User talk:Eleland/Archive10

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada
Just notifying you, that as you have been involved in the discussion regarding the Second Intifada article, which is now the subject of a MedCab case, I'm notifying you of this as you may wish to partake in this case to discuss a resolution to this dispute. Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Update on Funding Evil
You commented a few days ago on Articles for deletion/Funding Evil concerning the article Funding Evil. I've completely rewritten and expanded the article now; you may wish to review the revised article and your comments in the deletion discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

sunscreen
Hi, When I wrote vandalism I was mainly refering to the unsubstantiated tags from Wshalwshall. I wrote an apology for calling all the reverts vandalism in the discussion of sunscreen page. I think the article now says that there is a dispute about the safety of sunscreen. This is what can be found in the scientific literature. The fact that there is a dispute should not be tagged with a "factual accuracy" tag, because the reader percives it as if there is wrong information in the article. This is not the case. Thanks for considering these arguments. Gerriet42 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Debunking the Canadians
Hi :)

Thanks you very much for forcing me to learn some more wikipedia rules. I probably wouldn't do it without You.

I feel I owe You, so I'll pay You back with teaching You some things :

We 'can use non-english sources. See here.

Have a nice day. :)

--Ante Perkovic (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You call pages of Canadian army a Croatian propaganda! Brilliant reasoning. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing you used that source for was non-controversial casualty figures. You then proceeded to claim "...however, this is ALL LIES! ZOMG NEVER HAPPENED!" without any source at all. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/scondva/engraph/270498_e.asp is canadian army page. Which part of this sentence you didn't understand? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're talking nonsense. Of course it's a Canadian army page. It doesn't support the wild and paranoid claims you're making in the article. You can't just post a long rant, slap on a .gc.ca citation somewhere in the middle, and expect people to let it slide. Kindly take your nationalist propaganda campaign elsewhere. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you have to much prejudices about my people. Medak pocket battle was isolated battle, there were no fighting for months before and after. You can't really hide 27 dead people from your ranks in that situation. If 27 people really died, their names would pop-up sooner or later. There were many battles that included high casualties on croatian side and all this casualties of them poped-up shortly after end of the war in 1995, when it was safe to disclose that information. The sole exception is this "battle" with Canadians. Looks like noone noticed that 27 people is missing. Don't just rant "propaganda, propaganda...". Use commons sense for a change. BTW, where do You come from? I feel like this has some personal meaning for You. do You come from Serbia or Canada maybe. I just ask, no harm intended :). --Ante Perkovic (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea whether 27 Croatian soldiers died. However, you are claiming that 0 Croatian soldiers were killed and 0 wounded, and that there was no battle whatsoever. Casualty estimates from battles are often highly unreliable, however, this is a totally different thing from saying that there was no battle at all. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would also help this discussion along if you would actually read the sources which you are citing. The Canadian army page says there were 27 Croatians killed and wounded, not 27 Croatians killed. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood
Could I have some backup here? I'm trying to deal with a POV-pushing newbie who's obviously ignorant of basic NPOV requirements, but it's an uphill struggle. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

West Bank occupation
Eleland, I was mistaken not to negotiate your argument in the related talk page. I had the impression that you had POV and I have mistakenly forgotten that I had a very neutral experience with you in Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel. I apologize for that. Imad marie (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to comments at WP:AE
I didn't comment about the Palestina redirect - as it happens making a change that is obviously going to be reverted isn't especially clever. Nor did I say the removal of content from the biography was a WP:BLP removal - I don't think Jaakobou should have gone over 3RR. However, they were reasonable edits, and I think describing good faith removal of what could be considered sensationalist quotes from a BLP isn't going on the rampage. I've protected the page in what by definition is always the wrong version. PhilKnight (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

im not m1rth so stfu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.23 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful
Hi. Remember this? Your behavior is being somewhat uncivil again; I'd just as soon not have to hear about this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation
Heya Eleland.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Eleland, i was wondering whether youd be able to let me know on whether you wanna carry on with this mediation and whether you accept me as a mediator. Im hoping to start the case soon but i want to make sure the parties are happy to continue to help solve this dispute. Seddon69 (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Garfield minus Garfield
What I said was that the section looks like advertising because all it does is mention a blog, and doesn't have any sources to prove that the blog is notable. There are dozens of blogs/sites that make fun of Garfield, why is that one in particular notable, and why does it warrant its own section? -- Scorpion0422 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I looked at it again, and although I still have doubts about the source used, I merged it into the internet section. -- Scorpion0422 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Absinthe kits
You are wrong about the misuse of "to drink." The verb form is correct. Check your dictionary.

