User talk:Phaedrus7

Saturn Model
The object of Wikipedia is to describe, not necessarily to judge whether ideas are valid, credible, or even incredible. There are many ideas on Wikipedia that are pure bunkum, but we describe them to the best of our ability, nevertheless. --Gooeyness 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also dispute he style of much the criticism. The use of words such as "refuted" do not described the conclusions reached in the citations given, which is not to say that you or I may consider the model disputed. We should present the criticisms as given, and let people draw their own conclusions. --Gooeyness 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Per your queries:
 * 1. Slabinski writes: "The paper gives insufficient mathematical analysis", in other words, Grubaugh fails to make the case, ie. "not proven". That is not a refutation (ie. disproven). Of course we can argue the point, and our opinions on whether Slabinski refuted, disproved, or it was not proven, can be overcome simply by telling it how it was written.


 * 2. And I can not find Van Flandern's criticism, perhaps you would oblige with a link.


 * Perhaps you would post future criticism at Talk:David Talbott where others can review and perhaps comment. --Gooeyness 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to James Brudenell, 7th Earl of Cardigan
The numbers of casualties killed and injured in the infamous charge are an ongoing topic for debate, and Woodham-Smith doesn't help matters with her terminology, which seems to have led you astray—perhaps she felt that she couldn't be more precise (writing as she was in 1952). Saul David's account gives a lot more space to this and, although he does not come up with a definitive figure, all his sources are in the range indicated. I hope that helps! --Old Moonraker 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

David Talbott vandalism, among others
Thanks for your note. Yes, ClaimJumperBill introduced hidden spam text to a number of articles and was subsequently blocked indefinitely by Wknight94. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC) PS I never saw hidden text spam before. Maybe he thought RCPatrol would not notice. Makes no sense to me.  Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

DIO is WP:FRINGE
All the articles are unsigned, and most of them contain sentences like this one:
 * A3 But I must call a brief interlude at this point, in order that the reader not miss the weird inversion going on here in: §§A1&A2, the Neugebauer-­overall-­ancient-­astronomy conception's perversity-­pinnacle: rebel&heliocentrist-­pioneer Aristarchos was a non observing fabricator, while go-­along­-geocentrist&data­faker Ptolemy was antiquity's ABLE observer.

Your claim that this is not a fringe source is frivolous and a waste of everyone's time. Shii (tock) 01:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
It's good to see someone else here who can help out with Velikovsky-Plasma cosmology internet memes. It caused quite a deal of consternation in the past. If you need any help, feel free to contact me via my talk page or via e-mail.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to your excellent information
I proposed that the Talbott page be deleted a long time ago on notability grounds, and it may be time to resurrect that idea. Although notable on the internet, I'm not sure he's really received all that much attention in comparison to others. You might check out the rules at WP:BIO and see if you think Talbott's article qualifies for a Wikipedia entry.

In terms of verifiable sourcing, the principle of WP:PARITY must come into play. Since Talbott's works are all essentially self-published and internet-based, it is perfectly reasonable to use sources that are self-published and internet based on Wikipedia.

Finally, thanks for the information on Tony Perratt. I wrote IEEE Plasma Transactions a few months back demanding that they remove him from their editorial board. Now I have even more information about this. I remember coming across Tony's bizarre papers on petroglyphs and thought to myself that the guy has finally gone over the deep end. No, he's just connected plasma cosmology completely to Velikovsky. Interesting because the phrase "this is not a Velikovskian fantasy" was bandied about by Plasma cosmology adherents. Now the chickens really have come home to roost.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on David Talbott mainly referring to his book, was published by Doubleday; it is not self-published. His articles in Aeon are also not self-published, and include criticisms from other individuals. None of the sources attributed to Talbott appear to be self-published, unlike some of those from so-called critics.
 * Your harassment of individuals whose work you disapprove of, is really quite shitty, and not the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor, or would-be scientist.
 * You should also both be discussing this matter on the Talk page for David Talbott, and not on your user pages. --81.131.2.205 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING
Please be aware that disclosure of another users purported real life identity is a violation of WP:OUTING. I think you may have been unaware of this policy - please be certain to follow it in the future. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Any edit you have made that contains the purported real life identity of a Wikipedia contributor who is in a disagreement with you is more likely than not a violation of the policy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You made an edit which included the purported real life identity of a Wikipedia contributor. Do not repeat this behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A recent edit of yours included the real name of a wikipedia contributor next to his username. Do not repeat this behavior, even if you are purporting to quote someone else. Consider this your final warning on this matter, as I will no longer respond to your policy-violating requests for additional clarification. Hipocrite (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan
Please continue to discuss the issue on Talk:Carl Sagan. Avoid edit warring until consensus is reached. --TS 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you have strong views on Velikovsky and Sagan. I think your focus on this issue to the exclusion of almost all else may be leading you to disregard the wider implications of the neutral point of view policy.  In particular you seem to be using the talk pages for soapboxing, and the content you added to the Carl Sagan article, and defended against removal, has an air of advocacy about it.


