User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 46

message regarding inappropriate edit
I did not edit the page concerned with Ryan Sheckler. I have never heard of him. How did you think it was me?Loonereclips (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Sally Watson
 * Hmm, your talk page is a red link so I am at a loss as to how we have ever communicated before this. Perhaps you could provide a diff that would shed some light on the situation.  Regards  Tide  rolls  16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

category:genetically modified organism to category:ARTIFICIAL MUTANT
I am a genetically modified organism. I am not an artificial mutant.

I demand that you address my claim of being a genetically modified organism. I am a modification of my parents, and because of recessive genes, I am different from both of them.

You are being disruptive for curtailing a simplification of terms.

142.59.48.238 (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Drop your threat or curtail your activity! 142.59.48.238 (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is where to file the complaint Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Jim1138 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You hav one hour to produce administrative dissent with my simplification of language.142.59.48.238 (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC) [this has been met, and this conversation iz now with an administrator, to my knowledge.]

ANDi iz an artificial mutant. Genetically Modified Organism is a weasel term. 142.59.48.238 (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The venue you need to approach with this is Categories for discussion. Your logic seems a bit shakey but it's your time, spend it as you will.  Tide  rolls  05:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Categories for discussion is in abeyance with the fact that wikipedia is not a vote, and the fact that wikipedia does not disappear (things just get lost). See 142.59.48.238 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No. It iz you alone who will answer the question of whether artificial mutant iz an appropriate simplification of genetically modified organism. I will not answer six people. 142.59.48.238 (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not required to answer anyone. However, you will be blocked if your disruption continues.  Tide  rolls  05:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Interfering with Precision iz Disruptive. Pot, kettle, black. 142.59.48.238 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are required to answer whether my edits are an appropriate simplification of language. Az given in an ultimatum, you are allowed until 6:15, August 2012, morning in Alberta, Edmonton. 142.59.48.238 (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding non-existent categories to mainspace
That iz how you create a category. First you populate it, then you categorize it or put categories in it. The category exists az soon az you put something in it. Making a rule against it is Interfering with Precision. 142.59.48.238 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I had been clear; let me make another effort. Pursue whatever tasks you want in whatever manner you want.  The rationale and/or impetus for your actions are a subject to be explored elsewhere.  You were replacing a populated category with a red-linked category.  You need to re-acquaint yourself with WP:Categories before contiuing.   Tide  rolls  14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Tide, I admire your patience... I'll donate a 2x4 when the time comes Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC))
 * I know I can be oblique at times, Seb, though it's never on purpose. I'm always making my best effort at succinct communication.  Tide  rolls  15:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You say oblique, I say thorough and complete. When I need inspiration with how to deal with problematic editors, I read over your talk page.  Cheers,  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you ready for some football?
Don't know that I am--I thought our first game was next week. News flash: tomorrow is September. I still don't understand how we kept them scoreless the second time around. Alright, tomorrow at 6, my house. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Oh...your dinner invitation. Sorry for my clouded perception; there's been some necessary beverage consumption on my part, as you might expect. I'm confining my editing to this page and a recent offer of unblock conditions tonight. Thanks for the kind invitation and forgive my lack of RSVP. Roll Tide.  Tide  rolls  00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tide, what's up? You missed dinner and the first TD. Make sure you're here for dessert at halftime. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Professor, please make some small effort at an assumption of good faith; pizza's enroute and I was witness to the tight end's squeezing by a hesitating linebacker. By-the-by, Yelding's a frosh?  I'm tingling all over :)  Tide  rolls  00:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Boom. 51 yard reception.  Tide  rolls  00:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Drmies is already bored with the game. Newsflash: interception, touchdown. Nice, huh, that footage from the 2000 Orange Bowl--and I knew the answer to the trivia question! Well, I knew Zow. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, did you hear that? Michigan is better than LSU, since they crossed midfield. I love 50-yard line jokes. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh...no shut-out. The kids look good; I never thought of the maze and blue as a pushover and still don't. I have little respect for the conference due to the whole Rose Bowl thing (I know...it's been sixty years, I should learn to let things go), but they do have football tradition.  Tide  rolls  01:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Hmmm...the Big 10 conference has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 10 teams. K, got it.  Tide  rolls  03:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What's funny is one of the first football games I saw and still remember (besides the 1996 Iron Bowl) was the 1997 Outback Bowl. Michigan is a great team, and they just scored again; I thought Robinson was supposed to have a break-out year last season and I guess he disappointed, but he's doing pretty good tonight. Let's see if the Sabans can finish a game. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We really shouldn't say much about that since Missouri became Southern. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Became" southern? I would hope that as an adopted southerner yourself, you could attest to the welcoming hospitality offered to all those that are fortunate enough to reside in these blessed environs.  If one desires southern-icity, I say it would be an honour to have you.  I will refrain from expounding upon the pains of Missouri statehood so as to avoid reopening old wounds that should be left to rest.  Tide  rolls  04:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Please pardon the OCD refactoring of your post.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User Page Made to Look Like a Wikipedia Article - What to do?
Hi Tide,

