User:Jarcanist/Archive6

cite news
Hi. I reverted your page move of news reference. We need to have both the old and the new cite news if we want to change the parameter names. See what we have done on book reference → cite book. We need to do the same on news reference → cite news. Sorry. This was my fault. I shouldn't have used the term "move". It is rather a migrate. Once we agree on how the new template looks, we can deprecate the old news reference and remove the "in development" notice on cite news. I will then convert the calls on the articles by using WP:AWB. Please wait with removing the development notice on cite news. Once this is done, the template is released into the wilderness of the articles and incompatible param changes are no longer possible. We should give some more time to others. Maybe there are more ideas what to change on the params. Once we start converting, there is no way back. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

UPP revert
It's not about suffrage. Broken's notes just made it clear which editors were newer. It does not discount their "votes". NSL E (T+C) at 04:35 UTC (2006-03-09)


 * What's the point of listing which users are newer if other than to discount them? I think that's disingenuous. If the case was to show how "old" a given user was, why not do it for all users, or rank them by age? That's kind of silly. ... aa:talk 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Newer users may have stumbled across the poll from, say, the Signpost, and taken part in it without knowing the wider repercussions. Broekn just notes that they're newer, and may be misinformed/uninformed over the subject. Whether their "votes" are counted or not isn't affected by that. NSL E  (T+C) at 04:41 UTC (2006-03-09)


 * So why mention it at all? If their votes are counted, there's no disclaimer required. So far I haven't heard any reason not to revert it. ... aa:talk 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
 (cyde sends thanks for voting on his rfa) 05:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting discussion
Count me in. Does Esperanza vote as a bloc, take policy positions, etc? StrangerInParadise 08:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You miss my point. What I'm getting at here is that voting blocs happen as a factor of voting in general. I think that can be proven without doubt. I haven't looked into it, but I would imagine there are lots of sources of information about voting community dynamics. Finding them shouldn't be too hard. What I was getting at with that link was that it happens here in other places in innocuous fashions. It happens on IRC, and it happens on WP:ANB. Some places are "okay" for recruiting votes, and others are not. If we come up with a list of recent instances where that happened, we can point out the fallacy that "vote stuffing" is a problem. I think the primary problem is not vote stuffing, but the fact that there are so many places for discussion that nobody can be aware of all of them (RSS would help!). Take a recent example (which I am admittedly a part of). See Talk:Leet (language). There is a vote being held there. Did you know about it? If I weren't watching the page, would I know about it? Am I interested in it? You betcha. I wasn't watching that page a week ago. Now, if somebody comes to me and says hey, come vote, that's not vote-stacking. But the mechanism is the same.


 * I think people use the term "vote stacking" when they're unhappy that more people have been brought into a discussion than they'd like. I think that's inherently A Very Bad Thing.


 * I think also that informing people of a vote (even asking them to vote one way or another) is not harmful. To say that it is harmful is to say that people who are informed are incapable of making a decision that they would have made, had you not informed them.


 * I also think you're spot-on with jury pools. I doubt it will ever be implemented (it's a pain in the ass, software wise). However, I think the discussion will draw parallels between our voting system and voting systems in general. (for example, voting blocs happen. they're not evil. not telling people about votes is evil)


