User talk:Dscos/archive4

=July 2004=

Music for July Days
I recommend Summer Breeze by Seals & Crofts. It's very easygoing '70s AM rock. Stuff I like, because I'm an old-ass fogey, at the ripe age of eighteen-and-eight-months. Pleasant dreams, mon cher ami. Mike H 02:29, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seals and Crofts has to be about the fifth-worst "band" of all time. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 02:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Gasp! You can't be serious! I love them! And you will too, because I'll brainwash you into doing so! Pah! Mike H 15:34, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

More Music for July Days
Sorry about cutting out of the chat so abruptly. I'm researching Christie Clark and one of my windows started downloading pop-up leech thingies, and it cut off every window I had open.

To answer your question, I got the barnstar from Hcheney, and to make this subheading make sense, I recommend the greatest hits of Sly and the Family Stone. Mike H 23:50, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, you're a kickass contributor yourself and you should have one, too. Mike H 23:54, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, I was just playin' around. I'm happy for you.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 23:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, Sly and the Family Stone? Shit, folk.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 23:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What, it's good stuff! Plus, there are so many good songs on it, not just stuff they play on 107.3 like Hot Fun in the Summertime or Everyday People. Mike H 23:57, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * How's about I make some recommendations? Try Figure 8 by Elliott Smith or Good News for People Who Love Bad News by Modest Mouse.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 23:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If you buy me the CDs. :-P Or at least tell me if I can download it off Morpheus or not. Mike H 00:03, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 00:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I want to try out your music. I'd go see if I could get it right now, but I'm sweeping my system for spyware and then I'm going to reboot. Mike H 00:12, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am now back and rebooted. Mike H 01:00, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

The West Wing
Yeah, I looked at that ToC and boggled. I did some reformatting, but I see I forgot to add an intro paragraph -- or even a link back to The West Wing (television). --wwoods 21:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your Signature
Please take yr livejournal off your WP sig line. Fine on your user page, but it is burdensome to all to have more than your user & user talk pages splattered on everything you sign. Thanks.--Jerzy(t) 00:15, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
 * May I ask what the problem is with having that in the sig, exactly? Just curious. :-) Mike H 00:20, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, again, and thanks for the graceful retraction, which is much more important (to me personally) than the offense. (What can i say, i'm weird in general and part of that weirdness is knowing that i am what you called me, and just getting on with it, whatever the fallout of that is.)
 * Well, sorry, my signature is my signature. I do with it what I want.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 00:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And congrats on adminship; your ability to retreat a little on this (in the face of what i don't doubt was, for you, extreme provocation) IMO bodes well for your working into the role productively. (Hmm, having said that, i guess i should clear state that the incident was not at test for you.)

As you've asked only a rhetorical question, i'm not going to presume on yr hospitality by trying to clarify for you my thinking on yr sig, tho i find you now much closer to appearing receptive than in yr 1st response to me. But i'd be glad to discuss if you care to.

I will, tho, state a fact (w/o assuming you'll consider it relevant): i didn't intend to "[go] around ... changing your signatures", and i think you'll agree at least on reflection that you invited the inference that you either construed that intent or misjudged the actual extent of my activity. No offense taken, but since we're still in the context of your being offended and our communication not (yet, at least) being fluent, i consider it best to keep our fact-base as clean as possible, even in what seems to me a minor detail. Finally, my compliments on the Cyrillic chars in your new sig; i think it's clever & attractive even if the word (words?) is just "Talk" or a synonym. My acquaintance w/ Rooskiy is so weak (and the font so small on my screen) that i can't speculate further, but my curiosity was picqued by what appeared to me to be an upper-case Deh amid lower-case letters. [shrug].
 * Mmmhm. My opinion on the matter is, although you were only "trimming" them to save space, that it is rude and inappropriate to edit someone else's signature without either permission from the user or a community consensus.  That's just my opinion.  But I'm content to put this in the past.  It's not worth fighting over.  Wastes time that can be used for something constructive.  :-)  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's "(&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!) (besyeda)" and it means "(Conversation!)"... I love Russkiy, I'm trying to learn.  Anyway, one small link isn't worth a war.  So... that's it!  :-)  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again for responsible communication on this. --Jerzy(t) 16:56, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)


 * &#1071; &#1085;&#1077; &#1087;&#1086;&#1085;&#1080;&#1084;&#1072;&#1102; &#1088;&#1091;&#1089;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081; &#1103;&#1072;&#1079;&#1080;&#1082; - &#1075;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1088;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077; &#1087;&#1086;-&#1072;&#1085;&#1075;&#1083;&#1080;&#1089;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;, &#1087;&#1086;&#1078;&#1072;&#1083;&#1091;&#1081;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;! --Ardonik 21:37, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am only learning Russian, but I think the gist of that was "I don't understand Russian well - Use English, please?" - If that's what you said, well, then, too bad! I like Russian, so I's gonna use it!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  22:02, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You're correct, of course (and I'm pretty sure you know more Russian than I do.) --Ardonik 09:28, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * -P. nice, though!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  11:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nomination
No problem. Good luck, and be cautious with blocks and deletions. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nomination II
You're very welcome; I know a good user when I see one. PP! -- Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  14:40, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

