User talk:Causa sui/Archive12

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! causa sui (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/WHOQOL-DIS
There were several well-argued delete !votes, a few weak keep !votes (that, if one reads closely, actually say there are not enough sources, and one keep !vote (that says that it may be hoped that more sources will come in the future). Unless one counts !votes (but WP:NOTAVOTE), I actually think this should have been a "delete", not a no-consensus.I would appreciate if you could have another look at the debate. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For now, I stand by the close. You are sincerely welcome to bring it up on WP:DRV, though. causa sui (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't, it's not worth the bother... I'll just have to bring it back to AfD after another few months, when it has become clear that the promised sources are not forthcoming. Thanks for looking at it again. --Crusio (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Requests for bureaucratship threshold. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Astro File Manager" entry deleted
"Astro File Manager" entry deleted "Astro File Manager" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Press release). Can you tell me what I can do to repost and/or change the offending post.

--Astro_Man_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astro man 2020 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fadywalker
Let me get this straight, you didn't give me the chance to finish the article and to put the sources and now you tell me that i didn't put the sources? the sources are even in their articles and they are categorized as shuch for the love of god!--41.34.114.110 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * that's me (the 41... ip) sorry i waited too long that i automatically logged out. I'm talking about List of Muslim converts involved in terrorism--Fadywalker (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. Some points that I hope will help you understand what was wrong with the article:
 * The Biographies of living persons policy is a content policy that describes our practices and expectations for Wikipedia content about persons still living. Since Wikipedia has a very high profile worldwide as a source of information, content on Wikipedia can have substantial impact on the lives of real people. Therefore, the policy on that information is among the most strictly enforced. In general, you will find that people on Wikipedia (such as myself, in this case) do not pull punches when it comes to removing potentially defamatory information or preventing it from being added. Please carefully read this policy.
 * In the spirit of that policy, we do not wait until citations are added before removing potentially defamatory content from Wikipedia. You must supply the citations at the same time as you add any content that may defame a living person. There is no room for negotiation about this.
 * You included in your list names of people known to be falsely associated with terrorism. For example, as you will read on Brandon Mayfield, he was falsely accused of involvement in the Madrid train bombings; yet you included him in your list. As explained to you on his talk page, this is completely unacceptable.
 * I hope this helps you understand what was wrong with this article and what you can do differently to avoid breaching our content guidelines. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here and I will help where possible. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but framing innocent people wasn't my purpose. sure I wouldn't have included them in the list if I knew there were "falsely accused". Like I told you before I thought I have enough time to make a revision and to see "who really belongs here" or "is that source reliable?" etc since i made the in use template. anyway it's ok, i want to recreate the list but before that i will post the names for you here and if you found something wrong just tell me to prevent the previous misunderstanding to be repeated to finish my work i have been into couple of days ago. could we do that?--Fadywalker (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can personally oversee this. You might try WP:BLP/N. causa sui (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what to do, could you please guide me? --Fadywalker (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a post for you at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. People on that noticeboard are usually eager to help with cleaning up content on BLPs (biographies of living persons). Watch there and see if anyone volunteers. Good luck causa sui (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Causa!
when I tagged the Bhinder,Udaipur article, it was in this revision Bhinder,Udaipur, please check it out and tell me what was that. Thanks Sean  ( Ask Me? ) 20:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was a copyvio . causa sui (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

deletion page refactoring
Hi- do you have a problem with this refactoring? (see this edit too) I did it as an interruption as WP:TPO indicates is acceptable, but I can't really do it with my admin hat on since I've participated in the discussion. So, can you do whatever you deem is appropriate? tedder (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, inline replies are a HUGE pet peeve. causa sui (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like inline comments either, but I did one in this case because I thought the alternative was worse. I put the inlined note where I did because it applies specifically to the previous paragraph only, not to the whole posting.  Putting the note after the whole posting broke the connection between the note and what it referred to.  To clarify that connection, I found I had to belabor what I was trying to say much more than it was worth.  I made the choice that I thought would be least problematic.  I should also have replicated the signature, one of the techniques suggested in WP:Talk.  Others might disagree with my choice, as I disagree with many other choices that writers made on the page.  However, that is not the problem.  The problem is that no one should be able to make changes on a locked archive merely to express an editorial opinion about which reasonable people might differ.  Administration grants power to apply the rules, not power to ignore the rules.  If locking is not universally respected, it is really just a serving suggestion, and no debate will never have to end. Ornithikos (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BIKESHED, I think. If you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and revert me. :-) causa sui (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * .. and WP:TROUT. In this case, I came to Causa sui because you (Ornithikos) said that was the next avenue, so I respected that. If you do it via interruption it should be done with an interruption comment, otherwise the context is completely lost. This isn't a slippery slope of admin abuse, WP:TPO certainly allows it- and the page isn't protected. It appears you just discovered the Wikipedia protection policy; please start at the Talk Page Guidelines, note it's a behavioral guideline. tedder (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism templates
If it's not apparent, I'm quite disappointed at the discussion that's ongoing at the template talk page. I frankly don't see any discussion of any actual issues and a small cadre of regulars at that talk page failing to realize the broader context of your suggestion. I wanted to thank you for your work, and I think it will in the end be a worthwhile step.