 * thoughts? ... aa:talk 08:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't miss the point, just wondered if there was another. I think Esperanza might be an example of how neutral news of a vote can diseminate through a community and affect an outcome by thus selecting participants. I have said this about template:cent, #wikipedia, etc. When you look at the non-individual announcements of UPP, you see inherent biases. All but the last two bear the implicit message, "this is a good and right thing to support", all say nothing of adverse consequences. Especially on WP:Userboxes, this is misleading: the subtext is, nothing to be done, jimbo's weighed in, accept the inevitable by userifying. Further, these were the primary means of bringing people to the poll, apart from word-of-mouth. It would be interesting to add to this list of known announcements.
 * (on WP:Userboxes) A proposed policy on userboxes has been created to help decide what should be considered acceptable for userboxes. Your input is appreciated. It has also been proposed to migrate some userbox templates to the user namespace. Some have already begun this process and you may wish to do the same for your userboxes. [no mention of poll!]
 * (on WP:Proposed policy on userboxes)There is an ongoing poll about an almost identical policy in Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll
 * (on WP:Current Surveys) An attempt to end the userbox wars.
 * (on Template:Cent) Userbox policy (voting)
 * (on WP:PUMP (policy)) Userbox policy This is a policy proposal onn userboxes, developed by Pathoschild from an original by Doc glasgow. It picked up quite a lot of favorable comments in Pathoschild's userspace and so after discussion I've moved it to WP:UBP (which believe it or not hasn't actually had any concrete proposals on the main page for weeks)
 * (on WP:PUMP (policy)) An End to the Userbox WArs? In case anyone missed it, a poll opened at Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll which, I think, stands a chance at ending the bloodshed. Current tally is 26 yay and 4 nay (not that it is a vote or anything).
 * (on #wikipedia header) [generic announcement, text now gone]
 * (on four cannabis-related talk pages and WP:Deliriants, with an announcement of a new userbox User pro-cannabis) New Pro-cannabis userbox...also, consider weighing in on Userbox policy poll. Stand up and be counted while you still can.

StrangerInParadise 10:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know no one is actually asking for my opinion here, but I’d like to add that this "nothing to be done" message was very concrete. See, for example, this comment at "Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Religion". (See also the hopeless reply by user:Tcorp.) --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] pois não? 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve
On the FourthAve's talk page, under the heading 'Tony' you wrote, "It can be difficult to interact with others here, but please try to be more civil. Thanks. ... aa:talk 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)." Maybe it was supposed to be addressed to FourthAve, because I don't see any incivility on Tony's part, at least not on that page. Especially with reference to what FourthAve left for Tony. - Jaysus Chris 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why it was on fourthave 's talk page. Was I unclear? ... aa:talk 00:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Jaysus Chris 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My first impression was when reading your request for more civility was that you were telling Tony to be more civil. Especially since it was in its own section.  I think if you had titled it something else I may not have been given the impression that Tony was the one you were asking to be more civil.  And reading through that, I didn't see where Tony was being uncivil.  What I saw was that Tony was being polite but firm in warning FourthAve about the consequences of vandalizing articles.  FourthAve has ignored all prior warnings and continues to make regular personal attacks and continues to vandalize articles, so at this stage in the game a firm hand is needed in dealing with him.
 * JesseG 07:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am surprised this has produced such tumult. I watch Tony's talk page. I saw the user being a dick, and warned him about it. Why is this so incredibly hard to understand? ... aa:talk 19:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your asking another user to try to work in a more civil way with others. All I am saying is that have a section header named Tony followed by this request could give the impression that you were asking Tony to be more civil.
 * JesseG 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Funky
The funky template does pretty cool stuff, actually. The template itself allows for quick, easy, and very easily modified "for X, see Y" stuff. Saves a bit of time. Do you have any problems with it? (Besides redundancy, which I'm pretty danged sure does not apply--I searched and could not find a template that does what Funky does...) As for naming it "funky"... well, why not? ... In any case, happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 00:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yo, thanks
Thanks for helping me.-- ) Slipknot222 23:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty ? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Point shooting
I've got clashing opinions on the point shooting page, and while I'm trying to mediate as best I can, the two editors in question have a long history of clashing over this particular issue. They're also both good sources of information, so I'm trying to avoid annoying either one any more than necessary, but this might escalate into something requiring administrative action. Since you seem to be more familiar with the adminstration of Wikipedia than I am, I thought you might be able to take a look and provide some input. scot 16:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will have a look. I've got some errands to run today, so I will have a chance to look early this week.