You're a sysop!
I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now a sysop. Please read the Administrators' reading list to learn about your new privileges and responsibilities and what special tasks sysops perform. Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 14:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Aye, commander. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 15:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On the pleasures of the Fish
Hi, Blankfaze: Thanks for the thanks! Glad to do it! I don't believe in running discussions, esp. in someone's nomination, but you might have wondered what was going on with the "fish" thing, now that the dust has settled. I'm in New York, where it's quite the thing to do Christian-bashing. A number of pundits have remarked that Catholics are the last societal group it's OK to criticize. Well, since Bush this has extended to almost any Christian belief more conservative than Unitarian/Univeralists. I don't agree that Bush's issue is to push a "christian" agenda, but that's just politics--no big deal. The "fish" however--you see, it has become quite the thing around here to make fun of this symbol (which is drawn almost the same as your fish), but add details. It started with a "Darwin fish" (put legs on it) which is pretty cute, but has evolved into nastier incarnations. So I put 2+2 together and got 5! Anyway, hope you get the opportunity to use your sysopness to make Wikipedia prettier and nicer! Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 15:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhhhh. I see!  Scouts honour, my fish is a symbol for nothing other than my crappy garage band.  I shall do my best to uphold the code of the sysop!  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your garage band is better than Bill & Ted's. :) -- Cecropia | Talk 17:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Desktop
I like your desktop and the thumbnails to My Documents for instance. May I ask how you got that theme or whatever you call it? (I know there not called thumbnails)
 * Thanks! The icons for My Documents and most of my other stuff are from an icon set called... XP iCandy, I think.  You should be able to find it using a Google search.  To change icons, though, you'll need a program like IconPackager.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 17:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Objections on FAC
Blankfaze &mdash; on IRC earlier you seemed to be quite upset and hostile about my objection to Mt. St. Helens on Featured Article Candidates, so I thought I'd just drop a note to explain why I throw objections even at good articles (like that one), and hopefully clear up any bad feeling.

Featured Articles is (currently) the only validation / quality check system we have on Wikipedia, and we trumpet it as the "Best of Wikipedia". These are the articles we direct people to when they say that Wikipedia can't work or can't produce decent articles. Because of this, I think our Featured Articles should be as good as possible; not necessarily perfect, but close. Accordingly, I will object to an article if A) I can see any obvious flaws, or B) If I can see any obvious way it could be improved. This will seem like "nitpicking" and "petty" objections sometimes, but it's not because I'm being malicious, rather it's because I want Wikipedia to be represented well. If I'm being over-picky, and this is entirely possible in cases, then I'm happy to trust the concept of consensus in Wikipedia; if enough people support, and there's only one objection, it will still be promoted. &mdash; Matt 19:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for explaining, but... it's still stupid, in my opinion. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 19:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's fine and normal for people to disagree on Wikipedia. I guess it's more of a problem when people start disagreeing in ways that degenerate into insults; as an admin I'm sure you're aware of the No personal attacks policy. It's much more productive and pleasant to say why you disagree with an objection, rather than labelling it stupid / lousy / petty etc. &mdash; Matt 20:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Matt, I explained it to you to the point of exhaustion. I guess you just don't get it.  So don't make it out like I'm just attacking you instead of making an effort to explain first.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 20:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I "just don't get it"; that's fine, we can have different views on things &mdash; you did indeed go to some effort on IRC to explain why you disagreed to the objection. I just want to encourage you to avoid hostility when expressing your disagreement, even when we can't reconcile our opinions; surely that something we should all try to do? &mdash; Matt 21:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Aye, most certaintly. blankfaze | &bull;&bull; | &bull;&bull; 21:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'm not sure what your agreeing "Aye, most certainly" to, but it's not the "avoid hostility when expressing your disagreement" sentence: ; I'm a bit disappointed. &mdash; Matt 14:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry that you're disappointed in me, but the user is an asshole. How would he feel if I just went around "trimming" his signature everywhere?  It's very rude.  This was a disagreement.  He asked me to change my signature and I declined.  When he started "trimming" my signatures, it went from disagreement to just plain rude, asshole-ish gestures on his part.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull;&bull;&bull; 14:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: I've since apologised.  blankfaze | &bull;&bull;&bull;&bull; 15:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blahblah
Thanks, you're so nice. Peace Profound! -- Merovingian &#9997;  Talk  09:53, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Personal page delete
Oh, I missed that one entirely. Thanks for telling me. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Falcon K. and RfA
First, my condolences on your recent adminship and welcome to our world of struggle. Second, re: your recent removal of F.K.'s RfA self-nom:

"vote has been static for several days, doesn't seem like he'll be supported by anyone else."