As I've said before, although I think has been largely ignored, maybe there are some things we should iron out in regards to a template like this. There's a lot of overlap with the edit summary and the deliberate factual error templates... and I don't want too many more warning templates (twinkle's full of them as is). However that as an objection to this is laughable given some of the other recent discussions and templates added.

I'd be more than happy to continue to work on this issue, despite whatever conclusions the template page regulars make.

I want you to know that I, and I suspect many other users, support what you're trying to do, and I hope you don't get a bad impression from that talk page. Unfortunately the sprawling nature of wikipedia's bureaucracy all to frequently leads to these sorts of impasses where entrenched regulars dictate the status quo. I suppose we all do that to some degree, but I've rarely seen a less principled response to an incredibly good idea. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN
BTW, these types of edits are generally considered unhelpful. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. For various reasons, I think this is an extremely rare exception to WP:NOTBROKEN. I don't view it as a big deal, but I can give you a more detailed rationale if you like. causa sui (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Answered your own question
re: What was the answer? =) – xeno talk 15:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with my suggestion, I think, is that while it does a good job of mapping people who generally want the standard to be high (which seems to be the trend), it does a poorer job of mapping the intersection between that group and the people who generally want the standard to be low (e.g., me). So after brief reflection I realized it's not really a solution, since we'd still have the same problem: no way to know the difference between opposes for "too high" and opposes for "too low", and the same problem with support votes. causa sui (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I agree that it is going to be difficult to come to any conclusion (except that the status quo seems to be working). To be honest, this all strikes me as rather futile: if the bar gets lowered, people who did not think the bar should be lowered will simply be that much more stringent in their evaluation of rfb candidates. Not that there's many of those stepping forward, anyway. – xeno talk 18:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:27 Club.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Just wanted to Know
Can a Editor start a Afd with just the afd tag on the Article Page ? No Afd Page OR Reason for Afd given Bentogoa (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked him. Hopefully he will respond on talk now. Let me know if disruption resumes when the block expires. causa sui (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, That was fast, I did not even mention this name in my question, Thanks Bentogoa (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, looks like this user has created another account Ali.alsemat

