User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive20

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten Archive Eleven Archive Twelve Archive Thirteen Archive Fourteen Archive Fifteen Archive Sixteen Archive Seventeen Archive Eighteen Archive Nineteen Archive Twenty

re:PROWARRIOR's talk page
I understand completely the debate concerning removing warnings from user talk pages. It wasn't my intention to force these comments to permanently be on PRO's talk page. I was just trying to get all the comments together for historical sake. If PRO decided to delete everything again, I wouldn't have minded. Maybe I shouldn't be meddling with page histories like that, but it made sense to me at the time. I had posted a welcome message, with a personal comment about PRO's recent editing. PRO removed not only that personal comment, but my effort to discuss the edits on the IDX talk page. I then posted a vandalism warning and reverted the blanking. I come back a few hours later and PRO was blocked. The talk page was still basically blank so I was confused. I had to dig through the page history to discover warnings from 4 different editors (including you and me). So I restored these discussions so, for whatever reason, they were more accessible. Like I said, perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but its done. I don't mind that the comments have been removed, and we have the comments together in the page history. Sorry about that.--Andrew c 23:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Your message on my talk page (Images and Grammar)"
Dear Musical Linguist (AnnH),

Thank you for forgiving my friend and me.

Thanks for forgiving me especially.

Also, thanks for telling me that bit of info about grammar. I read and told some of my friends and family what you said. We all found what you said to be very interesting and informative.

From what you told me, you seem to be very qualified and you know what you are talking about.

If my friends, family, or myself have anymore questions in terms of grammar, can I consult you?

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Psdubow

Thanks
for watching my talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank You for helping me with my fair use imiages questions. {Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) (edits) 14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for defindening me yet agan. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 01:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Hello Musical Linguist. I'm working on a response to your evidence presented in the arbcom case and would like your opinion on something. You say that part of my trolling is re-posting invisible profanity on my userpage that was removed as misunderstood "vandalism". Would the original posters of it also be trolls? Because if so, that would make GTBacchus, an administrator, a troll. I'm curious on whether you think that's true, or if you think there's a distinction between his posting and my re-posting, or whether or not you're willing to reconsider.

I'm also referring to you as a female in my counter-evidence, please let me know if this is incorrect. Milto LOL pia 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your reply. I'm replying here because there's something I want to clear up, but let me know if you'd rather it be on my page or whatever and I'll cutpaste it there.  I first just wanted to make you aware of a cultural difference that seems to have whacked us both in the face - to say someone "kicks ass" means that they are very talented at something or just is a generally admirable person, although the expression is somewhat vulgar.  As to your final question on my talk page: what are you asking me about not removing exactly?  You can reply there to keep it in context unless you'd rather it be here.  Milto LOL pia 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, I figured out what you meant by "why didn't you remove it", sorry. Milto LOL pia 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why GTBacchus's edit to my userpage "needs no explanation", as I think you said, but that my reposting of it not only does require explanation, but that the explanation I gave here is unsatisfactory, as you're still including those edits to my userpage as evidence of "trolling". Milto LOL pia 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some explanation
Hi Ann. I've read your conversation with Miltopia regarding "trolling", and I think this is a good time to explain some of my actions to you. You've been a friend to me here at Wikipedia, and I think you deserve an explanation. You said you have "recently noted with sadness and bewilderment what seems to be [my] inexplicable failure to show solidarity with or appropriate support for a victim of absolutely appalling harassment." My short answer is that, if I were to show "solidarity" in the way MONGO would prefer, that I would not be acting in Wikipedia's best interests. I have discussed this a little bit here and here. Basically, I understand trolling behavior well enough that I believe I know something about how not to perpetuate it.

As one example, consider the ED deletion debate. Every time a Wikipedian said something like: "delete - we don't need to promote this hate-filled, racist, attack site", a troll laughed. There are people who find it hilariously funny to see other people get on a moral high-horse. The trick is to not get on the horse, no matter how they tempt you. If everyone in the AfD had just talked very boringly and academically about the lack of independent sources, there would have been much less drama, and one of my goals is to prevent drama at Wikipedia. The article was deletable for perfectly ordinary policy reasons, so why drag moral offense into it?

Another example: when Miltopia cast an "oppose" vote in a recent RfA, MONGO chose to criticize his vote based on the fact that Miltopia is an ED contributor who MONGO feels is pursuing a grudge against him, or something. Now, putting aside the question of whether that's true, surely the best response in this case would have been for MONGO to ignore him if he didn't want to interact with him. Instead, he chose to create more drama by saying something like, "ZOMG, ED Troll/Stalker!!!1!", and guaranteed that anybody in that RfA who may not have heard of ED has heard of it now. When I suggested to MONGO that leaving him alone might be a better idea than calling attention to their history, especially seeing that the RfA was going to succeed with near unanimity, he called me an "ED partisan", and I just let it go.

Here's one more, from back in July. This was actually a continuation of some arguing that had been going on about a user maintaining a page with speculations about MONGO's IP address. Tony and MONGO kept giving the user contemptuous replies, and the user kept asking questions. After the comment I posted there, the questions ended. I think especially important was my second comment in which I made it clear that the user in question is a respected human whose rights we would all cheerfully protect, just as we were protecting MONGO's rights. That kind of firm, but respectful and informative response is just what it took to end the trolling (assuming we're agreed that it was "trolling"). This particular example is evidence that I have not failed to support MONGO; I've just failed to vilify those who attack him.

