User talk:Shoessss/Archive 10

Your RfA
Closed it for you - let me know if there are any issues. Best of luck in the future, mate. —Giggy 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Giggy, and I did appreciate your support :-). ShoesssS Talk 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sad to see that it had to be withdrawn. Hope you pass sometime in the future. Chetblong  ( talk ) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I would be more upset if I was being paid for the job :-),  But now I can go back to AFD which I truly enjoy.  Take care and again, thanks for the note. ShoesssS Talk 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry it didn't work out for you, buddy. Take care. Glass Cobra  22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note and support at my RFA, it was appreciated (and please note that I now have the right link for RFA :-).  But let me just say, my day did work out for me :-).   In fact, let me tell you about it!  I went to work, and actually accomplished something!  Had lunch with a good friend, and swapped some great gossip!  (Which I am always ready for :-).  Came home, kissed my wife (and got a squeeze in a special spot) – hugged my kids (who asked me for some advice, which I appreciated, because I am at the age and so are they, that I am the dumbest human being that ever existed) – and walked the dogs – that had me out of breath at the end – (but a good out of breath).  To me every thing worked out, and I have my freedom again.  To express my views and participate in AFD without the added burden or extra pay.  Power to the masses :-). Take care Glass  and again thank you for your support. ShoesssS Talk 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you had a good day. Though if you thought admin was a paying job, you are sorely mistaken, my friend. ;) Glass Cobra  02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL - That was the only reason I ran - I heard you guys/gals were making the really big bucks compared to us editors. ShoesssS Talk 13:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you received a raw deal in the RfA forum -- you would've been (and will be) an excellent administrator. Please let me know when you go back for Round 2 -- I'll be very glad to support you! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I do appreciate the sentiments. In the mean time, here state-side ;-), I am going on a long weekend of Sun – Surf and plenty of beer and entertainment.  Wish you the same. ShoesssS Talk 22:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Busby
Did you try this search? There are many articles that concern Busby directly.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Schmidt, thanks for the note  and yes I did.  Though there are a number of articles that reference Christopher Busby they are only in relation to his position with the European Committee on Radiation Risks,  which is the main focus of the pieces and, again,  Mr. Busby is only mentioned in the context of being the Secretary of European Committee on Radiation Risks.  The position itself does not grant Notability, hence my reason for a deletion of Christopher Busby piece at this time.  A merge and redirect to European Committee on Radiation Risks is more appropriate.  Hope this helps explain my position. ShoesssS Talk 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stacy denney
That comment seems a little harsh. Why do you think it was inappropriate to bring it to AfD? --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First let me say, I do appreciate you turning down the "Speedy" Dweller. However, I noticed that you are an Administrator here at Wikipedia. In that light, I hold you to a higher standard.  I expect our Administrator's to take that extra step, go that extra mile, walk in that other persons shoessss. (pun intended :-).  I admit it is a borderline case!  But on the other hand, you asked for and received the nod of the community to make those borderline decisions when you received those extra buttons.  With that said, I ask that our  Administrator research a piece before exercising the community at an Afd especially if reliable - verifiable - creditable - and independent sources are found, source the piece - rewrite the piece - and make Wikipedia a true source for the dissemination of information, not a place that excludes information based on opinion or personal believes.  Now that is a mouthful :-). ShoesssS Talk 14:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I'm not a believer in the template RfA thankyous, so this is just a short handwritten note to say thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed a few hours ago at 96/0/2. I was flattered by your "investigator" comment - its something I do try to make an effort at, in the interests of encouraging contributors of new content if nothing else. There's nothing more discouraging to a new editor than creating an article in good faith and having it deleted because others didnt have time to research it properly before !voting. So thanks again for your comments and support. Euryalus (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You’re very welcome. You deserved the vote of support.  Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 13:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