Barrow Group deletion (3)
Rserrell (talk)Robert Serrell —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
 * To leave replies, please edit the existing section instead of creating a new one. See Help:Talk for more information on how to use Wikipedia talk pages.
 * The group may meet the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations. However, the tone of the article was obviously promotional and not encyclopedic. I ask you again to review neutral point of view policy and WP:FAQ/Organizations. You might also want to look at WP:ARTSPAM. causa sui (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help with all this. Still learning the ropes on wikipedia... : )Rserrell (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette assistance. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WT:CSD
You commented earlier on in the larger thread (a couple of months ago), so I thought you might be interested that there's finally an actual proposal on the table. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ex-gay movement
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ex-gay movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam
As usual, in Alprazolam we have the "cross eyed judge effect" again. The text is ok, it was directly quoted from the FDA regulatory text at the FDA website, explaining the FDA approval. We have defended this version against Ip 76.xxx who comes with his patients and his opinion and OR. But we already answered this. Please see the lengthy discussion, which is probably "too long, didn't read", then you see. Please see my reply in discussion also. 70.137.129.34 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Please confine discussion of article content to the relevant talk page so that it does not become fragmented. causa sui (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That was not the last revision. Have updated it to last revision and adjusted to changes. Please take a look. 70.137.129.34 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop commenting on my talk page about Alprazolam. I have it on my watchlist. causa sui (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin help with non-contentious housekeeping
Hi there! I created a new category today, but misnamed it on the first try. Would you mind deleting Category:Americans in the Khedivial Egyptian Army? I'm using Category:Americans in the khedivial Egyptian Army instead. It may not be the ideal name, so I'm waiting for a few days to get feedback before I produce a mainpage article. FYI, I've sandboxed my start here. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have an admin's attention on this, can you do revision delete for edits prior to this diff? That way I can just move the work to the appropriate namespace when I get sufficient feedback on the naming issue. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't had time or interest to look into this. Isn't there a WP:CSD category for this though? causa sui (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No big deal, and I appreciate your response. I used C1, though it doesn't meet the criteria yet (unpopulated for 4 days). I noticed there's no G7-type criteria for cats, so I asked an admin (you) on talk. I'll concede I sometimes see a need for urgency which proves unnecessary. BTW, since we originally disagreed some time back, I've been trying to figure out my error (in referring to you in the third person on your own talk). I understood you felt it rude, and I thereafter decided you were entirely correct, but in the moment I wasn't sure what else to have done. I have a thing about not using gender-related pronouns in talkspace (because gender has no part in what we do as wikipedians). As a result of our first discussion, I've noticed myself that my writing in those situations seems way formal, and sometimes too stilted to sound friendly or even neutral. Sorry if I offended you then. I learned something about myself in your response, so thanks. While I disagreed with your actions at the time, I had zero intention of raising the temperature. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it's right there at the bottom of G7. I've not paid enough attention to the arena of CSD. I'll do more reading. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I've long thought the CSD criteria was massively, massively over-complicated. If you go back far enough in the history you'll see some failed efforts by me to get it simplified, more or less for exactly this kind of reason. When you're this unambiguously right, it might be easier to sack up and ask for IAR deletions than to feel like you have to wade through policy to find the exact line that authorizes what you should be doing anyway. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI (sorry)
Urgh, I hate to distract you from actual productive activity, but protocol armtwists me to tell you of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm sorry, really. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, reading this message I was gritting my teeth expecting to find some big drama bomb when I clicked the link. Thanks for notifying me about this, because it reminds me that I should be double-checking that the script is working right before moving along. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraser Cain
Hello! I was surprised to learn that the article about journalist [Fraser Cain] was deleted, particularly considering that only two people voted (and one commented). He is a very well-known figure in astronomy popularisation, editor of www.universetoday.com and co-host of the long-running and popular Astronomy Cast podcast. Anyone interested in astronomy and the new media will know his name. I believe that the decision to delete the article was certainly poorly founded and probably unwise. Could you please check with a couple of editors with the requisite interest in astronomy and perhaps reconsider your decision? Best wishes, Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Fraser writes extensively for Wired. I always assumed writers for major publications were notable simply for that. Mindme (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is information that was not considered in the AFD, but would have swung the result the other way, by all means bring it up on WP:DRV. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Relativity priority dispute
We came to the same conclusion almost at exactly the same time, which must have something to do with relativity? Ged UK  20:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection of User_talk:FleetCommand
Hi there. Can you explain the recent month-long protection of the above user's talk page, please? When I check the edit history, I see a total of four edits made by an anonymous contributor who is complaining about his edits being reverted as vandalism. This sounds to me to be a legitimate comment from an anon. Blocking talk page access for a significant section of the editing populace for a full month isn't justified in these circumstances, IMO, and stifles open communication. You cited PP in the protect log, but that area of the protection policy clearly states that "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users" - A l is o n  ❤ 05:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you disagree, you are welcome to shorten or remove it. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok - thanks for the reply! I've reduced it to a week - A l is o n  ❤ 22:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jinx
Jinx! You owe me a soda! Danger (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha. ;-) causa sui (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates
Hey, I remembered that you were interested in the last round of testing of warnings we did via Huggle, so I thought I'd let you know we posted some results and ideas for future work at Village pump (technical). Hope you're well, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk   20:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