The admonition is there for the purposes of recapitulation and emphasis. It is not redundant. If you do not revert, I will. Morris K. (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on the Chrono Trigger TalkPage
Your comment was quite unnecessary, articles about Video Games have just as much right to be featured on the main page as any other article. Wiki is an encyclopedic tool designed to include and provide information on all facets of society and like it or not entertainment media is a huge part of the world we live in (and has been for centuries). While i've never played the game itself I do know Chrono Trigger is held in very high regard by those involved in the Video Game industry, regularly heralded as one of the best games ever made. Its development brought together some of the most respected artist and music composers of its era, the equivilant of bringing together the best actors, directors and cinematographers together to make a film (or if you prefer to keep away from pop-culture, bringing together the world's best architects to make a building). The article reflects the high-standing of this game and this has rightly been recognised by the FAC.

While I wouldn't dare directly compare Chrono Trigger, and Video Games on general, to Shakespeare (different media, different eras), dismissing them as an embarrassment is akin to dismissing some of Will's works as 'irelevant' and 'pandering to the masses'. In principal at least. Darrek Attilla (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Update
Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling?
Next time you accuse someone of trolling, please have evidence on the matter. Are we clear? --Caravato (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ALex Jones edits
On July 25, 2001 Jones called on all of his listeners to call the White House hotline and prevent the impending false flag event that later materialised as the 9/11 attacks. He predicted the blame being placed on Osama Bin Laden and has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth movement ever since.

This is a fact heard by many thousands of people and the video feed was posted on several online video sites. The " edits" are blantantly erasing a massive volume of the life work of this man. This audio is repeated on a fairly regular basis.

I do not agree with evrything that this man says, but he DID make a plea to listeners several weeks before the event.

WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cited Sources
Ok, I understand the need for reliability. I will make a concerted effort to dig up another source. That being said almost all 9/11 references have been scooped out of his wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

From one wiki page to another
I have made a more suitable contribution.

Alex Jones claims to have predicted the attacks in July 2001, on his syndicated radio show at infowars.com, even mentioning the World Trade Centre as a potential target and that Bin Laden, the known CIA asset, might be used as a ‘patsy’. He launched a campaign to try to stop the attacks, which he called “Operation Expose The Government Terrorists”. Jones has been referred to as the progenitor of the movement. As opposed to:

On July 25, 2001 Jones called on all of his listeners to call the White House hotline and prevent the impending false flag event that later materialised as the 9/11 attacks. He predicted the blame being placed on Osama Bin Laden and has been a champion of the 9/11 Truth movement ever since.