 * There are certainly articles on Wikipedia in which a detailed focus should be given to Velikovsky's catastrophism and the various debunkings and rebuttals offered by different scientists and others down the decades. A passing reference to Velikovsky's work in the biography of Carl Sagan is not one of them. --TS 20:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Burden of evidence FYI
As an FYI Phraedrus7, as you appear to misunderstand the policies and guidelines in relation to talk pages, in particular Talk:David_Talbott:

BURDEN

Burden of evidence [...]  Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has put it:

My bold, apart from heading. Please also note, that the rules regarding living persons relate to ALL living persons, whether or not they are the subject of an article, and thus include the third parties you constantly refer to in your diatribes. Davesmith au (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Baseless assertions on ScienceApologist's talk page.
"Editor Davesmith_au is a most tenacious defender of his "hero", but not as NPOV as he expects others to be."
 * David Talbott is not my hero, nor am I "defending" him so much as attempting to keep to Wikipedia's standards regarding WP:BLP as he is, indeed, a living person.
 * Please provide some evidence of my edits not being in line with WP:NPOV and that he is my hero or retract your baseless assertions.

This really is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, if ever there was one. I have disclosed my potential COI along with my intentions to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of my ability. In contrast with yourself who has kept hidden a stark COI.

I would have thought, that as a person who has heavily criticised Talbott in other fora and had personal conflict with him regarding your ongoing campaign to attempt to discredit him, including through his Wkipedia biography, that you should indeed declare said COI. Though you are not required to, it is considered a good faith move.


 * WP:COI:
 * Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion.


 * Reasons to declare an interest


 * You will benefit from the assumption of good faith.
 * Most editors will appreciate your honesty and try to help you.
 * You lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself.
 * Disadvantages of COI editing on the sly
 * If your edits violate neutral point of view, they can be reverted.
 * Although other editors are not allowed to reveal your identity, they may come to understand who you are, and may realize that you are gaming the system.
 * People outside Wikipedia, such as reporters, may uncover your COI editing, and may generate negative publicity for you or your company. Wikipedia cannot prevent outsiders from discovering and revealing your identity.


 * WP:COI:


 * COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted.[1]
 * Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.


 * [...]


 * COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing.

(my bold)

Here are your own words on the matter:


 * "Talbott objects to the "Criticism" section of his Wikipedia entry, and is currently trying to pressure me to modify it to his specifications. Were this section to be subjected to a full-blown editorial review, I am sure much would not measure up to Wikipedia standards on various grounds, but to the best of my ability all the content for which I am responsible is true, regardless Talbott's self-serving quibbles."

Not only do you reveal your private conflict with Talbott, but you also clearly admit you know, of your own edits, that "much [of the Criticism section, which you primarily authored] would not measure up to Wikipedia standards on various grounds".

Regarding "all the content for which I am responsible is true", please see WP:V, particularly:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

(original bold)

and also WP:NOR, particularly:


 * This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy.

Decades of drivel on talk.origins is not "publishing results of research in a reliable publication". I should not have to spoon feed you on any of this policy, crikey I've only been here for a couple of weeks and I have found my way around it mostly without embarrassing myself. But as you have already indicated your (mis)understanding of it, yet fail to adhere to it, and then accuse me of violating NPOV, I see no option. Please take a little time to re-familiarize yourself with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines relevant to this issue, and then retract your baseless assertions which prompted this post. Davesmith au (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to add
In response to your response strangely posted on the talk page of an editor who is away for two more weeks, I offer the following.

First, it's really bad form old boy, to be answering my response which was to you and on your talk page, on ScienceApologist's talk page, particularly as he is away until 15 February and won't be able to clean it off until then, assuming he doesn't want his talk page snotted up with someone else's soapboxing. The proper place for such a message (if it weren't drivel) would be on your own talk page or mine, not on that of a third party. Notice I responded to your initial baseless assertions on your talk page?


 * "To Davesmith_au's objection to the comment that Talbott is his "hero", I offer the sage poetic couplet from Robert "Bobby" Burns: "O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!" And in a more colloquial vein: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Again I ask, please supply some evidence of where I have treated Talbott as my "hero" rather than attempted to keep his bio neutral and in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * "If Davesmith_au had so much as a scintilla of scientific literacy and interdisciplinary acumen, he would realize in an instant that Talbott's ideas are "crackpot" in the first order and not worth all the effort beyond accuracy he is expending in their defense. Talbott is wrong about ... " blah, blah, blah...