I don't think that vilifying ED is a good idea. I think it's a way to generate more drama, and to rob energy from our project of writing an encyclopedia. I don't think that my friend's enemy is my enemy, or that any number of wrongs, however large, will ever make a right. If I seem too tolerant of trolling behavior, it might that I'm recognizing there are people behind the trolling. I'm quite happy that some ED editors are starting to set up and use good-faith Wikipedia accounts. I think this is a great website, and that anybody who starts making edits is likely to stay and come to care about the place, as their investment in it increases. If nothing else, time spent making constructive edits here isn't spent vandalizing articles or trolling with new account names or anything like that. More importantly though, I'm delighted to have the chance to show my ED friends that Wikipedians are not really a bunch of closed-minded, arrogant so-and-so's, and I hope that some of my Wikipedia friends will consider that ED people aren't really a bunch of mindless, scurrilous what-have-ye's.

One last point, regarding my edits at Miltopia's user page: There are several Wikipedians who have sections on their user pages reserved for vandalism in the form of poems. When I saw that Miltopia had an invisible section in which he requested funny vandalisms, I thought an off-color limerick or two would be prefectly appropriate, (and even slightly high-brow, as obscene vandalism goes). Miltopia's seen me deal in Limericks before, and I thought it would be good to welcome him aboard. When it was reverted, I didn't restore it, realizing that such banter is at the wayward edge of acceptable around here, and not wishing to draw anybody's attention to it but Miltopia's.

I realize this is a long post, but I hope I've managed not to lose my main point, which is that I hope you'll understand that my actions regarding ED and the harassment of MONGO have been made with careful consideration of what's best for this website and for the people who edit here. You may disagree with my judgement in this case, but I hope you'll appreciate that my motives are none but the best, namely: universal compassion, and a free encyclopedia. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 02:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * All of that said, I'm certainly open to suggestions on how I could do better. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, even longer post
Hi Ann, thanks for your considered reply. I appreciate this conversation, because you're someone who I feel will listen with fairness to what I have to say, and reply honestly with thoughts and opinions that I value highly. Thank you for taking the time, and for not dismissing me out of hand.

I can explain why the ED blurb and URL is on my user page, and it's there precisely because I thought about it very carefully, and decided that I was doing the best thing for Wikipedia, and even for MONGO, by posting it. It'll take a few paragraphs to get there; please don't feel any pressure to read this all immediately or to respond right away.

There are a number of understandable misconceptions I'd like to clear up. The first is the idea that I'm "blaming" MONGO for his own harassment. I certainly never used that word, nor would I. I hold MONGO utterly blameless. In fact, I believe the whole concept of "blame" is riddled with fallacy, and meaningless. If I suggest that he do something different in the future, I mean in no way to imply that he should have done anything different in the past. I assume he's been doing the best thing, as he sees it, all along. I was offering advice, not judgement. If I see someone in a situation that's hurting them, and I see an easy way out, I might suggest it. The motivation there is compassion - I don't like seeing people in pain.

Because I don't use the concept of "blame" in my own considerations, I sometimes forget that others tend to think of it quickly, and they imagine that I'm dealing in blame when I say something. It's a shame, partly because they imagine I'm casting blame about, which would be regrettable, and partly because it means they missed what I was really saying. I would like to learn to better avoid such misunderstandings.

Another misunderstanding - I don't imagine that MONGO would prefer that I react hysterically, and that wasn't what I meant by "supporting MONGO in the way he would prefer." I meant that he would prefer I not reach out in any way to ED, that I not try to build bridges, that I agree that "those people" are irredeemable trolls, and that ED is an attack site. I won't do that though, because I won't stop trying to make peace, and I won't make claims that I know to be false.

That brings us to what's probably the difficult point. I would like to ask you to... maybe not believe, but at least consider something. Please consider that it may be that ED is not what you think it is, and that these ED people are not what you think they are. In particular, the website is not racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or any of those things. It turns out that these people generating all of the content that seems to attack Jews, and blacks, and homosexuals, and women.... are themselves a bunch of Jews, and blacks, and homosexuals, and women. I take that as strong initial evidence that there's something going on under the surface.

Looking more closely, consider this: one of the favorite memes at ED is "Jews did WTC". Do they believe that "Jews did WTC"? Is it possible? If you look at their article on the topic, it contains a "proof", which begins, "Linear time is LIE. Cubic time is TRUTH...." Are you familiar with the Time Cube guy? He's a well-known internet crank. I believe he provoked some of the early development of our No Original Research policy. This is his website - it's perfectly "safe for work", just insane.

Seeing that Time Cube is used to "prove" that "Jews did WTC", I start to realize that there's mockery going on here, and that what's being mocked is not Jews, but paranoid antisemitism and 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Who would have imagined that ED and MONGO both actively oppose the same conspiracy nuts!) They don't think "Jews did WTC" anymore than Jonathan Swift thought we should cook and eat the children of the poor, but he had to argue for it quite stridently to make his conscience-driven point. Note how his satirical intent was misunderstood at the time.

Next, I see that ED also claims that "Uncyclopedia did WTC" (same proof), and also that "MONGO did WTC", the latter of which captions a picture of MONGO photoshopped onto a building that's got a plane flying into it. It's clear to me at this point that the authors don't believe that Uncyclopedia or MONGO is responsible for the attacks, but that they're playing with a "_____ did WTC" meme, and recombining it somewhat in the manner of YTMND. MONGO has said he considers that picture an obvious attack. I think it's obvious that it's not an attack. We're probably both wrong - it's probably not obvious, which is probably the point. To some tastes, humor needs a sharp edge.

