User talk:Peruvianllama/Archive06

'''This is an archive of this talk page. Please do not make any further edits, thanks!'''

'''Please leave any messages at the bottom of the page, and start a new section unless you are adding to an already-existing conversation. Also, consider signing your comments, and linking to articles if you are commenting on an edit I made that you didn't (or did) like. Unsigned, anonymous comments may be ignored at the discretion of the management. Thanks!'''

''For short comments that I feel would benefit from more context, I may copy them to your talk page when I respond there. Feel free to tell me beforehand, or remove them after the fact, if you don't like this.''

Archive 01 (Mar 28, 2004 - Nov 30, 2005)

Archive 02 (Dec 01, 2005 - Dec 31, 2005)

Archive 03 (Jan 01, 2006 - Jan 31, 2006)

Archive 04 (Feb 01, 2006 - Feb 28, 2006)

Archive 05 (Mar 01, 2006 - Apr 30, 2006)

Spike (film) up for deletion
The article, Spike (film) has been up for deletion for weeks now, how long should it be until a ruling based on consensus? The deletion forum is here? Thanks -- Paxomen 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and talk pages
I was reading a user's talk page and was wondering how a talk/discussion page and the removal of entries is considered vandalism.
 * "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of other wholly irrelevant content."

The above states "integrity of the encyclopedia" ... how does editing one's talk/discussion page compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia? If there were no talk pages at all, would the encyclopedia lose its integrity? I believe the answer is no. The encyclopedia's content would still be there and intact. This question is sort of letigious and academic in nature. I'm just throwing this up to see where it lands. Just as a note, I've corrected vandalism myself on articles - one where a vile note was left for another specific person to read like a message board. Thanks. BTW, you look like that Macaulay Culkin kid from Home Alone... Noles1984 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available
 After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA
I notcied that you've left messages for Zappa.jake on his talk page, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in his RfA at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for ShortJason's advertising. Normally most people consider it unacceptable to advertise RfAs (Requests for Adminship) on people's talk pages.  I have asked him to stop here.  Regardless, now that it's here, if you do wish to vote, do so here.  Sorry, zappa.jak e  (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

¡Hola!
 Here is an 6/6/6, aka Evil Day, greeting for you. These type of messages promote WikiLove in an unknown way. Spread this evil love to others by making a derivative work of this... Or another evil something that is flowing about. Rosa 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CAIR again
Hi Nloth, Yahnatan, Andjam, PeruvianLlama,

There's another POV pusher on the CAIR article; I'm contacting you because you've recently been involved in maintaining the article. I've tried to talk things out with the guy, but he remains dedicated to removing important information from the article, and I don't have the time to deal with his long screeds and shifting rationales. Could you maybe help out here? I confess I've lost my patience with him, but would be happy to help if you could join in the discussion and brewing edit war.

Thanks,

Sdedeo (tips) 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User:71.197.152.84
My error, didn't realize you had already blocked. Cheers -- Samir  धर्म 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the two Reverts
Thank you for the antivandalism work on my user page! Aeon 06:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You to! *Raises a glass of wine to you* Aeon 06:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, thanks for reverting the vandal on my userpage! -- Ferkelparade &pi; 08:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Vickers
More vandalism occuring at Vickers GraemeLeggett 10:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3R
You should probably stop reverting the OS-9 article. Even though your reverts are legitimate, you may be risking activating the 3R rule. -- Steven Fisher 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly, I was trying to let you know I was watching it too and could spare a couple reverts. Either way, he's stopped for the moment. Have a great day, and I'll see you around! -- Steven Fisher 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited
Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. --200.45.150.234 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Square root
Thanks for letting me know! That was not intentional, and I restored all of the lost content. Thanks again. — Mets 501 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota & cutoff text
Yup, know about the problem, the "ravedave" in the bug comments is me. Thanks for the notice though! -Ravedave 20:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hah sheesh, I was really carefull about that on Minnesota but didn't think about it for Talk:Minnesota. Thanks for fixing that! -Ravedave 20:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

