User talk:Friedfish/Archive 2006Q4

Seliciclib 061005-061114
Hi. Thanks for all the contributions you have made to Seliciclib. It's an interesting drug, we need to get the story out there. I wanted to talk about the grammar and content of the article's introductory paragraph. You have changed it to read:


 * R-roscovitine (Seliciclib or CYC202) is a trial drug in the family of pharmacological cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitors that preferentially inhibit multiple enzyme targets including CDK2, CDK7 and CDK9, which alter the growth phase or state within the cell cycle of treated cells. Seliciclib is being developed by Cyclacel.

I have some issues with this phrasing, as follows:
 * The first sentence is a run-on. (is a drug, that inhibit, which alter...)
 * It reads as though all PCIs preferentially inhibit just CDKs2,7 and 9. But this is true of R-Roscovitine, not PCIs in general.  In particular, the conjugation of 'inhibit' vs. 'inhibits' makes this seem to apply to PCIs the plural not Roscovitine the singular.  This is not correct, but probably an artefact of the sentence's overly-complicated construction.
 * It is unclear what the antecedent of 'which' in 'which alter' is meant to be. The reader could take it to mean either CDKs alter the growth phase (arguably true) or PCIs do (possibly not always true, but actually usually true and true in the case of Roscovitine).
 * I would rather see the link to Cyclacel read Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. because that is the proper name of the owner of this compound's IP stuffs.

I like these things about it:
 * Calls it a trial drug in the PCI class.
 * Brings CDK2,7,9 selectivity of Roscovitine into the 1st paragraph.

My main suggestion would be that we 'factor' this paragraph into some declarative sentences with few subclauses. In my opinion, this is the path to more incisive writing.

Perhaps:


 * R-roscovitine (Seliciclib or CYC202) is a trial drug in the family of Pharmacological Cyclin-Dependent Kinase (CDK) Inhibitors (PCIs). CDKs moderate the cell cycle and Pharmacological CDK Inhibitors inhibit one or more CDKs.  Seliciclib selectively inhibits CDK2, CDK7 and CDK9.  Seliciclib alters the growth phase of treated cells (cells accumulate in G(2)?).  Seliciclib is being developed by Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Not exactly that. It is a hard topic to explain, we both know. I just hope we can come up with something more accessible to the reader who is wandering into the topic for the first time.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to contributing more with you. Kind regards. ManVhv 02:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * lavori in corso - just want to check a couple of things first; not sure of role of phosphatases - good point about my run-on sentence! Kind regards. → friedfish 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, are you going to fix that, or just be clever in your reply? ManVhv 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Good point – I certainly have not forgotten. There have been a few concerns raised elsewhere about the page. The page currently reads like a list, the references - although well researched - tend to distract from the article's content and the potential pharmaceutical applications need to be curtailed. → friedfish 08:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Job 061007
With a "pie and a pint" ( ahhh, I love Scotland ) in hand, you did a good job on my typo's in SR-71 "Sensors and Payloads". I would have bet money that hangar was hanger, but I looked it up and you were right! However, ECM should only be Electronic Counter Measures. I'll leave it alone for now and see if someone else jumps in there; if not I'll change it back. Spent a month in Edinburgh in 1998 and had a chance to take Brit Rail trips to many parts of the country; had a great time!

David Dempster 17:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's OK 061007
I can live with the way ECM is defined now in the article. My above comment was from reading what showed on the "history" page and the highlighted changed area. For some reason, more data is printed there than in the actual article itself. One more mystery of the Wikipedia system!