 * If you like, we can discuss via email. Sometimes public discussions can get pretty ugly. And as far as requiring administrative actions, There is WP:3O and WP:TINMC. Both are very informal. One level up from that would be WP:RFC, which is "non binding" but definitely more public, and more likely to hurt feelings and bruise egos. What you really want to avoid is WP:RFAR, as that usually winds up being punitive.


 * Also, I'm not exactly flattered by your saying I'm more familiar with the administration of wikipedia :(. I try to stay as far away from it as possible. But I understand what you're saying. ... aa:talk 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well the claim of adminnocence doesn't fly too well when the entry directly above this is an "thanks" on an RfA support...me, I'd be hard pressed to name any admin.


 * As for point shooting, I think I've got User::Roundeyesamurai happy with my last edit, so we'll see how User:5shot weighs in, and with luck, I'll have everything resolved. And when I'm done I can fly to Israel and start mediating between the Palestinians and the Israelis :)  scot 19:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

comments on my talk
Not sure what you're talking about regarding my "recent use of vandalism" or "community justice" considering I've been out of town since Thursday. Furthermore, out of my last 100 edits, only one has used the word or abbreviation for vandalism, my last one before I left town. While it wasn't vandalism by itself and yes, was probably just a test, that particular test has been entered multiple times by multiple users and in very poor form, and it's been established as nothing but cruft. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW this is in reference to this diff

Also a quick view of my contribs will show I've never used the words "community justice". Are you sure you were posting on the right page? &rArr;  SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is in reference to this diff


 * Nevermind, I see now what you're talking about. That was a User Talk Template for "incivility" that I left on there. The CJ thing is included in part of the template, I have no idea why it is there. However, the template was a response to his uncivil and condescending tone in his talk space edits. &rArr;   SWAT  Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! &mdash;akghetto talk 07:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your introduction
To answer your question concerning "JFSOC": brief: never heard of it... (MARK S. 08:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Japanese Leet
I've rearranged and tried to organize some of the article. Tell me what you think and give me any suggestions you might have.--ikiroid | (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That is terrific work. Thank you so much for cleaning that up. ... aa:talk 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Do you know any sources or references that I can add?--ikiroid | (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no. Finding sources for the english variety is hard enough. I'm not even sure how to begin finding sources for the Japanese strains. Is there anything I can do to help? ... aa:talk 02:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ever read the Megatokyo webcomic? It's set in Tokyo, the author is, I belive, at least moderately fluent in Japanese, and Largo, one of the main characters, speaks almost entirely in English 1337.  The forums might be a place to look to find people who could help...  scot 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, we could recruit some people to help us, but we need them to give us good resources. Just asking some schmo from a forum to throw a plethora of factoids at the article constitutes as original research.--ikiroid | (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm following your advice now
Since you told me the main article on Care Bears needed to be a featured article instead of CBMII, I've put it up for a possible Article Improvement Drive and then a peer review. If you go at the AID page, you can find my candidacy there. Right now, I'm doing everything I can to get that page made. --Slgrandson 03:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you restate or clarify that last sentence a little? ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean, I'll do my best to improve the page on Care Bears. Wish me luck, anyway! --Slgrandson 00:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Joint Forces Command
Check following link and you will get an answer to your question. And sorry, I misunderstood you last time. I thought you were asking something about the Joint Special Operations Command, which is a component of the SOCOM but has nothing to do with the JFCOM.


 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/jfcom.htm

(JFCOM)

 * Atlantic Fleet
 * Marine Forces Atlantic
 * Air Combat Command
 * Joint Reserve Unit
 * Special Operations Command-Joint Forces Command
 * U.S. Forces Azores
 * Iceland Defense Force
 * JTF-6


