User talk:Metamagician3000/Archive 3

Template speedy deletion criterion
Any thoughts I have on the current problem about how to get T2 userboxes out of template space, and all discussions with other users, now have a separate page, here.

Congratulations
If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay ( Talk  • Connect  ) 08:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well!


 * Thanks for your congratulations. Now to see how all these shiny new tools work. :) Metamagician3000 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, congratulations! Just remember, absolute Wiki-power corrupts absolutely.  (-;  Anville 17:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm still not quite sure how this happened so suddenly, but I'll do my best with it. :) Metamagician3000 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish to congratulate you on your recent success. Keep up the good work! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, S iva1979 Talk to me. Metamagician3000 13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd like a suggestion from a (purportedly) non-bot editor, I'd point you to Three Laws of Robotics. (One more item of H+ interest, since they stem from an SF writer addressing the Frankenstein argument and the pitfalls of defining "human" all the way back in the 1940s.)  In response to a challenge on my Talk page, I procrastinated on my day job and tried to improve this article from a slightly deteriorated May 2005 FA to a pristine June 2006 one.  (A couple references had, unaccountably, been commented out and called "dead", even though the paragraphs relying upon them were still in the article and the external URLs were still valid.  Weirdness at work.)  I've upgraded the referencing, added a few new sources and footnotes and generally attempted to cook down the fat.  Of course, some Original Research has probably escaped my purge, since I've been thinking about this stuff for so long these crazy ideas seem "trivially obvious" to me.  I still have to find specific chapter and page numbers for some of the footnotes, since locating specific items in Isaac Asimov's autobiography can be a heady task, but an extra pair of critical eyes are always welcome.  Anville 18:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV
On DRV, you said that List of tongue-twisters should be restored because it was deleted at Wikibooks. It has however, also been transwiki'd to Wikiquote, where it has not (yet) been deleted. -Splash - tk 20:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review of List of tongue-twisters
I'm notifying you because you voted recently at Deletion review. Since your vote, additional information (merely, the fact that the content was transwikied to Wikiquote) has emerged. I'd therefore like to ask you to revise (or confirm) your vote in light of this additional information. Thank you, and sorry for bothering you about his. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

SmARTebusiness
Hi you don't know me but I saw you over on the Speedy page and noticed your a admin. I got a problem, I've tried to put the tag on the page SmARTebusiness but the user who created it keeps removing it. The page is obiviously spam so I was wondering if I could get a protect or something thanks. Whispering 16:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the page. I'll see what happens next - any further revert by the page starter or a sockpuppet would be a 3RR. I'll semi-protect it if I see any more problems. Meanwhile, it looks to me as if the article really should go to AfD. Metamagician3000 02:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jmaynard
Do you know this user? On Deletion review he has made some weird accusations about an unnamed admin who turns out to be you, in arguing for the undeletion of a certain web page. I have tried to engage him and he told me about you. Could you shed light on the matter? --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What Tony's referring to is that I responded to his refusal to be consistent on the Conservative Noticeboard DRV by citing another admin's statement that consistency is desirable. I tried to avoid dragging you into it, but since Tony insisted (by levelling an accusation of bad faith), I named you as the admin in question. I'm referring to your slamming me for not assuming good faith in a userbox deletion discussion when I said that consistency didn't appear to be much of a virtue in the admin community. Jay Maynard 01:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what's going on here, metamagician3000? I can't make any sense of what jmaynard is saying.  On the face of it, it doesn't seem to back up his earlier claim. --Tony Sidaway 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've often complained in policy discussions about the inconsistency of outcomes on T2 boxes - e.g. "User Christian" and "User Feminist" have survived our processes, whereas "User Satanist" has not. I think they should all be removed from template space, whether or not they are "divisive and inflammatory" in any narrow sense, though I'm happy to see them userfied. The German solution pretty much does this as far as I can see, so I sort of support it. Generally, though, I do think that our policies and processes should deliver consistent outcomes. I expect that most admins would be with me on this, at least at that level of abstraction. That doesn't mean that I think admins who make different distinctions from me are acting in bad faith - quite the contrary. On one occasion, Jay Maynard accused some admins who weren't named of being deliberately disruptive, and I told him to assume good faith and maintain civility. It all seems like a storm in a teacup to me. Of course, I realise that one person's perception of inconsistency can be another person's identification of a subtle distinction. Metamagician3000 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to follow up, I suppose I did give my support to deletion of the "User Christian" box on the ground that this would be consistent with the deletion of other T2 boxes. I don't feel any shame about taking that position. (Not that I was the person who deleted it; I'm very wary about deleting anything myself, but I will always vote to keep T2 boxes deleted from template space if someone else deletes them.) Metamagician3000 01:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. I don't agree that Wikipedia should be consistent (the classic case is where you go to delete a biased page x supporting faction X and faction X says "but page y supporting faction Y has not been deleted."  And you go to delete page y and faction Y says "but that's unfair because you didn't delete page x supporting faction X.")  Of course Wikipedia will have none of this.  Pages x and y shall die. But not necessarily at the same time.   The factionists shall be divided and opposed, and eventually booted out of Wikipedia. Meanwhile they don't get to tell us what to do. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