 * Not a reason for removal;
 * A static vote with friendly opposition is very different from an active vote with people rushing to oppose, the reason for the early-removal guidelines
 * Content with explicit "listed here until " tags should be kept until that date;
 * Again, exceptions in RfA policy were not initially written for such mild cases; civility trumps the letter of the law when at all possible
 * RfA requests are left up for a week for many reasons, one being that wiki is patient - many visit RfA once a week if that often, and should not be denied a chance to comment on recent requests;
 * If you simply must flout convention, suggest it on the talk page and reach consensus with others first.

+sj + 07:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But it doesn't really belong there, according to me, the numerous people (including  numerous admins) I asked beforehand on IRC, and... oh yeah, RfA policy. -blankfaze


 * I'm certain you mean well, but getting support from Lysine on IRC doesn't count as reaching consensus with "numerous people"; silence != support. Even at the best of times, IRC is no substitute for a talk-page note.
 * As for the RfA policy exception for unlikely nominations, it has generally been applied to unfriendly 1/14/5 votes rather than to friendly "great work, but" 1/5/1 votes ... and there was an outstanding request for more information from Falcon by Cecropia, which he should see even if the vote will fail. +sj + 21:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google Me
Hi there, BF, my computer stinks, but this might help in googling my real name in quotes. Good day! Peace Profound! -- Merovingian &#9997;  Talk  19:08, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, I found it right after you left IRC. Hormuz Strait, eh?  Nifty.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  19:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rind et al.
Regarding youd vote for keeping the article about Rind et al. I would like to know why you do not agree with me that an encyclopedia article should not be named after the name of only one of the authors of a scientific study. Rind has certainly written more than one study, should they be named Rind et al. II, Rind et al. III, ..., and Rind et al. CCXIV? Why do you think this article needs its own article at all rather than being covered under "pedophilia" or so? Get-back-world-respect 03:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't agree with you. I don't really care about the article, or what it is called.  However, I'm very familiar with the deletion policy, and there's nothing in about about the article to merit deletion.  I voted accordingly.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  16:38, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Note to Read on July Days
Didn't see you in chat last afternoon or evening. Now I got to have the turn of being terribly lonely. Drop me a note, then. :-) Mike H 15:24, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks for the heads up, I've withdrawn my vote. How is adminship working out for you? --H. C HENEY 06:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Pretty nicely, just been deleting speedy candidates mostly. Got into a revert war with an anon (See Talk:Middle East).  But anyway, pretty uneventful.  Just deletin' them SDCs.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  06:29, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arlene Phillips
I am new to Wikipedia, and have contributed a couple of things so far - mainly under talk topics. I have seen that you are pretty active, so I thought I'd address my question to you. I want to create a new page for Arlene Phillips a UK choreographer and director of Musicals. Should I create it as Arlene Phillips OBE, or just plain Arlene Phillips? Some pages have one format, and others another. Please advise. --Martin TB 11:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'd like to say welcome to Wikipedia. Secondly, when placing messages on my talk page, I just ask that you use a ==Level 2 heading== to head your comment :-).  And thirdly, you should create the article at Arlene Phillips, and the first sentence should begin "Arlene Phillips, OBE (born such and such) is...".  Glad to help.  Feel free to ask me anything about Wikipedia; I'll probably know.  I'm also an administrator, in case you ever need to talk to one for some reason.  See you around!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  11:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response. Sorry about the heading, I did see that I should have done it, but wasn't sure how to create it - Now I do. Still getting to grips with the formatting styles - there seem to be a lot of different layouts! I'll do Arlene's page sometime next week as I am about to go away for the weekend. --Martin TB 12:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That's fine about the heading, glad to educate you :-). Yes, there are various different layouts in use, but try to use one that looks professional and encyclopaedic.  But don't fret over it.  The beauty of Wikipedia is that, if you make a mistake, sooner or later someone else will come along and correct it.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  12:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simpson v. Savoie
The only reason I listed it as a speedy candidate is because it has been voted on at vfd and the consensus is to delete, but the database keeps returning an error every time I try it. If you know what to do with it then feel free to sort it out. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 01:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, I thought I looked for a VfD discussion but I guess I didn't look hard enough. Or something.  Sorry.  Next time, write a better edit summary.  :-)  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  01:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes my bad, don't edit wikipedia articles at 2.40 in the morning when you're ill... -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 01:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * :-) blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  01:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar
Neutrality awarded me a barnstar on 12 July 2004; I've moved it to my main user page. blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  08:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Great news for you, mon cher ami! :-D Mike H 16:07, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

