User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive2

Protection of Israeli violence against Palestinian children
I feel you incorrectly protected the article Israeli violence against Palestinian children. The article is highly POV, and me and others are attempting to adding POV other then Palestinian POV the article was founded on, and Wikipedian Xed keeps reverting it as "vandalism" (see History page). He used ad-homonym attacks on my Talk page and on the Talk page of Israeli violence against Palestinian children. He is obviously insecure about this article not providing his agenda accurately if it becomes NPOV. If anything you should revert back to my revision, and then protect it.

--Masterhomer 06:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Let it cool down a bit, let us have a clear vote/poll on the matter and then let's decide. Neutralisation 06:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Precisely. To anticipate other inquiries, my response is that the enormous number of reverts in this edit war required page protection and still does. There is disagreement about which version administrators should protect on, but I feel leaving the contents as they are is the best approximation of neutrality. This is only a temporary situation (albeit one that might last weeks). Discussions/polls should clear it up...eventually. Cool Hand Luke  07:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning. However, I feel that by protecting such an NPOV article, you are allowing people to use Wikipedia to push specific and controversial agendas. The article is not just NPOV, it is damaging, and fails to show the reader Israel's rightful point of view. The uneducated reader will read article like that and end up accusing Israel of the wonton murdering of innocent children, which my and others people's addition showed to not be the case. --Masterhomer 07:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New to Israeli-Palestinian articles
Well, I welcome your efforts to bring reason and calm to these articles. The topic is always heated, and right now we're in a particularly unpleasant and combative stage there, as some of the more experienced and calmer editors have left, and a couple of newer editors have joined who don't seem to have any concern about Wikipedia policies or norms. These things tend to sort themselves out over time, but it's very painful for everyone involved until they do. In the meantime, don't let me scare you off; sometimes a couple of neutral third parties can succeed where others have failed. I'm hoping you will succeed. :-) Jayjg 04:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My adminship request
Thanks for your support and kind words!

Thanks for the welcome
I have also added a singer with a degree from the U of U: Daniel Lewis Williams.

Mike and I, as well as my husband Stephen, are also very interested in Mormon history, so our paths may cross. Ksnow 19:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)ksnow

Reformed Egyptian still alive
I told Nauvoo to go ahead and edit the article, and we would pursue editing there without fear that anybody was going to feel we were having an edit war. The talk was getting too cluttered. It sounds like Nauvoo took me up on the offer. I will check it out and edit boldly if needed. I suggested to Nauvoo that we include good explanations in our summaries. Tom - Talk 15:58, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Olympic legacy
I know you are busy, but I would like your opinion on a piece I wrote: User:JonMoore/2002 Winter Olympic Games. Originally I was writing a supplement to the Salt Lake City, Utah page about the Olympic's impact and legacy on the city. It sort of grew into this. It doesn't seem to fit into the city page, but then it doesn't fit into the 2002 Winter Olympic Games page since alot of it is about SLC, so I'm not sure where to put it. Please feel free to edit it if you like and let me know what you think. Thanks :-)
 * [[user:JonMoore| J ON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 21:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't meaning you should go clean EVERYTHING up, it just occurred to me that it seems like I write something, go back 2 hrs later, and you've doubled the content...heh, I guess that's what wikipedia is about...
 * [[user:JonMoore| J ON, Conqueror of Men - (Talk to Me, Baby!)]] 19:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Orphan VfDs
I was just curious where you were finding them--if you've been working from the bottom of template:vfd, we seem to have just met in the middle around Digital seraph. Niteowlneils 05:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I asked this on User talk:Niteowlneils, but you seem interested as well. I just downloaded a copy of the cur table, and am playing around with it. One of the things I've found I can do is generate giant lists of articles that have pieces of text like "votes for deletion" and " " in them. Interested? -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've already run queries for the text "votes for deletion" and " " against the dump from Nov 26. The "votes for deletion" query in particular is interesting because it turns up some extremely old missing listings. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Got one for " |&#9998; 06:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pulling them off the dump of 'cur' using a big slow fulltext query. I've got three big lists, somewhat overlapping. Where do you want them? -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I put the "VfD" and "votes for deletion" lists at User:Cool Hand Luke/VfDs after cleaning them up a little. I figure you can get the ones in the category yourself easily enough. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 07:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
It's gratifying knowing someone notices my work...I noticed your Article on the Depot was chose a while back too! We have a bit of minor work to do, but I think our SLC article is almost up to featured status! Maybe if it does we could all (who are local anyway) get together and have a party to celebrate! I'd like to finally meet my co-conspirators! --[[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 21:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * While your at it, since you seem to be the picture God, could you see what you could find for the downtown (Salt Lake City) page? I think it would be alot prettier that way :) Anyway, if you feel like comiserating on a meet-up my email is: johano@gmail.com and my AIM name is: cgysra... cheers! [[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 22:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for re-adding the RfC entry. I wasn't sure how to summarize the dispute in an entirely neutral manner without taking up a large paragraph :) So I suppose that works. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 19:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

