User talk:Bucketsofg/Archive 8

Guitar George
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Guitar George. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Guitarminator 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Strunk (the saga continues)
Hi, sorry to be a bother (again), and first thank you! for promptly fixing the template on the Nicholas Strunk page. Would have thanked you sooner but got into a bit of an edit conflict with your page-archiving shenanigans. Anyway! The template is correct now, but the page doesn't seem to be protected from editing anymore. Thanks again in advance! -- Antepenultimate 02:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap!
We, like, have the same signature and stuff. ~  Flame vip  e  r  Who's a Peach? 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI
I noticed that you banned User:Shuppiluliuma for 24 hours yesterday due to the 3RR rule. That user, if you didn't realize, is also operating under the sockpuppet of User:CalicoJackRackam as well. He was specifically told by an admin on this and this talk page to use only one account, yet he continues to use both accounts. Rarelibra 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Articles_for_deletion/Eddiebi
Hey, since you closed the AfD for Eddiebi, why didn't you delete Eddiebi (Eduardo Castillo), which I also nominated in the same AfD? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD:Anti-Fibonacci number
Could you possibly explain your reasoning better on Articles for deletion/Anti-Fibonacci number? I can understand the delete arguments, but given that two academic references about the term were provided, some explanation would be nice. Gimmetrow 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to wait until the search cache is regenerated to see what comes up from a search. Would I need to go to deletion review simply to create a redirect in this case? Gimmetrow 04:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want to discuss here or on my page? As proposed in the AfD, I thought this should redirect to Generalizations of Fibonacci numbers, which does not currently come up from a wiki-search for "anti-fibonacci". I'm not even sure "Fibonacci number" will come up once the current red-link there to Anti-Fibonacci number is removed. (And one of the refs is from 1979, so it's not exactly a WP:NEO - this is somewhat relevant to many of the delete !votes.) Gimmetrow 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying a redirect wouldn't be speedied based on the AfD? The delete arguments were concerned that having anything at that name would encourage a neologism, and I would probably agree the WP article has popularized the term. Gimmetrow 05:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs
Remember the header goes ABOVE the section title, not below. It affects the bots. Thanks. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was here to say the same thing. For example:

result of debate. ~ == Article to be deleted == ...


 * That will properly close the debates. Thanks! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was about to say the same thing. Your closings lately have been great, but those feeble-minded bots get confused easily. I suggest using WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js, it makes AfDs much easier to close and does the templates/edit summaries perfectly. --W.marsh 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

LotusLander2006
Do we need to create meatpuppet? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)  20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Shuppiluliuma
FYI - This user is at it again with reverting constantly... HERE. Rarelibra 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/O Zittre nicht, mein lieber Sohn
How come, that the result of this discussion was keep? I count two votes for keep (one of them from the author of the article, does that count?), two for merge and two for delete. In my eyes that is a clear majority, not to keep the article in its present form. --FordPrefect42 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. Best wishes to you as well --FordPrefect42 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination)
On the above-named AfD, I would suggest un-refactoring the discussion. The refactored version appears to be even more difficult to read than the original format. Thanks. --Metropolitan90 05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

pending count
Hi, what's the result pending count please ? Thanks.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 08:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again
If you look HERE you will see that User:Shuppiluliuma is continuing to violate WP:CIVIL. I really don't appreciate his offensive and personal comments, such as "Blinded by nationalist pride, perhaps?" and "Some people are not only illiterate, but blind as well" (see diff). I warned him on his talk page, and he has now changed it... maybe there is hope, after all (but he does continue to use offensive comments, such as "illiterate"). I started a RfC if you are interested. Rarelibra 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

tables
Thanks for your help with the tables. I liked your last version. I think I'm ready to delete that sandbox now. As an admin, can you take care of that for me? Semperf 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Fabs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template  to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops!
Sorry; a little to fast on the trigger finger here.... My apologies! --Mhking 04:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Church of St Theodore
Did you forget to delete the talk page? You seem to have forgotten a few of these lately at AfD but perhaps you were going back to them. --BozMo talk 15:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD Progressive Bloggers
You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bumbarded
Hi. Can I ask which CSD criteria you deleted Bumbarded under? While I agree that it should be deleted, I can't see any reasoning for it being speedied. Thanks. Trebor 11:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I remember, I don't think the article qualified as patent nonsense according to the criteria; it was understandably written. I'm not going to take it to WP:DRV as it obviously should be deleted, but I'd prefer to see these discussions run for the full time if it doesn't match CSD criteria exactly. In future, could you at least add a note to say which criteria you are using? Thanks. Trebor 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

