User talk:Wadewitz/Archive 22

Hi

I've been tinkering with this amazing free software package called

Here's what I want this image to do. I want to show how planets, comets, etc. move on ellipses and go faster when they come close to the gravitational center and slower when they're further away. That elliptical orbit should be the main focus, but I also want to show that the elliptical orbit is independent of the rotations of the planet and the central star. I want everything to be scrupulously accurate, in case any finicky physicist starts criticizing me for being sloppy. :P Last and maybe not least, I want people to say, "Oooooh, that looks cool! This must be an interesting article." :)

Right now, I'm not sure about the obvious rotation of the central star — is it too distracting? But any advice about colors, speed, lighting, or whatever would be very welcome. :) I've never really done anything aesthetic before, unless you count calligraphy, so I'm clueless about how to make pictures look good. Willow (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Butting in - came to see the reply above and this caught my eye - first off WOW! This looks great. Second, here are some suggestions. I would lose the rotation of the star - it is distracting (draws the eye) and my guess is that it is not to (time) scale (i.e. if this were the earth and sun, the orbit takes a year for the earth and the sun takes about 25-34 days to rotate, so does the star in the figure rotate about 12 times in one orbit of the planet?). Also, since the planet does not rotate, that makes the figure inconsistent. I also wondered about adding some sort of speed indicator to the figure - perhaps a red line that got longer as the speed increased and shorter as it decreased. This could be on a scale marked max and min and would perhaps make it clearer when the planet was fastest in its orbit. The star also looks flat compared to the more spherical appearance of the planet - not sure if the satr could be yellower and its surface could glow (like embers - not expressing this clearly). Or maybe a solar flare or two? Anyway, I just want to finish by saying that this is really nice work, hope this helps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Um, am I really dense, or does the orbit "line" look like a circle rather than an ellipse? I guess I'm a little confused. Also, what do you think about two little dots showing the two "foci" (or whatever they are called) of the ellipse?

The star is centered on the left focus, and the other focus is placed symmetrically at the right. I didn't want to show anything there, though, since nothing more is needed to produce an elliptical orbit. Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• So, ellipses aren't defined by two foci? They are defined by one asymmetrical focus? I must be losing my mind.
  talk
  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, that surprised me, too! I first learned about the string-from-two-foci definition, but you can also define an ellipse using an equation relating its distance and angle from a single focus. There are other definitions, too, e.g., as a conic section, an algebraic equation in its x and y coordinates, or something involving the ratio of distances to a directrix line. There are even fifty million definitions of a circle, too. :) Just so it's clear, the second focus is still there geometrically; it's just that I don't need to put any gravitating matter there to make the planet move on an ellipse; Newton's laws do it with matter at just one focus! :) Willow (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• The faster as it approaches gravitational center is definitely clear. My question would be: are the speeds relative or are they just arbitrary for the cool animation? If they are just arbitrary, that should be in the caption. I found myself saying - in my uninformed way - "wow, that star is spinning really fast compared to the orbiting speed of the planet".

The relationship of the speeds was indeed arbitrary; the spin of the star wouldn't affect the speed of the planet in its orbit, I think, if it were really spherical and general relativity isn't being counted. Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• So, I guess you need an asterisk linking to the GR article. :)
  talk
  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• How come the planet isn't spinning, too?

Umm, because I said so? ;) The Moon always shows the same face to the Earth, and so it is here with the planet and its sun. You might imagine the sun has entrained its planet to always look at it, as a king might demand that his retainers never turn their backs to him. ;) Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I thought about the moon, but then I thought about the earth, which does twirl. Why is that, by the way? Why does the moon not rotate around an axis, but the earth does? See me display my ignorance for the world to see.
  talk
  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  I should find time to provide wikilinks, but this is such a nice question that I cannot resist to pose an answer. The rotation of the moon has become gravitationally locked to the earth because of the sea. The moon is what causes the tides: it pulls on the earth and the sea to create a bulge in the ocean which rotates around the earth causing high and low tides, and tidal currents. But every action has an opposite reaction, and this reaction has pulled on the moon and caused its rotation around its axis to match almost exactly its rotation around the earth, so that we always see the same side. The earth's rotation is also affected by the sun (hence the need for "leap seconds") but the affect is much much smaller, and the earth is not going to be gravitationally locked to the sun for a very very long time. Geometry guy 01:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• What do you think about making the star yellow? I know this is lame, but stars are usually thought of as yellow in the popular imagination and planets as "earth tones".

