going to have to comb through my upload log looking for untagged images! -- Essjay · Talk 19:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link for Human physiology at

Thanks for reverting my userpage. --BaronLarf 02:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your comment at the noticeboard. I didn't know if it was appropriate for me (a non-admin) to respond there, so came here instead. Your idea has obvious merit. It would as you say, force new users to make a couple hundred productive edits before they were allowed an opportunity to vandalize, or otherwise despoil the content. But I feel that such a scheme would go against the whole "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" mandate. There seems to be a great deal of discussion concerning the "exclusivity" of certain WP functions as it is. Having said this, I feel your idea would go far to elliviate the seemingly mundane task of following these problem users from trainwreck to trainwreck. Maybe a note to one of the developers, or to Jimbo Himself would shed some light on this proposition. Thanks for your time, keep up the good work! Hamster Sandwich 21:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ten: Took care of your linkspammer. If the links show up again, I'll block for 3RR. Just don't revert again, I don't want to have to listen to "But you didn't block him!" even though I think your reversions fall under the vandalism exception. Now, back to work! -- Essjay · Talk 03:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Because I'm the Pope! You absolved me of my WikiSins over the Jimbo stalker, so I thought it'd be nice to make you a Cardinal in return. Just like JPII, I appoint my buddies to the College. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 03:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! You showed support for

Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ

00:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

He hadn't read the book, and was only play wiki-lawyer for the sake of disruption. His first header is false, and could easily mislead future editors, while his second header was just a copy-paste from Wikipedia:ANI. I don't see why either should remain on the Talk page. Shem^(talk) 22:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. Shem^(talk) 22:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The smileys are from an open source instant messaging package. I have corrected the tags and provided links to the specific source. They do not appear to be a copyright problem now that the tags are correct. Dragons flight 14:44, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I'm trying to show some people off my friends list a new society, somewhat similar to

...Peppering their encyclopedia entry with breathless, self-congratulatory praise and multiple hyperlinks back to their online store,...

LOL! I wish we could have kept your editorial... Owen× ☎ 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep--I wish I could have left it, but I would have felt guilty about it. It felt good to write, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your header so much that I blatantly stole the code. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I (obviously) stole the code from Wikiproject Babel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and than you very much for your reblocking of Witkacy. A support from an neutral admin is very helpful here. Hopefully Witkacy learns from this block. Happy editing! -- Chris 73 Talk 15:42, September 3, 2005 (UTC).

Also: Cool headers on User:TenOfAllTrades/header! I really like the "adm

1" and the "sci 3". These should be made official. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the Doppelganger policy more fully. I knew it would be a longshot for a vandal to figure out the password, but my thought was better safe than sorry. Also, thanks for taking care of User:Psyguy for me. Psy guy ^(talk) 04:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I saw that Essjay was out of his office, and I didn't want to see you left hanging. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And again! Redwolf24 (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for arbitration. You are invted to comment. Susvolans ⇔ 17:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but Witkacy (talk · contribs) came back, removing lots of double naming again. I have blocked him, this time for 48 hours. I would be happy if you could check the block. thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 14:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

.... We're less likely to get caught doing it, since many Wikipedia mirrors only copy and redistribute the articles without their associated Talk pages...but it really is something that should be avoided. Thanks for your reply. I guess that means it's technically a no-no. Is it worth bothering with, in your opinion? (I hope you don't feel like I'm pressing you on this; I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and a little insecure regarding etiquette.) S. Neuman 15:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to press me on it; if I volunteer an opinion on a policy page, I should be prepared to follow up.

I would strongly recommend removing the article from the Talk page. Practically speaking, is there a reason why it would still need to be there? It can't take that long to squeeze all the useful juice out of it.

If our article uses the Times article as a source, be sure to

cite it in the article's References section. If there are things that people might want to verify later, you can leave selected quotes from the Times article on our article's Talk page—that would fit within the bounds of fair use, and probably serves just as well for the purposes of fact-checkers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that needed and appreciated guidance. (If I had the graphics know-how I would bestow upon your talk page a smiley face also.) S. Neuman 21:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Reading that made me feel much better :-) By the way, you've got an awesome username! --HappyCamper 18:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my RfA...I'll try to be good Lectonar 10:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Since I was so sure of myself in my RfA, I carefully reviewed all the voters, especially my critics to see if I missed anything; Your comments surprised me a little bit, but you are right that I should understand the 'unwritten rules' of how things are done here, which would show experience. On the other hand, if the rule is not written, but one that is written says the opposite, I will go with the written rule.