About deletions
Hi.
 * I see you did not delete an speedy deletion request I put in Articles for deletion/Érika Ortiz Rocasolano. Let me say again that I do not understand all this crazyness, I have read deletion policy many times and do not understand why if there is consensus about not keeping an article in the talk page, the only user that advocates to keep the page (look at article's history) nominates it for RfD suggesting to delete the article!. Thats plain sabotage to the rules, taking them to the limit for what?. I have no much experience in English Wikipedia about this, but in the projets I'm administrator (eswiki and Commons) that kind of sabotage would not be allowed.

Regards, Barcex 08:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to have an argument with you, but I still think that not applying common sense but codified procedures goes against rules. At Deletion policy you will see that forcing an unnecessary RfD goes again the spirit of that policy. That's why I marked the page to be deleted (i.e. to close such crazy nomination). Barcex 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller edit controversy
Hello, there. As you may or may not know, the Miami Herald recently revealed that professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a lawsuit against Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. for adding false statements to his Wikipedia biography.

For data gathering purposes, an SRS of 20 administrators has been created, you being one of them. I would like you to comment on this situation and its possible implications to Wikipedia, the accused company, and the general welfare of the community in general. (To what extent will this impact Wikipedia? To what extent will this impact those who use Wikipedia often? To what extent is the company guilty? Who do you believe is at fault?) Feel free to comment however you wish. I ask that you email me your responses via my emailuser page so as to reduce bias in your responses. (Again, don't post your responses on my talk page.)

The following are articles from various news agencies that you may use to inform yourself about the situation: Miami Herald, Herald Tribune, Web Pro News, The Smoking Gun.

I thank you for taking your time to express your opinion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time. └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp;18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox
Please review this in light of users sanctions. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames
Hi, just wondering if you could add a rationale to your close. Thanks, Pan Dan 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pan Dan. Thanks for your question about the Chinese names AFD. I view my role in AFD closings as determining as best as possible what the consensus view of AFD-participants. In this case, the consensus was to keep. Bucketsofg 02:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(--copied from my talk page)