AIV block
Hey, I've blocked a user that was reported on AIV. You declined the report here. Given the user's contributions up to that point, I think it's safe to say they didn't intend to be constructive. If you disagree, I'm totally open to discussing it. Just thought I'd drop by and let you know. Cheers, m.o.p  18:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would like to discuss it. Can you tell me your opinion on why we generally expect that user talk page warnings will be escalated from levels 1-4 before blocking? causa sui (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, we like to think that vandals are just unversed with our policies, and want to make sure they get warned properly before we block a potentially-constructive user. m.o.p  19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. But some kinds of vandalism are especially damaging, especially: defamation, posting shock images, flagrant copyright infringement, etc. So we don't give such vandals the same warnings since it's essential that we prevent this sort of damage to the project right away -- hence the 4im warnings. Do I have this right? causa sui (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Some types of vandalism don't allow for a full cycle of warnings to be given out. m.o.p  21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, glad we're on the same page. Looking at contributions from, none appeared to justify a 4im warning. They are much more consistent with ignorant newbie editing, probably by a person with low computer literacy who was generally unserious about contributing to Wikipedia. While I doubt that much was lost to the project when we blocked this user, I don't know what other vandal edits should get the usual escalation if these don't. Can you explain why you thought this was a special case that required an immediate and indefinite block to prevent damage to the project? Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that the user's three contributions to the project (all made within seven minutes) brought us such classics as "A Jack Wills one is referring to a Jack Wills condom. Good day!" and "Lotti Parfitt is a babe, nuff said," I felt that there wasn't much to be lost from blocking the user. The 4im warning, which I didn't issue, wouldn't have been necessary for a block in my opinion - the disruptive (and fast-paced) nature of the user's contributions led me to believe that an indefinite block was in order. Of course, if the user contests the block and gives the impression that they wish to be a constructive editor, we can go from there - but for now, I think the block is fitting. m.o.p 21:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that usually an editor with contributions like that is unlikely to be reformed. Stress on 'unlikely'. After an indef block, they definitely won't be reformed. I'm still left wondering why we escalate warning levels 1-4 at all, if we wouldn't for a user with such a harmless edit history. Not a big deal though - I wouldn't ask you to reverse it. Hopefully it will give pause in the future, though. causa sui (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding African Cashew Alliance
Hi there,

I would like to request African Cashew Alliance to be put back up. My project team mates have went through a round of editing after receiving your speedy deletion of it. As we are very new to wikipedia, and this is graded as part of our school project (grading is on-going in process now), I seek your kind understanding in this matter.

I am not sure if this is the way to sign my message, but here it is.

Hope to hear from you ASAP.

Evelynhy (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm glad to hear you have been looking at the policies and reworking your article. The best place to propose that it be recreated would be articles for creation where an experienced editor will review your draft and point out any problems. Good luck! causa sui (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I was the one who brought the Louie Gohmert article to the board. I don't believe we should lock the article with the Title " Accusation that Obama is helping international Islamic caliphate" intact rather with the NPOV title "Comments regarding Obama's policies towards the Middle East," since it is more NPOV.

--Andy0093 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I always take care to protect the wrong version. ;-) causa sui (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha okay thanks meow. --Andy0093 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page, as well?
Hi. Good call deleting Lists of topics not covered by any list per IAR, but could you delete the talk page, Talk:Lists of topics not covered by any list, as well? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. causa sui (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Thomas Holley
I'm in the process of editing the page with content and references. How is that disruptive? --Davereject (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Consulting
I felt that a recent edit in the Istanbul Pogrom violated the NPOV greatly. It favored a Greek source over many other sources and contradicted in itself while stating that the number of casualties is both an estimation and an exact number of deaths. So I reverted it first and then typed my reasoning in the talk page but then the same user reverted mine saying that there was no talk page explanation probably doing before I hit the Save Page button so I reverted the edits the second time. However, I won't revert it again not to start a senseless edit war. I wanted to consult you first what to do first. Can I report him anywhere if he reverts my reverts again? If I revert his revert a third time it would obviously violate the 3RR. If I don't do anything then we'll have a page with a single source dominating over many others. A Greek source written in Greek that gives the number of deaths as 30 as an estimation while all other sources give a number between 13-17. What is the right course of action? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you leave the article as it is and talk it out on the talk page. There is no hurry, and your Wikipedia editing will be much less stressful when you can control the frantic energy behind naked reverting. Revert_only_when_necessary might have some guidance on this. Of course, dispute resolution is your bible here. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be great if I saw the same approach from the same people I'm having trouble with. Unfortunately, I don't. Though, my pursuit of that particular edit did push them into adding it to the article with a less POV approach. However, the partisanship on Wiki irritates me and I'll probably won't stick around to fix such major errors, not that you care for sure. Thanks for the insight. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Working with people who don't want to work with you is an art form, for sure. I hope you can find the patience. If all else fails, there are millions of other articles to work on and we always need more editors. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)