hi
oh, that was on accident

Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for getting rid of my impersonators! Thepangelinanpost 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism
Hello. It seems that you have been reverting vandalism to my page. I really appreciate that but the vandalism occurred under my designate vandalism section. (That space was meant to be vandalised, as stated on my page) Thank you very much for your effort in reverting the vandalism, but you don't have to in the future. -- Ottokarf 03:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

i see
ok Johneh 05:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Estefan
Estéfan is not the correct accentuation of that family name in Castillian, it should be removed actually, but i cannot do thatGaudio 07:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's up to you guys, according to the accentuation rules it's Estefan and not Estéfan, and actually i had never seen that surname accentuated like that, but if you'd rather keep it, it's OK.Gaudio 07:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

LeToya Luckett
i completely undertand u but it is completely clear that this guy is a hater and came to vandalize letoya's page. he said himself to user "music..." that he coming to attack the page from all angles. how nice is that?
 * Response: I placed a note on Musicpvm's page saying that I was "prepared to be attacked from all angles" by those who refuse to allow any changes to the LeToya Luckett article. And apparently user is acting exactly as I suspected. -- eo 22:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed AfD
I have made enormous changes to the article - Bangladesh Booty, and I hope the notability issues have been addressed at length (thanks to snug and DaveG12345 I have found some good directions on that), though it still needs some development in articulation. I am working on the verifiability part now (I got some directions on that as well, thanks to you guys). Keep me posted for directions, an I wish some of you will get your hands dirty in tidying up the article as well. (Aditya Kabir 13:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the revert
On my userspace. Crazy Neo-Nazi "Atlantean" has been practically stalking me after I reverted some of his racist edits Fyver528 09:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why'd you block me from editing
All I did was edit my own talk page, it was true. I do enjoy alcoholic beverages, fine women, and illegal mind-numbing substances. Don't hate, player appreciate.

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nateirma
Naterirma keeps changing the stats on the Canada page (StatsCan->CIA), and erasing his talk page. I have noted the incident at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents -- Jeff3000 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Floccinaucinihilipilification
You requested citation for the invention of the word floccinaucinihilipilification on the Antidisestablishmentarianism page. I have added them. Bejnar 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :)
Sorry I didn't earlier, as I didn't notice until reading the history just now, but thank you for undoing the vandalism on my user page. Very observant, and quick! :) Orderinchaos78 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Olmec
Hi, I ask an arbitration about French School. Can you give me your opinion. Thanks again. Olmeque 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for revertingWalkingcontradiction 1's vandalism on my user page. You are fast. :))) --Emre D. | Talk 07:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting my page, what do you have against it. why do you care what i write?

not vandalism
Please keep in mind that you are suppurting Original research. . The user who created this article copy & pastes articles from [www.turkicworld.org] which is a highly OR page. --alidoostzadeh 08:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorta new here, what gives?
When creating this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_Bank most of the structure of the content was followed by taking another bank's wiki and changing as necessary. Namely, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Bancorp

If an advert was made, it wasn't on purpose. Is outlining the business model of these types of institutions unacceptable? If so, lots of content on these types of institutions will be completely left out of the wiki.

Also, I am pretty sure it is Century BANK. I did that on purpose, not just a lazy typo. ; ) Although, I think it does look better the way it is now.

Wikicreatorcb 02:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping keep up with the vandals tonight, they seem to be out in force. Hope everything going good in the world. Cheers  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Maplestory
Since what the 2xx IP address has said so far is completely accusation and has no evidence whatsoever, is it okay to readd the website? Mapletip 08:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Corporate ethics
Data not in business ethics