MySkin
I want to switch the skin but I don't know how. What do I do? Mike H 01:42, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * In Special:Preferences you can choose your skin. However, MySkin is not actually a skin, but an empty template for people to construct personal skins using CSS.  See Gallery of user styles.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  01:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How come I can't see any pictures? I've put yours in. Mike H 01:59, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * You can't see any pictures? That's odd.  Oh, wait!  You're using Internet Explorer, aren't you?  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am. I switched already. I wanted to see things. Speaking of seeing things, check these out: and . Mike H 16:06, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah the skin I use like... doesn't work in IE. Coz IE is shit and doesn't support CSS well.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  22:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ke4roh
I replied to your comment. -- ke4roh 03:16, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

west wizzl
what up dogg. can you point me to the rules? I tried to find some last nite but this site is f-ing huge. and who's lord of the west wing site and why do they think their style is so cool and untouchable? I know every character's dating history- I need more. Describing the parade of the character's emotionz is fine but that's not all the show is made up of. Kzz-nizzle-bam-snip-snap-sack

hey-
I just realized you really did only take out one edit I did. It was less tasteful than the others, but not an untrue statement. Anyway, sorry I got mad at you for a minute. thankz, McKzzl Hofferstein
 * Agreed. It wasn't untrue, at all.  But it was... oddly worded.  And not really relevant.  But anyway, keep doing good work. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  11:29, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images in WikiProject Pokénav templates
As I said in my Edit Summary, please go to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokénav page before removing any more images from this WikiProject's templates to support your view there. Thanks,--Fern 13:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I really have more important things to do. This is silly.  Maybe I'll stop by there.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