And thanks for supporting my bid for adminship, and the gratifying note you added. --Woggly 20:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

D. Michael Quinn
I just put up a stub article on D. Michael Quinn with a few facts, before I realized you were planning to start this article. Maybe you can use my stub to make something more detailed. CO GDEN  20:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. With the way he's been cited on Joseph Smith, it's overdue. Cool Hand Luke  04:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

La La VfD
Yeah, no doubt about that. Thanks for putting a timely end to it. Everyking 10:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. You wrote:


 * Possibly the lamest and most needlessly high-pitched lost cause VfD I've ever seen. Cool Hand Luke  07:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Such judgements are very subjective, I'm afraid. I was amazed at the strength of feeling in the "keep" camp, because, with the song already getting two paragraphs in the article about the album, it looked like an open and shut case of "too much trivia" to me.  Your mileage may vary.  This is why I think VfD is a useful forum. Had I encountered the song entry I probably would have just merged what little useful information I could find into the album article, and redirected without taking it to VfD.  This is usually the right thing to do, but here the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep.  A very useful VfD that has thrown much light on the status of pop culture trivia on WP.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, you have AIM or yahoo messenger? I'm on right now: cgysra on aim or kleme on yahoo...[[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 07:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting idea
Wow, didn't even know you could do that! However, I oppose based on censorship of images. So although my fork objection is addressed, my censorship issue is not. An interesting idea, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm... do you go to IRC much? I think you could tell Kate about that one. That really is cool :-) Ta bu shi da yu 09:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would not oppose a user setting that does self-censorship. I think that idea could work. Unfortunately I'm not a developer... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mudgee High School
Yep, they do exist. I suggest marking as a substub. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib
I just did the no pictures version to forestall any objection to the pictures, since I think the pics are a substantial part of the article. I think your solution, if it works, is an excellent idea. I'm not sure I understand how it works, I still haven't messed with templates much. If you wantto explain a bit more, I'd be interested, or point me tosomepages that will help me get it? anyway, thanks for letting me know about this great new idea!! I'm completely againstcensorship myself, but this seems like it might work with the user stylesheet somehow to make it possible for auser to censor out images on any page with the right kind of markup? I'm going to read the talk page on Abu Ghraib and see what I get from that. Nice job, though! Pedant 01:14, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Such a nice hack! That's stellar!  Are you an admin yet?  If not I'd like to nominate you.  Pedant 01:19, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Anthony DiPierro block
Part of your stated justification was violation of the three revert rule. As far as I could tell, Anthony only made three reverts to the page within 24 hours - the name of the rule is a little confusing on this point, but the rule is not violated until the fourth revert.

Alternatively, if you were counting his earlier violations from December 2, I think those would fall outside the "statute of limitations" as it were. However, because your discretion to block Anthony can be justified based on the standing order alone, I am not reversing the block. I have no concerns about your action, I just wanted to be a little more clear about the justifications for blocking. --Michael Snow 18:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bubeleh
It is a pretty common term of endearment. She often addresses me as "darling" so I have no idea why it upsets her. Slrubenstein

68.21.185.217
User:68.21.185.217 seems to be abusing the Sandbox. Could you take a look at the history? Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 02:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, I wanted to thank you for nominating me for Adminship...so far 9 pro, 0 against... :-P [[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 02:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm surprised that as few as I have made...I see people with 8000 edits, and I am just amazed! [[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 20:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

request
Hey Mr. Cool,

Can you comment on this discussion: thanks, Slrubenstein 23:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I guess I was just annoyed that I got blocked before Silsor even sent me a message. And not every admin who responded told me to stop, in fact most seemed to not mind answering my question. But never to worry, this will never happen again. I guess we'll leave these decisions to the select group of admins to monitor VfD talk, the helpdesk pages and the mailing list. Perhaps we need an admin noticeboard? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. what happens if I needed to tell all admins something, for instance let's say I setup a Administrator's bulletinboard and wanted them to know about it? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Precisely the reason I started asking everyone! I wanted everyone to respond so I can get an idea whether we should do it or not. Besides, wouldn't only messaging a select group of admins who you know would respond in a favouable way to your views be manipulative? But I'll start the board. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gah!
Just got your message after I replied to Silsor. OK, I'll take a step back. But you have to understand how pissed off I am about the whole matter. Apart from being called a spammer when I made an honest mistake, I got blocked by an admin who never even left me a message until after I got blocked! That sucks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Board created :-) See Administrator's noticeboard. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