David Dempster 17:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, David!; hangar and hanger is a tricky one. The article is really excellent. As for ECM, or Electronic Countermeasures, link was just to make it link to the Wikipage. → friedfish 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Scoop da house: Let's Get Da Facts 061009-061010
About the Cookie Crew 1987 track "Rok Da House" – There is no Wiki-article on Scoop (band); perhaps this could be added. Members of band would seem to be Daniël Moerenhout and Jan Vervloet. – There are numerous songs/tracks with the title "Rock da House" or the variant which you find hard to distinguish, "Rock the house"; after ending up with a list over a fifty, I decided to stop compiling a list. Even Wikipedia itself boasts a couple of dozen, notably Rock the House by Gorillaz. – And the 13 year time gap is relevant as the Beatmasters/Cookie Crew version was neither competing with nor confused with the Scoop track during 1987 as it gained popularity in the clubs - a claim that could be made namesake track by DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince. – On the research note, the sample of "Rok da house" was going around on the pirate radio stations in early 1987; and I've got an uncanny feeling that it was on a compilation tape during the summer of '87 (NME or Record Mirror). – There is an unusual article about "Rocking the House" which along with the hip-house reference in the article sounds a bit like wishful journalism... → friedfish 22:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Scoop the band is mentioned on the diambiguation page of scoop, but I was not able to find enough material for an article. In the limited context you set, you are correct about the time gap, but it IS irrelevant for today's researcher. A researcher looking for the Cookie Crew in European sources who doesn't know the spelling should be "ROK" will turn up the Scoop number instead, particularly if you hunt for the mp3 on Limewire. However, the statement that there are a vast number of songs titled "Rock Da House" is correct. With regard to genre, all the sources referring to ROK DA HOUSE that I found categorise it as "House Music" and a few claim it as the first house hit. ...The only point I feel strongly on is that the comparison to Scoop should stay because of my own personal experience of confusing the two. Headshaker 05:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So a couple of minor points: – I thought you put the Scoop (band) on the disambiguation page on 17 March 2006 Change edit. Another interesting fact that I managed to find out about "Scoop" - their 1999/2000 single "Drop it" was the first Belgian number one in Holland since Technotronic. – Thank you for correcting my typo - I was trying to correct the Scoop song not the Cookie Crew song. From discogs, the release title of Scoop record is "Rock the house" and sleeve also has this title Photo of cover. – Not sure of your point of "researchers" making a mistake between Beatmasters with Cookie Crew track and Scoop track. You should encourage young people to go down to a vinyl record store buy both records and start a club somewhere. As for hunting on limewire, well... – The only other song that has reached the Top 100 of UK Singles Chart since 1952 with the title "Rok da house" was Vinylgroover And The Red Hed in January 2001 (#72) - Source And Nicole and Gorillaz had tracks called "Rock the house" in December 1992 (#63) and November 2001 (#72), respectively. – As the track was essentially by Beatmasters, the "genre" is much more likely to be "house" rather than "hip house" that the article states. → friedfish 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We seem to have reached a good compromise and useful exchange of knowledge. The reference to "Hip House" was not my edit by the way. I am now happy with the article as it stands but will be equally happy for others to expand it. Headshaker 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gene Loves Jezebel 061010-061214
Hello. I like and agree with many of the changes that you have made on the GLJ page. The one error is calling genelovesjezebel.co.uk an official site. Michael Aston was the victorious party in a civil suit instituted by Jay Aston over trademark rights to the name "Gene Loves Jezebel" and Michael Aston was also the winner of an ICANN arbitration with Jay Aston over the rights to the domain name "genelovesjezebel.com". Accordingly, it has been conclusively and finally established in two different forums that Michael Aston is the sole and exclusive owner of the trademark and domain name "Gene Loves Jezebel". The .co.uk site is at best a fan site, not the official one. Ghost 16:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. As the article seemed to borrow from a BBC Wales article it was only my "duty" to correct the chart positions. Also, the NPOV stuff from the "KROQ, Top 106.7 Countdown of 198X" made little encyclopedic sense. But this official/unofficial websites stuff... &mdash; both claim to be official for the various segments of the band - it's painful (pitiful) - I guess "domain names" and ™ is more complicated. John Peter Aston registered the genelovesjezebel.co.uk during 2000, whereas Michael Aston (Aston Management Group) registered genelovesjezebel.com and genelovesjezebel.net during 1998; genelovesjezebel.org during 2000 and "Round Flat Records" gobbled up genelovesjezebel.info last May; does this mean another court battle? → friedfish 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, I know it does get kind of crazy. Ghost 16:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)]