 * (MARK S. 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

USS Freedom picture
Hi Avriette,

you relicensed Image:LittoralCombatShip-ArtistsRendering.jpg as fair use. Why in your opinion this picture ist not US-GOV-PD. Is it the line Artist concept provided to the U.S. Navy courtesy Lockheed Martin Corporation? It's also on this website, which as any military page states: All information on this site is public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Hi need to know cause i wish to use the picture on german wikipedia an we only allow free pictures. thanks --Schlendrian 09:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Think about it this way. I can give the navy permission to use an image I created, but that does not make it public domain. I still retain copyright. In this case, Lockheed furnished the image. It was their artist, their rendition, and their copyright. The Navy is publishing it with permission. We are publishing it as promotional material of Lockheeds, and thus fair use. Does that make sense? ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 12:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * sure it makes sense, and i see you are right, if cited source is http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=14435 (what it is on en:). But (just theoretically, i will not upload the image to commons or german Wp) if you just look at official Navy LCS homepage you had no hint the picture is not in the public domain, right? --Schlendrian 14:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that there are multiple images (Lockheed and GD) indicates to me that the images came out of the proposal phase. The navy doesn't draw a ship, hand it to a vendor, and say "build this." They sketch out requirements and a contract framework, go to the vendor, and say "show us what you'd build." Then diagrams like this get produced. Also, if you have time, look at http://www.army.mil/fcs/. There's a lot of nice video and pictures there, in addition to whitepapers, etc. While the Army does have a big marketing department, they don't have the necessary people to make huge 12-minute long starwars animations. Boeing does. They did it for the army, but it was still Boeing personnel.


 * Nobody requires Lockheed to put their name on that photo. And I would be the Army doesn't want them to. But I strongly believe that's a lmco drawing. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 18:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks. Kind of hard to distinguish if they state information on this site is public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified but don't cite correctly. Whatever, i see it's most likely not PD --Schlendrian 19:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
I've submitted the pages on Care Bears and their first movie to peer review, so I'm asking you to look at both articles and tell me what can be done further to improve them. I am intent on making both of them featured articles very soon.

At least you suggested I work as such on the main C.B. article. But anyway, wish me luck! --Slgrandson 04:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re : no consensus
I did a count again, 28 votes with 18 keep. The majority is 65% which falls a bit short of a consensus (which is usually 70% and above). No worries though, this is purely acadmic as AfDs with no consensus defaults to a keep. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

your thoughts
The Military history project wants to help clean up United States Army as it's WAY over length. I've done some of the work putting it into main/sub article format, but would appreciate if you'd check my work (per se), and possibly hit the rank insignia section (that would take a HUGE chunk out of it). Thanks &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Farewell for now...
If you didn't know yet, I'm going to Barbados in less than thirty minutes. I won't be with you Wikipedians for the next six days...so wish me luck on that Green Card!

This message to you serves as my final edit until I come back to Dominica. So for now, it's goodbye, farewell...and Amen. --Slgrandson 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am getting set to leave for New York City by 11 o'clock. I won't be with you Wikipedians until tomorrow morning. After clearing my user page, my next edits will be based in America.

So long...and thanks for all the fish. Bye! --Slgrandson 10:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Small comment on Proto's RfA
Hi,

I was surprised to see you comment, "Self-deprecation is unbecoming" in this RfA. Your opinion is yours to cherish, of course, but given that we have agreed quite firmly in the past (over out-of-process admin actions), I thought you should take a look at my userpage. I embrace self-deprecation with gusto, and consider it an asset in my quest to practice constant humility. I suppose my point to you is that you should realize how wildly divergent people's views on this topic can be, so that you don't quickly discount an otherwise fine editor for reasons of personal style. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dig, friend. I wasn't, however, suggesting we should agree, only that you might wish to evaluate why (for what reasons) we disagree, evaluate your investment in these, and keep that mind for future reference.  If you can be "almost offended" by a polite request to consider each others differences, we do have diametrically-opposed world-views.  Partly my mistake, but rest assured that the "almost offended" bit is completely mutual, and I will avoid contact with you assiduously in future. Xoloz 22:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you weigh in on the infobox at Cannabis (drug)
I say it is inapropriate and inaccurate, Rory069 insists it should be there, and reverts my attempts to remove it. Discussion is here. Could you please weigh in. -SM 11:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to vandal warning toolbox
I hope you're finding the warning toolbox useful. I've made a few minor changes to it that you might want to be aware of. --Kbh3rd talk 20:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:K02850.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:K02850.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Teahupoo page move
Hi. I´m against the move you made. Wikipedia guidelines (not policies :-) states that article names should strive to be closest to the thing a reader would type in the search box. I can´t see someone typing Teahupoo, Tahiti too many times... Location names are appended with country or city names only when there is another location with the same name, for example see New York, Rio de Janeiro and many others. I think Teahupoo, Tahiti will increase the burden on wikipedia because it will increase redirects either because wikipedians are more likely to link to Teahupoo instead of Teahupoo, Tahiti and because users will certainly type Teahupoo on the search box, only to be redirect to Teahupoo, Tahiti. It may seem a small burden, but we should avoid redirects whenever possible because taken collectivelly they are really a big waste of time and resources. If you have any arguments to sustain the move, please let me know them, because I´m considering moving the page back to Teahupoo. Regards Loudenvier 15:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For contrast, see:


 * 1) Kihei, Hawaii
 * 2) Paia, Hawaii
 * 3) Peahi, Hawaii (home of Jaws (beach))
 * 4) Hana, Hawaii


 * I moved Teahupoo to Teahupoo, Tahiti because it made sense in light of many of the other small cities I had seen recently -- Island cities at that. Presently, if somebody searches for "teahupoo" they Get The Right Thing. Where is this convention addressed in the MOS or elsewhere? ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 16:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I´ve compiled a very (very) small list to exemplify my disagreement with the move. People will get REDIRECT correctly to the page they sought, but REDIRECTS should be avoided whenever possible. I never said people would not be able to find the article by typing Teahupoo alone in the search box, it is the fact that this will generate a redirect that annoys me. It is an unecessary burden on the mediawiki engine that can be avoided easlily in this case. Regards Loudenvier 17:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was basing my arguments on Naming_conventions (see places), Naming conventions (places), Naming conventions (city names), it´s stated everywhere that we should strive for the shortest name whenever possible (i.e.: no disambiguation will be needed). Regards Loudenvier 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Usmc m40a1 green camo.jpg
Do you have a link to the page?--Sanandros 19:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA Notification
Hello! I noticed that you have interacted with User:MJCdetroit who is currently undergoing an RfA and thought that you might be interested in participating at Requests_for_adminship/MJCdetroit. You have received this message without the endorsement of the candidate involved, and this is not a solicitation of support, it is only an effort to make RfA discussions better (for more information see user:ShortJason/Publicity). Thank you in advance for your participation. ShortJason 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : but i don't wanna
You can critique the 1FA all you want, I'm open to suggestions, but please, no personal attacks. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I thought your concerns would ask for an answer, so here it is. The introduction of this criteria, although not perfect, is to focus less on duration and editcountist on Wikipedia. No minimum count or duration required. None. And I do give exceptions (see the 1FA page) to long-standing Wikipedians who have contributed in other aspects. Yes, getting an article to be featured is not easy, which is why just one featured article is all this is needed to fulfill my criteria. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Leftfield
Hi,