 * Hopefully WikiTravel will decide to change their license to version 2.0, but unless they do that, then you using 2.0 will not help them. It will of course help any other project using 2.0.  You could consider releasing any modifications to city/state/county articles under 1.0 and everything under 2.0, as the city/state/county articles are presumably more important to them than other articles.  There are a few other users here who use 2.0 only.  If ever WikiTravel does go to 2.0 (it's not a simple process, much like trying to change the license here!), then I personally will no longer release any new changes under 1.0, because it's somewhat of an obsolete license.  If you don't want to use 1.0, that's fine.  I've already made them aware that some users would not be comfortable with anything other than the 2.0 license.    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   22:56, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * What you are asking for can be accomplished with the following:


 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
 * In addition, I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:
 * In addition, I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:


 * Hope this is helpful.   – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   23:04, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you relist the RFCs?
Most people want them delisted from VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove again, this time could you please bring your objections to talk? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll leave it be. I think that policy needs to be ammended on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well
Well, it's been 7 days, and is past the time for nomination. 14 pro, 0 against. Hmmmm. Guess you were right. I still have'nt officially been promoted. Ah well... :) [[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 00:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Complex reverts
It has been made clear in a number of contexts that reverts combined with edits still count as reverts. Jayjg 05:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Block?
User:Alberuni should be blocked for his latest four reverts on List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2004. Also, please notice the deceptive edit summaries. Reverts plus updates are a violation of the 3RR --Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 06:47, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (typos) - Revert plus update
 * 04:48, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (typos) - Revert plus update
 * 01:59, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (The article is a composite from several sources.) - Revert
 * 01:37, 12 Dec 2004 Alberuni (format) - Revert plus update
 * Thanks for your reply. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:05, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand your position, but I think it's unwise to "let it slide" because he needs to learn that 3RR is being enforced. Where do I go to request enforcement of 3RR? Thanks in advance. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, Johnleemk has blocked him. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mate
I appreciate your concern :) I'll still be around though, just in a limited capacity and you won't see many of my edits in my contributions list. You can see which IP address I'll be contributing under if you check the Btrieve. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes For Deletion Policy
Seeing as how I'm dreadfully new to all of these Wikipedia guidelines, and seeing as how you're an admin and all, I have a question for you about pages that are put up on the Votes for deletion page.

A quick look at Laser star model of quasars shows that it is currently undergoing votes for deletion. But Votes_for_deletion/Laser_star_hypothesis says clearly that the votes have already been archived, with a majority deciding to keep. So shouldn't the notice that it is undergoing votes for deletion be removed?

Notice that the last vote on the archive was November 22, about a month ago. It is a dissenting "delete" vote, by The Anome. Now look at the history of Laser star model of quasars. The last edit, by The Anome and marked as minor, claims to revert due to vandalism. But he reverted back to a page that still had the vfd template on it!

Maybe there is no wrongdoing here; as I said before, I'm still rather unfamiliar with the more obscure Wikipedia policies. Maybe the vfd template is supposed to stay on more than a month after the vfd page has been archived. But it looks as though The Anome purposefully put up the Votes For Deletion template even after the votes had been counted, archived, and the page was considered worthy of staying. (Not that I blame The Anome for this, as the article is clearly pure pseudoscience, but even still; it seems better to clarify it as a disputed theory than to just delete the entry completely.)

Of course, by the time you get back from your wikivacation, this might have already solved itself, but... Anyway, good luck on your finals. (c;  Eric Herboso 06:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus
Firstly, thanks for kind comments on my user page. They were totally appreciated... I'm in a much better state now so I'll be reverting back. It's good to know that people are very kind on this site though :-)

