User talk:Alai/Archive4

 Archive 1 - Archive 2 - Archive 3

LDS
Regarding Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... take a look at D&C 115 via the link provided. The official name of the Church includes "The" at the beginning of it. If the rest of the article is inconsistent, then we'd better go through and fix it. .....buuuut, I haven't gone through the talk page fully, and wanted to make sure there wasn't already a consensus made otherwise. Take a look and see what you think. I'm pretty sure that the official Church policy is to go by the name provided in scripture. Deadsalmon 05:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Moving it over to the article's talk page. Deadsalmon 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
Can you translate: " Mild but firm oppose as per Splash, et al. Will support any not-indecently-soon renom (no names, no pack drill), assuming the editor hasn't had any major personality meltdowns in the meantime. (Or falls asleep, and is eaten by the clown, obviously.) Alai 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) "

Thanks, Mike 19:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It dosent make any sense to me. Maybe your using words I've never heard of Mike 19:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * well basically you lost me "not-indecently-soon renom (no names, no pack drill) -- personality meltdowns in the meantime. (Or falls asleep, and is eaten by the clown, obviously." Mike 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, That did clear it up :) Mike 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Any chance I might persuade you to reconsider your opposition? Since I was nominated, I'd like it to pass. You seem to be principally concerned with the WP:AUTO guideline, and indeed I think this guideline has been frequently misapplied. However, it really is a guideline, analogous to WP:SIZE or the like, not a policy... the problem, to my mind, is that some editors act as if it is policy, and throw out rational judgement. For that matter, they refrain from reading the policy, which speaks of conditions where it's generally "wise to refrain" from autobiographical editing, but the guideline does not prohibit doing so (despite the widespread misreading or non-reading). Yeah... this is something I feel strongly about.

I certainly cannot in good faith make any recusal from editing David Mertz. I may well, in practice, not do so, since it doesn't look like there's going to be anything needing fixing, and it's watchlisted against vandalism by enough editors now. But the principle is just simply wrong, and winning adminship is not worth violating my principles, and more importantly, encyclopedic principles (though it seems pretty clear I could win some votes by telling an untrue sob story about how wrong I was to edit the page on me while conforming with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). That's not going to change with a couple months, or a year, or a decade: an unreflective ban on editors working on topics they are knowledgeable is just plain wrong.

On the other hand, I am absolutely and completely committed to upholding all of WP's policies, whether or not I am promoted to adminship. About half the oppose votes stem from my uncompromising insistence on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Insisting on this at controversial pages, frankly, wins "enemies" who wish to push particular POVs. If I only had an editing history at non-politicized topics, these complaints would not have occurred. But it happens that I am one of those editors who is "in the trenches" trying to obtain NPOV on "hot button" topics. I answer one of the nomination questions about this matter... it seems a bit wrong to me that editors who are experienced with resolving politicized articles to NPOV are de facto barred from adminship. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
...for your kind message. I'm a bit overwhelmed by it, myself! (Now I feel an awful sense of obligation: that many people supporting, I suppose I ought to move a little faster on reading cases! :-)) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent speedy of a stub type
Please see Deletion review where a speedy delete you performed is being challanged. DES (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo
Just to keep things in 'one' place, I replied on my talk page. -Splash talk 12:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

DRV and SFD discussions...
(copied from my talk page. DES (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)): ... both seem to be dying a death. If you're still of the view that the original deletion of the unused stub type is in want of "Some reason for speedy supplied", your "vote" would seem to be the telling one, and I'm wondering if I shouldn't just speedily undelete it, so that it can be very sloooowly re-deleted on SFD, otherwise the process is simply being drawn out yet longer. Alai 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I see this was a newly create (and never proposed) stub, rather than a formerly used one that was emptied via stub-sorting and/or expansion of stubs, I will withdraw my opposition at DRV and let this stay deelted, but I think we should be more carful and consistant in the future. I think that if a properly created and used stub type happens to become empty, it should not be subject to speedy deletion because of the possibility that more such stubs will come along. Thanks DES (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Baiting from a certain emergent double act
Sigh. Is there a name for it when someone loud and quasi-hysterical starts to agree with you? And does that mean that the initial concerns are, by definition, equally asinine? And2 is it just me or is it becoming increasingly acceptable to do or say whatever you want as long as you are "right"? I'm going to go have a Becks and a lie-down before someone else insane agrees with me. brenneman (t) (c) 02:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

replied to you on stfd
I replied on stub types for deletion.--Urthogie 17:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

wikibreak
I'm taking a wikibreak because of my midterms and my personal problems. Sorry if I;ve been grumpy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Competing blocks!
I see we've both blocked KDRG. I'm not too familiar with how competing blocks work; maybe your second one overrides my first, but I have a feeling that the shorter overrides the longer... William M. Connolley 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