After the edit conflict, reading the addendum: my argument is against Jay's assumption that your personal opinion, because you're an admin, can be extended to other admins. It certainly cannot. Tony Sidaway 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

European Graduate School
Your comment on the AfD: ''I'm going to close this in a minute but not before I make a comment deprecating the personal tone of the above debate. Just state what you think should happen and give rational considerations in support. Don't attack other users.'' Who were you thinking of? (Incl. me if you think I overstepped the bounds of civility.) Implicating all the participants seems a bit of overreach. ~ trialsanderrors 17:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment was a general reminder, and referred to the personal tone of the overall debate - checking it again quickly, it contains (for example) numerous imputations of bad faith by various people about various people. I didn't mean that every single participant had stooped to that level, and I apologise to you if it appeared that way and I offended you. However, what I said still looks pretty right and appropriate to me in the cold light of morning. It doesn't help anyone - and certainly does not help or sway the closing admin. - when some people engage in uncivil disputes, resort to personal imputations, mockery, etc., rather than just stating their views dispassionately. As for your comments, specifically ... as far as I can see they were all helpful and civilly phrased. Metamagician3000 02:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, the debate was a mess with crossposting, assorted meatpuppetry and the officious interjections from "europeangraduateschool" but from memory only two posters were out of bounds: User:Santa Sangre and User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters. Both were called on repeatedly to tone it down, and I've seen Santa Sangre apologize. LotLE, as far as I can tell, has not. In any case, I didn't take it as an offense and thanks for going through this mess. ~ trialsanderrors 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - User:Andrewjens related
Thanks for your help Metamagician3000 (nice name =D). I, too, don't understand why he suddenly decided to go to all that trouble. I don't even know how he managed to dig up that website. Anyway, I hope things calm down. --Sumple (Talk) 13:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
--Pilot| guy 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism
Any comments on my plea on the talk page? You always seem to have a cool head, so any thoughts from you would be appreciated. Metamagician3000 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with your sentiments, broadly speaking. Recently, I have come to feel that I've been watching a tempest in a teapot &mdash; one which to the people in the teapot looks like a tsunami.  I believe the article has improved since it made FA (though of course edits made since the last time I looked at "Criticisms" may have deranged everything).  One reason I had thought of suggesting for splitting off a Criticisms of Transhumanism article was to get the arguments into a different place:  if everybody could agree that the current revision of the main article was at least factually accurate and based upon verifiable sources, then we could go split hairs, chop logic and engrave tombstones on some other page.  Meanwhile, the main article itself could stay nice and stable, serving its purpose for the people who aren't already flashing with heat lightning.


 * I have grown more sensitive over this past year to what constitutes Original Research; I believe I think about the subtleties more than lots of other Wikipedians I've run into. Maybe that's because I like to play in areas where the sort of OR I might do here would use exactly the same type and quality of reasoning as it would in any other venue &mdash; Science Fiction Studies or a paperback from MIT Press, say.  I think I stayed on the legitimate side of the line with Three Laws of Robotics, for example, but I know many places where I could've crossed that line.  (One reason I'm writing less new material now than I was last fall is that, hey, a big part of me wants to do Original things.)  I get the distinct feeling that the heavy hitters on Transhumanism may all be capable of slipping in the same way.