Now, all of the above might convince someone that the offensive statements about races, sexes, etc, really are satirical, and not actually hateful. It does little to explain their articles about real internet people, including Wikipedia admins, which are pretty mean articles. I don't much like those articles. I especially don't like that they encourage the collection and posting of personal information. I do know what they're doing, and I appreciate that they're operating from perfectly normal human motivations. I don't agree with their approach - it's clearly not the one I take - but I'm not writing them off.

One reason I'm not writing them off is that they're my friends. I've hung out with them in IRC, they've been very good to me, and I know them to be people who are full of love and enthusiasm for life. There is a definite culture there, with its own rules and logic, which is very different from Wikipedia culture... but in a way it's practically the same, or maybe a mirror image, or a photo negative. They have standards about what to mock and how to mock it, and they're pretty ruthless in applying those standards, just like we're ruthless about deleting the ED article here, by applying our standards.

They genuinely believe that Wikipedia has some serious problems, largely related to the high-handed manner in which some admins deal with conflict. I happen to have the same criticism. Obviously, my approach is very different from theirs. I'd rather work as an admin to improve Wikipedia, and they'd rather ridicule it as a horrible and unsalvagable bureaucracy of fools and power-trippers. They don't want to forgive MONGO for being the person he is, any more than he wants to forgive them for being the people they are. MONGO tells me I should ditch ED, and ED tells me I should ditch MONGO. I see MONGO and the ED people as human beings (my usual refrain), but they don't see each other that way.

So that's the problem, as I saw it a couple of months ago. I've got two groups of friends who hate each other, each wondering why I spend any time with the other group, who are so awful. I think we're all made in God's image, and I'd like for these people to stop demonizing each other, so what do I do? Well, one thing I observed was a certain paranoia - after ArbCom banned links to ED, there was a perception afoot that one is not allowed to mention ED at Wikipeda, that Wikipedia is a vicious institution that would mercilessly ban anyone known to ever enjoy a joke. At Wikipedia, the perception was growing that ED is a racist, hate-filled attack site, whose purpose is to destroy Wikipedia.

Neither of these perceptions is correct, and neither would lead anywhere good. These perceptions would certainly lead to more trolling, more harassment, more vandalism, and less peace. I had to say something that would set the record straight here about what ED is, and I had to show ED that Wikipedia is not some Orwellian hell. I asked the Arbitrators whether my user page falls afoul of their decision, and Fred Bauder told me that what I have there is "tasteful and appropriate".

If I thought it was a racist, hate-filled attack site, I wouldn't have its URL on my user page. I think that if people read my description, and go to ED understanding that the voice in which those articles are written is an extremely pointed caricature, then maybe they'll understand that we're not dealing with wicked people, but with people who like to laugh at coarse, off-color, taboo-challenging jokes, and to lampoon aspects of our culture that they find ridiculous. Maybe there will be more people editing both sites, which will make it more more difficult to maintain animosity between the two.

The comparison to linking to an attack site about my wife doesn't do much for me, not because I'm a bachelor (which I am), but because ED is not an attack site about MONGO, nor about Wikipedia. (Around 3% of their articles deal with wikis in any way, including Wikipedia and at least two others.) I think of it this way - if I have two friends who really hate each other, what do I do? Well, I'd be likely to occasionally mention something good and honest about one to the other, and I'd hope to make a chink in the wall. Anyone examining my record at ED will see that most of my talk page there is given over to vigorously defending Wikipedia policies (in the local argot, which is necessarily coarse). That display of Wikipedia loyalty didn't get me banned or shunned there; in fact, I think it earned me some respect.

Now, we finally come to good ol' Miltopia, and other ED users who have been turning up at Wikipedia. I can't say for sure, but I suspect that part of the reason they're willing to set up good-faith accounts and make constructive edits is that they've seen that it's possible to be "cool" and still edit Wikipedia. I think I may have helped convince some people that WP is not all bad. Maybe it took that link on my userpage to do it. (Maybe I'm giving myself waaaay too much credit.)

If it now happens that someone from ED, editing here and growing to enjoy the site, has a chance to see MONGO's good side instead of his angry side, then it might be a little bit harder for them to accept that he deserves to be "outed" - as of now, they believe that he deserves it richly, or they wouldn't do it. (I personally find this "deserve" concept to be as meaningless as "blame", but I'm odd that way.)

I was happy when I read your words about Miltopia, "There's a lot of evidence that suggests a troll, and then there's some that makes me stop and wonder." I think I can clear that up a bit - he's not a troll; he's a human being. In particular, he's a kid. Maybe he's done some trolling, maybe some vandalizing, maybe he's worked on some attack articles. Maybe he met some people who make sense to him, and whom he respects and admires, and they've affimed his dignity, in their way, and he's tried to be one of them. I find it pretty easy to understand that kind of behavior. I think now he's decided that editing Wikipedia in good faith is something he might want to try. Right now, he has the potential to become a career vandal, or a full-time troll, or a happy Wikipedian. Which would you prefer? I'd like for him to know that he's welcome to be one of us; I hope I'm not proven wrong.