My RfA  Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was, , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot  22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Busby
Did you try this search? There are many articles that concern Busby directly.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Schmidt, thanks for the note  and yes I did.  Though there are a number of articles that reference Christopher Busby they are only in relation to his position with the European Committee on Radiation Risks,  which is the main focus of the pieces and, again,  Mr. Busby is only mentioned in the context of being the Secretary of European Committee on Radiation Risks.  The position itself does not grant Notability, hence my reason for a deletion of Christopher Busby piece at this time.  A merge and redirect to European Committee on Radiation Risks is more appropriate.  Hope this helps explain my position. ShoesssS Talk 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stacy denney
That comment seems a little harsh. Why do you think it was inappropriate to bring it to AfD? --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First let me say, I do appreciate you turning down the "Speedy" Dweller. However, I noticed that you are an Administrator here at Wikipedia. In that light, I hold you to a higher standard.  I expect our Administrator's to take that extra step, go that extra mile, walk in that other persons shoessss. (pun intended :-).  I admit it is a borderline case!  But on the other hand, you asked for and received the nod of the community to make those borderline decisions when you received those extra buttons.  With that said, I ask that our  Administrator research a piece before exercising the community at an Afd especially if reliable - verifiable - creditable - and independent sources are found, source the piece - rewrite the piece - and make Wikipedia a true source for the dissemination of information, not a place that excludes information based on opinion or personal believes.  Now that is a mouthful :-). ShoesssS Talk 14:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I'm not a believer in the template RfA thankyous, so this is just a short handwritten note to say thanks for your support in my RfA, which closed a few hours ago at 96/0/2. I was flattered by your "investigator" comment - its something I do try to make an effort at, in the interests of encouraging contributors of new content if nothing else. There's nothing more discouraging to a new editor than creating an article in good faith and having it deleted because others didnt have time to research it properly before !voting. So thanks again for your comments and support. Euryalus (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You’re very welcome. You deserved the vote of support.  Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 13:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stanford Memorial Church
Shoessss, there's no hurry in reviewing this article. I'm in the middle of addressing some of a previous reviewer's comments, which has been going somewhat slowly due to RL concerns. I'm hoping that I can complete it by the end of the weekend, and then it'll be more ready for the upgrade. So take your time! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that I've completed addressing the comments I need to address. It has been substantially improved, I think.  So have it!  Thanks for offering to review this article, I appreciate it. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 07:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'll have it done for you by tomorrow. ShoesssS Talk 14:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Goon morning User:Figureskatingfan. I have finished my review of Stanford Memorial Church and have passed the article to GA status.  Let me begin by saying, you have done a great job in researching, - citing – referencing and writing the piece and should be commended for the time and effort you placed into the article.  However, I do have a few suggestions concerning the flow and structure of certain paragraphs and headings.  I would mention in the opening paragraph the design architect.  Likewise, in the history section.  I would move the paragraph, starting with “In 1898”, up in this section.  In addition, I would just use a sentence or two mentioning the earthquakes, than breakout the explanation of the damaged caused by the quakes into a separate heading.  Also, I would like to see an expansion and separate heading with regards to the history and use of the organs.


 * As I stated in my opening remarks, you have done a great job. I believe with some expansion, and a few tweaks here and there, you may be able to get this to Feature Article status.  Good luck to you and again, nice work. ShoesssS Talk 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're being talked about ...