& were there any doubt, edit comment removes it. William M. Connolley 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Hi... thanks re the UB's; they are there partly for fun and partly to show my side in the UB wars. No complaints so far... I was in NZ recently, they don't much like stoats there, introduced specias and all :-(. Meanwhile... I've left a comment re block length for Gibby on the 3RR page. Question for you: policy is still up-to-24h for 3RR; you gave 48, based on 3RR+civility; but I think I've noticed some 48+ blocks for repeated 3RR. If you're watching that... is policy developing, informally?

Re:RfC
I think if you'll look at the RfC draft and its talk page you'll see that we're in perfect agreement on this. - brenneman (t) (c)  06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of a Consensus
Alai, there was a consensus reached regarding the header/intro of Jonathan Sarfati which you reverted. Would you please respond in talk as to why you disagree with this consensus? agapetos_angel 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Helping on new articles
Hey Alai - because of the recent bad publicity for utter nonsense being put into new articles - I was wondering if you had any suggestions on where I could find a list somewhere to know where to start looking at newly created articles and seperating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak? thx Trödel&#149; talk 22:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx - Changes to that category where what I was thinking of - Trödel&#149; talk 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From Agapetos_angel
Thanks Alai. I may come on strong sometimes (that's my personality), but think that compromise and consensus (coupled with truth) is important. I've appreciated dealing with you, void of any personal attacks and bullying. Look for you in the future :) 08:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate that, although we have had difference of opinions in editing, that I appreciate your |Meatball:DefendEachOther. agapetos_angel 12:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Wow, you live in Ireland. I've never been -- just to Italy, where I was mesmerized by Pompeii and, as you can see, Herculaneum.

Thank you very, very much for welcoming me. I've been reading ALOT about the Wikipedia. I came to it because of my guilty pleasure, a comic book called Daredevil, and I was reading about it here and thought, well, why not? There's a teenager over there called GodzillaWax, though, who uses a lot of really ugly, vulgar language -- Beavis and Butthead stuff about oral sex and "Virgin Brigade balls dropping". I don't even like typing these things. I'm a woman who lives in New York City so I'm not shocked, just surprised and disappointed. I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds; I'm new here and I have to read the Policies and Guidelines, but is that the kind of discussion the usual thing? Your kind politeness is the only thing that has made me think so far that the Wikipedia is welcoming to women. Thank you again!!! -- Herculaneum 05:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! Thanks! Maybe I will! Thanks for being so nice! -- Herculaneum 00:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant
Why did you unblock user Chadbryant? As you can see from his history list, he has placed a sockpuppet accusation on well over 50 or more User accounts within a one-hour period. He has a suspected history of using sockpuppets over the last three days; however, when others have made their suspicions known on the accounts in question, he has erased them. Therefore he will place the sockpuppet accusation on User accounts at his whim, but others cannot do the same for him? At any rate, he does not have the authority to place the flag on ANY account, and it should be noted that he never places a warning of any kind on the talk pages of these users. He simply places the sockpuppet accusation. It clutters up the user page, is blatant vandalism, and he should not be allowed to get away with such devious and misanthropic behavior. --166.102.104.75 03:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bullying
I really am being bullied in the Cartesian materialism, Multiple drafts and Consciousness articles. I have not cut other people's changes but every time I offer any input I instantly get reverted by Alienus. Surely this cannot be Wikipedia practice? loxley 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Third parties often assume that whoever runs to them for help must be the victim. Some bullies, therefore, have learned to take advantage of this by bullying, then immediately running for help.
 * The reality, Loxley, is that you are the bully, and your sole purpose is to spread anti-Dennett POV wherever you go. In fact, you actually left an Edit Summary on your latest revert to Multiple drafts model, admitting that your goal was to insert an "explanation of why Multiple Drafts is not taught except as a curiosity".  Of course, multiple drafts is taught as a viable theory, though hardly an uncontroversial one, not a curiousity.  Calling it a curiosity is not only factually incorrect but reveals your bias.  In short, you are admitting that STATED GOAL of your change was to insert POV.  And when I fixed it, you immediately reverted your biased changes.  Now who's the bully?
 * I suggest you worry more about justifying your poison on the Talk page, not trying to turn admins against me. Go defend yourself where it matters. Alienus 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I have to put up with this?:

If you're going to act like an animal, I will treat you like one. In fact, I will train you like a dog. When we make changes to an article, we explain them in the Edit Summary comment. If you do not do so, I will not treat your changes as legitimate. If you change the text of an article, I will revert. If you speak in Talk, I will ignore. You will follow the rules or I will not deal with you. There is no reason for me to make special allowances for someone who refuses to  learn how to do things right. Alienus 16:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * loxley 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it depends entirely on whether you are the least bit willing to follow the conventions that make it possible for us to use Wikipedia. You tend NOT to fill in Edit Summaries and you like to mix your comments in with other people's text.  This is rude and gets in the way of proper use of the system.
 * Given your behavior, I see no reason to treat you with kindness. Your sort doesn't seem to respond well to that sort of thing, anyhow.  I'm thinking that the stick works better on you than the carrot. Alienus 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Having involved myself as an admin, I'm certainly not going to get into the details of a content dispute on these pages, though I'll look in again to see if nothing manifestly awry is going on. I suggest if you can't come to any agreement between yourselves, an article-content RFC would be a good plan, to attempt to establish a wider consensus. For a start, though, please start with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF uppermost in both your minds. Alai 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Its not just a content dispute:

I'm sorry you're too stupid and biased to understand my answers, but I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Go away you little pest. Alienus  11:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, whenever he violates the rules -- which is very often -- I revert. He is the sort of person who makes negative contributions; a village vandal. Alienus  16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Talk has been archived. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cartesian_materialism&oldid=38342937

please, help me.
Can you please explain the confusing wikipedia copyright thing? I want to put pictures on here, but i have no idea if i have the right to or not, and what pictures are ok, ect. I need to try to gain an understanding of how i can place pictures on wikipedia so i can change some of the crappy pictures, or add pictures where there isn't any, ect. please, can you help me or direct me to someone who can? i've read all the infomation wikipedia has to offer, but i'm still confused...

thank you.

Dposse 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation
The issue of what article should be at this title has been placed on Requested moves. You can offer your vote and comment here: Talk:The Nation. JamesMLane t c 06:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Double-stub counts
I think it'll probably work out in the end; you might try asking for comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history if you'd like more extensive recommendations. (On the other hand, if the splits are being guided primarily by category size concerns, such recommendations may not be particularly helpful). The Napoleonic battles are a mess, since we can have things like battle-stub, NapoleonicWars-stub, two/three participating country stubs, and Poland-hist-stub (since, hey, Napoleon's army included some Polish units). The long-term answer here is simply to expand the articles and avoid this entire mess; but that might take a while, so you'll have to bear with us until then ;-) —Kirill Lok s hin 06:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, many of the battle-stubs aren't tagged with any by-country stub tags; given that France, Spain, and Austria all had rather rich military histories, I'd be surprised if those categories couldn't be filled up in short order just by checking through the available generic battle stubs. —Kirill Lok s hin 06:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith
The article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable is currently being proposed to be made a Stable version, this nomination is a test of the process detailed on that page. As you have edited that page recently, please review the stable version of the article and join the discussion at Talk:Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr./Stable. dml 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions/Numbered highways
Alai: I am sure you can deduce from my comments that I KNOW that lists, categories and stubs should not be capitalized the same as titles since they are not proper nouns. However after recently spending about 50% of my online-wp-time involved in debating capitalization with others who seem to have much more vested interest in using incorrect capitalization than I have in using correct capitalization, I found it was leaving me little time to actually work on content. I would still vote for using correct capitalization as in the following examples: but I just don't have the time to waste debating the issue with people who are not interested in using correct capitalization rules and insist on everything being like a song title. Put it up for a vote and you know what I will come down in favor of. Also, if you don't agree with me, don't bother arguing with me on this because I don't have the time or interest. I am only replying to you on this topic as a courtesy. --Censorwolf 14:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Article title: New York State Route 17
 * List: List of state routes in New York
 * Category: State routes in New York
 * Stub: New York State Route stub
 * I was concurring with your naming rules about capitalization in general. But I am not sure if I understand what the stub name should be now. Shouldn't the stub actually be "NewYork-stateroute-stub", just like "Baseballbio-stub"?
 * If, as I think you suggest, the stub somehow belongs to the category of "Category:New_York_state_routes" (aka highways), that is not apparent since there is nothing I see in WP to make it happen automagically. Are there other examples? --Censorwolf 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So what happens with the stub rename from to  process on Stub_types_for_deletion now that it is "old-business"?? --Censorwolf 14:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Zoology Medicine Stub proposal @ WP:WSS/P
Thanks for your message Alai. I originally asked Grutness about this, so I assume he has asked you to respond on what I need to do. It just came as a bit of a surprise, i leave a message with one person and get a response from another!!! It was just a bit of a confuser for me... never mind. Thanks for the reply. Thor Malmjursson 21:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
But I will vote as I see fit.Gateman1997 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I justified my vote. If you don't like it *shrug* that's your issue not mine. I don't see why any of these stubs are being deleted. I've a mind to put any that have been up for DR.Gateman1997 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking my comment too personally. Speedy does not imply anything against you. Do I think putting all these stubs I've helped create with hours of my time that are all useful and used by the road wikipedians to be improper... YES. Is it a comment on you or your character... NO. So let's leave it at that.Gateman1997 03:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I said ALL road related stub deletions, not just this one influenced the vote. Nuff said. Let's drop it now. No more commentary is needed. I'm not changing my vote and you've not changed my mind and won't so don't bother trying.Gateman1997 03:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