Firstly, the first line here is a direct personal attack against myself:


 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Second, I have not aimed for anything but accuracy, and I've defended the accuracy of the bio, not Talbott's ideas. The appropriate place to debate such ideas would be Usenet groups, forums, perhaps your own personal blog, but NOT Wikipedia. I am already tired of showing you the proper rules in these matters, but here, read this:


 * SOAP


 * ===Wikipedia is not a soapbox===


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not:


 * Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. (Note in references) Note: Wikipedia pages may not be used for advocacy unrelated to Wikipedia, but pages in the Wikipedia namespace may be used to advocate for specific viewpoints regarding the improvement or organization of Wikipedia itself. So essays, portals, project pages, etc. are part of what Wikipedia is.


 * [...]


 * Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.  Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.


 * [...]


 * Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be made on user pages, as they are relevant to the current and future operation of the project.


 * "If Davesmith_au were as objective an editor as his frequent invocation of NPOV would indicate, then he would have at least cited the criticisms of Ashton, Rose and James in his edits to Talbott's entry, references he cannot plead ignorance of considering they were cited in the long version shortened by Dicklyon."

It is not my responsibility to go through your huge list to find that which would be fair and admissable. You have acknowledged the size of this section in a number of places and it is unreasonable for you to declare that I have not been objective simply because I don't own a snow shovel. I have a life and do not devote all of my waking hours to these matters.

Perhaps you should take notice that before you posted this, I had left in the criticisms you had put back into the bio, as under the circumstances they seem fair, and don't amount to undue weight. I have also removed a case of original research which was inserted by another editor, though it was an observation added in support of Talbott's work, not against it.

Now. As for "Correction: I hasten to correct an error ...[...] ... reigned supreme in its solitude." I hasten to point out that should you wish to include such long diatribes in Wikipedia, perhaps you would do well to have same published elsewhere and then noticed by a third party, and then cite same. You have been told time and again that Wikipedia is not the place to debate theories. What part of the policies and guidelines do you not comprehend?

And lastly, why have you not answered my COI assertion in the section above this one? As you appear unable to defend it, I (and onlookers) must conclude that it is an accurate assessment of the situation, considering I provide evidence of my assertions instead of baseless accusations. In fact, you've answered none of my points at all. Could it be that I am right? Curioser and curioser... Davesmith au (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to your "Requested Reply"

 * "In the first instance, you seem to have a peculiar conception of what is acceptable content regarding BLP with respect to "negativity" and failure to discriminate between it and "criticism" and fair "description"."

My understanding of BLP is drawn from the poicies and guidelines related to BLP, which incidentally your phrase - "[Talbott] showed himself to be just another huckster of hokum. Oh, but excuse me, that's just another instance of "original research."" - indicates either your misunderstanding of them in relation to what is acceptable regarding living persons and original research, or your contempt of same.


 * "In the second instance, ..."

Interesting you should ignore my previous comments regarding my objectivity, as though they were not even aired. You have not addressed my response, in which I implied that the mere size of the removed criticism section precludes any quick revision of same especially as I have a life, that I had in fact not touched your recent addition of the information you have again pointed out, and that I had removed another editor's "original research" though it was an attempt (however poorly guided) to support Talbott. Several clear indications of my objectivity which you have totally ignored.

And as for including Ben Ged Low, as he is the producer of the video, the addition of his name is relevant in that it is customary to add such information if available to aid interested parties in finding same, should they choose to. If you have an issue with it, bring it up on the talk page.


 * "You seem to be resisting the idea that Talbott's beliefs are flawed and even wrong as anyone can discover merely by reading Talbott's sources for themselves, as Velikovsky constantly exhorted the epigoni to do."

You seem to be resisting the idea that the appropriate place for discussing the rightness or wrongness of Talbott's ideas is NOT Wikipedia, even after repeated reminders of this fact. How about we concentrate our efforts on improving the encyclopedia in line with it's associated policies and guidelines.


 * "In the third instance, I have no special COI concerning David Talbott ..."

Surely you jest. Again, Here are your own words on the matter, with my own emphasis to draw attention to your own admission of your direct discussions with Talbott which you evade rather than admit:


 * "Talbott objects to the "Criticism" section of his Wikipedia entry, and is currently trying to pressure me to modify it to his specifications."

BTW having been privvy to some of the private communications to which you allude, I would counter that Talbott has not once pressured you to modify it to his specifications, but to Wikipedia specifications - an important distinction I'm sure you would agree. This is immediately followed by a clear indication that you are deliberately abusing Wikipedia to push your own POV, in clear and deliberate breach of WP:V and WP:OR


 * "Were this section to be subjected to a full-blown editorial review, I am sure much would not measure up to Wikipedia standards on various grounds, but to the best of my ability all the content for which I am responsible is true, regardless Talbott's self-serving quibbles."