I hope my choices are a little less mysterious to you now, and I apologize for the great length of this post. Please take your time and reply at your leisure, or not at all if you prefer. If you can suggest a way in which I can better support MONGO, while remaining true to what I've explained here, I'll be very interested indeed. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that last sentence goes for anybody reading this who can understand where I'm coming from and who wants to suggest what I can do better. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As Usual
Dear AnnH,

As usual you are absolutely correct. I went to you first before asking Merope for advice concerning my quotes situation, but noticed that you said you were busy. I believe this all comes down to my Freemasonry Page which had quotes and tidbits of information on it that would never be allowed in any of the articles concerning Freemasonry. User:Dwain/Freemasonry Page I also point out on that page that since members or Freemasonry take oaths to protect their group which includes lying that, information given by members may not be accurate. The fact that unregistered users started this campaign annoyed me. But you are correct suggesting to remove the quotes and I shouldn't have lost my temper.

I only began adding quotes on my page when users began quoting me on their pages in the obvious hope of making me look bad to people who don't share my beliefs. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sputnikcccp quotes me on his page after I had removed the original quote because I decided to remove the original one because I felt it may be misinterpreted, but Sputnikccp put this supposed insulting statement on his page. This is when I decided to add the quote to my page to show that I was not trying to hide that I made this statement.

I don't believe the main information on my freemasonry page should be removed as most of it is relevent to Wikipedia and should be considered as possible information for inclusion in some form in one of the several articles on freemasonry.

I don't think that my comments should be deleted on my page without the same comments deleted on User:Sputnickcccp's page. I've never tried to alter people's userpages.

Also, I've tried repeatedly to remove the comments I made in anger at: User talk:155.33.245.196

The IP address is open apparently to a whole university and I was only responding to one person that obviously has a username but who persisted to use an anonymous IP. Is it possible that you might remove these comments that I made in anger and regreted saying and wanted to remove? If I can't put quotes on my page because they are supposedly insulting then I don't want other people to be able to keep my quotes on their pages that should also be insulting. My not being able to remove my comments on an anons IP address is done, I believe, to stir up trouble in my direction.

If you could help in the matter of removing my comments from the two mentioned pages I would be very thankful. Sorry to make this so long! Thank you for your help! I hope you have a very Merry Christmas! Dwain 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, Dwain's comment "I also point out on that page that since members or Freemasonry take oaths to protect their group which includes lying that, information given by members may not be accurate." is pretty indicative of the overall problem. There are very few pieces of information on Freemasonry that are not readily available, and those which are not readily available are not integral to what Freemasonry teaches.  A Mason will never lie to cover up information, and any statement of the like is not part of Masonic obligations.  However, when people disseminate third-hand (if not entirely fabricated) material, this is what happens.  When someone uses their WP space to cause problems, and avoids the simple way out, I would say that it is best to leave them be, and perhaps they will learn from their mistakes.  MSJapan 02:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
Musical Linguist i suggest that you run for adminship. If you run I would support your nomiontion for runing. Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I came here to tell you that your posts to GTBacchus' talkpage were particularly impressive, and then without thinking I saw the above and typed "support"– and then I realized, you are an administrator. So Cocoaguy, consider that your wish is granted, retroactive to November 22, 2005. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If she weren't already an admin, and were standing for the position today, I'd race you both to support her. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Again AnnH,

Thank you for all your help! You're great!!! Dwain 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call
I totally understand and appreciate your efforts to avoid unneccesary confrontation. Thank you for taking that upon yourself. I've been so busy with applications and such that I haven't had time to edit; i should be back soon, hopefully. Thank you! СПУТНИК CCC P 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess
Hi Ann, I see that you are very busy, but I need a bit help from an educated and linguistically able person like you. I wrote sections about History and Place in culture in the article Chess and now I need a person who would copyedit my horrible English. (An incentive: Many of the early chess masters were RC priests :-) and Ruy Lopez was even a bishop!) Happy advent time, Ioannes Pragensis 08:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Help requested with Vandalism or the like
Ann,

It has been light-years if not monkey-eons since I've edited here in the jungle aka "Wikipedia," however, now days I help out on a not-for-profit project called http://StarTrekNewVoyages.com

You can click on their official downloads page at http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/1024/downloads.php#TSAMD page and see two of my mirrors listed there (16a and 16b) -I say this not because you would disbelieve me but because of those who don't know me -that I can verify my claims of association via their official website.

Anyhow, one of the actresses thought the pic used made her look tired or mad or the like. (We discussed this in the forum at New Voyages; I can, if you like, fine you the links, but you would need to sign up to view the posts.)

So, although Wikipedia allows the public to edit, here at New Voyages, they have stricter rules, but I got permission from one of the admins there, and he wrote me back as follows: "Gordon, I have had no reply about Meghan's request. If she indicated a choice to you, use that; otherwise in the reply you sent one picture where she is sitting in the captain's seat ... so that is what I would say to use ... it is the best appearing picture of Meghan of the three you attached. Rather than waiting any longer I am Okaying you to make this one time change on behalf of Retro Film Studios as asked by Meghan. Thanks Gordon. Gary Evans 7-December-2006"

So, I made the change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_New_Voyages&diff=next&oldid=92857422

However, someone came along and reverted me; His edit comments claim that the link was a "red-link" -that is, a bad file, and I will assume good will on his part -I think maybe someone came along and deleted the file that I uploaded, but I did have copyright permission (not that we needed it under Fair Use) -so I was good to edit.

However, when I clicked on the file, I found it had been deleted -but it WAS there when I made the edit, and it was VERY hard to get all the details right due to the way my computer captures images from movie video programs.

Since I see you are now an admin yourself in this forum, I would like to know if you can look into this and reverse the deleted file -if that is possible. You can contact New Voyages at their official website to verify my story if you like. I add that it has been so long since I've edited here, I frankly forget who to contact over a matter such as this. (Things like this -a good edit being reversed and a file deleted -are chief reasons I no longer edit here.)

