User talk:Avb/Archive1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Avb/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I could get hooked on this you know... AvB 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could. It's called Wikipediholicism and I'm a patient. But it's great fun. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I know how to be a patient ~:-) AvB ÷ talk 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparatively new here and haven't participated in any debate here before, so if this isn't formatted right, I'm sorry.

I am becoming severely irritated at what I have added about the science-fiction/Asperger thing being removed as supposedly anti-Aspie. I am not, having both ADHD and a lesser case of AS myself, and with a son similarly afflicted.

I am anti-cultural bigotry. There is a long, established history of science fiction being regarded as "that crazy Buck Rogers stuff", with a similar lack of regard for those who read it. This whole "that explains the science fiction weirdos -- they all have a personality deficit disorder" attitude is a slam which stains anyone who is a fan of the genre, and it is NOT "neutral point of view" to let a bigotry, even one held by a professional in the field, go unremarked-upon. Try substituting some other group for Star Trek fans in Attwood's remark, like Jews or blacks or Democrats, and see if it still sounds harmless.

Davidkevin 23:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the compromise I proposed on the Asperger syndrome discussion page where you also posted the above, and my response on your Talk page.  AvB ÷ talk 03:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my edit summary was too brief; I hope I got the citations you asked for. —James S. 11:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christian friend,

I saw you on the list of Christian Wikipedians and wanted to let you know about something. The other day, someone nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion! They include a Christian university list of people (not unlike 68 other lists like it)[1], presidents of universities, and authors of many books.

Since that time, people have been voting. Please take this message as a call to vote; not a call to vote a certain way. I respect you and your ability to come, read the entry, and make a wise decision. In other words, I’m not vote stacking or campaigning; simply letting you know something that you’d probably like to know.

By the way, my friend recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ. If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see the site!

Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_DeYoung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Morey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Pack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mal_Couch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice

God bless you, Wiggins2 06:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general I do not like this type of canvassing but I have to say that the two articles I checked out (Mike Randall and Thomas Ice) are definitely keepers. While I do not agree with quite a few of their particular insights, these people are clearly notable. I don't have much time right now but if I can, I will add some refs to my Thomas Ice Keep vote and perhaps look over the other AfDs. AvB ÷ talk 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you too want to be involved in making Wikipedia a better place. God bless you, --Jason Gastrich 20:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the Christian user template on my user page into the subst version in order to prevent the above form of canvassing. AvB ÷ talk 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like your version much better. Thank you. I've implemented the changes you've suggested. - WarriorScribe 16:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<smile> AvB ÷ talk 09:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... thanks for fixing a typo on my user page! Can't believe I didn't see it! Cheers... Mikkerpikker ... 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... maybe from a certain other, ahem, issue you may be worried I pick fights? I don't. I have to be (repeatedly) provoked into one. I'm actually just... critiquing? I'm out of my depth in regards to Korea so probably all I have to offer is some critique and let someone more knowledgable mull it over. So what I've posted is probably the extent of my involvement with that article. Mark K. Bilbo 20:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not worried about you at all. But if I'm right, the editor is unaware of basic policies and may well be at a loss regarding what's happening. And he may feel protective since he wrote it. Treading lightly might be best in this case. AvB ÷ talk 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are formally requested to refrain from further threats, harrassment, wikistalking, manipulative postings, and abuse of Wikipedia process. Stay out of my Talk page. Don't write to me. Don't impose your agenda on my edits or articles. LEAVE ME ALONE, please.

Don't write to me again, don't bother to reply, just leave me alone. This is the only posting I will make to your Talk page, as I don't want to appear to be guilty, even falsely, of what you're doing to me.

I tell you three times, leave me alone.

Davidkevin 01:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reported here:

User:Davidkevin - please see diff, diff, diff. AvB ÷ talk 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the text User:Davidkevin is adding. I can see why you were uneasy about it, as stated it is strongly POV. I have had a go at balancing it at Tony Attwood, please see what you think. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avb, redirects usually aren't placed in categories. The article it's pointing to already exists in those categories. Appleseed (Talk) 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avb -- Thanks for fixing my careless typos on the Louisiana Baptist University article. I'll try to be more careful! Crunch 14:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I firmly believe there can be a NPOV version of this article that everyone will be happy with, but maybe I'm idealistic! Crunch 15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new Wiki4Christ just broke the 3RR rule at Louisiana Baptist University.Arbustoo 03:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment as you've been taking a bit of a "beating" lately... I find you very reasonable and quite easy to work with. And I tell people up front, I know I'm hard to get along with! Then again, if you can't get along with the Dutch, you can't get along with anybody. <grin>

I know that's overly broad but--at least so far--everybody I've met (online or offline) that's from the Netherlands has been a great example of what I understand is a national ideal of tolerance. Of the countries in Europe, were I to move, the Netherlands would be near or at the top of a very short list. I admire your country and hope you folks stick to your ideals even in the face of recent trouble with radicals who take advantage of the openness and tolerance.