This user page has been formatted to look like an official Wikipedia article. I think the editor is editing in good faith; he has been active at the Teahouse trying to get this article up to snuff. That said, what would you recommend be done in the short term to show people that his user page is just that. Can I put up a userpage tag, or does he have to do that himself? Thanks for your help. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ebikeguy. Wonking about with someone's userpage in the absence of some gross policy problems is usually a bad idea.  I would advise contacting the user with the suggestion that they consider moving the nascent article to a sandbox.  If you encounter resistance, or lack of response, get back in touch with me.  If I'm not about you can post at AN/I.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I placed a note here. Was my language appropriate?  Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. I do see tough times ahead for article development, though.  COI concerns and a BLP with zero references...schnikes.  Tide  rolls  02:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. There's already a sandbox version.  I'll leave a follow-up post.  Tide  rolls  02:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Bicycle as instrument in infobox on Frank Zappa page - revert
Hi, I saw the revert, and did a quick search of references to support the inclusion of the bicycle as a musical instrument when considering how Frank Zappa used it. Good references exist, however, I will not have time to work on an edit until this weekend. Please consider reentering the bicycle in the infobox. The bicycle skit on the Steve Allen Show provides significant insight into Zappa's logic and creative genius, and that at a young age. Thank you for your consideration. Doc2234 (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Doc. I won't be reverting my edit.  I have no doubt that Zappa was capable of employing the bicycle in any number of ways.  I also know that howitzers have been used in performances of the 1812 Overture; that does not make them musical instruments.  The Zappa-bicycle relationship may be worth inclusion, I have no opinion on that presently.  Tide  rolls  00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I'll look through my references this weekend, to see what I can find. Doc2234 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

.
you claim to be british! haha, british, only an american would say that about an english person! hmm, you didnt find my edit, constructive!!? well i dont find your american english constructive in any way shape or form..u claim to be originally english but you use the american term bi-racial, i changed it to the phrase that i grew up with and you supposely come from a land that uses the term too HALF-CASTE and you edit it..i also used another word EUROPEAN for white, not the american crap you use caucasian hahaha,, what was not CONSTRUCTIVE about my changes, please give me details of what i did wrong besides not speaking american like you!!!??
 * Wow. You're a bit off course; I've not edited that article or your user talk.  I also need to let you know that your confrontational approach is off-putting; if you were to contact the editor with whom you actually interacted in a like manner, it wouldn't surprise me if they refused to respond.   Tide  rolls  14:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

?
Guess what I found: Alabama–Mississippi State football rivalry. That's a rivalry? News to me. The sourcing is pretty weak as well. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That article does stretch the utility of the term "rivalry". I find the use of the pink color boxes for Bama's stats unsettling :^/  Tide  rolls  02:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Are Merger Proposals Formally Closed?
Hi Tide,