Thank you,

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, Florida, USA, Planet Earth :-)

PS: If any of you is a big Star Trek fan, the original series is now back in its 4th season -as shown above. GordonWatts 07:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi, Ann, are you around? I just sent you an e-mail and it bounced. Best, Bishonen | talk 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * When I emailed her about my concern, Bishonen, I did not have a problem -at least it was not returned email. PS: Ann, someone else helped me with my problem, so I think that I do not need your help any longer. Take care, GordonWatts 07:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ann, thanks for the e-mail you sent me. It is indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestampnot encouraging what You wrote about Your mother, even though she hasn't been well over the last year. Under the circumstances, I can understand Your staying away from WP in the near future. I hope she will improve and I wish You and Your family a nonetheless merry Christmas. Str1977 (smile back) 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Ann, what I forgot above (but I guess, if you read my note you will also read Bishonen's and thus be informed of the problem), is that my e-mail bounced back as well (and hence my posting here). There must be something wrong. Anyway, I hope everything else is "working properly". Best wishes, Str1977 (smile back) 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ann, sorry to hear of your troubles. Family must come first so I can understand you taking a long break. I'll drop you an e-mail soon too to see how things are. I do wish you and your Mum well at this special time of year and hope that she is getting better. Sophia  17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ann, hope everything gets resolved for the better. Take it easy, and know that you have our support during these hard times. Take good care, and hope to see you back soon with good news. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My thoughts are with you. I hope your family is OK. Don't worry about Wikipeia. We'll muddle through without you. -Will Beback · † · 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ann, my thoughts are with you as well. Please let me know if I can be of any help to you during your time away. FloNight 11:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding my voice to the swell - Ann, know that you are in our thoughts. Take care of yourself, and let us know if there is anything we can do. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of you too, Ann. I hope things turn out well. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Best wishes for you and yours, Tom Harrison Talk 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope all works out for you. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sympathies
Sweetie, I am so sorry to hear the sad news! You are in my thoughts and prayers. I feel for what you must be going through - my mother passed on 16 years ago and it is a hard thing to weather. (((hug))) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry for your loss. My mother has been ill for some time; so I'm preparing for the same storm you are weathering now. You seem strong, so I know you'll make it through. If you need cheering up, look at at, or. Be well, Ann. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 00:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, you are in my thoughts. Again please reach out and let me know if I can help you in any way. FloNight 01:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, Ann. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for your loss. You have my deepest sympathy. -Will Beback · † · 02:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what it is to lose a mother - you are in my thoughts Ann. Sophia 12:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I am so sorry for your troubles. In sympathy, Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, very sorry to hear about your mother. :( Syrthiss 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, I am very saddened to hear of your loss.--MONGO 12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am deeply saddened to read of your loss, Ann. May you find some small comfort in the knowledge that you and your family are in the thoughts and prayers of your friends around the world. Sarah Ewart 13:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC) I'm so sorry to hear about this, Ann. I hope you're as good as can be expected under the circumstances. --Deskbanana 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann, my heartfelt empathy for the pain you are in. I too have lost as you now have. Through that time, the only piece of advice that I heard that made any sense and actually helped was "You never get over it. You just get used to it". --Durin 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

May your mother rest in peace, Ann; I shall offer prayers for her -and for you and your family in this time of hardship. Take care, GordonWatts 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Take care of yourself... my thoughts are with you. Jkelly 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

May I offer my words of sympathy to the others here? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comhbhrón. I've just returned to editing after a break, or I'd have left a message sooner. Is olc liom do bhris. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for your loss ann. Cocoaguycontribstalk 15:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear the bad news - best wishes possible under such circumstances (User:arthurchappell