SFD
G'day Alai - you asked me about my vote on the NY highway stub... can I ask you to have a look at Seaport-stub on AFD, please? Grutness...wha?  07:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the heads up. --Syrthiss 21:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mopship
Alai said: Your name has been on, and indeed near the top of WP:NA for quite a while, but so far as I know you've never been nominated. Your contributions look industrious and uncontroversial, and I can see no reason why you shouldn't get the mop, if you're indeed interested. Would you like me to nominate you?

Firstly, apologies for not getting back to you two hours ago when I should have been awake..

Two schools of thought. One, I'm scared of not succeeding in nominationship, two, I'm not sure of how I'd do if given an RfA. Guess nobody does, really, nothing ventured, nothing gained, though. Sure. I'd accept a nomination. Thank you for your confidence. Bobo. 09:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we ensure
That my nomination is on the main RfA page, as well? Once again, thank you. Bobo. 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Alai said: As I alluded to above, technically you're supposed to do that bit yourself....

Never mind. It's done now. It was just a little tricky a job to pull off, that's all. Again, thanks for your faith in me. Bobo. 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Alai said: Maybe it's a final initiative/technical skills test? :) Best of luck!

I think it was just a trick of the light... Bobo. 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenia and Armenia-bio stubs
Any updates on this? I'd personally like to see the "proposed for deletion" tag off both. Been waiting for a while. :-) Hakob 04:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hakob 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist atheist AFD
Closing the AfD didn't just consist of counting votes, I also look at the comments when they made the votes. Often, someone voting later has a good idea that the rest of the voters agree with. In this case, I applied my admin's discretion as the vote closer and closed it as a Redirect. Do you still think I should delete it, or do you think this redirect is relatively harmless? If not, I got no problems with deleting it, but I don't think the redirect is all that harmful. --Deathphoenix 13:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Ah, yes, and reading my closing comments, it's because this particular term sees some usage (now I remember, I actually also did a bit of research), but because people kept trying to recreate the content, I fully agree that the article should be kept as a redirect, and anyone trying to recreate content should be reverted immediately. --Deathphoenix 13:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll reclose the AfD and delete the article when I'm done with the Feb 20 AfDs. I appreciate your feedback, thanks. --Deathphoenix 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

aircraft stubs
I think every user in Wikipedia can have their opinion; this time, you disagree with my opinion. I voted for change of template because the template had parameters, and I wouldn't mind if that was replaced. However, what I wanted to keep was 1900s category. Yes, it is a narrow category, but I think it should be categorized like all other stubs: by years. No, I'm not kidding either. -- WB 06:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I gotta admit, I'm not particularily active in stub-sorting, and also, this category is small; nonetheless, I'd rather see this category stay and be filled with articles. I changed my vote, but if I get a good enough reason, I am willing to abstain. -- WB 07:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Steadman
If you remember, I queried tthis article as a vanity article. It has been accepted that the main author of this article is in fact the subject of the article. The user Robsteadman used sockpuppets to manipulate the vote when this article was RfD and I ask that this article be referred for deletion again.