In general, are merger proposals closed in a formal manner, "archivetop" and "archivebottom" or something similar? There was recently a merger proposal at Misandry which was unanimously rejected, and I'd like to move on in whichever formal manner is acceptable. Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave it my best shot. Does it look okay?  Should I have added somewhere that it was a non-admin closure?  Thanks.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ebikeguy. I see you've been busy while I've been loafing about. As I've never closed a merger proposal I shall be coming to you for advice in the future.  Well done.  Tide  rolls  23:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC) As for the "NAC" tag; I would say let your conscience be your guide.  A proper closing is a proper closing.
 * Well, okay, as long as you don't threaten me with administratorship or anything crazy like that... Ebikeguy (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, I like you.  Tide  rolls  01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit of London Ohio
I have in the past tried to place the London Ohio motto as "Not in our bushes!" and was told i needed to find citation. I have heard the motto "Not in my bushes!" from childhood! My grandmother said it, my elementary school principle said it, I have heard the mayor say it. I logged on today to find that another motto was added and no citation to support that motto. Whats the differance between the motto from my youth and the motto that someone else claims if neither have supporting citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theklontz (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The motto now has a cited source. Regards  Tide  rolls  15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Cprial
Sir,

Here are Just 3 of Cprial postings that I recieved on five consecutive days.

''Certainly you are volunteering much work for the improvement of Wikipedia. And like many beginners you did not notice you deleted the Name and etymology section from the Earth recording.''

(You'd been editing for nine hours straight?) :-)

Another more insidious type of damage, "better than thou" damage, removes information from the wiki rather than merging it anywhere else if it's information.

''I have no intention of insulting your work or anyone else's, esp. on the article talk page. But certainly it was notable that 1100 watchers failed to catch the clumsy error (on your part) that unfortunately resulted in a featured article having an important section removed for eighty days. Earth was without a Name and etymology section for months, during which, in my opinion it was misrepresented as a featured article, but rather its class was closer to worthless.''

1. I never said or implied, nor written anywhere that I edited the article for nine hours straight. He has been pushing this "nine hours straight" theme since Monday. THAT is trolling. This has been his main issue, but I never said that. Putting words in my mouth is harrasement. He's not telling me I made a mere mistake. It begins on the talk:Earth page, and is on EVERY subsequent message. Today is Saturday. He wrote me last Monday and every message has this "Nine hours" remark. Every day. Every message.

2. The name and etymology section is IN THE RECORDING and is not even "blanked out" in the first place. This was part of his first rant. (How can he "help me" if nothing is wrong there?)

3. The name and etymology section TEXT in the article may have been blanked out for a few minutes, probably because of my clumsy error, But it was put back or else I couldn't have made the recording I've mentioned. It was 80 days ago, but I'm pretty certain.

4. Even if I were to delete any section completely, there's a difference between making a mistake and vandalism, calling the article worthless or even implying it. If I asked Wikipedians whether it was helpful or not to tell them that only 1 out of 1100 of them "failed to spot a clumsy error (on my part)" helping make the article "worthless" would they think that was, as Cprial says, "notable"?? Is it because I made a "clumsy error" as he said in his last paragraph? Or an I an "insidious" vandal as he said on his first? Or did I make the changes because I'm out to inflict "better-than-thou damage"? It would at least be helpful if he picked one. Please enlighten me on how this kind of hyperbole is helpful?

5. He's pointed out errors of text I didn't even write, that are still on the article page to this day!

This has been going on ALL WEEK LONG. And I mean all week long!!!!

No, I do not share your opinion that Cprial has been "trying to help me". Not at all. If I'm right about those 5 things...and even if I'm not....even if you find the first paragraph I received on my Talk page is condescending and uncalled for, then no. I don't share your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmenta (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was, and still am to a certain extent, willing to accept that the exchanges on the user talk pages was the result of passion for editing and misunderstandings. However, if you continue with your current track of concentrating on perecieved past slights and refusing to move forward with content work, I can tell you that you will only become more frustrated and whatever enjoyment you derive from your work here will wane.   Tide  rolls  21:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Marmenta (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC) I apologize for responding so emotionally to Cprial. I was upset. Perhaps if I had not deleted the entire conversation of Cprial and myself from this Talk page, you would have gotten a different impression than the one you have of me right now. I apologize for that also.