Pie Jesu Domine, dona ei requiem. Vilĉjo 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just learned. I'm so sorry for your loss. Best wishes to you and the rest of your family.Giovanni33 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I found out not too long ago (I've been off a while) and meant to say that I'm sorry for your lose. Chooserr 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found out. I am very sorry for your loss.--Dakota 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Hallo dear friend, thanks for your message. It is good to see you peeping in on Wikipedia despite your troubles. I can relate to your concerns about the house. Nonetheless, I am wishing your father all the best in his "quest". TC, Str1977 (smile back) 00:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ann, I saw your message on Str's talk page. I am glad to hear you are doing okay. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 23:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back
It's nice to see you contributing again. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I came to say the same thing. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As did I. I sincerely hope you are doing as well as could be expected. No need to reply - KillerChihuahua?!? 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you. You were missed. -Will Beback · † · 01:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RFI comment
Although personally I believe policy of '0 tolerance for civility violations' would be best for Wiki, I am also happy to give people second and third chances and assume much good faith. Dr. Dan has been warned many times, and after months of dealing with his personal attacks I am fed up. Even so, I can live with this - but apparently other valuable contributors cannot (per my comments about User:Halibutt). When created of hundreds articles and Top 168 most active writer in our project is chased off by a person who does 1 or 2 minor copyedits per week, this is something that we need to address.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ann
Thank you Ann, for your kind words and support. Your contributions and fairness have consistently made Wikipedia a better place. I wish to again convey my deepest sympathy to you, over the loss of your Mother. Dr. Dan 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about...
...this revert? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! I cut out the "devil incarnate" bit, and the rest of the childhood section reads fine.--Shtove 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
Hi, Ann. I replied to your comment regarding me at WP:AN/I. I feel very sad that I seem to have gotten on your bad side, when I've consistently tried to do what's right regarding this whole situation. I'm still committed to preventing conflict between Wikipedia and other sites, and I hope that my approach doesn't turn out to be miscalculated. I certainly value your opinion, and I'm open to hearing your thoughts. That said, I can't unknow what I know, or believe things to be true that I know to be false. I wish I thought that someone at Wikipedia understood where I'm coming from. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an email. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe's talk page
I'm not going to undo your reversion of the anon's comments on Zoe's talk page, but I feel that (barring any history between the two that I don't know about) your characterisation of that comment as "kicking someone when they're down" or as "nasty" is grossly unfair. It reads to me like a very mild and good-faith assessment of Zoe's actions- for which she has yet to show any contrition whatsoever (unlike Jimbo and unlike Pierce, the actions of both of whom were by no means as potentially damaging as Zoe's). No-one is looking for an apology (any apology should of course go to Pierce, not to anyone else) but Zoe's hasty and severe over-reaction has been compounded by her arrogance on AN/I and her petulant response to Jimbo's comments. I think that is the point that the anon was making, and I feel it is entirely fair. Let's not get to a stage where our eyes are too blinkered to accept just and good-faith criticism just because it is directed at friends. I suspect you are right that Zoe would probably revert that edit without response or further comment- she would be wrong to do so. I do not doubt that Zoe thought she was behaving properly, but she wasn't- in exceeding her authority and making spurious and inappropriate threats she showed serious misjudgement. Pierce has learnt from this, Jimbo has learnt from this, and I think many of the rest of us have learnt from this too. It remains to be seen whether Zoe has. Badgerpatrol 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * cross-posted from Badgerpatrol's talk page Hello, Badgerpatrol. Regarding the question in your edit summary, Zoe has left Wikipedia. It seems that she was very badly hurt by the public rebuke which, in my view was undeserved, since (regardless of whether you agree with her reaction to Pierce's assignment or not) she was certainly acting in good faith, and had absolutely no way of knowing that the matter had been dealt with. While I'm quite happy that Jimbo put a stop to the contacting of Mr Pierce and the University, I don't think that it's a simple case of Stop=good and Leave-to-continue=bad. If Jimbo had simply posted a message saying that he had spoken to Mr Pierce on the phone, Mr Pierce had apologized and promised not to do it again, and Jimbo wanted the matter dropped, I think the matter would have been dropped. So it would certainly have been possible to put a stop to it without humiliating Zoe. Then we have to ask did humiliating and hurting Zoe bring any benefit to the encyclopaedia that would outweigh the disadvantage? I can't see that it did. While I'm not Zoe, and therefore have no obvious right to revert comments on her talk page, I do strongly believe (you'll find evidence of this if you look through my posts on user talk pages and on project pages) that people have the right to remove unwanted comments from their own pages if they wish (other than things like block notices for the duration of a block), and I have seen Zoe removing such comments before. Wikipedia, as the anon said, is not censored. But that simply means that we can't go around removing images of private parts of the body from articles on those subjects. It does not mean that we have to condone kicking someone who's down. Most decent people do not post "I-told-you-so" messages to someone who has been publicly smacked and is upset, and is leaving. Unless you actually want to cause further pain to Zoe, I would strongly urge you not to restore that comment. It's in the history if she wants to read it. I can state categorically that she would not want it left there. Musical Linguist 13:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. the orange bar lit up with your message as I was previewing this. I opened in another window in my browser. If there's anything in particular to respond to, I might reply later.


 * I'm aware that Zoe has left Wikipedia- seemingly not for the first time. My question went to any prior problems between this particular anon and Zoe, since that's the only possible reason I can think of to view that comment as in any way bad-faith or trolling. Let's us all hope that she sees sense and returns. Again and for the record, I entirely disagree with your mis-characterisation of that comment as kicking someone when they're down. As far as I'm concerned the matter is long finished- but any residual frustration has not been dissipated by Zoe's apparent refusual to admit that her actions were wrong. I don't agree that this comment: Note from Jimbo: Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors is innaccurate or designed to humiliate or hurt Zoe, nor do I think a reasonable observer would have anticipated that it would have that effect; she is perhaps slightly rash and over-sensitive. You say: Then we have to ask did humiliating and hurting Zoe bring any benefit to the encyclopaedia that would outweigh the disadvantage?- whilst I disagree with your characterisation of Jimbo's comments, the easy answer is- YES. The benefit of the rebuke is to ensure that Zoe doesn't do it again. We are talking about accusing someone of criminal behaviour and academic misconduct, and attempting to precipate an investigation of said "misconduct" by an individual's employers. That is seriously, seriously over the top. Had Zoe made similar legal threats on Wiki, she may have been looking at a ban anyway. If Zoe has left the encyclopaedia permanently then that is a shame but so be it- but I think the only intent of the anon's comment (as it reads to me in that context) is to establish that she was wrong to do what she did and to seek an assurance that she won't do something like it again- justifiable, since I see no contrition in her actions whatsoever so far, although I should reiterate that I'm personally happy to let the matter drop anyway despite this- the intent of this exchange is to defend the anon's right to legitimate comment without being attacked. Badgerpatrol 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, please do not mischaracterize my remarks. Nowhere did I say or even imply that Jimbo's remarks were "designed to humiliate or hurt Zoe". Of course they were not. My regret is that in posting his remark at AN/I, he did not make sufficient effort not to hurt or humiliate her. If you've ever read Emma, you may recall that Emma made a rather cruel joke to the village bore, and was later reprimanded by Mr Knightley. It's obvious that Emma wasn't motivated by a desire to hurt or humiliate Miss Bates; the problem was that not hurting Miss Bates was not sufficiently high on her priorities to prevent her from saying what she did. I disagree that Jimbo apologized, by the way. He softened his statement, and I appreciate that he did that. But to say he's sorry if his remarks sounded harsh is not apologizing in the sense of acknowledging some blame. ("I'm sorry your wife died" is not a confession of murder.) Nor do I feel any wish to post any "you-should-apologize-to-Zoe" messages on his page. I think too highly of him to believe that he isn't sorry that his hastily-worded public rebuke caused so much pain. And I wouldn't be surprised if he is trying to undo some of that hurt by private e-mail &mdash; though that really isn't my business, or anyone else's.