Hey Friedfish. There has been some vandalism over on the GLJ page. Is there any way to stop that? (Ghost 17:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Hello. There should be a slow down for the moment, we'll see over the coming hours... → friedfish 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Involvement with "Keep the clause" 061019-061025
Brian Souter's involvement with "Keep the clause" is well reported, but could you cite Ann Gloag's involvement other than hearsay e.g. other than ScotsGay Magazine January 2000 or Spectrezine. Brian Souter is mentioned in the wikiarticle, I have cleared this up. As she is a living person, her religious beliefs are not relevant unless in reference to her upbringing or she has a prominent role within that organisation. Also, "At the turn of the Millenium" besides spelling error, implies that these events were in 2001 when the poll was conducted in 2000. → friedfish 17:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a biographical article. Of course her religious stance is important, what's wrong with that? Just about every other major biographical article has some information on someone's upbringing, family religion, current belief etc, this is hardly unusual. "Turn of the Millenium" refers to around that time - 2000 qualifies even with the 2001 definition. Apart from some pedants, few people saw 2001 as the Millenium. They're usually the type of people that going on about how monkeys aren't apes, and dolphins aren't fish - all well and good, and true, but a good way of clearing a room... --MacRusgail 16:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for you input → friedfish 16:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you anti-gay or something? Personally I couldn't give a toss (no pun intended, and "fur cough", isn't a pun in my accent. We pronounce the "r"). What's with the religious thing anyway? You still haven't answered that. --MacRusgail 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

SUPP --- <font color="#4499FC">Not-sure-what this user is aiming for but certainly not encyclopedic information. Oh well, seems to be Sophism trader, though useful user to provoke.

<font color="#333366">Nirvana, Sliver 061028-061101
How do you know Sliver made #90 on the UK charts ? what source did you use ? thanks. mjgm84 12:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, partly from memory and confirmed by the chart books and links from UK singles charts wikipage. The Top100 has been available for more than a couple of decades, although one site lists the song incorrectly as Silver → friedfish 07:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which site is it ? mjgm84 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">fc edit 061030
<font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, I would like clarification concerning your AWB editing of the football (soccer) entries from, for example,  to Example Team. According to the WikiProject Football/Templates the   option is the correct one. → friedfish 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Templates such as and  are not intended to be left inline, they should be substituted.  I've left a note explaining usage at the page you mentioned.  Robwingfield (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">Centrica edits 061106
Hello Friedfish. Noting your recent change undoing corrections to your previous edit, I know that you feel that Centrica user is acting from a commercial perspective rather than in the interests of Wikipedia.

I don't believe that this is true - although it's in Centrica's interest to ensure that information in Wikipedia about Centrica is accurate. For example your edit suggesting that the EC Energy review will reach it's conclusions in 2060 rather than 2006 is not accurate.

Very happy to debate changes, and many of yours are appreciated, helpful and add insight - but not all. What's important for Wikipedia is that it's built on and added to, maintains a balanced view and is accurate - rather than it being taken away from or being undermined.

Are you happy with this approach in principle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.188.22 (talk • contribs)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, Centrica users. Impartial perspective, as much as possible, is essential.
 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">&mdash; 2060 instead of 2006; thank you - that seems to have been a typo that had already been corrected.
 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">&mdash; some of additions do not include any time reference. "In May", "last 12 months" and "in recent years"
 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">&mdash; relevance of references (either good, bad or indifferent) has to be balanced as the article has potential NPOV issues → friedfish 11:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again Friedfish - understanding your points, and respecting the NPOV principle; I do think that the current version of the Centrica page could be more up to date. Several references date from 2005 when things were quite different in our markets.  I also think that it's missed a few points of interest making sense of how the European and the UK markets relate, plus the significance of an open market in the UK versus restrictions in Europe.  Centrica generally receives more than it's fair share of criticism, but there are many other factors driving how our markets have been operating.


 * So I would like to make a few amends in the interests of improving the entry, and making it more accurate and insightful. However I can see that you're a frequent contributor to Wikipedia across a range of subjects, so I'm happy to trust in your judgement judgment.  So if you're in agreement I'd like to update the entry by close-of-play today, after which I'll happily accept any further changes, amendments or edits you choose to make.  Thanks for your understanding and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.188.22 (talk • contribs)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, thank you for updating the article; that would be beneficial → friedfish 12:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">Humourous & US/UK spelling 061109
Thanks for your comment. Wiktionary is definitely not a good source for accurate spelling info! I prefer to go with reputable paper dictionaries, the vast majority of which prefer "humorous", in all varieties of English. Which poets did you have in mind? --Spellmaster 11:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In this edit here, you changed the UK spelling "colour" to the US one, "color", which seems to contradict what I understand as your intention. See above for the other change you made. Best wishes, --Spellmaster 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, thank you. I was suggesting that you update the Wiktionary entry. No, I just tried to clear the wikilink; thank you, this is now corrected. → friedfish 11:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">Template:EMAP 061110