I do not see the data in the business ethics section. Pls point it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.7.203 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

re:bulletproof
Hi. That proposition is perfectly fine by me as long as the dispute page is linked to at the top of bulletproof's userpage (as an archive).JB196 05:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is basically the issue here. The article Vic Grimes was being reverted by JB196. This was the previous version of the article before it was reverted. This is the version that JB196 made afterwards. Please Note the major reduction of the article's quality made by JB196's reversion. Please read JB196's comments regarding his reversion. ''"revert then; you may not use my bio if I am not going to be credited." -- JB196 14:20, September 4, 2006''. It is because of his reversions and his comments to the article that JB196 was accused of WP:OWN and also of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by deliberately attempting reduce the quality of the article. From WP:Vandalism -- "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". How he claims these accusations are false I have no idea. There you go. Those are the facts. -- bullet proof  3:16 05:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I ask that you see here and here to understand what's going on. -- bullet proof  3:16 05:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, have you made a separate page dedicated to our dispute? Because you removed my comments yet I don't see a link to a new page, so I am confused.JB196 05:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Not all, but most of it certainly has. Clearly 3bulletproof16 has indeed seen your comments on the related Vic Grimes page, so how about this: all content under the section headings of  ==Please do not remove constructive edits of your talk page==  and  ==User: Extraordinary Machine==  are removed, while the content directly under  ==Vic Grimes==  is preserved in the interest of historical accuracy. This way, the pertinent information is maintained, and the redundant stuff is left out. Thoughts?"

There are many parts that fall under your description for removal which are not redundant and should not be removed, such as the commentary on Extraordinary Machine. That argument is not stated anywhere else and is entirely relevent. Again, as you first said, why don't we make a whole page entirely dedicated to the disagreement between myself and bullet? I am not in agreement with this arrangement that you proposed as it removes information that is indeed pertinent to the discussion.JB196 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. In response to your message at 5:21 (because I'm getting so many messages LOL - I am OK with that as long as the chunk about Extraordinary Machine remains and as long as the chunk of text that begins, "Sir, you need to do a good, clean, careful read-through of the WP:AGF" and ends "what the user page is designated for.JB196 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)" remains.JB196 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So let me get this straight...you will add the Extraordinary Machine tidbit back in and you will add the part that begins "Sir, you need to do a good, clean..." and ends "what the user page is designated for" back onto his talk page, and then we will be set, correct?JB196 05:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If 3bulletproof16 is alright with that, then yes, that's the proposal. --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you DARE tell me "stop it, now." I was removing a one-line-long, less-than-six-word sentence that was slanderous and untrue and I did that after he removed very relevent pieces of text from his talk page that totaled over 50 lines. I don't know what you were thinking but that is not cool at all on your part; I take great objection to your tone in that reply.JB196 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Total Idiotz
You just deleted the above article I had tagged. Might I suggest protection? Apparently has been reposted 5 times today: deletion log listing. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) --Fuhghettaboutit 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Reposted under the name Total idiots.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Afed
hi. do you simply revert anything from an IP? user Afed categorises himself into the article namespace and claims to be an administrator. do you approve of this so much that you wish to restore this? --217.80.78.46 23:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Zac watson
Quick comment: you deleted this article as CSD G4, reposted deleted content. Please note that only applies to articles deleted through XfD processes. The right tag would have been CSD A7. Regards, alpha Chimp (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. CrazyRussian actually taught me after I'd tagged 30 or 40 articles that way :). alpha Chimp (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks, Peruvianllama, for your speedy help with blocking Billyhersh a.k.a. BILLYHERSH. The point of Wikipedia seems to have completely passed him by. It wasn't a great pic he had submitted, but with a sensible caption it could have become relevant to that section of the article, and stayed on the page. But he flatly refused to caption it in an informative manner. I suppose he may return, as a sockpuppet from another address, but until he does, thanks again. Bye for now! SiGarb | Talk 11:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Peruvianllama. Thanks for sorting out that vandalism on my user page. You did it so fast it was gone before I'd even seen it! My first bout of vandalism too - I must be doing something right at long last. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