(Not to mention, my state and country has a lot we could learn from your country about levees and protection against storm surges. I live just outside New Orleans which city is a definite example we aren't doing so well on that particular front.)

In an abrupt change of topic, I was diagnosed (turns out, incorrectly so but we didn't find that out for some time) with CFS/FMS. My mother also is believed to have FMS. That stuff could drive you crazy. Even though it now appears that's not what's going on with me, what is happening shares a great deal in terms of symptoms. It's not fun. Not at all. Definitely, don't let the Wiki stress you out. It's not worth the "flare ups." Mark K. Bilbo 16:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits. I note you changed the adjective form of the topic of 'Epidemiology' from 'Epidemiological' to 'Epidemiologic', are you sure ? Usually similar nouns ending in '-y' would form an adjective of '-ical' (eg haematological, pathological, psychological). I'll await you comments before editing back. David Ruben ^Talk 14:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at your talk page. AvB ÷ talk

As one interested in CFS, have you had a look at Simon Wessely? This was the cause of a bitter campaign of personal attacks against me by the One Click group (see [2]), because I don't know enough about the subject to document anything more than is said about him by the sources I thought trustworthy (specifically excluding some highly inflammatory sufferers' groups). As one knowledgable on the subject but not directly involved in the UK perspective, you might be just the person to take an independent view, because I know less than squat about it other than what I've read in trying to keep this on track. JFW is also involved, more expert than me. A view of the paper by Prins et. al. in the Lancet might also be handy. Thanks, Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey man,

It's the bloke who made the edit in aspergers saying that bill gates Has aspergers. First of all, sorry for not providing references, but at the time I made the edit, I was reading an old Essay I'd obtained from the Aspergers Syndrome Support Network in Queensland, Australia, but Since I'm reading a physical Copy of the Paper, I can't exactly link you up, can I? So, the obligatory googling, and I've come up with the following Two Papers From Aspar.

"*Outstanding special abilities, sometimes "genius".

Many of our greatest scientists, engineers, mathematicians and inventors may belong on the Autistic Spectrum -including Lord Cavendish, Nikolai Tesla, Paul Erdos, Jeremy Bentham, Bill Gates

   *Outstanding competence and reliability in areas of special interest

   *Able to act independantly of group pressure to follow own goals"

Aspar - What is AS?

"...The media overflow with stories about "The Ascendancy of the Nerd"; how suddenly it's "Cool to be a Nerd" ; how the Nerds and Geeks, the technocrats if you like, are now amongst the most successful people on the planet. You've only got to look at Bill Gates and Steve Spielberg, who might easily have been diagnosed with AS if they were at school age today. And possibly with detrimental results: imagine if they had been weaned from their single-minded obsessions by a persuasive teacher of social skills!..."

No Longer "Fair Game" - Human Rights for Nerds Wierdos and OddBalls

Sorry I could not provide More internet Resorces, but all the resorces I have are Dead Tree editions, and since they ain't exactly commonly availible texts, so you can't quite take a walk down to the library and snag them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.229.20 (talk • contribs) .

Answered on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said you have limited time for this so can I just express my abiding gratitude for your help. This article has been a thorn in my flesh since day one and it's a great relief to have a few more eyes on it. I guess that between you, Suzy and JFW we probably have a good balance of views, and far better informed than I ever was. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to a paper in Jan 2006 issue, Journal Psych Med. I have the site up but cannot locate - would appreciate a URL or further details for access, please. Thanks. MEagenda 08:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avb, below is my response to Eliezer. I believe it is the only solution that will work.85.65.219.226 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However I removed the caveat tag to try to come to a compromise. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not much of a compromise when none of the blatant factual inaccuracies raised in section 23, 25, 29 and 30 of this discussion have been addressed. Anybody who does even the slightest research into most "facts" in this article will find them to be embarrassingly wrong and unfair to Messianic Judaism. Whenever somebody tries even the smallest adjustments to make this article unbiased and accurate, Eliezer rejects their changes and threatens to block them. I am more than willing to retain the services of a Conservative Jewish scholar who teaches at an accredited university. His expertise includes Messianic Judaism. Allow him to write an objective article that gives a neutral point of veiw. Then we should lock his version of the article against vandalism. Can we agree to that as a true compromise? 85.65.219.226 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a project to produce a medical textbook, with restricted authorship, recently we got to [Lyme disease]. I missed the lecture on Lyme that ran nearby on Monday, alas, but I know at least one contributor got to it, so something from the forthcoming new UK guidelines may be available soon. Midgley 17:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit. GWO

