User talk:Kmccoy/Archive03

Welcome to continue
Since it involved myself, you're welcome to continue on my talk page. -- Fyslee 10:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of added external links
Hello,

How can a link to a directory directly related to a topic be inappropriate? Further comments on the discussion page of Studio Monitor.

Audioholic 17:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your comment on my talk page: Did you ever click on one of the four links I added? Should not the quality of an edit or addition count? Are you saying that one has to spend some months contributing to Wikipedia before he is allowed to add three highly relevant links and update another one? Do you really see enough reason to suspect me of being involved with that site from four links? If I know someone working for the publisher, am I involved? If I just think the site is very good and helpful, am I involved than? I really think that content quality should be the prime issue in Wikipedia. I ask you again to reconsider your reverts and would be happy to receive any comments from other editors. (This is also cross-posted to the relevant articles talk pages) Audioholic 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

External links in talk
First, I'm definitely an involved party, having removed Ilena's external link spamming from her sig many times. Ilena regularly and repeatedly makes attacks against Wikipedia editors on her site, and the problem has gotten so out of hand that she's been convinced to remove such links from her own user page. As she especially targets Fyslee with her attacks, I think he's more than justified asking for its removal. --Ronz 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilena was just given a one-week block, in part because of including links to her site (see User_talk:Ilena). There's plenty of explanation of the issue for you there.  I'm going to go ahead and remove it from Talk:Strategic lawsuit against public participation unless you have an objection. --Ronz 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with the alteration of people's text in talk pages. I also disagree with any blocks based on WP:POINT, which is just a catch-all for "don't do anything that other people don't like."  But I will not revert the change.  However, I strongly suggest that the removal of the text be accompanied by a message showing the removal (such as (personal attack removed ~ ).  This preserves the spirit of WP:TALK, which is to never change the meaning or intention of someone's words and still represent them as accurate.  I also think you guys need to clear up your commentary -- I still have not seen any evidence that the links were part of her signature -- they were at the end of her text, but they weren't the same with every comment, which is how a signature would behave.  kmccoy (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I've found that refactoring with such phrases as "personal attack removed" only escalate problems.  Usually I just make a more detailed explanation in the edit summary.  As for whether or not she considers it part of her signature, who knows? She doesnt appear to understand even the simplest guidelines and policies here, at least when it suits her interests not to.  The point is that she uses her website to attack editors, and uses the links to her website as part of her attacks here.  In either case, and certainly both, it has every right to be refactored.  Doing so as a SIG violation has been in the past a way to avoid escalation of Ilena's hostility.  Obviously, this time, it only spurred it further.  Your response is perfectly resonable given Fylee's refactoring.
 * As for POINT, that's an interesting framing of the problem. It ignores the Ilena's hostility at best (at worst encourages it).  WP:DE does not.
 * I'm unsure how to proceed at this point. I'd appreciate more of your thoughts, if you have the time. --Ronz 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I refactored it. If she didn't have a history of using as part of her attacks here on Wikipedia, I'd be much more likely to leave it be.  Given that she became extremely hostile about a link to an article critical of her, which was removed, I certainly think she should be held to the same standards she demands of others.  The situation should never have been allowed to get so far out of control. --Ronz 02:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rollback on Sesame Street Live
Hi! You rolled me back on Sesame Street Live. I thought I was reverting the same fairly meaningless edits that this user inserts from time to time. I'm going to go back and make the edits without using rollback. I don't really see how one random date and location from a multi-year tour of a show is meaningful in this article. Please let me know if you feel otherwise. kmccoy (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, those were the first date and locations of the first production for each show, where the tour started off. --  Zanimum 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The information is incorrect. The tours start off in the late summer/early fall, and I've never known one to start at the Fox in Detroit.  Many of them are built and rehearsed (sometimes with a dress rehearsal for invited public), and on the first year of its rotation, usually open in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, I think.  There's a multi-year cycle that the tours go through, with small alterations from year to year.  kmccoy (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. --  Zanimum 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive edit
Hey,

Was this you? kmccoy (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a Bell Canada Sympatico internet connection, and I haven't been with them for more than a year now, so I presume not. I can't remember really. --  Zanimum 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your request on Commons Re: Image:I 35W Bridge.svg

 * Hi,


 * Could you please clarify the copyright on Image:I 35W Bridge.svg? Who is that telephone company?  Did they release it under the GFDL/CC licenses?  I don't get it.