A completely brilliant suggestion. :) My "star" looked more like a Moon, didn't it? All homage to Selene, Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I hope these comments aren't too picky. I think it looks very good and definitely gets the idea across. Certainly, any article with animation is going to attract attention! (So, how can I add animation to
  talk
  20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You could do a fading slide-show, like those Qxz ads? But that might distract from your brilliant and compelling prose. :) Willow (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• We really weren't chatting over IRC or anything and colluding behind the scenes on our comments. :)
  talk
  20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have never even been on IRC. I am also not sure how I avoided an edit conflict - when I started the above there was no other reply, when I finished mine was wedged in between the original and Awadewit's. I am also stumped on animating Jane Austen - Wuthering Heights in semaphor (a la Monty Python) might work though. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are brilliant suggestions! It never occurred to me to make the star yellow (sheepish grin), although the bluish planet reminds me of water with clouds or maybe dry land. I removed the spin of the sun (which rotated six times per orbit), and made the orbit yellowish as well; I think the blue-orange-complementary-color thing works pretty well, don't you? I was sorry to see my beloved pink go (you probably didn't see the article in Glamour this month, did you?) but it looks much better this way. :) I tried but I can't seem to make the sun look more three-dimensional, or make any cool solar flares. :( But in my next animation, I promise to make the water boil off as the planet approaches too close to the sun. ;)

Should I add back some spin to the planet or the sun? The picture looks a little static to me now, but maybe I'm just used to the old image. I can make them spin as many times as you like per orbit, but it would be better if it were a divisor of 80 and relatively small, like, maybe, 5 rotations per orbit? Willow (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I liked the spinning - I just think they should both spin, since the little planet looks like the earth, but that's me being stuck on the details of representation and not properly imagining the "spherical cow".
  talk
  21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blender also lets you tinker with perspective; is this an improvement? It shows the dark side a little better, and might be a good basis for adding the spin back in, so that you could see the planet rotating. I could have it spin at an angle, like the Earth does! :)

I could also add a velocity vector per

• Yes, it is: take a ring and look at it from an angle and you will see an ellipse. Similarly, an ellipse looks more elliptical from an angle. Willow has been asking me about these images too: they are great aren't they? In answer to Willow, I would say that the sun is too big. Also, even in the slanted image, it should be centered on the one of the foci of the ellipse. But I love the way the planet gets bigger when it is closer! Geometry guy 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy! :) I made the sun a little smaller and set the planet spinning; do you all think it looks better? I didn't want to make the sun too small, because the center of mass needs to be very close to the center of the sun, since I didn't want to have the sun rotating about the common center of mass, per the two-body problem. Finicky physicists might object otherwise. ;) Willow (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to make the information about (and provide a remedy for) the left-image blockquote dealie, I've created a new template called {{

• The size of the left-margin should be selected based on the size of the accompanying image. - Is there any specific ratio? Should the blockquote always be x pixels away from the image, for example?

• No, ratios won't work here. Such a thing is achieved in CSS with percentages, and due to readers' widely varying screen-widths, what might work for one user will be gruesome for another. (Sort of like how one person had such a big problem with that timeline a while back? I don't remember any specifics but perhaps my vague reference will ring a bell.) And while yes, the blockquote should always be about 10 pixels away from the image, that leads us to the next point.
• As I re-read the instructions on the template, I think I figured out what you were asking. (Apologies if I'm wrong here.) The number in the template should always be 30 pixels more than the width of the image. Sorry for the confusion! – Scartol • Tok 14:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• A specific size is suggested for the image code, since a properly-formatted blockquote for one user's default image thumbnail size will look awkward or even vanish if another user has selected a smaller default. - I'm not totally sure what this means - does it mean that the images need to be sized?