--WOLFSERPENTCROWRAT (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

| Incursion = Laughable?
I know as they say it was a "slight understatement", but honestly, I orginally used it in good faith in a bid to avoid anything kicking off around it! --Nickhh (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha, ha. I figured that was Jaakobou or something interpreting "neutrality" as "whitewash." I really wanted to write "assault on Jenin," but I wasn't willing to fight for that. "Incursion" is technically correct, in the same way that "martyrdom operation" is technically correct. Maybe "operation" would be better. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo gallery
Why do you think the photo gallery in knight (chess) belongs in Wikimedia Commons? I prefer them to stay on Wikipedia because (1) I can keep them on my watch list (2) I can see what articles they are used in, and (3) they are in the Wikipedia Chess Images category, where images are easier for editors to find and use. Bubba73 (talk), 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism mediation
Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Monique D. Davis edit
I'm not sure what you were getting at in this edit where you added the edit comment "this is not really appropriate for a biographical article, it relates almost solely to the atheism craziness thing". Notable events caused by a specific person certainly do belong on their biography page. Furthermore, there was not enough content on her anti-atheist rant to warrant the "split" tag you added, nor does the article really fit the description of a "coatrack article", as you had also tagged it. Someone else has already reverted your edit to that article. If you still believe those are appropriate tags you should probably discuss your reasons on the article's talk page, rather than doing a drive-by tagging like that. Thanks. -- Hi  Ev  03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys owe me
Where would you be after all without my guidance and leadership? Sorry, but that just made my Sunday morning! --Nickhh (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a plot, I tell you, a plot! &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sept 11 celebrations
Eleland, as an experienced Wikipedian, would you please give some advice about the dispute going on in Talk:Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks? a merge cannot be done unless we get consensus, and we will never get consensus with some POV editors who would reject any reasonable argument. We are somehow lost here on the appropriate WP:DR procedure. Any suggestions? Imad marie (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Camera issue
Hi. I'm glad the CAMERA issue stopped here, mainly because I feel Israel's case is borne out by logic, facts, and fairness. I don't feel it needs to be upheld by some odd group strategy which doesn't make much sense, and frankly expended too much energy on an encyclopedic resource which really does not impact the media or public perceptions on an instant day-to-day level. Ok, Wikipedia is here, and people can edit it. does that mean everyone with a cause should say "oh, hey look, a new way for me to show I'm a catalyst for change..."? I would suggest anyone else with a creative bent just come here and start editing. you can edit your favorite political issue, historical event, natural phenomemon, or maybe just that sitcom you saw when you were 12 and always wondered what happened to it. so i hope that we can proceed forward in a more positive manner. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is just the tip of the iceberg, and I have no doubt that CAMERA will try again more competently, as will pro-Palestinian groups if they haven't already. The worst part of it is that this kind of zealous bloc-editing usually arises out of a deep-seated belief that "the other side" is already doing it. If you look at Zeq's emails they're full of assertions about how the Palestinians "have" several admins, etc. So when something like this is exposed, it's only going to encourage others to try.
 * The constant poisoning of WP's atmosphere with perceptions of partisanship is the real damage. ie, I've been told many times that my real purpose on WP is to suppress all Zionists (or maybe just all Jews) from getting their points across, which is ridiculous, I respect you and M. Safyan and #57 and many others who are clearly reasonable people acting in good faith, and I know that you are not on any campaign to stamp out Palestinian and Arab viewpoints either. Nevertheless, just for editing in this area, I have to deal with being treated like a leper. I don't see this situation improving soon, either. :( &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply. you make some valid points. I'll have to think about this. i for one think the whole thing is kind of faintly ridiculous. when did wikipedia become this important, frankly? to me it is a long-term intellectual resource, worth updating and maintaining. but I would never think of it as actually having a day-to-day impact on the average person's political opinions or beliefs. all this seems like an effort by people who just needed some arena for their actions and efforts. believe it or not, they do mean well; or at least, these are their sincere beliefs. however, with that said this is not an ideal use of one's energy. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I do wonder. You have a point about ridiculousness, especially of some silly disputes on sub-articles that nobody reads. At the same time, WP is typically the first place people look for information, it's typically on the first page of a google search for anything, and so forth. Yes, people know or should know to discount it as a resource. However there have been many psychological studies (i know that's a vague cite, i'll dig up the specifics if i can) showing that people remember information, and incorporate it into their beliefs, even when they know the source to be wholly unreliable. People actually remember and believe information even when it was specifically introduced to them as false. So, the real impact of bias and distortion on WP might be more than one might think. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eleland. Dunno if it's my usual jug-handed digital incompetence to blame, but, in clicking on the 'edit' mark for your Wiki Lobby Template suggestion, I don't get to edit it, but the prior section. I suspect I'm just dumb, but just in case I ain't this time round, thought I'd better note the fact here. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This can happen if someone creates a new section (above the one you're editing) after you have downloaded the page but before you press the edit button. Refresh the page in your browser and try again. Good luck. NSH001 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The infamous blood libel
I've given you this reply here - User talk:Jaakobou. Cheers and happy Matzo holiday,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Jaakobou has just edited this off his talk page where he discusses your complaint, I may as well repost it here.


 * If it's any consolation Eleland, you're just one of several, apparently, that our Jaakobou has set his sights on. He didn't tell me what he was doing with his personal dossier on myself over at administrator PhilKnight's page either, until I stumbled on it. One administrator per person/dossier seems to be the tack, stealthily kept informed of possible victims for inquisition. By not warning the victim, but informing the administrator, he seems to be trying to broadcast (seeding) doubts, suspicions in the usual manner, so that preformed attitudes will come to disputes when they do arise, without the person being at all aware of the way the ground has been prepared for his burial! See here. I admire the extraordinary amount of time he spends on trawling the deeper archival depths to mug up 'profiles' on the alien threat in Wiki, or his contacts with those who apparently have the leisure and curiosity to track this sort of stuff! Hoover 'd hoover up this stuff were he alive! Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep collecting that stuff. I'm currently finishing up an RfC where I document several months worth of harrassing, forum-shopping reports of this sort against me. I know he's been trying this on Pedrito, Nicknh, and Number 57 as well. I conclude that he is on a long-term campaign to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about productive editors, for the express, conscious purpose of protecting himself from sanction for his blatant POV-pushing. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left a quick reply to your message on my talk page - as I say will look at more stuff as it's affected me when I get time. It seems as well that you two are now in a reporting war of sorts. --Nickhh (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Point on format
You did not put your signature on any of your comments at the RFC on Jaakobou. just want to point that out. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Steve. I've never done an RfC before. And also I just noticed that one of my diffs against Jaakobou actually took you to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows!" :-) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