 * Thanks! Kmccoy (talk) (en) (en:talk) 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to ask the same. --NE2 22:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the link. :) Kmccoy (talk) (en) (en:talk) 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My name is Paul Robinson. The telephone company listed is 'Robinson Telephone Company of the National Capital Area'. So, perhaps now, you can guess where the name came from. It is incorporated in Virginia (corporations are cheaper than LLCs). I am in charge of the company (it's now a non-stock corporation, which means it has no 'owners', however I happen to be both General Manager AND the only member of the Board of Directors). I release all my maps under the company name (for legal and technical reasons). So it is reasonable for me to say it is my own work, since I am the person who created the map even though it is owned by the company, e.g. in a form of 'work for hire' if you will. If you notice on the image, there is a logo that specifically says it was released under both licenses (which is why I put it there). Rfc1394 09:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edits
On User talk:Bobo192, Kmccoy said: Hi!

You rolled back an anon's edits to Containerization and Talk:Containerization. While his edits to the article were poorly formed and seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, it seems like he's genuinely trying to make the article better and more NPOV. Removing his perfectly valid comments on the talk page (and especially doing so using rollback, rather than providing a reason in the edit summary) seems quite harsh. I've reinstated his edit to the talk page.

That is cool, I noticed once I had rolled back his edit to the page in the mainspace that he had also made a page in talk space and generally speaking, I find when an anonymous user does both, I rarely have to roll back just the one. To maintain the edit on the talk page seems fair to me. Bobo. 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing User:Azz redirect
Yep, that's absolutely fine -- if someone else wants the name they're welcome to it. Thanks for letting me know! Adam Sampson 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sterling
Thanks re the self-promotion at Thomas_Sterling_%28computing%29. I have a rough time with that syndrome, but wrote a paragraph about it at the talk page there. The worst place where I have this problem is Blue_Collar_Computing; their PR department turned it into an adversisement almost immediately (I think we both were reacting to a local newspaper article about them). Editors I can talk to, negotiate with, but partisans like that only come here to promote their cause, so I feel unable to get through to them. Pete St.John 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply at my talk. Yeah, they (Blue Collar) had cut down their effusiveness so as to get rid of the "advertisement" tag, which I had been a bit stubborn about. I don't so much mind that it's self-promotional as long as it's tagged that way. So I had managed to jog them a tiny bit, but the new version was still not wikipedic. Thanks tons for helping. I think of them as neighbors, and would like to visit sometime. Pete St.John 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heydrich
Okay, so it's from 4.07 to 4.41 of the non-abridged version, and User:Rotoscope provided a transcript and translation at his userpage/Temp. DS 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IAR
Hi!

When I want to insult you, I'll be far more clear about it. Until then, lighten up. My edit wasn't even directed at you. Also, I see you're one of those folks who likes to randomly link to WP:POINT. Was that supposed to mean something, or were you just disrupting your edit summary to make a point?