I would like to inform about the Arbitration request concerning the long discussion on Talk:Dutch language.

[The link to the Arbitration request will follow soon, as I have to inform you before posting] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_Sander_on_Talk:Dutch_language Sander 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping into a good article! Thanks for the copyedit. Dwaipayanc always comes up with medical gems for articles! -- Samir (the scope) 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting that we discuss how to edit accreditation info for the U of N on the Talk:University of the Nations page. Good thought and I'm all for it. 82.33.116.35

He doesn't have his e-mail turned on though :/. I left a message at the RfArb though, I'm sure someone has his e-mail and will let him know. --Ben 07:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just zis Guy, you know? Just zis Guy you know? 09:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Fasten 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but here's another invitation...

I invite you to take a look at Christianity Knowledge Base and join our project!

Thanks!!! 70.30.57.80 06:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't revert it to another version due to the protection policy, which actually states "please do not ask for it to be protected in some other version than it currently is".--Commander Keane 08:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To try and resolve the problem with the redirect that everyone is going on about I unprotected it, and thus removed it from the list of protected pages.--Commander Keane 09:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Survey 2. You explained that you don't think Roman Catholic Church should be renamed or moved to Catholic Church. But that is not what the survey was asking. The survey was asking whether there should be a disambig or a redirect at Catholic Church. For months now, there has been a redirect with no complaints. --Hyphen5 12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and your good faith attempt to engage this controversy. The reason I am getting annoyed is that some editors are trying to preempt the vote -- that you and I both voted in -- by changing Catholic Church from a redirect (as it has been for months) to a disambig (which is the subject of the vote!). In any event, if you read WP:NC(CN), Wikipedia:Naming conflict, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), I think you will find that our policies require us to go by the "most common usage" of the term. The most common usage of Catholic Church refers to that Church of which the Pope is head. We had an extensive, very repetitive debate about this at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church. I believe the rules require us to have Roman Catholic Church moved to Catholic Church, maybe with a disambiguation link at the top. But that has been voted down now, and now they are even trying to muddy the waters even further, in my view. The point is: the overwhelming majority of people who type "Catholic Church" are looking for info on that Church of which the Pope is head. Right? --Hyphen5 16:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept your offer to resolve the problem through IRC.I will need your nickname/username for that though. Sander 14:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am online and in the server you pointed out to me, for an hour and from 11.00 till 13.00 (Dutch time) tomorrow. Sander 20:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In chat now. Sander 08:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My nick is Sander2 Sander 09:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't contact you today (2-4-2006) I started a new article (Military history of the Netherlands) and I really got dragged away, I'm sure you know the feeling.

Now, I would like to continue our conversation, but there are problems.I want to keep working on the article to make it toonbaar as soon as possible, so I'll most likely will not be able to have a long conversation with you like we had saturday ago (which I'd prefer) during the week.I have family obligations commin Sunday and will be leaving for a 5day field trip to Germany later that day.The only free day I have to continue seems to be commin saturday. Is that okay with you, so that we can determin a specific time? Sander 21:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got about one hour to track down references for your citation needed points on the creation-evolution controversy page. Please check it out. --ScienceApologist 04:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback please. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved here. AvB ÷ talk 22:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for link. Now I see what is wrong with this table. You have right. I use in Opera mode fit to window width and that is problem. Please when you know how to make this table more readable just help.

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that,

I was actually referring to that pages source for reference, and had several windows open. I thought I was editing my own page, but low and behold I edited the Wikipedia page. Sorry! User:65.151.223.21

Hey, no problem, I'll remove the warning.

You may want to create an account. It has several advantages, such as having your own user name. If you are logged in to an account, you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~). You can do so now but then your IP number will appear in the edit. If you want to, here is the link. AvB ÷ talk 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Newsletter

Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [3].