 * It's interesting, though, that Jimbo is generous enough not to turn up at her talk page and start posting "I hope you've learned your lesson", "I hope you'll learn something from this", "I hope you'll listen to other people in future", "I hope you won't be so arrogant again" "have you apologized to Pierce yet?" type of messages. As I believe his remark at AN/I was a once-off, hastily-written, completely uncharacteristic post from a very kind person who has always, except in this instance, shown huge respect for the dignity of other people, I do not think he would be happy with people posting that stuff on her page now. To say that some of the remarks on her page were not uncivil is to miss the point. It is unkind to add to the hurt she's feeling. It won't achieve anything. It will make it more difficult for her to come back. And if the motive of those "I-hope-you've-learned-your-lesson" posts is to make her feel some contrition, then there's even more reason to remove them, since even elementary psychology should tell you that they're likely have the exact opposite effect.


 * I disagree entirely with your statement that the benefit of the rebuke ensuring that Zoe "doesn't do it again" outweighs the disadvantage of hurting and humiliating her, as you fail to consider if a gentler method would also have ensured that she "doesn't do it again". A public statement (preferably immediately after his phonecall to Pierce, though it seems that he wasn't online for several days, so that may not have been possible) on AN/I saying that Pierce had apologized and had promised not to do it again, and a private e-mail to Zoe, expressing some his dissatisfaction would have been perfectly adequate. Nobody has suggested that Zoe would do it again if Jimbo had told her, nicely, that he'd prefer that such matters were left to the Foundation.


 * As for your concern about Zoe attempting to precipitate an investigation by Pierce's employers (if he didn't promise never again to set an assignment for his students to vandalize Wikipedia &mdash; you leave out that bit), while I certainly wouldn't have done what she did, I think that if what Pierce did was completely inoffensive, his employers would just think Zoe was a crank, and if it was something disgraceful, then it wouldn't be wrong to make them aware of it. I wouldn't want people contacting my employers, and I certainly wouldn't have contacted Pierce's, but the posts on AN/I about Zoe trying to ruin a man in the real world and get him sacked were as OTT as people say Zoe's reaction was. If I put paper in the bin instead of recycling it, and you tell my employer, it won't harm me in the least. If I molest children and you tell my employer, it will cause me serious harm, and it will serve me right. If Pierce had not refused to give an assurance to Zoe that he wouldn't do it again, or if Jimbo had informed us at AN/I that Pierce had given that assurance to him this distressing situation could have been avoided.


 * One final point &mdash; I notice that you suggest that my eyes "are too blinkered to accept just and good-faith criticism just because it is directed at friends". Aren't you jumping to conclusions? It's almost insulting to suggest that the only possible reason I could have for wishing to spare another human being further distress is that she's a buddy of mine. Look at the favourite quotation at the top of my talk page. (And don't bother to say that the message I removed wasn't a "taunt": King Lune would certainly have considered it unmanly to go to someone's talk page with "honest criticism" when that person is smarting from a public rebuke from the Founder.) My history on Wikipedia shows that I am totally against adding further humiliation to people who have been in some way humiliated, regardless of whether I like them or not. I try to refrain from posting on talk pages of blocked users with whom I've been in dispute. I recently asked somebody not to revert a user I had indefinitely blocked who was removing other people's comments from his talk page, as I thought, he's been blocked anyway, so let him keep a little dignity.) For the record, I know nothing about Zoe. We've never edited the same articles. Before this happened, I think I had posted twice ever on her talk page. I never checked her talk page messages. I have had a very, very limited amount of e-mail correspondence with her &mdash; relating to a user she had blocked, who had come back under a different identity, and about whom I also e-mailed other admins. This has nothing to do with supporting a friend. This has to do with the fact that not adding to someone's humiliation is apparently higher on my priorities than on yours or on 129.11/76.230's.