• Yeah, I wasn't sure how to word this, so I'll take another stab at it. As you know, the default for a thumbnail image is set by the user in his/her preferences. So as you can see in the example I made in my sandbox, the same setting for this template will produce different results for two different users with different default settings for thumbnail size. (Because the image is larger in Example Two, the blockquote isn't indented.)

• Therefore, each image used in conjunction with this template should have a specific size indicated. (And this is why it was so important to leave that image in the Boydell Gallery article unaltered.)

• Thanks for doing this pro-active, problem-solving Scartol!
  talk
  19:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback! =)

• By the way, does your template work for pages like
  talk
  07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, that won't be a problem. You simply need to apply the template before each blockquote; it does exactly the same thing as the code inserted into the <blockquote> tag. – Scartol • Tok 14:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent choice, I think. I applaud and salute you!--Filll (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it seemed natural after
  talk
  08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to peer review

Probably an educated adult who hasn't taken physics in college. Or possibly a knowledgable high school student. Otherwise I was expecting that the wikilinks would be used to fill in knowledge blanks. I did try to avoid formulae and heavy physics jargon. Does that sound reasonable? I think a vital article should probably address a wide audience.—RJH (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since that is me, I won't have to pretend to be anyone else. :) I read popular science books, but I don't have any science training. A perfect lay reader to test the page on.

talk

20:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have a way to access this document, do you? – Scartol • Tok 19:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Emailed to you just now.
  talk
  20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Belatedly, I've added the material I mentioned earlier concerning individual reactions to Austen's books upon their publication. My little bit of ivory is wider than promised - seven sentences rather than "two to four." However, the number could be reduced by one through judicious use of a semi-colon ;) and I wouldn't feel martyred if Honan's juicy reaction to Lady Vernon's comment, or both comment and reaction, were removed. I believe this is a useful addition to an article on reception, dealing with what ordinary (rich) people (as opposed to critics, who are neither rich nor ordinary) thought. What do you think? Simmaren (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I might tweak some sentences and add a transition to the next paragraph, but this is good. It adds life to the article. :)
  talk
  00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, each and every quotation needs a citation immediately after it.
  talk
  01:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll add the individual sentence citations tomorrow. Thanks. Simmaren (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll check Fanny Imlay in a day or two (I have been keeping a vague watch on your edits: amazing how that Polygon picture blows up). As for Mary Shelley, I think we should perhaps start by discussing the possible headings and proportions, so that we don't end up overstuffing the thing. We might need to separate responsibilities a little. I break out in a cold sweat when I think of the film stuff, because I don't watch films (I think I did see Young Frankenstein and laughed about once). qp10qp (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whenever the FI fancy strikes you - it is not urgent, obviously. I think your MS plan sounds good. Do you want to discuss MS on a userpage here, over email, or some other way? My solution to the film stuff: Frankenstein has been made into a film X times. :) I am envisioning a "Mary Shelley in popular culture" or "Frankenstein in popular culture" page that we don't necessarily have to write. This is what we are going to do with
  talk
  00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hey. I just stumbled onto this conversation while poking around. If you want a scholarly review of Frankenstein films, go to the popular culture section of the Frankenstein page rather than the Frankenstein in popular culture page. It has better stuff (and it was written by me :) ). Anyway, whether or not you use it doesn't matter to me, just thought you'd like to know better what's available to you. Wrad (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through everything at the peer review except standardizing refs and copy-editing stuff. Feel free to have another look. Wrad (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I will try to do this tomorrow or the day after.
  talk
  08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I had some thoughts on our next joint project, which I sent you by e-mail. Ta ta, Willow (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved, that's very clear. You're on the