 * Of course, you reached the conclusion that the consensus was to keep (hence your close). I was just wondering how you reached that conclusion.  "I counted the votes," "The keep opiners made some good arguments," "The delete opiners didn't make any good arguments," ... -- that sort of thing.  I'm not interested in taking this to DRV.  It's just that it seems to me this was a case of policy vs. voteflood, so if you did "count the votes," I'd like to have that recorded in your close.  Again, however you determined the outcome, I'm not interested in challenging it in any way, I'd just like to know what your reason was.  Pan Dan 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Battle of Metropolis
Could you please explain your closing of this debate with a consensus to keep. I count six registered users saying to keep it, six to delete, and one to merge and delete. That does not appear to be a consensus. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 03:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Furthermore, many of the keeps are pretty close to WP:ILIKEIT. At best this is a no consensus, if not an outright delete. JoshuaZ 03:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think there was no consensus to keep, then it would generally be good to note that and say something of the form "no consensus, defaults to keep" Otherwise it looks like a general keep for later AfDs (also, a "keep" description on the talk page will make it much less likely for later editors who see that to AfD it in the future). JoshuaZ 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. It's not voting, and the arguments to keep were for the most part that the person simply liked it. Did you weigh the arguments? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave all arguments appropriate weight.    Buck  ets  ofg  05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning for reaching this determination. It's obviously controversial and I'd like to know your reasoning before I decide whether or not to take it to review. CovenantD 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. As I explained to the others, there was no consensus to delete.  Without such a consensus, the appropriate course is to keep the article.   Buck  ets  ofg  05:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are -you ARE the model of a modern Wikipedian!
I just discovered the song. Triple snaps - bravo! Ezratrumpet 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Walt Sorensen delete review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Walt Sorensen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. photodude 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Daly article
Back on January 20th, you closed the Chris Daly article to unregistered users. Would you consider doing that again? Another donnybrook has broken out with authors slashing and burning each other's work. Griot 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration
Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. --Iantresman 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Master's
Why did you remove your claim of having a Master's degree? Retilian Kitten Eater 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. At first I thought that your edit summary was referring to Essjay but now I wonder if you meant the allegedly faked academic credentials of your other acquaintances such as Arthur Ellis and Stompin' Tom. --JGGardiner 00:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What were their claims? Retilian Kitten Eater 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss this with User:JGGardiner, you can do so on his talk page (or yours).  Buck  ets  ofg  13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No nothing so grand (or conspiratorial). I've just decided to take it down given the recent flap.  In any case, if I'd have kept it I would be replacing it soon (hopefully).   Buck  ets  ofg  02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a Master's. If you are about to get a PhD, you'd still have a Master's. So what's up? Daniel Brandt's got the links to the diffs. Maybe he can have some fun with it. Retilian Kitten Eater 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * All kinds of people have all kinds of degrees that they don't include on their user-pages. I decided to become one of them.   Buck  ets  ofg  13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not the explanation you gave. Retilian Kitten Eater 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Retillian Kitten Eater is the latest confirmed sock of Arthur Ellis a.k.a. Stompin' Tom. Kla'quot 05:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Austin, Minnesota
Thanks for the blocks and the protection of the page, I was writing a request when I saw you'd already done it. Cheers - Myanw 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Justin Michael Jenkins
You closed the above as keep. Numerically there is a nom + delete + speedy delete, against 2 weak keeps and a keep (from the article author). Thus there are 3 deletes and 2 weak keeps (disregarding the author). I would have thought this would be at least no consensus, thus giving more room in the future for the article to be reconsidered for deletion. I realise numbers aren't all, and you may have considered the keep argument (mostly by the author) to be overwhelming. However, I would be interested to know what you made of my speedy delete rationale. The problem is that we now have an admitted COI article (the author says of the artist "we have worked together") requiring massive revision. As my case for CSD G11 was late in the day, would you consider re-listing the debate, so it can be given consideration by other editors? Tyrenius 00:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the star - appreciated. I trusted your judgement! Tyrenius 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bucketsofg, first of all thank you for giving me a keep. I intend on perfecting the article even more in the future with the help of the administrators such as Tyrenius. I would also point out that i worked briefly with Justin a long time ago (so there is no COI), and admire his art and truly find it inspiring, not to mention educational. With that said, and understanding tyrenius's point of view to a degree, does he have something against the artist in question? He has been awfully hard on me since i started this even with my full cooperation. Thanks bucketsofg, Mike.--Michael144 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have no prior knowledge of this artist before the article. Please specify how you think I have been hard on you. I've only done what's necessary to conform to wikipedia's policies for articles. I appreciate that you are a new editor, so unfamiliar with them, and maybe they seem hard to you. That is understandable. Tyrenius 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tyrenius, my point is if the artist is acceptable then bucketsofg made the right decision. Any other decision such as waiting or taking him of keep to a long drawn out debate sems that do not think he is acceptable or a keep. Perhaps you could help make the article more acceptable and try to help me. Thanks, Mike --Michael144 04:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Still here huh?
Pity we let March go by without causing another debacle... Kahuroa 08:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah all is well, and I think we should work on the 'any month' idea. Ha! Easter weekend coming up - last long weekend with Summerish temperatures so might head for a beach somewhere. Kahuroa 06:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB
Hey Bucketsofg, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and the trust and I do intend to run again eventually. See you around!  Majorly  (o rly?) 02:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

real social dynamics?
I am thinking about asking for a deletion review of real social dynamics.

I looked up real social dynamics and found two afd discussions, and I noticed the outcome of both was to delete. However, it seems the 2nd. afd discussion in fact may have had no consensus.

The reason that I am thinking about taking this to deletion review is the absence of consensus in the second afd discussion; however, I do not take the position that the article should be undeleted, only that consensus should be established. If the article is re-created, I agree with you that great pain should be taken to ensure that it is not spam.

Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 69.140.164.142 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis socks
Thanks for reverting the page and your effort in this.

Like your General Lytton picture, ROTFL....

TropicNord April 15, 2007

TeckWiz's RFA
Hey Bucketsofg. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pending count?
Hi there, re the "articles for deletion/allegations of israeli apartheid" page, I'm just wondering what is meant by "the result is pending !count?