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it meant that you deliberately performed a disruptive edit for the sake of making a point (albeit a jocular one). I'm sure that you didn't intend to insult anyone, but such levity in the face of cooperation from numerous users (some with practically opposite ideas of what the page should look like) to reach an acceptable compromise is disrespectful.  (That goes for this reversion as well.)  Edits like those (and your request that I "lighten up") say that you don't take our efforts seriously and treat the situation as a joke.  —David Levy 04:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How is my edit any more disruptive than any others? Seems to me to be just another example of the use of claiming WP:POINT violations to degrade other editors in disagreements.  I see nothing good that ever comes from WP:POINT.  Edits like yours say that you feel that it's okay for you to insult other editors because you're participating in "compromise".  It also indicates to me that you really don't get WP:IAR.  But that seems to be a common problem among the editors there.  Anyway, your talk page takes too long to load on my dialup connection, so I won't be able to respond very quickly to any further comment.  Please don't feel insulted if I take a while to respond.  Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Your edits were disruptive because you reverted to an old version that you knew lacked consensus ("in blatant disregard of others' opinions") and then did so again to prove that another user's edit summary was incorrect (which it was, of course). Then when I complained, you told me to "lighten up" (further reinforcing my perception that this is a joke to you).
 * 2. I certainly don't seek to degrade or insult you, and I've already told you that I don't ascribe your edits to such a motive. Nonetheless, I'm disheartened by your refusal to take our efforts seriously.
 * 3. I don't believe that my (or anyone else's) attempt at compromise justifies acting with impunity. My objection pertains strictly to the fact that your edit was intentionally unproductive and performed to make light of a very frustrating situation.
 * 4. What about WP:IAR do you believe that I "don't get"?
 * 5. I do need to archive my talk page. Feel free to reply here.  —David Levy 04:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Reverting to a version which I know "lacks consensus" (we'll just ignore the fact that the concept of consensus on Wikipedia anymore is a joke) is not disruptive, any more than your reverting my edit to something which you know lacks consensus. And again with your gratuitous linking to WP:POINT.  The joke is that you are so completely bogged down in your seriousness that you don't get the big picture.
 * 2. You didn't seek to degrade or insult me, I didn't seek to insult or degrade you, yet you were the one throwing the term about. If you don't mean insult, then don't use the word.  What you seemingly don't understand is that your use of negative terms drags the discussion into negativity.  You also do this by linking to a policy which is often used as an excuse for punitive action in disagreements.
 * 3. My edits are not intentionally unproductive. You've shown a clear inability to understand my intentions, so don't fool yourself into thinking you've figured them out now.
 * 4. The entire concept.
 * 5. My poor modem was making whimpering sounds in the other room. kmccoy (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The version to which I reverted is backed by the closest thing to consensus that we've been able to achieve recently (and arguably rough consensus). More to the point, it's a serious attempt to arrive at full-fledged consensus.  Your reversion was performed as a joke.
 * 2. I've plainly stated that I'm not accusing you of intentionally insulting anyone. I'm merely informing you that your lack of consideration was insulting nonetheless.
 * What "punitive action"? I'm merely linking to a guideline (not policy) that I believe you violated.  You've responded by accusing me of mudslinging instead of actually explaining how I'm wrong.
 * 3. You explicitly acknowledged that your previous reversion was performed "in blatant disregard of others' opinions."
 * 4. Examples?
 * 5. Sorry about that. —David Levy 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You...
Thanks Kmccoy for making sense out of all that :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFA nomination offer
Hello. I've given the matter thought between and during some unpleasant or just time-intensive IRL events. I could use at least some of the tools and, apparently, it's not mandatory to be a tool of the establishment. I accept. One request, though: if possible, please start the process three or four weeks from now (no need for warning in advance) rather than right away. I was recently put on ADHD medication for a brief period sans diagnosis, to determine if I have the condition. Turns out the answer is no, and that that was one psychotropic drug that didn't agree with me. Who knew? I'd like to get some distance from that. Besides, there are quite a few things to deal with right now: an enthustiastic vandal fighter who's broken civility towards them 40 times during the last month in edit summaries alone, a polite and well-mannered accountant who mass-nominates RPG articles and keeps asking opposers if they're workers in the industry, a newcomer with his own set of standards for webcomic notability (stopped on his own, though), a competent contributor who considers AfD the first step in referencing...