<font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Promotional company advert and excessively long template that reproduces the company promotional material already present in Category:EMAP → friedfish 08:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How is this template any different to those that exist for other similar media companies e.g. Template:Discovery Communications, Template:News Corporation, Template:Guardian Media Group, Template:GCap Media, Template:NBC Universal, Template:Viacom, Template:CBS, Template:Disney, Template:GCI, Template:Time Warner, etc, etc, etc.? A large amount of the material presented in this template is NOT re-produced elsewhere. I think the presence of such a template provides information as to the vastness of the EMAP empire, it also lets people hop easily between assets.  I certainly wouldnt call it promotional, I doubt EMAP who try and project their Big City radio stations as being young and trendy would want those brands associated with assets such as "Steam Railway".Pit-yacker  14:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Thank you for responding, and thank you for pointing out other excessive templates. Notwithstanding; most, if not all, EMAP controlled radio stations are present in, and should users wish to "hop easily between assets" then it is possible there. Your template is certainly promotional as it lists magazines, which would appear to have been added by members with vested interests in EMAP. Perhaps a more "appropriate and clear" template would be the Template:BBC_Radio and delete  . → friedfish 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#66CCCC">SUPP --- <font color="#4499FC">Disgraceful decision &mdash;

<font color="#333366">Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3 061112
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Friedfish! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">A barnstar for you 061112
Out of curiosity, how do you manage to know so much on the subject? are you a local historian or something? <font style="background: black" color="red"> YDAM  TALK 10:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, "triple" congratulations <font style="background: black" color="red"> YDAM  for your tireless contributions, continued diligence and valiant belief that Dundee makes featured article status – I believe the first city in Scotland to achieve this status. Personally, I was getting the feeling that it just getting out of reach but I'm delighted that it has finally happened. P.S. I strongly recommend the tool above for the onslaught. Best regards, → friedfish 10:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">Joe Bay 061112
'''Do you know Joe? Joe Bay''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.67.148 (talk • contribs)

<font color="#333366">Radio schedules 061114
I see, though it seems as though they are referring to programming that does not originate locally --> i.e. - if Kxxx is a CBS affiliate, you wouldn't list the CBS programming schedule, but you would list the local programming schedule. At least, that is what i gathered from the discussion page: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">

<font color="#333366">Units 061206-061212
Re. please have a read over our guidelines at Manual of Style (dates and numbers). As a UK airport it makes sense to list in the customary units of measure of the UK, by all means also include the distance in km in parenthesis. /wangi 12:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, the style guide mentions US but not UK. In the US, I would agree that your comment would be appropriate. The UK does use sign posts with miles as opposed to kilometres but we are not talking about signposts here - just a distance from the city centre. More acceptable to you guys Stateside would be metric with Imperial in brackets. Best regards, → friedfish 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The use of the US is an example. We should primarily use the units that are in general use in that country, with an alternative in parenthesis. Compare with the policy of British English on UK related articles versus American English on US related articles. As for "you guys Stateside" - I live in Scotland :) (although in the States just now). Thanks/wangi 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi, an interesting though not conceptually convincing argument. Could you point me towards where this policy is clarified or discussed in Wikipedia. As for the article, UK uses both metric and imperial system; though is slowly, slowly moving towards full acceptance of metric system. Jokingly, this could be complete by 2106. Certainly for educational, business and local governmental purposes the metric system is used. As Wikipedia aims for both encyclopaedic and educational information perhaps a stance should be taken. All the other distances in the article I put as metric units – should I put both metres and yards in; I believe this would be a little pédantic. The only exception was the 0.5 nautical miles which was added by a v. senior Wikipedia editor. .Best regards, → friedfish 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You've lost me a bit there... Look at any British article and you'll see customary units used (i.e. "Imperial"), it's neither here nor there what we'll use in the future. We're currently a mongrel country that uses a hodge-podge of units, but for distance miles is unarguably the king and most used. Wikipedia is based on guidelines and a few (important) policies, you need to read between the lines a bit - use what's normal in the specific country and provide conversion into other units. If you really do wish to push for SI throughout then I can point you in the right direction, and also to many previous discussions. Perhaps you could enlighten me to what a "v. senior Wikipedia editor" is? Thanks/wangi 05:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi. Again, just where is the Wikipedia policy/discussion that you refer to? UK is a metric country, as this was part of the negotiated agreement for UK entry into EEC. The concession that UK has with respect to certain Imperial measurements particularly miles, pints and pounds, admittedly makes a mess - and is an area that Wikipedia needs to address without resorting to "reading between the lines". Which other country can you buy 20 litres of petrol to make a 150 mile journey? Notwithstanding, in professional capacity and educational establishments - the metric system is used. DOT. The addition to the article of 2 miles instead of 3 km while leaving the runway dimensions in metres introduced the "hodge-podge of units" into the article, which I believe is contrary to your intention. Putting in both metric and Imperial would "let the reader decide"  but this is only a quibble about 2 miles or 3 km or 1⅔ Scots miles or "depends on the traffic by the station". Best regards, → friedfish 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">Sunnyside Royal Hospital 061219-061220
Hello, concerning your contribution,, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from. As a copyright violation, appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi. You are a bit slow off the mark aren't you! I moved the text from an article called Hillside, Angus. I felt that this was an incorrect place for the article and had originally contemplated adding it to Articles for deletion tag - however, I made some minor changes and invited the original contributor to change the words. Best regards, → friedfish 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry friend I didn't do much research, I just found it to be copyvio hence tagged it.  &#327;ë&#359;&#924;&#466;&#324;&#287;ë&#343;  09:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi. ...and now, even with changes, the article has been purged. Guess Naconkantari didn't do research either. I thought that the purpose of the History page was to address issues of authenticity, copy violations and vandalism. Please check through this in future. → friedfish 15:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi Naconkantari, you deleted article as speedy deletion category G12. However, neither the  tag nor that the article had already been re-written was taken into account. There is a History page associated with each page in Wikipedia and this should help users determine the status of a page. Best regards → friedfish 15:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