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going that edit I made earlier was valid. The quote actually was hey bubs are you watching that documentary on Saskatchewans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.206.102 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, some vandal fighting gone awry, sorry about that. AvB ÷ talk 00:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have a message on my talk page saying I vandalised the Mitsubishi Eclipse article. I don't know if this message was auto-inserted as a result of a spam tag on my user page, or if you misread the situation, but allow me to explain.

User:68.101.64.76 has been repeatedly adding a link to his car club (Florida Eclipse Club) to the external links section. As it is a very small (>70 members), very regional club, in existence for less than two months, and because he has never added any actual content, I removed this link. Before doing so, I left messages in Talk:Mitsubishi Eclipse and User Talk:68.101.64.76. Eventually, because he did not respond and repeatedly restored his links, I sent an e-mail to the owner of the site. Since then, he has been deleting content on my talk page and elsewhere, affixed a "spam4" tag to my talk page in two positions, and continued to spam his link.

I'm glad a third party is now involved in this, to give further assistance and mediation. I'm trying to leave a paper trail on User:DeLarge detailing everything, but his reverts are making things difficult.

Thanks -- DeLarge 07:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your intervention in the matter. I think it would help greatly to have a third party mediating and would appreciate if you could communicate with him, since I'm worried User:68.101.64.76 feels it is a personal vendetta I'm waging.

I'll go to the abuse report section too. Thanks again for all your assistance. -- DeLarge 08:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert on my userpage! It is much appreciated. --TeaDrinker 00:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted a paragraph deletion of Temporal Cold War, probably as part of RC patrol. I appreciate your efforts and I understand how you could misidentify the edit, but there is a legitimate debate on inclusion of that paragraph ongoing on the Talk page. Deletions by editors disagreeing with its inclusion have now been reverted several times without comment on the content. If you feel the paragraph should be included, feel free to join the discussion on the Talk page. --MikeJ9919 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've tried RC patrol once or twice, but my sanity couldn't take it. The least I can do is point things out when I believe you've accidentally run awry.--MikeJ9919 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

his story is not true, and to put a false story in an "encyclopedia" where one goes to for FACTS...is WRONG. It needs to be stopped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.96.207 (talk • contribs) .

you sent the same msg? i didnt even change anything.

UGH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.96.207 (talk • contribs) .

Dear AvB, I really appreciate your support during my recent successful request for adminship. Look forward to working with you more on the encyclopedia. Feel free to pop around WP:GI if you're bored. Take care -- Samir धर्म 06:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the suspected sock puppet cose of Yaron1: Just like to update you on it, and that I have created a checkuser to be performed on both accounts. You might like to comment on the request for checkuser page, but no additional comment is actually required from you. Thanks. Iolakana|^(talk) 15:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AvB

Please look at my new response in the Discussion section

Yaron, June 24, 2006

Hi AvB

Thank you for your reply but I feel that you have ignored most of my arguments. Please look at my response to your response.

Thanks, Yaron, June 24, 2006

Thanks for your help. I'm not quite sure how I got sucked into the article. As I mentioned on the Talk page, I just kind of stumbled onto the page and decided to wade into NPOVing it. Somehow I got somewhat personally attached to it, and I think Yaron and some others may have thus chosen to disregard my opinions to some extent. While a few other editors expressed support, your involvement (which has produced a version more sparing than my original preference, but which I agree with in terms of policy conformance) as a true outside opinion seems to have made a real difference. Thanks again.--MikeJ9919 23:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted an anon edit to User:Brian G. Crawford; while I don't have a checkuser to back it up, there's strong evidence that this is Brian editing while logged out (both 63.23.13.190 and 63.23.71.90 come from the same place) as he is currently blocked. It seems unnecessary to remove his valedictory farewell quote :) Ziggurat 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I didn't mean to be confrontational about the edit, so please excuse me if it came across as rude! I was acting under the assumption that you were reverting it for being an anon edit to another user's page, whereas the situation looked a bit more complex. Nevertheless, it seems unnecessary overkill to revert one edit (of several made by the same anon, others retained) where it's in the nature of an otherwise inoffensive 'farewell' comment. I wouldn't personally characterise it as sockpuppetry, as even blocked users are typically able to edit their user pages unless the pages are protected. (Additionally, the term is usually applied to accounts rather than anon edits.) It also doesn't appear to be divisive, but I won't do any further reverting if you disagree on that count. All the best, Ziggurat 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look familiar? I gave Papacha a heads-up, and I thought you might want to know, but beyond that, I'm staying out of this one.--MikeJ9919 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]