...you know how, in the first Dungeons & Dragons, when your character had been around for a very long time and done most things there is to do, it could attempt ascension into a deity and all of a sudden there would be all these new challenges designed to test your character and moral fiber?

Don't know why I thought of that. --Kizor 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Meetup in Minneapolis
 Minnesota Meetup Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00) Pracna on Main 117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota Map Please pass this on! RSVP here.  Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Yeah, I'm editing in a response at the present moment. Sorry for the delay, I just wrote and held a presentation within a space of 12 hours that, unfortunately, started at midnight. --Kizor 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminder
Reminder for this.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

request
Kmccoy, I will leave it alone, but as far as what I wanted from you was simple. I wanted you to enforce the WP policy of consensus and good faith. I would expect you to remove their personal attacks and undocumented accusations off the DISCUSSION page, just as you deleted others even though the ones you deleted were proven with referrences provided. Now...I will be done with it and HOPE you will do what is right instead of having a double standard of the WP good faith policy. I would hope that you would enforce the consensus policy to allow some compromise (such as allowing the publishications in some way even if that meant also stating that not all programs agreed with it). What I wanted was fair applications of the WP policies to all editors. I hope you go back and at least delete the accusational statements. Take care.SSDA 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bandog
HELP? It says at the top of the page that we post new messages at the bottom of this page. Is this where we type a message to you? If not, please go to "my talk" page and explain it to me. I am not that familiar with the way wikipedia works and apologize for any inconveniences that are out of the normal "wikipedia" procedures. I would appreciate discussing a problem pertaining to inaccurate information on one of the topics (Bandog topic) as its editing is very one sided and continually removes accurate information. I have worked with the information and included many "compromises" which I can outline if need be. Lee / SSDA (added to this page by User:SSDA at 2007-10-17 01:46 UTC


 * Hi Ken, my name is Barbara Erdman and I own this blog on bandogs:

http://bandogmastiffs.blogspot.com/

As you can see, at the top of my blog is a copy of the original Wikipedia article. I chose to place it there, with input at the bottom from a knowledgeable breed historian, rather than here because the SSDA (IMO, a commercial puppy seller with a litter on the ground at almost any given time) keeps editing out the important information and spamming his website with his puppies available. I felt the original article, which I've never edited, had some important information, and rather than deal with the switching to the bastardized version and all the editing issues, I posted it there with a link back to this site. I've already been subtly threatened by Lee Robinson because I don't have his kennel in my blog and because I chose to post some information about Swinford from people who actually knew him. If you'd like I can send you a copy of that email.

I've chosen not to post my bandog blog link on wikipedia because it contains modern day bandog breeders and I felt that would be tactless for a encyclopedia article. However, the blog contains far more information than this article does. If you look in my links section on the right of my page, you'll see breeders who have been carefully screened. They must exemplify integrity, dedication, seriousness, accomplishment, and testing of breeding stock by acceptable means to name some qualifications necessary. Notice the SSDA is NOT in the list.

I have nothing to gain by putting that blog together. I'm not a breeder, and I don't profit from that blog in anyway. I've been approached from time to time to sell ad space, and I've declined every time.

I don't see the relevance of posting the SSDA on this wikipedia article. The owner and operator of this organization has an atrocious reputation, and several trainers have posted scathing reviews after testing his dogs. Posting a commercial link such as that is detrimental to all the work that serious and respected breeders are trying to, and accomplishing. The SSDA is not considered a reputable organization in the bandog community, quite the contrary. Breeding dogs like bandogs with a protective nature is a serious thing and should only be attempted by professionals who are willing to spend the time and effort having their dogs evaluated by experts. We're talking about dogs here that can be a serious liability if not in the right hands.

If there needs to be any mention of modern bandog breeders, the breeder who's accomplished the most is Mr. Joseph Lucero of California. His bandogs have been on Fear Factor, in the movie The Hulk, and he's titled several in reputable and recognized dog sport venues. The SSDA is nothing but a person who stalks message boards, threatens, slanders and creates havoc wherever he goes. He's banned from just about every message board on the internet. There are serious reasons for this.