 * First of all I'd like to offer my condolences for your failed nomination on RfA. As you know, I supported you, as I do and will continue to do with just about anyone Hcheney nominates. While I realise that you have made a few mistakes, such as blanking a talk page, I don't think any mistakes on your part were anything more than honest mistakes. And I think you'd make a fine admin. So don't get discouraged. Just take a month and go to work. Just do good work. Then in a month, someone can nominate you again, and hopefully, you'll make it that time. Good luck, my friend.blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  11:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really appreciate your kind words. I'll continue editing, of course (currently I'm working on a Governor of Florida project). So thanks for supporting me, and better luck next time, I guess. ;) Neutrality 15:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Captions
Hi, Blankfaze, I've not long ago created WikiProject Writing Captions, and I'd like to invite your comments, and if you're interested, your participation before I link to it from the regular places. Thanks! -- ke4roh 21:33, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Fuck
please read and comment. Philip Baird Shearer 13:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Revert
Please don't make reverts without explanation. anthony (see warning)
 * There is no explanation required. YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE FEATURED ARTICLE.  PERIOD.  User:Raul654 changes to featured article.  NOT User:Anthony DiPierro.  OK?
 * Where is this policy outlined? anthony (see warning)
 * It isn't. It is de facto! blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  11:38, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, do not listen to him! It is fair game to modify anything that you see fit to! Do not let the cabal with an agenda to bring about bias to this incredible project leave you bitter! Keep up the fight!205.188.116.70 02:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
Wow. I wonder who you pissed off? Morwen - Talk 13:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony DiPierro. We editwarred over Template:Feature this morning.  Fucking jesus.  Motherfucker ever MOVED my user page.  Swear to god, these kids...  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe someone just knows that you are a sockpuppet. Why would you ask that. You know who.
 * Haha. Who am I a sockpuppet of?  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why not tell the rest of us? Morwen - Talk 13:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why would I ask that? Maybe because I don't know who.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Really stupid discussion with idiot anon, Part Une
Just look it up. Its obvious. I'm sure your IP address matches that of your other username. If not, look at what user departed the same day as you came here. And look at who nominated you for admin. Note that you didn't even deny it. I bet you dont even believe in christ. See you in hell. When we die. Since I'm a vandal and your a heathen. You should be afraid.
 * Haha. Look it up.  Look it up where?  In The Silly Anon's Big Book of Imaginary Sockpuppets?  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I dunno who left the day I came here. And Fennec nominated me.  So what?  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * According to Template:dyk, you're a sockpuppet of User:Guanaco. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:46, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
 * Sighs. BTW, Meelar, thanks for aiding in the vandalfighting.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem. Why Guanaco, though? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
 * I haven't the slightest clue. Apparently he accused Hadal of being Guanaco too.  Who knows.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's too goddamn stupid to merit anything more than a glance. Christ, you're immature.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  13:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe in JC. It's just an expression.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  14:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in hell either, I'm afraid. blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If you say so... blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's Guanaco because I'm the one who first blocked Mr. Treason. Guanaco 17:52, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Really stupid discussion with idiot anon, Part Deux
Friend, or maybe another sockpuppet? Gay lover perhaps? Just come out of the closet already. I won't pick on you. So your gay, and he's in the closet? You guys are confusing me. prove it and prove i'm anthony he could send a picture of himself kissing a woman. that would prove it what about children, does he like little kids? what about 17 year olds? how about 14?
 * This is stupid. Don't threaten my friend. Mike H 15:06, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Because if two males are friends, and one is gay, and the other doesn't discriminate against gays, they must be doing it, right? Grow up. Mike H 15:15, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * WTF? He isn't gay, and I am. What the hell is your point? Mike H 15:20, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * He is NOT gay. Clean the wax out of your ears, or get better glasses. Mike H 15:22, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * God, anthony, you are one of the most immature people I've ever come into contact with. Haha, I'm not "in the closet"... I'm as straight as an arrow!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:23, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Prove he isn't gay? What, do you want me to ask him for some sex, and then he's supposed to say no? Is that "proof"? This is asinine and childish. Mike H 15:26, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Prove it? LMAO.  You're so immature, DiPierro!  You know very well that I can't prove a thing because you're behind a silly AOL proxy.  It's the same reason I haven't blocked your IP.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, I actually have a picture of myself kissing a gal. But you can't have it!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm no paedophile. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  15:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * He is 17, so that makes a bit of sense. Mike H 15:37, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Shut the fuck up, Tony. Neutrality 02:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guys, quit feeding trolls. It's for the best. Anthony, if that really is you, I thought better of you. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:39, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Blankfaze is a corrupt and power-hungry liar. His attempts for Wiki status are so desperate that on his user page he takes credit for other, anonymous members' hard work! For it was I who created the article on the half of Outkast known as Big Boi. Yet he takes credit for my initiative! Weed out these Wikipedia vandals and sycophants now, while we still have our chance at defeating them and their menace!205.188.116.70 01:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, I dunno whote created Big Boi, but it was a substub when I came across it... I wrote 95% of it, that's why I "take credit"... blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, it makes perfect sense that he be Guanaco. I think you are right, Anthony. The cabal has used such tactics before, whereby they employ aliases in order to create an illusion of support for their corrupt and deplorable actions. Blankfaze was one who backed Guanaco's Crusade against me. And, now, suddenly, when they think they're rid of me, he tries to take credit for my articles. Also, I must say, I love the obscene language and use of personal attack present so entirely through this page. Nice to see that they support the fucking standards that they accuse me of breaking! DOWN WITH THE CABAL OF CORRUPTION!205.188.116.70 02:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * LMAO. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For those who do not believe Guanaco is actually Blankfaze, take a look at exactly which two members have reverted my edits, in a futile attempt to whitewash the truth of the issue! This is a 17-year-old brat we're dealing with, as most of the Wik's problem users are but arrogant and spoiled children! (I'd love to have seen these whitebred punks survive even a day in the ghettos!) Do not let Wikipedia become a playground for children who are interested in removing this site's legitimacy!205.188.116.70 02:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"vandalism"
hello, I just noticed your message to 209.135.35.83 on User talk:209.135.35.83. This user isn't, in the strict technical sense of the term, committing "vandalism"; the problem is, in some ways, worse; he is a tenacious POV warrior. I have just listed him on Requests for arbitration. Care to add anything? -- Viajero 16:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know what he was doing, I was just warning him for another user who told me he wa vandalising. Oh, btw, He's been banned for 24 hours, if you weren't aware.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  16:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your graciousness
Wow.. my first award! I'll cherish it, to be sure. I must say, it sure put a smile on my face; something I needed after a day of tumult (both on- and offline). Thank you so much for the recognition, and the flatteringly positive feedback. You're a sweet one. :) -- Hadal 19:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No problem. You deserve it.  Great, great work.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  19:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bloodaxe
You wrote on clean-up that Bloodaxe was reminicent of vomit. I laughed. I love colorful descriptions like that, though I guess they raise some hackles. Many times I've been tempted to describe an article as "a steaming pile of monkey-shit", but stopped short. Sometimes out of decorum. Mostly out of a sense of fairness towards monkey-shit. - Nunh-huh 20:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * :-D - blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Trebor: IMO
Hi, whoops, sorry. I edit pages but am too lazy to log in :P I have a page at http://wiki.frath.net/index.php?title=User:Trebor, and deleted that page because I intend to move it there (as well as my Hungarian dictionary). --Trebor1990 20:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. We've had a nasty string of vandalattacks against user pages recently, so I'm especially weary.  My apologies.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  20:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172
Hello. I stumbled across your user page after seeing your helpful edits to Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, and then saw your contributions to a number of other Russia-related articles. So, I'm wondering if you've seen the recent rewrite of History of post-Soviet Russia. Perhaps you'll be interested in reviewing the changes. BTW, like the comments about Bush on your user page. 172 00:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, how odd, I just left you a message on your talk page about Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. Sorry if it came across too snide.  No snideness meant.  Thanks for the nice comments; I'll check that article out sometime.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:28, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Odd coincidence indeed. We must've been going through the article's page history at the same time. Anyway, I see that the pictures are going to come under a lot of scrutiny with the featured status. The article really does need a picture of the Russian White House, though. I'll try to find one that's more clearly public domain. 172 00:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. By the way, are you Russian, or do you just have a passing interest in Russian culture?  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I'm of Polish Jewish decent, born in the US. It's just a passing interest, combined with what I got through American diplomatic history, which is my specialty. But I don't know Russian, unfortunately. 172 00:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, cool cool. I'm trying to learn, but I'm not very good.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No need to be so hard on yourself. It's one of the most difficult major languages to learn, I've heard. So, it probably takes a lot of time. Good luck. 172 01:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  01:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A favor to ask.
Could you unprotect George W. Bush? Consensus has been reached (see Talk:George W. Bush) Thanks. Neutrality 01:02, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  01:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your user page
"In the United States, presidential elections are coming up in November. I would like to stress to everyone how important it is that the warmonger and bigot George W. Bush NOT be reelected. George W. Bush is enforcing a conservative Christian agenda on our nation. The federal government is no place for religion. We need a president who is more moderate, and can make decisions that are progressive instead of repressive. So please, get out there and vote, and encourage your friends and family to do the same."