The lead has been rewritten in a well intended effort to increase readability. The problem is; such a late game rewrite implies instability and I so don't need an edit war, nor do I want to reinforce anymore accusations of ownership, nor am I even certain the re-write is not better than the one we wrote. Could you take a look:I think this is the link. [1] It would be great if you say --- wow that's really good --- are at worse can tweak a few lines and make it so. They don't realize that I was just a "ghost writer". I get jumpy when they are changing your stuff... it is never about my ego.--Random Replicator (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh Even my attempts at humor merely inflamed the situation.--Random Replicator (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to strike the right tone. I hope I helped focus the discussion.

talk

05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I told them to wait on the goddess of the written word ... that was a joke. You are an angel ... that is not a joke. My suggestion was reverting to the original "Awadewit approved version"; take the new one, drop it in a sand box and address "The List". This will allow edits without implied instability. We may ask for another look over; for the green check. If no one is passionate enough over the re-write to do that; then I'm screaming for a revert. Again thanks. --Random Replicator (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you come back and take a look. Also please see the talk page. We have two contributors going in two directions, and we both could be wrong. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TableManners (talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Posted comments.
  talk
  05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time, your comments and your suggestions. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I tried to incorporate your changes, so you might want to take one more pass, if you're still willing. Also, could you comment on the use of the term creature in the article. Thanks again. TableManners^C·U·T 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to rush things, so how about I wait until tomorrow?

talk

06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article does seem to be unstable, so why not wait for some stability. TableManners^C·U·T 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I get told to get lost, now I get invited to what? To get told to get lost again so someone can have fun pointing out what a complete idiot I am? I'm not that gullible. Please take your nasty jokes to some other location. I was only interested in the article. --

Please

assume good faith, Amaltheus. Behave on Wikipedia as you would do in real life, and maintain a level of etiquette. Not everyone's playing a vicious joke on you, so please keep your good faith in mind. — DarkFalls ^talk

08:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith when asked why I bothered to post to a discussion of the lead section of the article? What is the good faith in this? Being told I'm not wanted as a participant, then being given an invitation? Having the editors discuss me and make snide remarks, including an administrator, on their talk pages about me for over a week? What good faith should I have seen in this week of nasty remarks, in being told to go away, then invited to participate in what I've been told to leave? How dumb do you think I am? Don't reply here or on my talk page. I'm done with being fed lines like this, "Assume good faith, Amaltheus." Then people come to my talk page and tell me to cut it out? After putting up with over a week of being poked and jabbed and mocked all over Wikipedia? No, there's no good faith involved here. It is simply viciousness of an extreme nature to bait me to continue allowing myself to be mocked and derided. The article needs a ton of work. The editors would rather play nasty games on me. --

Amaltheus (talk

) 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence/diffs of the mocking? — DarkFalls ^talk 08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we under peer review yet? Where should I look to follow the proceedings? The "Talk" page of the article? Simmaren (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Timeline of Jane Austen

Thanks for the (thoughtful and generous) change from "assisted" to "with." Given the gross disproportion of our work on TofJA, I thought the change should be your to make. Simmaren (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I think we are in all of these pages together and we shouldn't quibble over the "proper" level of attribution!
  talk
  17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you got the table figured out. They can be very annoying; one little thing off = the whole thing goes kablooie! – Scartol • Tok 00:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything's done. I went over all your stuff at the Peer Review. Finetooth just went over the refs, fixed a bunch of MOS issues, and did a copyedit. I'd be curious to see what you think now. Wrad (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll try to do this today or tomorrow, like I said above.
  talk
  22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh! Wow. I couldn't even find my old post. Anyway, it's just getting better and better, so no worries. Wrad (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing, but it might be sooner. I'll just drop you a note. Wrad (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk

Here's one from left field, one which combines astronomy with all sorts of odd cultural refs......any help or comments on Sirius much appreciated as I am working it up to FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to have regretfully pass on this one. I love astronomy articles, but I am just swamped with on-wiki-work and off-wiki-work at this moment. Perhaps the next time around? `
  talk

As one of the main authors of the Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, a fairly recently promoted FL, could you spare a few moments to take a look it this FLC, Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester?