Thanks Gatoclass 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for the explanation :) Gatoclass 00:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Bucketsofg, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg
Hello, Bucketsofg. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Bucketsofg/Archive 2. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposition
Hi! I am AlexHillan, member of the Department of Fun and creator of Wikipedia the Beautiful. I noticed that you are a composer of one or more wikisongs. I am proposing that Wikipedia the Beautiful becomes the official theme song. You may leave me a message on my talk page telling me what you think. Thanks, AlexHillan 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lytton and Sullivan
Just a quick question: on the Modern Wikipedian imagery, is the mop a tribute to Toxie, or something completely different? Gruber76 04:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I see the admin mop now. Gruber76 04:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Undelete please
Can you "undelete" Paradigm High School to one of my sub pages so I can make it a more acceptable article? Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted?
Hey man, how is it going. I wondered if you could use your admin powers to tell me what happened to Toi (name)? It was just a redirect page that I edited slightly after it was created - now the creator suspects me of having clobbered it. Seems to have vanished without trace. Kahuroa 10:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Makes sense now Kahuroa 19:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It will be quite a complex set of articles to write, along the lines of Kupe. It would have been better practice for the disambig page to have been written after the article(s) but I had no say in its creation Kahuroa 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1== Toi (name) ==

I agree with you. The reason for deletion was: This page needs to be deleted to merge histories, reverse a redirect, or perform other non-controversial housekeeping tasks, or it is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article. Apparently, nothing has happened in 5 days, so I don't mind the recreation. Sr13 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(missed the boat) don't want to be annoying
It seems like missed sections go unnoticed, so I would like to make the request again. Can you "undelete" Paradigm High School to a sub page of mine so I can work on it and make it more eligible to be an article. Thanks. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you! Sir's Intell - Puppet Master (Is legal) 14:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"past tendencies"
ArbCom has just reviwed my edits. You are going way past what they have decided. There are rules policies to avoid picking on users under probation. Have you even read the article - or are you forming your view just based on Zero's action and accusation ? How come you propose remedies beyond what ArbCom specified -without even seeing the content and other similar content in Wikipedia ?

Maybe the name of the article is not good and it should be moved to "decedents of Apes and Pigs" (I did a redirect to the shorter name.) In any case it was just pointed out that content with similar name is already included in another wikipedia article so clearly the content is encyclopedic.

I suggest that the proper response is an AFD and I will vote to nerge it into the proper article.

You should really assume good faith before making all those accusations. I am the victim here of Zero's not appropriate admin action. If the article I created would go through AFD and be deleted this would be the end of it. no tenedentious editing or anything. I follow procedure and respectully request that so should everyone else. Zeq 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrator board disturbance
Hi, I apology for disturbing admin's board in systematically answering Zeq. But very honnestly, I consider this went too far that time. This is a 1-year-long story. Nevertheless, it is late and I think my point has been heard, right now. Good luck and thank you ! fr:user:ceedjee (aka Alithien on wp:en).

Read this
this is a finding of fact that  did not pass read why:

Edit warring by Zeq

2) Zeq has engaged in edit warring [2], [3], [4], and [5], [6], [7], [8] His edits, often to hotly contested, introductory material, are characterized by aggressive biased editing, inadequate command of English, and misunderstanding of appropriate use of sources, see [9]. See also Zeq's user page where he sets forth his program.

Support: Fred Bauder 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: A certain level of editorial conflict is to be expected on controversial topics; I see no evidence that Zeq has been unusually egregious in that regard here, or that his edits in this particular conflict have been flagrantly unacceptable. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

SimonP 12:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

James F. (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you get it. Conrovesy is not a cause for banning. It is is how you handle controversy that is the issue... I never got to handle the controvesy with Zero. with another admin who chalnged my edits I discussed and made modifications. This is normal editing. Zeq 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)
Thank you for your support, and for that amazing song which was expertly (*cough*, *cough*) quoted by Phaedriel. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thanks for your support and defense, I thought the links you provided were especially helpful, in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your self-revert
No need for apologies for this -- glad to see I'm not the only one who makes mistakes! If I were an admin, I'd likely block myself. Raymond Arritt 03:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Bucketsofg, thank you for your note of support at my RfA. I wasn't aware until now that you were that voice of Wikipedia. Keep singing. Shyamal 04:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Kinsella stuff
Hey there. FYI, I just filed a checkuser request on ; this editor's work has, over several edits, reverted the article completely to Ellis' preferred version, as put in place by his last sock farm. Might want to keep an eye on that. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

m:User:Bucketsofg
If the account above belongs to you too, please provide a link to his user page on your user page here. We Election Committee are not completely sure if it is you without proof, and the endorsement submitted by that account will be removed due to lack of eligibility proof. Thank you for your attention, --Aphaia 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * m:User:Bucketsofg is mine.  Buck  ets  ofg  04:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you X 100
{| style=" background:white; padding:3px; font-family:arial" align=center | T hank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)