I see you added a quote from The Crystal Method on Leftfield and was wondering if you could provide the source for the quote (I'm planning at some point to properly reference the entire article once I'm done on Fluke). Thanks, Martin Hinks 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The source is here, although you'll need iTunes to view the quote. If you want to expand the crystal method stuff, i have images of both members of the band that can be free-licensable. They're currently creative commons on flickr, but i can certainly rerelease them as gfdl since i took them. :) ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 19:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if I get enough time in the future I might look at the Crystal Method. My current list of bands to work on goes; Fluke, Leftfield, Overseer and then The Crystal Method. So much for real work then hrhr :) Thanks very much for the source, I've noted it so I can use it when I get around to doing the article. Martin Hinks 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Seems to me
It does seem that way doesn't it. And it doesn't help when I spend 12-15 hours editing straight and have 4 hours a sleep a day. — <font color="CD2626">The King <font color="CD2626">of Kings  21:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Head, Hawaii
One of the pictures on the Diamond Head, Hawaii article is up for nomination to become a featured picture! You can see the picture. Please add a supporting vote on its nomination page here or, more specifically,, if you feel it's worthy. Thanks for your help! Cathryn 16:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of birth for Mary Ann Cohen
Hello, can you please provide your source for Mary Ann Cohen's date of birth? An anonymous editor (who vandalized a user page the next day) changed it slightly, but I couldn't locate a source for either date. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I had mistaken her birth date for Mary Cohen, who is her mother. Neither date, as far as I can tell, are correct. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Leet
Hi Avriette! I see things have changed a bit over in the Leet article. Just dropped by to say hello and find out how you're doing. Dreadlocke 05:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm writing a book, so most of my efforts are directed there right now. Thank you for asking, though. As regards Leet, I no longer watch it or edit it. Netoholic "won" the mediation. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 14:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome! What kind of book are you writing?  I wasn't aware of more mediation between you and Neto.  From what I see, he didn't win much.  He hasn't edited leet since March 20th, and he's not looking too well in his other disputes.  Leet now has an infobox, and a lot of other editors appear to be making things happen there.  Glad to hear you've got a good project going! My best to you. Dreadlocke 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to discuss the contents of the book other than to say that it is fiction, contemporary fiction, and is not a "happy" book. See Against a Dark Background and Woken Furies. Both are very, very dark, violent, paramilitary novels. I also maintain a weblog, where I imagine progress reports will go:
 * http://advogato.org/person/avriettea/ is being moved to the below
 * http://innenin.blogspot.com/
 * Feel free to say hello by email as well. I'm mostly at the computer and on aim (see the "find me" page), but wiki contributions are going to be a bit less. As I said, though, I'm doing research for the book on the Wikipedia (for things like exotic alloys and weapons design and so on). As I do that, I'll be correcting mistakes and adding new content where appropriate. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More on leet
Okay, so it's been a few months, and a several thousand edits since I really spent some time on the leet article, and I finally traced the big change (that I'm not so happy with, but I assume you have your reasons) back to you Avriette's big change on the leet page. You reference this talk entry. The main reason I went on this hunt was with regards to the history of the language. I have always understood that it (and remember *someone* retell the story) came to get past BBS filters. I think that that might be verifiable, but admittedly, I don't have any references to cite. But I notice that the replacement "forming exclusive cliques" doesn't have any verifiable information either. Why was that preferred in your version? McKay 07:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't talk to me about that article. User:Netoholic maintains it now. He bought it. ... <span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">aa:talk 22:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

IDF service
What point are you trying to make by saying he served "compulsorily"? That he was reluctantly drafted? This clearly was not the case, since he served in an elite unit, as his obituary makes clear. One must volunteer, and, in fact, compete to be in an elite unit. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * His obituary specifically states he served in an "elite unit", so it must be important. You have no evidence that he was compulsorily induced into the army, and his obituary doesn't state he was either. Serving in the army was (and often still is) considered a privilege in Israel; the analogy with Viet Nam is way off, and stating that it is seems like POV pushing. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

When did Shahak join the army, and when did that law come into effect? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Saying he served "compulsorily" is original research at best. On the other hand, saying he served in an "elite unit" is a simple and properly sourced fact. And it must be an important one, since his Guardian obituary specifically states it: After Israeli army service in an elite regiment etc. If it wasn't significant, why would they have put it in? Obituaries are brief, they only put in the most important facts. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RSTA
There's a guy who just recently came onto the Talk:C4ISTAR page and wants to merge it with RSTA, ISTAR and Surveillance and Target Acquisition all into one article. This is one of the things you and I had discussed and rejected earlier in the year: as ISTAR and C4ISTAR are doctrinal and RSTA and STA refer to both tactics and organizational units. A merge would be ridiculous and just be a combination of two disparate topics into one article. The collective talk for this is on Talk:C4ISTAR and I'd like you to weigh in. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)