3bulletproof16
Peruvianllama, why do I still not see the following two passages on 3bulletproof16’s talk page as we agreed upon? Passage 1: I have been told by administrator Extraordinary Machine that I am well within my rights by readding constructive comments to your talk page, and I have also been told by Extraordinary Machine that your removal of constructive comments from your talk page constitute vandalism. If you have a problem with this policy, please see my talk page (its all documented there) or contact User Extraordinary Machine. I am not vandalizing your page and would never do such a thing intentionally. I am simply going by what Extraordinary Machine told me on my talk page about Wikipedia policy Just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't mean you are allowed to remove it from your talk page.JB196 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Passage 2: Sir, you need to do a good, clean, careful read-through of the WP:AGF page as you are clearly in violation of it with your comments in the Vic Grimes article. Please read the article very carefully when you have some spare time before editing this page again.JB196 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you need to do a careful read-through of User page as well to find out exactly what the user page is designated for.JB196 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Are they there and I am not seeing them? Or are they not there? And if they are not there, why are they not there? Thank you very much.JB196 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not "fair enough" for me, and being that the comments were constructive, their not remaining on his talk page doesn't fly with me. I do not agree with you that the real discussion "belongs on the Vic Grimes page." Extraordinary Machine's commentary has nothing to with Vic Grimes and it has everything to do with 3bulletproof16's lack of etiquitte. Similarly, my comments about him needing to do a "careful read-through" of WP:AGF and User page have nothing to do with Vic Grimes or pro wrestling, and everything to do with his lack of etiquitte as a Wikipedia poster. Both of these topics belong on his user page. Putting those comments on the Vic Grimes would violate Wikipedia policy by using Wikipedia to make a point WP:POINT which is strictly disallowed. So what am I to do?JB196 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's all fine and dandy and all, but it still contradicts what Extraordinary Machine seemed to say on my talk page, so I don't know what/who to believe.......JB196 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What a mess
JB196 has just filed 2 3rr reports against me for supposedly violating the rule on my OWN talk page. . The other one is for the Vic Grimes article. . Now the truth is that I am not familiar with the subject in that article. The Only thing I was doing is Reverting Vandalism as the definition of vandalism is (From Vandalism) ...any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia... This was the original version. This was after JB196 reverted. Please note the major decrease of quality for the article. And why did he revert? Because he wasn't credited in the article itself as the "Author". "Then can I start citing myself in articles? I mean I did the research I want authorship rights. No rights? Then I retract all contributions I've made to an article." This falls under WP:VAIN. I truly believe I was reverting vandalism and so do other contributors. I believe this is his way of getting back at me for his recent block (See Here). He has been bringing this issue up to other numerous admins in a crusade to get me blocked. I believe his time would be much rather well spent reflecting upon his previous actions than going from one admin to another in order to complete his vendettas against me. All I was doing is reverting vandalism and for some reason I got caught in this mess. Please help clarify these two. -- bullet proof  3:16 01:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am personally past this thing. But for some reason, ever since he returned from his previous block he has spent most of his time plotting to get me blocked for something I didn't do. . I honestly Hope that he can move on and stop plotting revenge against whomever may disagree with him. I'm sorry if you got dragged into this mess too. My apologies. -- bullet proof  3:16 02:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Public Access
Why are you erasing the history of public access entry I did? Should I call it History of Public Access instead? George C. Stoney the father of public access agrees with the history. I thought it was too big to put into the public access entry. Could you please explain yourself in the future? In all due respect I'm new at this and learning, and you were brief to erase what I did. I'm the grass roots founder of public access in my hometown of Evansville, IN and have made numerours additions to the public access entry, which have been acknowledged by public access managers across the country. Please don't erase what I've done, but please let me know how I can do it right if it's wrong. Thank you. DavidWJohnson 03:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing Conflict
Thanks for your reply. A Lucy also replied that I'd inquired with who had quick deleted the entry after you had because I hadn't known I'd messed up yet and resubmitted it. I could see what you both meant about copyright and it being too essay-ish. Originally, I'd considered putting Bill's history in my own words and adding it to the entry for "public access." Bill's history read so well though I'd thought. I asked a public access manager what he would do. Seanfell is also a contributor to the public access listing. My previous entries are under a number because I only today became a Wikipedia member as you know. He suggested I make an entry for Bill and to leave his text as is, and that that would solve it, but he also said that the copyright could still cause a problem. I could see what you mean about their already being a link for Bill's history, and I knew that, but I think I'm going to go with Lucy's suggestion and my original gut reaction, and put Bill's history in my own words, make it non essay-ish, and add it to a "history" section I'll add to the "public access" entry. Thanks again for your help and for doing your job. DavidWJohnson 05:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