After all my criticisms from others for being so new, yes, I admit that I don't have as many edits as some "veterans," here --but this is not big deal: Admins (the "real" written rules) says, in salient part: "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community...."This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales." So, I just figured that I could help out more with a few extra powers.

First of all, I did not mean to insult you on misspelling Terri's name; I am not a great speller, lol, but I can do wonders with Microsoft "WORKS" (similar to "Word") word-processors. Now, you worry me with this quote: "...I am concerned that this editor might be tempted to use his admin abilities in disputes at Terry Schiavo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)" I admit the thought has crossed my mind, but it is against the rules for me to admin on a page where I edit -now will I obey the rules? Well, in spite of many heated arguments on a divisive page like Schiavo or other pages, I have never been blocked, banned, barred, booted, or whatever they do to bad guys.

Therefore, while not perfect, I am trustable; I came to wikipedia to help out -in this unpaid job. Yes, many others are more experienced than I and have more time to edit, but I want to not only help -but also make sure (even if I don't get admin this time) that you are not offended; The person is more important than the position, and I don't want to stress or offend you, the person. Lastly, regarding my post on the Village pump, I'm simply upset the prior concensus is tossed like a person who breaks a previously agreed upon and passed law -so what if the law was passed by a "slim" margin; It's still the law, but we must be flexible to meet the needs of editors and readers, I understand. In any case, I hope I addressed your concerns, and, again, thank you for taking the time to express your heartfelt concern and feedback.--GordonWatts 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, my concerns come back to a lack of experience with how Wikipedia works as a whole: not just the etched-in-(soft)-stone policy, but also the ways in which things are done and decisions reached. While adminship in principle and on paper is no big deal, a review of recent

requests for adminship

would suggest that the Wikipedia community treats it quite seriously.

Misunderstanding a fundamental Wikipedia concept like consensus as you've done in the Village Pump discussion suggests that you need more seasoning. FuelWagon's comments would seem to indicate that a lot more seasoning is needed. That you're still drawing an analogy between your speedy straw poll and 'law' even after a number of other editors have tried to explain how decision-making and consensus-building work doesn't allay my concerns.

It was perhaps poor timing, as well—requesting adminship immediately after asking a question about how to "enforce consensus" may lead some people to draw possibly unfair conclusions about your reason for desiring admin privileges.

Incidentally, why do you want admin privileges? Your answer to question 1 on the RfA is pretty thin: "See my comments above and extrapolate." Your contributions to date have focused almost exclusively on Schiavo-related material with little work in the broader wiki; it's not clear how you would use the admin tools in the future. Generally self-nominees for adminship are expected to be very clear in why they want the job. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed replied on both my talk page and here, 10 of All Trades; First, regarding concensus, yes, it was a rather hastily passed concensus with an eventual 4-3 vote, close and not a "clear concensus," but you must remember that that was SEVEN editors in total weighing in on one small (but apparently important) paragraph on one single page -not some "wiki-wide" policy; so, seven editors will just have to do, and I won the vote. I did not get down on that one guy who came in late and changed the vote count from 4-2 to 4-3, but I still won that vote, and yet the concensus (slim, admittedly) was later violated, and the traditional intro chunked!

"Incidentally, why do you want admin privileges?" Simply to be able to augment and extend my current ability to help my community; I am not perfect or super-Gordon, but I have not violated the trust and gotten barred, blocked, etc., -even in VERY contentious, divisive pages, like Schiavo, Abortion, Jesus, Christianity, etc. Yes, most (or all) of the recent RfA applicants have many more edits than I do, but I am a seasoned veteran. Yes, I’ve concentrated on Schiavo, but with over 200 distinct pages edited, I'm not "myopically" near-sighted on Schiavo as some have seen. Plus, I have not edited on more article than the some-odd-200 because I have "Real life" concerns, and that should also count for something as far as "diversity" goes. Your answer to question 1 on the RfA is pretty thin: "See my comments above and extrapolate." I admit that I could have looked on the little list and started ticking off more tools (like block, protect, or whatever), but the point is that I would use the tools in the same way you'd use extra power tools (screwdriver, saws, hammers, nails, etc) -to improve things. I'm sorry that I didn't name off a long list, but intentions are more important to me than wasting my time looking for all the right "key words." My work in the past, by most standards, has improved Wikipedia --AND done so in controversial areas WITHOUT AND disciplinary action -when others fall like flies.