What part of WP:COI don't you understand? Davesmith au (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave Talbott
A big thumbs-up on your edit here. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell L. Ackoff
Thanks for responding to the remarks I made at the Talk:Russell L. Ackoff. I have tried to answer your question. If you any more questions, please let me know. If you could give me a hand solving those problems, that would be great. Thanks agian. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve Talbott
Noting your contribution to the discussion of David Talbott's notability (or otherwise), although I appreciate its rhetorical role in the conversation, I wonder whether you would be willing to write the article on the 'entitled' Steve Talbott, or whether or you know someone who would? Ortho rhombic, 10:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the consideration. I believe Steve Talbott merits an entry in Wikipedia, but since there is less than a cordial entente between us insofar as he ignores my snail mail and email attempts at contact on various topics of mutual concern, I am not a good prospect for originating his entry. His webpage and the O'Reilly web page, and other readily available references (many cited in Velikovsky-related Wikipedia entries, including his entry in The Velikovsky Encyclopedia) would provide a good place to start. He might be contacted in Ghent, New York, via info obtainable by googling his name for suggestions on who might be able and willing to write an entry. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Threatened lawsuit
Pass the email along with your comments to infowikimedia.org. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia
Hello Phaedrus7. Would you mind forwarding De Grazia's email to the Wikimedia Foundation. There's a link on WP:LIBEL. I can't see that there is any problem with us reporting what Morgan said. It is clearly attributed to Morgan and readers can make up their own minds what weight to give it. But De Grazia should be allowed to make his case. Or you could tell him to email Wikimedia himself. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Link from Immanuel Velikovsky to James P. Hogan book chapter
''Undid revision 355089395 by NaGromOne. Improper citation to a book chapter.'' Apologies for not coding the citation correctly. How would you recommend the information be entered (to the book and/or the chapter online), so the link can be inserted correctly, please? --NaGromOne (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Henry Bauer
I would encourage you to read our policies on WP:OR and WP:PSTS. A Google search is not a reliable source. Even the websites themselves are of limited use. There are many things on the Internet. Few of them are encyclopaedia-worthy. A secondary source describing Bauer's book and its use in multiple courses would qualify as an acceptable source. Otherwise, you're doing original research. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No legal threats
Your recent edits to Henry Bauer could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Henry H. Bauer, and particularly your talk page comments
Please review the WP:BLP, our policy regarding treatment of living persons. Unlike our other content policies it applies to comments on talk pages.

The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum where you can come to discuss your personal experiences and make poorly sourced attacks on living people.

If you have a grievance against a professional researcher, you should know that there are appropriate channels by which you can take up your grievance. Please do so, and avoid dragging Wikipedia into your grievance. Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Henry Bauer, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Friendly advise,
WP:TL;DR.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced allegations against Seth Kalichman
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about Sitchin
It's hard to counter the argument that there aren't any scientific rebuttals of his work, because there aren't any, or hardly any. People on the rational side of the fence don't seem to understand the influence Sitchin has. He has essentially founded a religion in all but name, one with millions of members. If you expand it to include the "heretical sects" of the faith, if you will, (Raelism, Nuwabianism, David Ickeism (?), the Nibiru collision) then it runs into many times more. Scientists don't feel the need to rebut what are essentially lunatic claims, but Sitchin, in his own quiet way, has had an effect similar to creationists. Somehow the word needs to get out that more scholarly work needs to be done countering Sitchin's claims.  Serendi pod ous  17:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

-

Also about Sitchin You reverted a WP:POV statement that had been removed Here and called it vandalism. I am the editor that removed the statement. It was not vandalsim and was a possible mistake, but under review, I feel that it still should not be there. In conclusion, The statment has no WP:RS and even as a "quote" is not encyclopedic and fails WP:POV Pmedema (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The supposed "quote" is not indicated in the article that it is a quote and appears to be a WP:POV entry from an editor
 * The citation (#11) that is associated to the "quote" is not a link but associated to page in a magazine or periodical. When the magazine/periodical/book is researched has not WP:RS that says it even exists.
 * Going to the article C. Leroy Ellenberger who supposedly wrote the quote for "Marduk Unmasked. Frontiers of Science, May–June, pp. 3-4" the only indication of association leads to Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis which has no mention or indication of this citation etc.

Photo Deletion in Immanuel Velikovsky Entry


FYI: We now have at least two Israeli-based IP editors deleting the Seaside Heights snapshot: 212.76 and 109.186. The latter's perfidy was reverted just now. Phaedrus7 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, Phaedrus7. I'll remain vigilant! -- Jmc (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)