 * Maybe everyone should just back off, read something new and work on different articles for a while. The sound and the fury need to go somewhere else, and I'm trying to think of a good place to take them.  Anville 04:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Andrewjens
I've left him a second message on his talk page. On the bright side, he's at least talking to me a bit, but to tell the truth I'm not optimistic. In a mediator role, I should assume that he's doing this in a good-faith effort to help Wikipedia, and do my best to explain why this isn't helpful. I will keep trying to reach some form of resolution on my end, but I don't feel it's my place to ask you to pull any punches; I'd like to fix it, of course, but if he needs a block, he needs a block. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. Luna Santin 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll see how he goes. It's very much up to him whether he's prepared to conform to the way we do things. Thanks for your positive role in all of this. Metamagician3000 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your help. Metagaciain: I've re-factored my user page and talk as per your suggestion. Yes it was very foolish of me to put that on my user page. --Sumple (Talk) 23:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures AfD
Hi. I notice you've closed the AfD for Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures, but haven't actually deleted the article. Is this deliberate? Cheers --Pak21


 * I have to fix "what links here", which is proving to be a bigger/more finicky task than expected with this article. I might not actually get around to deleting the article tonight at this rate. Metamagician3000 13:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All done now, though. Metamagician3000 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kelpie Collie AfD
Same prob as above, and I assume will be fixed the same way. However in case you have forgotten... you have deleted a redirect to it and its talk page but not the article. Viridae 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, sorry - again there are a few links to fix and I'm multi-tasking right at the moment. Patience, friend. It'll be gone before you know it. :) Metamagician3000 14:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Zapped! Metamagician3000 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou :) Viridae 23:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your wikibreak
Enjoy your vacation! If you don't read this until you get back from said vacation, let me swap tenses around and say that I hope you enjoyed your vacation. In any case, best wishes.

Anville 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) I'm back for the next day or so, then gone for another week. It's not so much a vacation - more a mixture of things. I did spend a few days visiting my mum and dad and other loved ones interstate, but I was also doing some work while on the road ... and now I have to disappear to a conference where I'll be giving a paper that is not exactly on transhumanism but kind of related. Metamagician3000 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Transhumanism userbox
Thought you might be interested in the Template I have placed in my user area as per the German userbox solution instructions. Enigmatical 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice ... I'm going to adapt it for my own purpose. I need at least one more box to neaten up my userpage. Metamagician3000 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I learned a new word today...
... "anacoluthon." Thanks! Dpbsmith (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * :) Metamagician3000 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Social Capital page
Hi, I noticed you went through the social capital page and made a number of edits aimed at removing POV sections. Please see my reply on the discussion page. Cheers. JenLouise 00:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! That's fine - I had a look at your comment. Just remember that the article is not supposed to develop a viewpoint about the theory or concept of social capital, but to give an accurate representation of what the theory/concept is, representing all significant viewpoints that might elaborate, support or criticise it - but without taking sides or giving any viewpoint a disproportionate amount of space. As the article stood, it seemed to be siding with a particular line of critique, and it still gives a lot of space to one particular critic (I don't know whether it was your edits that led to this or those of other users). That is not what a good Wikipedia article is supposed to do. It's not necessarily an article I want to have a lot of involvement with, so go ahead and do whatever you think needs to be done - but could you please just bear my comments in mind as you're working on it? Cheers! Metamagician3000 02:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for lending a hand on The Giver and commenting on its FAR. I wish I had the time this summer to do all the things I should/promised to, but like the song says, life keeps happening while I'm busy making other plans. I'm not too anxious about preserving the FA status of the articles I had decorated way back when &mdash; in the grand, philosophical view, I think it matters more that Wikipedia has FAs which actually live up to the FA standards. That way, the standards really mean something. If rising standards or cruft accumulation mean that an old pet project of mine no longer measures up, then so be it! (I'm almost afraid to look at Cyberpunk and see what's happened since last I checked. . . .)

I'm also surprised there isn't a comparison between The Giver and Brave New World; I suspect that when I was first researching the literary criticism on Lowry's book, all I could find in the Huxley connection were school homework assignments, and so lacking any truly "scholarly" sources, I just didn't put anything in! Now that I've learned a bit more about finding things, maybe I could do a better job. That would be a fun essay to write, too, if nobody's gotten to it first.