Honestly, I don't think any breeders should be listed in the article, but the one who's accomplished the most and has the best reputation is Joseph Lucero, NOT the SSDA.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Take care :) 24.45.232.201 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt 83     Chat 05:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question for you
Hi! I saw a comment of yours on Calltech's talk page. I have tangled with this individual before and won a mediation case. While I have been on here for some time, I am not the world's expert on Wikipedia. Lately, I have done more on Commons, than Wikipedia. I am seeing a pattern that certain editors, the aforementioned, and also Fireproeng tend to just delete and tag and question other people's work without contributing anything of substance, like pictures, new articles, etc. I tend to see such people as leaches, because even when given full proof, they still bellyache and carry on, quoting chapter and verse, whilst purposely avoiding direct questions and, of course maintaining strict anonymity. Protocol on here prohibits me from using more descriptive language about my disgust for these people and their abilities to garner support from others, who basically protect a right-wing status quo, as in "everything is fine, under all circumstances....". I can't imagine I'm the only one who has picked up on this sort of thing. Is there any sort of consensus about this phenomenon of that type of editor? Thanks in advance for your opinion. --Achim 03:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From one "leach" to another, I appreciated your comments. :-) Fireproeng 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't you funny?? :-)   :-) --Achim 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fire extinguisher
Likely, it's a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) extinguisher. They work by displacing oxygen, and on a class A fire it may not be able to displace enough oxygen long enough to put the fire out, so the fire might re-ignite. But if I had one at hand and there was a Class A fire, I'd try it, as you have a good chance with a small fire. Fireproeng 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, it's likely a siliconized sodium bicarbonate media, which works on smothering. As this is like CO2, in that it removes Oxygen from the fire triangle, it isn't that it won;t put out a fire, it's more that you probably will need a lot. Fireproeng 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a point?
What exactly is your argument on Talk:Oink's Pink Palace ? You have added nothing to the discussion yet, nor have you made any concrete point. Please explain yourself. Thanks. J4ne0315 (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I addressed the alteration/deletion of other editors' comments on talk pages with clear references to Wikipedia policy while detailing the inappropriate/irrelevant nature of the Talk page content. As such, I have addressed why I consider the Talk page content "subject to deletion".  You, however, still have not addressed why you consider such deletion "improper".  A talk page is not a place for any editor to publish their personal information or viewpoint -- it especially isn't a place for such things to exist in perpetuity.


 * The essence of that section is Q: Why was content deleted from the article. A: It was irrelevant trivia and un-sourced.  Anything more is unnecessary verbiage that detracts from the talk page.  Including irrelevant, un-sourced trivia not fit for the article (which all seem to agree at this point) into the Talk page and expecting it to be permanently archived there is equally inappropriate.


 * Including the long-winded discussion, peppered with inappropriate content, on the Talk page abuses the nature of the Talk page. It makes it a soapbox for the personal research/viewpoint of a editor.  Such content should be deleted.  If you disagree, please explain WHY.  Thanks, J4ne0315 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Temperature calculations
You removed the piece where the calculation is made for electric motors. This is very usefull, because it addresses the fact that resistance and magnet strenght are not constant. Explained is how this works and what the consequences are. So being usefull this is not spam. Can you come with more relevant arguments of why you do not want engineers to know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.120.80 (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning "Your images"
Dear kmccoy, thank you for your message. As for the photograph of Brian Josephson, he is a friend of mine for the past 20 years, so please remove the tag from the photograph; "private collection" means "private collection" and I feel unable to understand what may have led you to add that tag to Josephson's photograph. As for other three images, they come from an Iranian website with no indication, whether explicit or implicit, that the images in question were copy-righted. Moreover, the objects shown on these photographs, as their names correctly indicate, are "National" buildings, as opposed to private buildings; in other words, they belong to all. You may not believe it, but I have tens, if not hundreds, of unanswered e-mails in my e-mail box, all concerning requests for permission to use photographs on Wikipedia. You cannot just penalise me for other people not responding to my e-mail requests. In general, I suspect, people in Iran do not respond to e-mails from unknown people coming from abroad (I do not live in Iran), fearing perhaps that they might be accused of being "foreign agents". To make a long story short, I sincerely believe that it serves no one, in fact it wastes my time and efforts, to remove the above-mentioned photographs, for reasons of not having "appropriate" sources mentioned. You should also realise that these sources often have very short lifetimes: people just lose their interest in their blogs and consequently fail to renew their subscriptions to their domain names so that over time their blogs get lost in the cyberspace. I emphasise, the website from where I copied the three photographs (Bank-e Melli, etc.) carried no sign indicating that these photographs were copyrighted. In conclusion, may I hereby request you kindly to remove those tags that you have added to my uploaded images? I think there is still such a thing as personal responsibility, and I do take full responsibility for the images that I upload to Wikipedia. With kind regards, --BF 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