<font color="#333366">Vidal, California 061219
You've deleted everything that I wrote regarding the Solar Lodge and Vidal. You question what the importance that the Solar Lodge of the OTO cult had to this ghost town is.

The importance is that it produced the second largest criminal trial in California's history at the time ((the 1960s) the other being the Mason Family murders, which also had a slight tie in to the history as Charles Manson was known to have visited the site several times.) Perhaps I should have done a better job of explaining this.

The case I'm speaking about was refered to by the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Riverside Press Enterprise and a few other publications or wire services as the "Boy in the Box" case. It was foreshadowed by the Manson Murders much like the Gary Condit affair was foreshadowed by the Lacy Peterson disappearance. Certainly since then there have been a few trials that have eclipsed this case in history (Scott Peterson, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake) but, at that time, it was one of the most horrid tales of child abuse in the State of California and is a large part of the now abandonded town's history. I lived in the area for five years and researched it's history quite thoroughly -- I even talked to one of the original deputies that raided the compound -- he was a neighbor of mine. With all this said, I have to disagree about your conclusion.

In all fairness, if the Solar Lodge isn't worth of being mentioned with refernece to Vidal in an Encylopeida, I would question what does belong in an encyclopedia? Does the speculation that Wyatt Earp mined copper and gold in the town belong? And, by the way, copper isn't mined in that area and never has been. I've spent hundreds of hours reading through Yuma County records (Parker, the nearest town to Vidal, was part of Yuma County at that time. I spent a similar amount of time searching through San Bernardino and Riverside County Records.

And beyond all that, there was one other factual change that I made that were erased which reverted that makes the entry for Vidal inaccurate. Vidal is not in the Mohave/Mojave Desert. It is part of the Sonoran Desert (a common mistake often made by people who are unfamiliar with the deserts of southeastern California). There was additional geographic nformation that I added that was accurate but was also deleted.

Crazyjae 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * <font style="background: #FEE5AC" color="#5E2612">Hi. Thank you for your comments and your contributions to Wikipedia. Please then adopt the better procedure which would be that you start an article about this trial. Then this can be related back to the Vidal, California article; the Vidal, California article itself should be only about the settlement and passing reference to the history. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Best regards, → friedfish 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very good. That is what I will do. Looking at the Manson Family entries, I see what you mean as there is an entry for the Barker Ranch, which, is a very similar thing as to here with Vidal and the Solar Lodge. Sorry about the confusion I caused. Crazyjae 17:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)