Lately, my limited Wiki-time has been fairly absorbed by the CTMU Affair. Back a few weeks ago, an article entitled "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" was placed on AfD. The inventor of this undeniably fringe-y idea, Christopher Michael Langan, had some mainstream media coverage a few years back, enough to be notable in his own right; the AfD consensus was that this notability didn't extend to his CTMU (which the media coverage mentioned only glancingly), and so that article died. The debate, however, lives on: spurred by two users who appear to be Langan and his wife, arguments spiralled out through Deletion Review, a guideline proposal, several more AfDs and now an MfD.

The funny thing is, I actually remember hearing about Langan when he was on TV. He was "that guy" my next-door neighbor mentioned to me. I never dreamed I'd be reverting the edits of "that guy" on a free online encyclopedia! :-/

Anyway, if you'd like to see a mess of policy questions and varying levels of bad faith, check it out. It's shaping up to be the Bogdanov Affair of 2006!

Best wishes, Anville 18:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I really do think it's an excellent article - better in some ways than the transhumanism article. I'm puzzled as to why anyone would question its FA status or why it didn't get more solid support in the first place. Hmmm, not sure I should touch that CTMU thing with a bargepole. I'm mainly doing fairly restful stuff here at the moment - maybe feeling just a bit burnt out. Metamagician3000 14:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Burnout is one thing I can understand completely. (-;  I can also fully sympathise with the desire to keep the CTMU (or "Cognitive Theoretic Whizzbang of the Wangdoodle", as Byrgenwulf and I have started calling it) a bargepole's length away.  The only long-term consequence I can really see coming out of the mess is a more widespread opinion that the Fringe Theories guideline would be a good thing to have.


 * Thanks again, and don't work too hard! :-)  Anville 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Carvakas
I responded to your query on the talk page. I have no idea who/what the Carvakas are, but since you look like you did some serious research, your input would be appreciated in the anti-Brahminism article. Please source your input though as we have a user who unfortunately despises Brahmins editing the page. I will assist you if said user takes out your info. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I might try to write something about this, but don't have a lot of sources handy. I see that the current Carvaka article already makes a reference to the Carvakas' opposition to the caste system. From memory, they were particularly scathing about the Brahmins' for benefiting from it. Metamagician3000 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Babub is your man for this article. I merely watch the POV. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment matter
Thanks for the message. Yes, I agree that an indef block would have been justifiable. I was horrified by what User:Arteworks did and I am continuing to keep a dialog open with User:ZimZalaBim via email. I have seen the email that Arteworks sent to Zim's supervisor and in my (not a lawyer's) opinion it could be grounds for legal action if action is taken on it. I hope the matter is now behind us, but like you I will be keeping a close eye on Arteworks in the future. Thanks for your help and your message on Artework's talk page. Best, Gwernol 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Californian Hindu textbook controversy cleanups
Hi Metamagician3000. Thanks for the excellent cleanups of Californian Hindu textbook controversy. The article was in poor shape. Anirvan 23:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) Metamagician3000 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Designer Baby
Hello Metamagician, could you help improve the Designer baby article by neutralizing the Nuremberg red herring? Thanks. --Loremaster 21:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done a full edit. The article is now neutral in my opinion, though it could still do with some work for accurate detail etc. Metamagician3000 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad and Teknosoul
Hi, Metamagician. I realize that as an admin you probably have better things to do than deal with conflicts between individual users on Wikipedia. Still, I feel compelled to solicit my opinion on this conflict since I'm also an editor of the article in question. Before I do however, I first would like to know if A. Doing so would constitute a violation of WP:STALK, and B. You'd even want to hear it since I undoubtedly neither want to waste your time nor mine.

Even if the above is irrelevant, I would like to point out that their conflict is still going on at the talk page of the aforementioned article. Thank you for your time. -- WHS Talk 03:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that each has posted once since my last comment. I'm going out for a few hours in a minute, and I'll check just before I leave and when I get back - I hope that it stops there. I don't necessarily want to know more right now. If it keeps up much longer it'll have to be dealt with through the formal processes. I'm more interested in stopping its continuation than working out the rights and wrongs of who did what in the past, as Arb.Com will do if it ever gets there, so I won't ask for more information at this point. But thanks for the offer. You might need to be involved if it goes any further. Metamagician3000 04:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Thanks again, Meta. -- WHS Talk 04:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, as UCRGrad and IB have both indicated they don't want to undertake WP:Mediation, I am initiating further data collection this week for the next RFARB, RFARB2.0, for which I've pulled the evidence from the current conduct RFC on UCRG and saved it on a user subpage of my own located here:. I truly think the last one failed mainly for a lack of due process, but we will see. I am not in a rush to do this, but will be working on compiling further evidence and developing a comprehensive statement through this week. Just a heads up--Amerique 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for keeping me informed. Metamagician3000 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Agent Cooper 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Threat to block