 * Statements like this make me want to vote republican, against my best interests and judgement. Sam [Spade] 01:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't wuite understand... - blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am pro-God, pro-religion, and respectful towards my president. That said I want a new one. The economic misfortunes, the military mistakes, and the domestic policy misdeeds (I wasn't happy about what was done to the freedom of information act, or how environmentalism was handled, for example) have all but convinced me not to vote for Bush. That said, the only thing bringing me back to him is excessive bitterness like the statement you wrote. Stuff like that almost makes me want to vote for Bush as a protest vote against extremism (see Michael Moore). In fact, while I voted for Edwards in the primary, its going to be very difficult to vote for Kerry... Maybe I'll just throw my vote away w nader, or a libertarian candidate, etc... (I'm one of those few remaining undecideds, in case you hadn't noticed). Sam [Spade] 02:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hehe. We're very different, my friend.  I am an atheist.  The idea of a God seems ridiculous to me.  And I cannot respect a man, be he President or not, that has no honour.  I don't really consider my opinion excessively bitter... Better to be too critical than not critical enough.  That said, I'm not wild about Kerry, but I don't think he could be half as bad as Bush if he tried.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Their both in the same frat, so I don't know how fundamentally different it would really be... Sam [Spade] 02:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What liking god has to do with voting I'm not sure, but don't you think it's silly to vote out of spite? I mean, what is going to do to vote for someone you don't want in just to stick it to someone on Wikipedia? Exploding Boy 02:40, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Your missing the point, which is that vitriol makes me feel defensive of my commander-in-chief, and in no way sways me to the opposition. People like Edwards, who take the high ground get my vote. Sam [Spade] 02:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No offense, but that strikes me as a rather childish, knee-jerk reaction, in other words, exactly what is not needed. "My commander in chief".  Chortle.  Exploding Boy 02:54, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Chortle x 2! Keep it real!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Chortle all you like, it's guys like me and Joe Sixpack who'll be deciding this election, not partisans. Sam [Spade] 03:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sucks. Thanks to fellows like you we'll have King George back as our President monarch this November.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  03:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, if the democrats could just learn to appeal to Blue Collar values, and focus on personal ethics and job creation (like Edwards) instead of gay rights, atheist values, and taking away our guns, they'd prob sway a few republicans over to the dark side. Its all about appealing to actual voters (i.e. people who vote), rather than fringe groups (who usually don't vote). Sam [Spade] 03:16, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Watch it. You're insulting Sam's commander in chief, and you KNOW what happens when you insult Sam's commander in chief! Urgh... Grrghhh....  RAAAAAAAAAARRRGH!!!!!! Exploding Boy 03:07, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * And what's wrong with focussing on gay rights, pray tell? I suppose you think it's a good thing that the current US government is focussing on trying to take away people's rights, all while the country is supposedly under imminent threat.  Yeah, preventing same-sex couples from marrying should be really high on the agenda during wartime.  Exploding Boy 03:20, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ooh! got' em!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  03:22, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hehe, you guys are so silly... it makes me smile :). Gay rights is like affirmative action. We (redneck-americans) don't mind being fair, but we don't like diversity force fed to us. Lets see an end to gay bathhousees and naked gay pride parades for a few years, and then bring up the gay marraige thing again. BTW, my thought is that marraige aught to be a religious thing, not a legal thing anyways, and the govt. should step out completely (i.e. stop being involved in marraige at all). In conclusion, having a war doen't put morality on the backburner, at least not for blue collar americans ;)Sam [Spade] 04:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why? There's nothing illegal about gay bathhouses or pride parades (and what is a naked pride parade? Sounds interesting whatever it is) and what do they have to do with same-sex marriage anyway? There are many, many good reasons why marriage is not a "religious thing," none of which I'm going to go into here, and you can stop shoving your morals and your god down my throat. Thank you. Exploding Boy 08:05, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm in the same boat with Sam. I'm from Boston, and pretty much in the middle when it comes to politics (being left or right makes you wrong, sorry).  I went to Emerson College, a superliberal school, and everyone's blind following of the lying, minsinforming Michael Moore wanted me to vote for Bush just because the left was pissing me off so much.  The left is just as close-minded and arrogant as the right (you find God ridiculous and that not accepting gay rights is automatically wrong).  Personally, I say let anyone marry who wants to, it's not that huge of a deal.  Gays can marry here and we haven't become some new Sodom.  My point is: until the left realizes they're just as bad as the right, we'll never make any progress.  Had Bush not been elected in 2000 (he was elected, you don't have to win the popular vote to win), Gore would've invaded Iraq.  EVERYONE, both Democrat and Republican, was under the impression Saddam posed a serious threat and had WMDs (Kerry flip-flopped and changed his tune once he decided to run for president).  Everyone who voted for Bush wasn't a rich, gun-toting, war-loving, religious fundamentalist.  I can also sympathize with Sam, I don't like Bush very much, but attacking the president does get me riled up, especially when those attackers pick and choose which facts and information they use. GreatGatsby 04:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User page template
Just wanted to let you know I've stolen the template for your user page. Thanks! Check it out if you like at: Exploding Boy 01:44, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool, will do!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  02:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been looking for a better way to organize it for a while. Exploding Boy 02:37, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, since you seem to be in the know, can I remove the underline from links that appear on my user page? And is there a reliable way to add an extra space between items in my articles list? I used to do HTML but it's been a loooong time and I've forgotten most of it. Exploding Boy 15:58, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You mean just remove link underlines from your user page or the whole site? Ah, for spacing, you can just add & nbsp; as many times as you want.  Except there's not really a space between the & and the n... I had to add it so it wouldn't turn into a space.  nbsp's just register as one extra space.  add one, or two, or whatever!  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  16:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, just from my page. Oh yeah, nbsp... right... Forgot about that one. I know there's some way to remove underlines from links too, but I can't remember it. Exploding Boy 16:58, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I can do it on your user page, but they'll be underline-less all the time, i mean, you won't even see them on hovers... is that what you want? blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there some code like or something? Anyway, more about this tomorrow. It's 2am here and I've got to sleeeeeeeeep.... Exploding Boy 17:09, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in the very first div on your user page, the one that only contains background-color code, add "text-decoration: none !important;" ... I just wasn't sure if that was you wanted. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yargh. Can't get it to work.  Exploding Boy 03:38, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah. The stuff they have set at MediaWiki:Monobook.css is probably overriding it. The only way to override that stuff is by using a personal CSS file, and all...  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks anyway. Exploding Boy 01:17, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush
Why did you revert the article to the other guy's version before protecting? "Admins are not supposed to be editors." V V 05:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't be going off on Blankfaze for enforcing consensus.--Neutrality 05:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the rules against favouring versions, but as I understand it, the version Neutrality is pushing is the version that a consensus on the talk page decided on. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that analysis, obviously. For instance, see my comments about how (a) Neutrality altered the text after votes had been cast and (b) the poll was not fine enough that every word should be set into stone.  In any event, if you are going to protect the page, this should not be your call to make. V V  05:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, look, you two can resolve the specifics through RfCs or talk pages. I don't particularly care who is right or wrong.  Both of you should slap yourselves on the wrists.  I counted 17 reverts during that war!  That is unacceptable.  One or both of you should have asked for the page to be protected after 3 or 4!  Anyway, I don't care who wins, but while it's sorted out, I think the one that is favoured by a majority needs to be the one visible to the public.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine. I don't want to belabor the point (though as I clearly said the "majority" did not vote on the texts in question), but this is a borderline policy violation.  I'm not proud of edit wars, but I will resort to them when faced with someone who undoes all my work again and again. V V  06:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Impersonator
Raul654 caught someone impersonating you with the username User:BIankfaze. It's all been cleaned up, but if they try it once, there's a good chance they'll try it again. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That is, User:BIankfaze utilizing a capital "I" in place of the lower-case "l." The letters are indistinguishable on many if not most browsers.  I was confused.  Sorry for driving home a point that may already be obvious.  UninvitedCompany
 * Mmmhm. I just don't understand why someone would want to impersonate me?!  - blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  04:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Any one with an "L" or "I" in their name is vunerable. Someone could impersonate me as "NeutraIty." Neutrality 05:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ted Bundy Photos
You requested some? How about his autopsy and court photos? TimothyPilgrim 02:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those are nice, but they have no copyright information attached, so I don't know if they're useable. blankfaze | (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  17:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A couple of questions
Blankfaze, I'm puzzled: what are your criteria for supporting an admin candidate? You've voted against a couple of editors recently, which is well within your right, but it made me curious (most recently you felt 1,200 edits wasn't enough, which is a ways above the level most editors usually require) -- do you mind telling me?