Thanks for the advice but whatever I did, it's now vanished from the AfD page.

At least I have left a very clumsy trail of failed attempots which proves that I WASN'T behind the last nomination.Crusading composer 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Alai said: I see a distinct pattern in the opposes/concerned-sounding neutrals! Regardless of which way this pans out (and it's fairly finely poised at present), can I suggest you consider joining a wikiproject as a "kinder, gentler" means of having more interactions with other users, and the project space? And/or one of the more neglected "process" pages – categories for deletion/renaming, or requested moves, if you're interested in naming convention matters, stub proposals/deletions, etc, etc. Not so painful as AFD, or as full-bore wikipolitics, I promise.

I had presumed that would be what it would take to get my Wikipedia namespace edits up. Initially that seemed to me to be a lot more artificial than actually getting myself stuck in with issues and the like. But I agree that it's a pretty fine line at the moment. I make it 44 votes, 30 supports, which is 64%. Not too great, but with so many neutrals, this balances it out. Bobo. 06:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Alai said: The neutrals are basically not counted, unless the support:oppose ratio is really in the "grey area". (Notice that Ian13 was just promoted with barely 75% support, not counting the neutrals at all.) I don't suggest you take part in a WPJ or process page only to get your namespace edit count up, and I certainly don't suggest one you have no actual interest in: as I say, I think it would be worth considering regardless of the RfA outcome. But I'd think you'd have some interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, Wikipedia:Typo and similar "cleanup" activities... And WP:WSS could always do with more slave^Wvolunteer labour, I can testify from personal experience.

Cool. I wasn't sure how the averages would be skewed with taking into account the Neutrals, but if the neutrals were discounted this may still be good news.

I'm certainly going to write on my userpage to plan to dive into the Cleanup by month series, and reattending to the few of the Wikiprojects that I've neglected over the months wouldn't go amiss either.

Thank you for your encouragement. 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Aero-1980s-stub
Hello! I have left a question on Template:Aero-1980s-stub asking about what the stub specifies. I look forward to your reply. Regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 08:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Novel and book stubs
Regarding the couple novel and book stubs that you have in your list to be recommended for deletion: Can you please hold off doing so for 2 or 3 weeks. User: Gnome (Bot) is being set up (by me) to find the articles that go in here. Please give WP:NOVEL's members a chance to finish what they started. ThanksEagle (talk) (desk) 17:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * PS reply on my talk page please.

Ok I will get with kevinwelis, (don't know if I spelled that right) about going to WP:WSS/P. In the meantime, can you please hold off...WP:NOVEL is trying to get its wheels moveing.(I just designed a bot in C++/CLI for the express purpose of helping this project, (I have invested at least 10 hours of programming into this). All I am asking for is some time...I promise I will try to set things straight.Eagle (talk) (desk) 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright I just left a message with kevinwelis. The list I was speaking about was the one on your userspace. I would appreciate it if 2 of the 3 are not deleated, (spec-sci-fict-stub) is useless, and was a bad idea(as I am thinking about it). If that can't be done, and they must be deleated, can you hold off recommending more. (if the only problem is size)Eagle (talk) (desk)
 * Note the Novel stub category is not near 800 articles, but there are many novels yet to be found in the book stub category. (Part of the purpose of User:Gnome (Bot)) Some of them even have (Novel) in the title of the article).

Ok with that, What is the word on the ones in your list?? I will relay no more categories to kevinwewis. (in addition to what I have already asked him.Eagle (talk) (desk)
 * PS I did not make any of the categories, I only want to poupulate what there is.Eagle (talk) (desk) 17:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the coprimise, right now I am testing my bot's getter functions (finding the articles) the setter functions work like a charm!!! A couple weeks will do it, and not having to worry about defending the stubs will help.
 * PS What I am asking does not apply to stubs that are poorly named, only to those that are under populated. (perhaps renaming if that is the problem)Eagle (talk) (desk) 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese battle stubs
I just wanted to thank you for sorting through my hordes of Japanese battle articles and rectifying the stub tags. Such dreary drudge work... someone needs to do it, and I appreciate your help as I have not had much time for Wiki'ing lately. LordAmeth 21:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)