I'm not asking for your support, or because I think that you will support, only for your honest opinion, as the article is being opposed on the basis of the referencing system used and its use of percentage width tables. Both of which I see are used in the Wollstonecraft article, quite properly in my view. --

• Done - seems like we agree.
  talk
  05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to learn how to program Wikipedia bots and make one that will periodically – every two weeks or so – put a note on your talk page to say: "Congratulations on your latest Featured Article!" In the unlikely event that two weeks go by without an FA, I'll add a disclaimer at the bottom: "If this is an error and you haven't successfully brought an article to FA status recently, please disregard this notice."

Seriously, though, congrats. I'd give you a barnstar for all your magnificent work, but it seems silly at this point. So have a donut instead. Mmmm, FA. – Scartol • Tok 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scartol. It's just too much work to periodically count the two separate columns of FAs on Awadewit's user page, checking for ones that weren't there last time you checked, all so that you can offer up the standard treacly comment about how awesome she is, yadda yadda, can't wait to see the next one(s), etc. etc. I mean, honestly, where does one find the time? :) Congrats x 2! María (habla conmigo) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto on the congratulations - I was going to be a gadfly and make an edit to Analytical Review, but found I did not have to. In place of a long poem, bot or donut, please accept this haiku (the poetry for those who can only count syllables): Awadewit shines / brighter than her eighteen stars, / makes Wiki better. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! You guys are so nice!

talk

03:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At last. I was trying to repay your kindness, but you gave me a still finer gift, of getting to know him. Aunque esté muda debo hablar, Willow (talk

) 03:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This offer is extremely helpful. The review would be in your debt. You might start with

) 09:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

talk

) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

I've summarized (beginning with Summarizing, because there is an entire talk page archive ... ) and tried to calm things at the end of the FAC page, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution. It certainly got out of hand while Raul and I were busy. I'd hate to see ill will prevail; would you consider wading back in and looking at the few remaining items summarized now at the end of the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I just saw your break notice. Sorry :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't noticed that. (I'm used to you having the "I'm going to work on my dissertation so I'm only going to send 5 articles to FAC this week" banner.) Hope nothing's amiss. Hugs n stuff. – Scartol • Tok 22:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You're back! You might want to review the note I just left at User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and more; additional complications that might have been avoided through rigorous application of AGF and civility early on (of the type we routinely engage in with difficult editors on the autism-related articles). The current dilemma is who can uncomplicate the matter ... TimVickers could cut through it all in a second, but I don't blame him for choosing not to. Thanks for the feedback! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and am having some trouble with some of the editors on the Nancy Reagan article. As you mentioned during the early peer review of this article, many of the items are written in a Non NPOV.

I have cited many sources and offered many solutions to minor details in the article to improve it's viewpoint (on the Nancy Reagan discussion page), but four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions., despite multiple reasonable requests and many many reliable cited sources.

I have begun the appeal process but the same three editors acted in the same way, and I don't know how to move forward to make the changes necessary. Can you PLEASE PLEASE review my comments on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and PLEASE PLEASE help?

Thank you in advance so very much for your cooperation.

207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This IP is canvassing, I can't recall the last time I edited Reagan, and someone should tell IP that Tvoz is an Obama supporter has far more edits to Obama and other politician's article than Reagan :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia has made numerous edits regarding the Nancy Reagan and that discussion page of recent. Further, it is not relevant to which articles Tvoz has multiple edits nor is it appropriate for SandyGeorgia to attempt to decline bias in the Nancy reagan article because of this fact. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to enter this debate right now - sorry.

talk

20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)