at WP:Editor assistance/Requests. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks AndrewHowse, I'll drop a note on the users page explaining why I reverted the edits. ShoesssS Talk 16:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
My RfA  Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was, , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

eCrowds
I noticed that you moved the page to 'eCrowds to bypass the automatic capitalisation. In future, when the first letter of the name needs to be uncapitalised, lowercase can be used somewhere to force the software to show a small letter. :) Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks  Peter Symonds &nbsp appreciate the heads up. ShoesssS Talk 19:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Canditv
Dear, I had removed the ICT award reference from Canditv because the only source I could find was a company press release. A search of the ICT site itself shows no such award. In fact, the ICT does not even list an award for "Best Innovative Product". The DO list a "World Class Innovation Award", which was apparently awarded to a company named Lincor Solutions in 2008. Because of this, I removed the reference in an earlier edition of this article, and I will remove it again. If a better citation can be found, the fact may be restored. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - not a problem. However I am going to add it back based on this reference  if you are in agreement.  ShoesssS Talk 17:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The Sentinel article may have been based on the company's own press release. I am troubled by the fact that the ICT website does not list this company (nor even an award of the given name) on their website.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not troubled at this point, for a couple of reasons. The first, if the company made a false claim, and this would be a biggie, it would negatively affect the company both in reliability and most likely financially, and to be honest, I could not see this company doing that {at least personally).   The second is that the awards are just coming out.  I have seen it take months sometimes for organizations like this to post winners.  Especially in lower profile categories.  However, I have no problems waiting to post until you are 100% satisfied with RS.  Likewise, I would hate to see the article deleted because Notability could not be established and this award could have swayed consensus that indeed it had been.  ShoesssS Talk 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Latest news' Further Google search has found that there are multiple groups handing out "ICT Excellence Awards". The award in question may well have been awarded by the West Midlands ICT Cluster who DO have a "Best Innovative Products" award, and who have not yet posted their winners from the November 2008 ceremony.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alexander Marshall
An article, Alexander Marshall, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Alexander Marshall. Thank you. I have notified you as there is a link of sorts with J. J.Rouse. Springnuts (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hello Springnuts, I have no problem with this.  I believe I got involved through the J.J. Rouse piece where someone tried to link the two.  Thanks for the heads-up however. ShoesssS Talk 23:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material article
Thank you so much for "saving" the Seth Material article. About ten days ago a group of editors -- including administrators, which I found shocking -- descended on the article with threats to delete it. They clearly had no knowledge of the subject, but they just as clearly didn't like it. They redirected the article several times, and they pulled two-thirds of it out and tried to force other editors to work in a sandbox (without their agreement). Their behavior was extremely biased, and it was a terrible experience for the other editors.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No editors on the page wanted this article deleted. See a reply at User_talk:Jmundo, thanks. NoVomit is a new account for an IP editor supporting Caleb's position. Thanks, Verbal   chat  08:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There were threats to delete the article which appear to have been removed from the talk page -- I remember them. Since I never wanted the article deleted, it can't be said that NoVomit supported my position.
 * Shoessss, sorry to be arguing now on your talk page! Thanks again.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is nothing wrong with disagreements. That is what the talk page is for.  Regarding NoVomit, he/she is a new editor so leeway is given.  However, I did leave a message on their talk page.  ShoesssS Talk 15:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
My RfA  Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was, , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

AfD nomination of Alexander Marshall
An article, Alexander Marshall, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Alexander Marshall. Thank you. I have notified you as there is a link of sorts with J. J.Rouse. Springnuts (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hello Springnuts, I have no problem with this.  I believe I got involved through the J.J. Rouse piece where someone tried to link the two.  Thanks for the heads-up however. ShoesssS Talk 23:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material article
Thank you so much for "saving" the Seth Material article. About ten days ago a group of editors -- including administrators, which I found shocking -- descended on the article with threats to delete it. They clearly had no knowledge of the subject, but they just as clearly didn't like it. They redirected the article several times, and they pulled two-thirds of it out and tried to force other editors to work in a sandbox (without their agreement). Their behavior was extremely biased, and it was a terrible experience for the other editors.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No editors on the page wanted this article deleted. See a reply at User_talk:Jmundo, thanks. NoVomit is a new account for an IP editor supporting Caleb's position. Thanks, Verbal   chat  08:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There were threats to delete the article which appear to have been removed from the talk page -- I remember them. Since I never wanted the article deleted, it can't be said that NoVomit supported my position.