From my page, you mention you should also take note the immediately preceding paragraph, which states that "...standards have become harder in practice." -yes, I saw that: I simply applied

Occam's Razor

and did not mention this unrelated matter. Unless and until the policy "officially" changes (which supercedes that "unwritten rule" caca), I stand by my assertion that I am qualified.

Re you concern of Good Faith: I assume good faith -but I am not stupid: When I see remarks like some of those, I also assume laziness and "going with the crowd" mentality. Humans can be quite creatures of "take the shortest path" habit.

Regarding the other admins' comments: Yes, I'm thankful for these resources -as far as chalking it up for experience; yes, but I'm not the only one who needs to learn a few lessons: Others so casually toss aside clear policy in favour of laziness and going with the crowd; allowing this trend to continue in the past has been instrumental in alienating and offending MANY users who have left in disgust: It is time for that to stop.--GordonWatts 05:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Loved your response on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Made me smile

Yeah...I probably shouldn't have done it, but I couldn't resist. When people ask us to do their homework and can't even be bothered to paraphrase the question so their attempt is less transparent... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I have a copywrite issue that I need either your or another administrator to look into. On September 1, I tagged Synergy/DE as a copyvio because it was directly copied from the company website and it smelled strongly like an ad. A few days later, the talk page got a response from a marketing rep saying they wrote the article and they are giving copywrite permsission. I also noticed that they left a message on the copyvio page asking that the copyvio tag be cleared. A few days ago, I got a message on my user page from the rep asking me to remove the copyvio tag and they'll improve the language so it doesn't sound like an ad. At this point, I don't think I have the authority to remove the tag even if I contact Wikipedia PR myself. Plus, letting a company marketing rep write an "unbiased" article about her own company has me a bit nervous anyway, so could you look into it for me? --Solarusdude 17:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your past analysis and feedback of my RfA -and, in the heat of things, I missed one point:

When I noticed that people are still posting to that page (??), I noticed that you misunderstood my statement about edit wars:

Yes, I did say they were normal for all pages -but I meant "once in a while," lol -not all the time.

I made a minor note of this below your post here on the last perma-link diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts&diff=23519711&oldid=23519501(I provided that because people are starting to get paranoid about my RfA and have locked both the RfA and its associated talk page -to try to squelch and silence me.

Even assuming I'm not qualified to be an Admin, what's the big deal about simply changing the policy to reflect the higher standards needed -I am criticized for trying to get editors to either follow policy -or change it --and if people don't like that, then maybe they need to change -not that I'm perfect, but I'm not wrong all the time.--GordonWatts 11:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you can help with this (you are both, a chemist and an administrator...) The sulfates category shows several

I'd do it myself, but it's not my drawing. I'll do the next best thing, though: here's a link, and here's a tag: {{PD-user-en|TenOfAllTrades}}

Cheers, --Joel 03:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Of course, you might want to take some credit for the image; you fixed my embarrassing missing oxygen atom. (Besides, since I released my version into the public domain, you're welcome to tag your update with whatever licence you wish.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have (unilatterly) taken away the 'assembly' idea, as per my reasons at that edit summary and per Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Charter. I have left the admin general, as some leadership is good. Now, all you have to do is be a member to establish consensus, the whole assembly idea is gone. Also, I have added an advisory committee, of four members, with limited power besides watching over the admin general and making sure he doesn't do anything stupid. Please look at the ammended charter, and I would love a comment. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Louis Epstein has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Louis Epstein/Evidence. Fred Bauder 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TenOfAllTrades. As you may or may not know, there have been some troubles with Esperanza. So now, as a last ditch to save the community, please vote at

]

Thanks!

Have a cookie! android79 has presented you with this token of appreciation for: Reverting vandalism on my user page.

Gee I'm sorry

Did you not read where the guy called me a nutjob on the edit page?--Lamrock 14:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His lapse in etiquette doesn't justify a response in kind; we expect a higher standard of behaviour from everyone. You're welcome to think nasty thoughts to yourself, but keep them off the wiki. I have asked Stirling to refrain from further such remarks as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]