Marmenta (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion to which you refer is accessible in the talk page history. Please bleieve me when I tell you that I do not think ill of you.  I only want to impress upon you the importance of maintaining focus on one's work.  Every editor experience difficulties of one sort or another.  The important thing is to learn from one's experiences and retain that which works and discard that which is unhelpful or distracts us from our goal of building and maintaining this encyclopdia.  Regards  Tide  rolls  22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Marmenta (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

᧫&mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  00:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

'Helmet' vandalism
I appreciate your work moderating pages here, but I would just like to let you know that your recent message regarding the revert on the 'helmet' article has gone out to multiple people on a university network. Obviously the vandalism in question was stupid and childish and on behalf of my colleagues I would like to apologise. Just thought you should know that things are a bit complicated with this IP. Thanks, Diplomatico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.246.178 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Registration removes the possiblity, barring mistakes, of receiving messages that are meant for others. Thanks for your polite message.  Tide  rolls  01:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Josh Morgan
I feel the editing of my contribution to the Josh Morgan page was out of line, as there was nothing written there that all of America hadn't thought already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.95.111 (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

you suck
this will re aper so come at me bro — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEndermen (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Awesomechase999
Um, an indef block for just two schoolboy vandal edits (one from an IP address on Sun)? Are you seeing something I'm missing? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing something you don't seems unlikely. An individual registers to re-insert graffiti; that's what I saw. What did you see?  Tide  rolls  23:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the same thing; I thought I might be missing some sockpuppetry or something. The user had received no warnings (I warned the IP but your block of the username was concurrent with that). The indef duration seemed excessive to me, with only two edits and no warnings hardly establishing that it's a "vandal only" account. Anyway, just curious; if he wants to appeal the block he can follow the directions. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no special insight to provide. I was acting on experience alone.  If I've over-reached I'll certainly have to answer for it.  Tide  rolls  00:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Observation
you made a mistake
 * Yeah...I'm human.  Tide  rolls  00:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Bettina Wulff
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you..

Now, this is already the second time that you receive this warning. Next time an administartor shall take care of your continuous and willful misbehaviour. Akolyth (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, I have made an error. I have not meant to put this template on your page. It was an editing error for which I most sincerely apologize. Please remove this section. Again, heartfelt apologies. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that consideration. I will archive the post presently.  Please take to heart my message on your user talk.  Regards  Tide  rolls  06:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

NHH
What do you know about NHH. How did you come to the conclusion that my criticism was unsubstantiated. Are you looking for evidence, Are you an authority?

Let's play....

Amanbir Singh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.111.101 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Amanbir. My conclusion for lack of substantiation was drawn from my observation that you failed to substantiate the content. For Wikipedia's definition of substantiation please read WP:Identifying reliable sources.  Another recommendation that would apply in this instance would be WP:Notability.  Tide  rolls  12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot
You'd be helping me a great deal... thanks Tide rolls... I got my information from three sources, Annals of the Four Masters and Annals of Ulster, both of which can be found on the University of Cork Website, here: http://143.239.128.67/celt/publishd.html and the third source is Giraldus Cambrensis' Expugnatio Hibernica, an English translation can be found here: http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/conquest_ireland.pdf For the Annals, simply scroll down on the page and click on the HTML link next to the source and you'll be able to find the events described listed by year... the annals are broken down into several sections and you will have to use the third or second section listed, this is because they are tediously long... to shorten your search, simply type ctrl+f and then put in the year and it should make searching for the events a whole lot easier. Again, if you would help me in this I would be greatly thankful... I am at work right now and have many tasks at hand, which is why i was going to wait before starting with the sources. Thanks.

Sorry, I have a spanish computer and I cannot find tildes for the life of me... other wise I would put them in as requested

HistoriadorMexica


 * These are all primary sources RashersTierney (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Been away for a while, sorry for the late response. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)