 * Shoessss, sorry to be arguing now on your talk page! Thanks again.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is nothing wrong with disagreements. That is what the talk page is for.  Regarding NoVomit, he/she is a new editor so leeway is given.  However, I did leave a message on their talk page.  ShoesssS Talk 15:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Hi ShoesssS. I realize it's something of a list article, but it's not a simple list, it's more of a concept list. And since the inclusion/ exclusion criteria are controversial, I think it needs to be sourced. If it was truly a list of Nazi Philosophers, philosophers who were part of the nazi party, that might be clearer. But there are also "intellectuals" included? And other people who contributed to the ideology? So it needs to be sourced, otherwise I fear it's going to be feuded over indefinitely. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Oh and thanks for your kind words of welcome. Happy to be here. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are absolutely right with regards to the list. That is the crux of my argument at this given moment, it is just that, a list.  However, the way you are moving the article will require cites and references.  (And by the way, I agree with you on that it should be moved that way).  My philosophy is one bridge at a time!  When the article needs to cross that bridge, those issues will be addressed, especially if they are in your hands, but the major point at this moment, is that the piece is kept.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of Julia Allison article
Hi! Your reversion of my edit to the Julia Allison article actually restored some outdated information. Ms. Allison is no longer an editor-at-large at Star magazine, and has not been since June (see this article, for instance: http://coverawards.com/2008/06/18/news_julia_allison_fired_23521/ ; you'll notice that she's updated her own website to reflect this).

I've restored my version, just because that seemed like the easiest way to make sure the updated information was included. Obviously, if you have issues with other aspects of my edit, I encourage you to change them as you wish. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I reverted again, changing wording, is not considered updating. In addition, the tags added serve no purpose.  Differences of opinion maybe.  However, I believe extremely POV.  On the other hand, if you would like to take to the discussion page and gather consenus I am in agreement.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 00:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you too
Also thanks to you, those references you added were very comprehensive compared to the ones I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.39.11 (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL - I think it boild down to more time on my hands than you :-)And the fact, I actually enjoy the research aspect. Thanks again. ShoesssS Talk 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material
I am sorry if you disagreed with my AfD of the Seth Material, but the fact is I was not the one who said initially that it was not notable or poorly sourced. I thought it was, and then some administrators came along and slapped those tags there, and mostly convinced me that they were right. in the last month or so, it was discussed on the talk page. . . check the three or so pages of archives generated by this, with no one reaching a consensus. Some insisted that it was not notable because the sources were not "reliable". . . others insisted this was not the case. I asked for third party opinions but no one was interested, and the arguments just devolved into insults. So I assumed the administrator who tagged the article must have known what he was talking about finally and took it to AfD so that it could be deleted if it was really unencyclopedic as they claimed or if it was of value. If you look at the talk page, you will see that efforts prior to this had been made and rejected over and over again. . . mediation was refused, an RfC was ignored and so I thought this was my only alternative left. My apologies if this was improper procedure. NoVomit (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, welcome to Wikipedia. In looking through your contributions, you are doing a good job.  Regarding the Seth Material piece, it is not necessarily that I disagreed with your opinion, it was more so your approach to resolving the situation that I had a problem with.  I understand at times it can be frustrating, and certain incidents can be aggravating.  When this happens again, and it will believe me :-), ask a third party – independent editor or administrator to look at the situation.  Most times, this is all it takes to resolve issues.  This is the tactic I use, and believe me it works.  As time goes on, you will note the editors and administrators that seem to come across as balanced and fair.  Look to those for advice and opinions.  In the mean time remember: “…no harm – no foul”  your apology is unnecessary but appreciated, and once again, welcome aboard.  Hope to see you around.  ShoesssS Talk 19:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Math
I had enough trouble trying to change the article from saying the problem is a problem, so I'm okay with the title. :) Thanks for adding some references to the list article. I trust those sources clearly designate the persons listed as Nazi Philosophers... It still seems weird to me to include poets and others in an article with the word philosophers in the title. Any thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Oh and remember to sign your posts. :) I'm tempted to put up a welcome template. I saw a cool one today. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)