John Jared Bowes
Hey I tried to leave a message on your discussion page but it was very confusing, it was different than the last guy I talked to. Anyway, if you see this the criteria that fits is that it is on a reputable indie label with reputable artists. John Jared Bowes (a.k.a maybe me) has been published in reputable magazines. And both Ultra Sonic Edukators and The Billions have been played on "any" national radio station...I put a link to one of the national radio stations that the Ultra Sonic Edukators are currently on rotation on. There is more stuff that I could dig up...but I feel I have already qualified by the criteria that is given on here. John Jared Bowes is a very confusing guy, thats why his article is confusing...also if get bored...check out my blog www.ultrasonicedukators.com and click on satellite bowes...its pretty funny. Besides you should like me, The Billions were really #1 in Peru, AND Ultra Sonic Edukators logo is a LLAMA!!! I should be your new best friend SHEESH, cut me some slack.... :)

Only Path to God

 * Further to your message, please refer to my comments at Talk:Only_Path_to_God. Many thanks. --Hari Singh 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Web Analytics
Can Wikipedia use web analytics so that members or anyone could see how much each entry has been searched for? Perhaps Wikipedia itself already implies web analytics but I think it would make it better if members or anyone could see how much an entry has been searched for. I tried to just do a test and add a counter to the public access entry but it didn't work. Next I read the entry for web counters or hit counters and saw the link to the entry for web analytics. Now I know that a hit counter might not be a good idea but saw that some other methods might work. Can Wikipedia do this for members or anyone, and maybe I've played a role in making it happen.

Secondly, I added that history section to the public access entry, and Seaneffel has helped make it flow more smoothly.

Thanks again for all your help. DavidWJohnson 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Cold War (Battlefield 2142) article and plagiarism
Thank you for your concern towards my article on the storyline behind BF2142. In writing it, I resolved to copy as little as possible from the actual ingame information. However, I did not expect two things:

1. The information given by DICE is somewhat limited. Therefore, it can be rather difficult at times to rewrite a passage on a battle using none of DICE content without taking a few liberties with the storyline.

2. Due to time constraints, I had only finished writing up about half of the battles before publishing the article. Without my consent, someone took the liberty of finishing up the rest of the battles by directly copy-pasting DICE content into the article. While I have borrowed certain phrases from the game's official site (after finding no better way to reword them), I have certainly refrained from blatantly copy-pasting, unlike this other user.

The reason I had not taken the plagiarized passages down was because at the time, I did not have the time to finish writing the battles on my own. If you will take a look at the discussion page for my article (especially Notes 3 October 2006 and 8 October 2006), you will see that I was only going to leave in the plagiarized passages as standins, substitutes, until I could go in and finish the article.

Today, I have found the time to write up two more battles; hopefully, I will have the last five battles (the ones using the plagiarized text) written up by the end of the month. By November, the entire article should be plagiarism-free, and at that time I will begin to add more pictures.

Again, thanks for your concern, and please don't delete my article! Despite how it seems, I put a lot of time into it, not just stealing someone else's work.

- Windows 2142, 19 October 2006

POSTSCRIPT: To ensure the survival of my article, I have deleted all instances of plagiarized text. I hope that's good enough.

BF2142 History
Hey, I'm currently working with some other guy writing a Pan Asian Coalition article. I would appreciate it if I could use your chronology in my website, cause your writing is fantastic! I will reference this article accordingly (and your username if you want) And yes, there are some gaps leftover in the story, but I guess it's our responsibility to interpret it lol.

If you really want, I could help you finish the chronology, I hear you might be finishing later up in the month, I could help to write a draft of the battles and you can edit it accordingly.

Cheers, Penfish.

Vandalism on my page
Hello! Thanks for reverting that attack on my page. I woke up this morning to an e-mail from Will showing the IP's contribs... lovely wakeup on a Saturday! :-P — E  ditor at L arge ( speak ) 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)