Also, on an unrelated note, I think I should mention that, as a Christian who opposes much of the agenda of President Bush and hopes to see him ousted, the comment on your user page makes me feel more like you're attacking me and others who share my faith than like you're attacking Bush's specific misuse of faith to promote a specific political approach. You can leave it, of course, but I thought you might want to know an editor's reaction, especially the reaction of someone who otherwise has no "beef" with you (to quote a line from your recent admin nomination) and simply wants you to know the effect your words are having. If you choose not to change them at all, I won't be offended, but I think softening a little of your attack on Christianity (or else explaining your comments about it a little more) would help me feel a little more at ease conversing with you, and may prevent someone in the future from making assumptions about you (or expecting you're making assumptions about them, which amounts to the same thing, I suppose). Thanks for considering it, anyway. :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm usually willing to disclose most anything.  And you'll find that, most of the time, I'm pretty easy to talk to and open to most any criticism/suggestion.


 * I. My usual criteria for supporting an admin nominee (although there are always exceptions) is 3 months, 2000+ edits. I suppose I'm a little on the conservative side in that, but I think it's better safe than sorry.  I don't want to see any more crappy/insane/irresponsible admins than we already have.


 * II. I'm really sorry if you felt attacked, I really am. That's not the point of my little message at all.  I don't have any problem with Christianity, or any religion, for that matter, at all.  In fact, I think it's a really good thing for a great number of people...  I do however, think it has absolutely no business playing such a role in our nation's government.  George W. Bush and his administration are (IMO) trying to turn Conservative Christian values into laws.  And I just think that's totally inappropriate and irresponsible.  My beef is not with Christians or their religion, it is with the fact that Christianity and it's values are featured so prominently in the agenda of our nation's leader.  Some Americans have religions, some do not.  And then the ones that do don't all practice this same one.  So, basically, it just pisses me off that our country is run like a Judeo-Christian nation, because we are not one.  Anyway... it's been awhile since I even looked at my little statement... it's probably due for some tweaking.  Again, sorry if it struck you the wrong way.  - blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  21:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: I've reworded it all quite a bit.  See what you think.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  22:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful response -- I appreciate it. :-) No worries about your standards -- I understand the desire to have high ones, though personally I haven't found edit count a very useful criterion.  I certainly agree I don't want any crappy/insane/irresponsible admins....I hope we don't have too many of those (and certainly hope my name's not on the list!).  I haven't encountered any I felt were insane or really fully crappy, but irresponsible....yeah, I know what you're talking about.  And your statement on your user page certainly makes me feel at ease, but I hope I haven't forced you to censor yourself too badly?  After all, you're free to have any opinion you like around here, and I don't want you to feel you have to hide your ideas.  But I'll just assume, unless you say otherwise, that your new statement is a better reflection of your feelings right now.  And we'll both hope that in mid-November you can replace it with a picture of Kerry's arms raised in triumph. :-)  Peace, Jwrosenzweig 22:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, edit counts aren't always the best criterion, agreed, but they work most of the time. Like I said, there are always exceptions.  No, I didn't "censor" myself at all.  I agree, the previous statement could have (and apparently did) give off the wrong impression.  And anyways, Wikipedia isn't the place for a long, ultracritical political statement anyway.  But I try to get the word out when and where I can.  I tried to trim it down and be as basic about it as possible, and I actually really like what I came up with.  I think it actually fits my opinions a bit better, you know?  Focuses more on the positive than the negative...  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  22:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I like the idea about positivity, and would agree that I like your new statement. :-) Also (not to harp -- I hope this isn't too intrusive of me), I wanted to note that Kim has just added that he edited anonymously before -- the developers are behind on changing attribution for edits.  His total including his activity as an anon is roughly 1600 edits dating back to December -- obviously it doesn't meet your firm criteria, but since you voted for DDG just now (who has about 1700, I think) I figured you might want to at least be informed.  Whether or not it affects your decision is of course your business. :-)  Thanks for this little conversation -- I feel much more at ease with you now, and hope to work with you in the future.  Keep on editing, Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, like I said there are exceptions. I actually am familiar with and like DDG.  I've never really come into contact with this Kim fellow.  I may take another look at it sometime if I get the chance.  Haha, yeah, nice conversation.  I respect you as an editor/admin.  I really should do some more editing/writing... Since I became an admin seems like all I ever do is maintenance and vandalfighting.  I should go WRITE.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  23:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S., I'm endorsing you for the Arbitration Committee. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks. :-) I appreciate it very much.  Good luck getting time away from adminning to write! Jwrosenzweig 16:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1980 Mount St. Helens eruption a FAC
You mentioned before that this article was feature worthy, so I added a bit to it and nominated it at Featured article candidates. Please take a look when you have time and comment. :) --mav 02:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)