P.s.) I have just made a thorough search of the internet, the site from which I copied (already sometimes ago --- I had only yesterday the time to upload them to Wikipedia) the images of Bank-e Melli, etc., no longer is there. Please have a go at it yourself: use Google Images, and search for any combination of "Bank-e Melli" and "Ferdowsi Street", etc., and nothing relevant comes up. This just confirms what I wrote above earlier, that some blogs have a very short lifetime. --BF 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep Wikipedia "free" as diligently as you wish, but I am afraid that any dogmatic approach, as you, as well as many of your colleagues, are adopting, will ultimately deplete any organisation of any individual of even modest ability. Let me make one thing clear: I do not wish to be pushed around. I do my very best to do things on Wikipedia as responsibly as possible and consequently do not wish to be interrogated on such issues as, for instance, "Where did the BSD license on Image:Shokooh Mirzadegi.jpg come from?" I would not have uploaded Ms Mirzadegi's photograph to Wikipedia if I had not had her explicit permission to do so. Consequently, I am inclined to see your question as a question concerning my integrity. I also believe that I have been for long enough on Wikipedia to have earned some measure of trust on the part of the editors. If you believe that I am unreasonable, you have two choices: either you keep insisting, or you pass the work to someone else who does not approach the work as dogmatically as you do. If you decide to choose the former, then I am afraid that I will just leave Wikipedia; I am not in here for arguing with people. I saw that you have left a message on the talk page of User:Carnildo, just below my message, so you must be aware that in the past 24 hours some of the images uploaded by me have disappeared without any reason. I have already told Carnildo that should the problem remain unresolved by the end of today, early tomorrow morning I will clean up my page and leave Wikipedia for good. This should suffice to show that I am serious in my consideration to leave Wikipedia, aborting my plans of doing some serious work on some entries concerning condensed-matter physics and mathematical physics (in its present form, the entry concerning the BCS theory borders on being utterly wrong, to name but an example). Please check my page tomorrow and see whether I am still around (I will leave a message if I leave); in the case that I have left, please feel free and delete as much of my contributions as you desire, including any image that you might fancy to delete; I will no longer care. --BF 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I reviewed and corrected User:NumaNumaDud's contribs, but the older vandalism was subtle and clever. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I got them all, so you don't have to. I was sorta biding my time until an admin noticed :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cobi's RfA
I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate you stepping up and volunteering that you were one of the admins Cobi spoke to about adding the RfA to his edit summary. Your explanation at the RfA is fully acceptable to me and I can easily see how it would happen. I'm afraid it is often the norm to duck and run when one's advice comes under a challenge. You showed character in speaking out and not allowing the nom to dangle. I did not oppose based on the canvassing comment so your comment doesn't affect my vote, but I did want you to know I appreciated your transparency. -JodyBtalk 00:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß
Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kyle?
No, but I am someone close to him (who you know!). Hope you are well KM!  Littledog (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)