(note that I'm sending this message to a few people as a general call for help) Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK to delete article in wrong location?
Hi, There's a page at Cool Hand Luke/Sandbox/pictures suppressed, which I think you probably really wanted at User:Cool Hand Luke/Sandbox/pictures suppressed instead. Would it be OK to either delete this page, or move it into your user space, and then delete the redirect? All the best, -- Nickj 01:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, just about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed article, it's come to the attention of the Wiki Syntax Project, because it has unbalanced div tags (this page is the last one left listed on WikiProject_Wiki_Syntax/div-tags-000.txt). Basically it closes a div tag, opens a div tag, and then closes a div tag (i.e. 2 close, 1 open). Would it please be possible for the page to be changed in some way so that the number of div tags closed and opened are the same? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 04:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Query regarding your comment on RfAr
You stated there that you do not think it should be a requirement for our Arbitrators to have had perfect relations with the state bar all their life. That may be true. But where would you draw the line? Serious crimes that result in long terms of imprisonment are no doubt over the line. Minor infractions - say being a few days late in doing something, or having one minor adverse comment in relation to a case with a difficult client, for which you apologise, are probably not over the line. Conversely, I would say that, if it is over conflicts of interest or over conduct that prejudices the adminsitration of justice, that person should definitely not be an Arbitrator. But where do we draw the line? jguk 23:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have deleted a link you put on the RfAr page. I know this is not usual procedure, but given the circumstances, I don't wish to overpublicise the conversations I am having on another user's talk page. Though if you take a contrary view and re-add the link, I will not redelete it. Kind regards, Jguk 11:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pix
Hey, I see you got a pic on the TRAX page, before I could get my roll of film developed. Darn you. Oh well. Heh, maybe we should meet up and go on a picture taking spree for wikpedia. Heh. If you want to set up a time to hang out call me. My cell # is on my LJ post in the nonmormonsutah community. --[[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 00:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my mess of an archive on the Clitoris:Talk page. Much appreciated. - Robert the Bruce 04:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:TheFlow
Heh, looks like you were updating his talk page at the same time I was. I guess I can put Salt Lake City, Utah up as a featured article candidate later today. Im at work, so i will do it at lunch.

When I have time (which seems like never), I will go through and work on cleanup and redlinks. Merry Chrismukkah. --[[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 01:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR?
This looks like a violation of the 3RR to me, what do you think?

Irishpunktom reverted 4x in 23 minutes as follows:

Reverted Jayjg 23:44 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Mperel 23:35 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Jayjg 23:27 Dec 22 to his previous version

Reverted Jayjg 23:21, Dec 22  to his previous version

Actually reverted a fifth time under his ip 195.7.55.146 12:23 Dec 22 to his previous version --Jayjg 03:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR

 * Revert 1: (compare to first edit):
 * Revert 2: (compare to first edit):
 * Revert 3? (disputed, compare to first edit):
 * Revert 4? (disputed, compare to first edit):

That information that got reverted twice is info on the Chris Patton letter. That's new information that has been added. So based on this I don't think he even got to revert 3. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In the last two edits he added a paragraph, while reverting the rest of the information.  If you look at this diff, you will see the information he kept inserting (e.g. about seeing Zionists agitating for the Temple Mount) and removing (e.g. quote from E.U. stating "The reform of the financial management of the PA is the objective of several key conditions attached to the EU financial assistance.")  He inserted and/or deleted this information 4 times (5 if you count his IP edit). As has been made clear many times, reverts with added information are still reverts. Jayjg 04:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib
The appears to be non functional in this latest version of wiki. As you'll note there is NO disclaimer on EITHER page now. Alkivar 05:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a few more photos and using your template syntax they should have been suppressed on the censored edition. However they are still in plain view? Can you figure that out please. Thanks! Alkivar 02:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * the no pictures version is up for VfD YET AGAIN! relisted less than a week after it finished its last listing, this time its mostly delete votes. I guess now VfD policy is to keep relisting stuff when you dont like the result, until you get the result you want that is. Alkivar 05:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cunt
If you want to talk to me about a subject you do it in the talk page of that subject or where I have written, you don't split it off into a sperate thread. You attempt at moving subject around will not be put up with. Never ever contect me again in anyway.--Jirate 12:43, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)


 * I made a Draft RfC in response to these sorts of remarks, but am shelving it for now because other users might be able to curb Irate's behaviour. Feel free to use it as a skeleton RfC if you wish. Cool Hand Luke  23:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC
If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. &mdash; &#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;   &#8362;  04:46, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate
Well, I know you are gone for the holidays, but I'm leaving you a note to let you know that Salt Lake City, Utah has been archived, as a FA. I decided to give it another try and I nominated your article Liberal Party (Utah) as a featured article. So far 2 supports...;-P You can look here: Featured article candidates/Liberal Party (Utah) Happy Holidays. [[user:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 05:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)