 * On the contrary, Jumbo clearly chose an article on which I was the sole contributor to make a point, and it's his edits that are disruptive. His "work" is not mandated or countenanced by current guidelines, and it's not me you should be thinking about blocking. - Nunh-huh 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Nunh-huh on this...you really should read up on the Wikipedia guidelines and conventions if you haven't already. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'd start with when it's appropriate to block, because this ain't it. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit he made was disruptive. I see no problem with warning him or blocking him if he continues down this path. However, I've asked him to drop the issue voluntarily for 24 hours. That should be time for him to think about whether he really wants to make this into a major confrontation. Metamagician3000 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the one doing the escalation here. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mega, you turn this into a major confrontation, I'll tell you who will be blocked, and it won't be Nunh-huh. You aren't in the right, and obviously you're ignorant of Wikipedia's guidelines and conventions, or you'd know how much in the wrong you are. You really need to cool it down.  Go out, get drunk, get laid, just stop escalating things when you're plainly in the wrong. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are, why you think you can threaten me, or why you think that it is appropriate to interfere and make personal attacks when you disagree with attempts by an uninvolved admin (as I am - I have no stake here whatsoever) to deal with the conduct of a third party. I'll see you in 24 hours. Metamagician3000 09:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

blocking
You have blocked User:ExplorerCDT with the comment: "I have no idea who you are, why you think you can threaten me, or why you think that it is appropriate to interfere and make personal attacks when you disagree with attempts by an uninvolved admin (as I am - I have no stake here whatsoever) to deal with the conduct of a third party. I'll see you in 24 hours. Metamagician3000 09:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC) This is an inappropriate block and you should unblock him. You need to learn that using a block on a person because you don't like what they say is inappropriate. The remedy for incivility - and I see nothing on your talk page deserving of the name - is discussion and in extreme instances removal of comments. And ExplorerCDT made no personal attacks. It's not appropriate for you to approach matters by starting with blocks (in his instance) or ultimata (in mine). Please review Block_policy and let me know what action you take in this matter. - Nunh-huh 12:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)"


 * He did indeed make comments that fell under "no personal attacks", among the generally uncivil tone, and I have no intention of unblocking him without first receiving an apology for them. Some of what he said is extremely offensive, and he doesn't even have the excuse of having spoken in a moment of exasperation in the heat of some debate we were having - I was not dealing with him at all and had never even heard of him.
 * I am also opposed to any other administrator unblocking him unless there is an apology to me first. Metamagician3000 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncivil tone is not a personal attack. And blocking for someone's tone on your talk page as a first step in resolution of any issues you may have is certainly not authorized by our current blocking policy. In any case, I am happy to see the matter has been resolved. - Nunh-huh 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sally Walker
Thanks for your kinds words about my cleanup job on Sally Walker. Since came along and added an unreferenced template, I did a bit of Googling and found this official biography. A couple paragraphs looked like they had been copy-and-pasted from there into the WP article, so I did some paraphrasing. You may wish to check and see if I paraphrased enough; this material is sufficiently dry that it's hard to imagine many different ways of saying it (reminds me of an old manual of MS-DOS interrupt calls, in that respect).

Cheers. Anville 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee incident
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments on this incident at WP:AN/I. I believe you perceived the problems correctly, and described them with great clarity. I present you this shed-star for your uncommon level of discernment: *. All the best to you. :-) Rohirok 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Singular thanks
On Danny Yee, it appears that I somehow reinserted the plural 'media' when trying to restore a deleted image. I cannot for the life of me figure out how that happened, since it does not seem like something that would occur with any edit conflict that comes to mind. Lest you think I received something less than solid A's in my high-school Latin, I want to thank you for your correction explicitly. Hell, I'm one of those folks who actually use the correct singulars 'datum', 'agendum', 'erratum', 'graffito', 'addendum' and the plurals 'monies' and 'Vaxen'. :-) LotLE × talk  06:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I can see what happened. No worries. Sorry if I sounded a bit snarky about it. :) Metamagician3000 06:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)