UAA Report declined
Your request to have User:Herut blocked at WP:UAA has been declined for several reasons. First, neither of the edits you cited were actually made by that user, providing us little evidence. Secondly, a look into the user's contributions also found little evidence of POV-pushing. Finally, the account is now over a year old (created early March 2007) and the username is not a blatant violation of policy. If you have a problem with it still, you are encouraged to discuss it with the user, and possibly bring the matter up at WP:RFCN if you are unable to resolve the situation through one-on-one discussion. Thanks for your time. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

EI's representation of "extent"
At Requests_for_arbitration you say:


 * EI's selection of emails and appended commentary were accurate as to the intent of the campaign but misleading as to the extent.

But in the update to the EI story, they wrote


 * Information obtained by EI indicates that while Gilead Ini claimed that more than 50 volunteers had come forward to participate in CAMERA's plan, and the group had set its sights on creating dozens of new editors and administrators over a long period of time, fewer than a dozen were active at the time EI exposed the scheme. Because the effort was apparently in its early stages, only a handful had become active as Wikipedia editors.

Can you be more specific about how EI overstated or misrepresented the extent of the problem? Bangpound (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a good point there. The 22 April update makes it clear; the original 21 April piece seemed to imply a more active and fully formed cabal than what actually existed. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would consider revising your statement then? Your statement is based on an incomplete review of the evidence, and it's also completely irrelevant to the issue brought before ArbCom. ArbCom was asked to review the actions of CAMERA, yet you're making statements about the actions of EI. Bangpound (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE yet again
Following our recent talk page commentary I've decided to indeed "See you soon on Arbitration enforcement"

Here, to be more specific: 'Arbitration_enforcement#Eleland_yet_again'.

Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC) fix 20:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Eleland. It took me a few days to mull it over, but I finally decided to add a comment at the WP:AE listing, rather than the RfC (to which I could not add anything of a similar nature). Unsurpisingly, Jaakobou utilized my having made a comment as an opportunity to make unfounded accusations against me. Of course, I'm not worried about, since there is nothing substantive to the complaint. It is, however, extremely annoying that every encounter with him must descend into a "he said"-"she said" type free-for-all, and that hardly any progress towards a healthier and more mature syle of interaction and collaboration can be made. Cosmetic civility that serves as a veneer for a snide, sarcastic and dismissive approach to the views of others is able to fool some of the people some of the time, but not all people all of the time. While we are all human and sometimes write things that are better left unsaid, I'm hoping that there are admins out there who can in fact see the forest for the trees. In any case, my warm regards. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An idea worth trying?
Hi, here's a thought that might do some good. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova Charge! 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about it. I'm not sure yet. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG suggested a mediator. A couple of experienced mediators have Skype experience from WP:NTWW.  Perhaps they'd be willing to participate.  This could go one of two ways, I suppose, either a let's-hop-in attempt at mediation or a chance to hear each other's voices and get to know each other a bit.  The shaking hands part was what worked for the Serbian and Croatian projects, which was amazing to me because fifteen years ago that part of the world was in a dreadful war.  If they can do it maybe you can.  Durova Charge! 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never been at war with anybody. I've never even been in a real fight. I'm a whiteboy atheist with Protestant grandparents and I have no dog in the Israeli-Palestinian race. It's just that I've examined the actions of a relatively small number of users, (really, if pressed, I could only name three or four, only one of whom has gotten your "idea" message, and who I'm sure won't accept, as he is notoriously secretive,) and I've concluded that they are hopeless nationalists on a mission from you-know-who. I'm not really sure that I want to shake their hands, even metaphorically speaking. I'm not inspiring confidence, I know. That's because I'm not confident. Sorry. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AE thread
I have closed Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Please read the closing note. If you have any questions or if there any problems, please feel free to drop a line on my talk page or send me an email. Vassyana (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashida Kim
I'll be removing the NPOV and BLP warning tags next week unless someone objects as the discussion has died out and the article seems to have settled in at an generally acceptable version. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)