 * I not do not intend to be drawn into any further discussion about Jimbo's role in this. For one thing, I like him, and think that he generally does a great job. (His contributions show that he was not around for a few days before making that post, and that he didn't post anything else for nearly two days afterwards, so that would explain why Zoe wasn't told that the matter had been dealt with, and suggests also that he was particularly busy and just forced himself to take time to write a message to put a stop to the whole matter.) For another, I believe that lengthy discussion about his handling of this matter &mdash; or of any other &mdash; is not good for the Project. My view on Zoe is that she's hurt, and that if you can't bring yourself to post something kind, you should stay away from her talk page. Zoe is a human being; she is not a Wikipedia article that has to report all points of view. Musical Linguist 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we may have to agree to disagree then. The matter could have been handled privately- but I personally think some kind of public statement was required to make sure that this situation never arises again. I suspect the University did indeed pass the complaint off as harmless- but it need not have done. Zoe made some serious allegations, that the less enlightened could have taken seriously. At the very least, it potentially caused embarassment and unnecessary additional work for those who presumably have other things to do. With respect, I haven't seen anything on Zoe's talk page that could be construed as gaving the effect of adding to any "humiliation" she may be suffering. What I have seen are a few measured, good-faith edits constructively criticising Zoe's actions. The fact that Zoe has again overreacted to the situation, has posted a rather silly and obviously innaccurate statement on her user page, and made some unhelpful (and some might say dismissive) edits in the previous AN/I discussion (e.g. , , (especially) , ) suggests that constructive criticism and gently pointing out her mistakes may still be a useful, necessary and productive exercise. I wholeheartedly agree with protecting people from stress wherever possible, and it seems that Zoe may be quite thin-skinned (since she also seems to be a productive and generally respected editor, let's hope she eventually comes back). I don't agree with stifling legitimate debate or criticism. My only intent in this postscript to the whole sorry debate was to defend the right of others to reasoned and constructive criticism (on whatever issue and on whatever side of the given debate), the benefits of which I at least feel to be self-evident. I note that now there are a couple of comments on Zoe's talk page which I consider to be as strongly worded (if not more so) than the anon's initial comment (a quick scan indicates that these have not to date been met with the kind of attack that the anon's was), just as there are numerous messages of support. That is exactly how it should be- I don't see any bad faith there. If I did see any gloating or other nastiness on there then quite frankly I would probably revert it myself (although I try to stay away from others' talk pages where possible as a simple matter of personal preference). As an aside, thank you for your well-reasoned and thoughtful responses, which stand in stark contrast to those of one or two others, sadly. All the best, Badgerpatrol 04:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Badgerpatrol here, if Zoe had been reasonable from the out set there would have been no need for Wales to step in. Still she shows no contrition, judging from the strawman (Wales supports vandals) argument she has left on her user page. Being outraged at the messengers misses the whole point. David D. (Talk) 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Badgerpatrol, we'll have to agree to differ on this, but I do thank you at least for keeping the discussion civil. I have never had very much contact with Zoe, and was not in any way involved in the Pierce discussion, but I can assure you that if you were upset and left Wikipedia in similar circumstances, then regardless of whether or not I liked you, and regardless of whether or not I felt that you had been in the wrong, I would certainly feel distressed at seeing people turning up at your talk page to offer unsolicited advice about not being so arrogant in future, or to hope you had learned your lesson, and I would take exactly the same approach. Regards. Musical Linguist 00:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy
I sent you a snail mail...let me know via that return if you got it...thanks.--MONGO 09:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My talk
Thanks. You may want to keep a close eye on, works similar to JONNY99P (also, the earlier-blocked ). – Chacor 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet user:JONNY89P to user:JONNY99P whom you blocked
Hello, I was wondering why there was a reference to also known as Jonny 89P on Jonny99P's userpage. It appears this user has two accounts and uses both to vandalize pages. You may want to block this one too. Thanks, Ronbo76 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello...
...and thank-you! I like how, even though I may have only spoken to you once, you were among those sad to see me go, and your reversion on my talk page was very nice too. Definitely a RAoK (*points to userpage*) Will (talk to me) 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism
My edit to God was not vandalism, but it was misplaced. It should have gone in the article on God in Pop Culture instead. And it's already there. But it was not vandalism because it is factually accurate information. Please remove the warning.
 * Thank you for removing the warning in question BuyAMountain 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry about the mistake. Musical Linguist 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

David S. Touretzky

 * Thank you for reverting the vandalism on David S. Touretzky. I warned the editor/vandal on their talk page, but I did not want to revert the vandalism, obvious an attack as it was, a third time.  Thanks again.   Smee 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Elizabeth Morgan IP edits
Hi Musical Linguist,

You were picking things up faster than me yesterday with regards to the article above, so I left it; however coming in this morning and doing normal checks I found your blocks and your later bv warning. I looked back through the Elizabeth Morgan page history and saw that it's a sensitive page, but the edits being made here are of a different kind. Sure, the edits themselves are inappropriate and revertable - but the edits themselves are not in bad faith, and certainly not what I would have expected to see bans for, nor a bv. I don't know whether the 15-year old would have been able to read the message I left yesterday on that newly created account (does a permabanned user account have access to its own talk page?) but I would have hoped for more than a single warning before each of those bans, especially for something as trivial as this.

--Firi e n § 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Points taken. Thanks for the clarification :) --Firi e n § 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A star for you
For deserving all the nice things here… or : ) &mdash;  $PЯINGrαgђ  22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

input sought
In a message to several recent editors of Schiavo-related pages, I write that: Input is sought here: Talk:Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case.

--GordonWatts 15:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Musical Linguist, thanks for your kind comments and offer. Actually I was considering adminship for a while, so your timing is good. If you have any questions about my contributions please let me know. I can prepare my answers to the standard questions and send you a draft if you wish. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Thanks again, Crum375 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just emailed you my draft answers - thanks again, Crum375 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your trust and help. :-) Crum375 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Account doesn't actually exist
Oh, yes, you're right -- the actual account had a small 'm' for the last name. Thanks for catching that. Jkelly 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joke banner
Arghhh. I feel about ready to add a joke message banner to my own pages, and I know how much you like 'em, so would you like one too? No, no, don't thank me, it would be a pleasure! Bishonen | talk 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC).