User talk:Trollderella/archive2

You're welcome to leave a message about anything you like, I'd love to chat, although if it is about usernames or votes for deletion, please think seriously about whether your time and mine might not be better spend editing and writing articles! See you around, Trollderella 07:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Village pump
I've written a lengthy response to your comments on the Village Pump. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk still has an all pages listing. See WP:RD/ALL
Hi Trollderella - I thought it would be good to let you know that there is a "see all questions" link at the reference desk. It's located at Reference desk/All, with shortcuts WP:RD/A or WP:RD/ALL. You can also get to this "all listing page" by clicking on the bottom right hand corner of the reference desk page here at Reference desk. I really liked your participation on the reference desk, and if you get a chance, I hope you'd consider trying out the functionality of that page. --HappyCamper 23:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I know. I would have liked to see the new questions listed easier to read too, but it's become more difficult to keep up with asking, answering and archiving. I just hope the changes don't scare away too many knowledgable Wikipedians from the reference desk because of these difficulties. Cross my fingers! --HappyCamper 23:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni!
Hi Trollderella, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hate getting off on the wrong foot with people, and you are no exception. But it seems we are at different ends of the editorial scale here - you seem to want to keep evereything that would appear to have the least breath of life in it, while I believe that the well-pruned tree grows the most gracefully. I will admit that I have seen you vote to delete an article once, but I cannot understand why you fight so vigorously to keep articles on topics such as The Cambridge Arms. It is true that I would be hard-pressed to write more than a stub about my fire hydrant, but the same can be said for that inn. It would appear to be no different than any one of a thousand English pubs, with no special history, no special role to play, no special proprietors, no special nothing, and in a hundred years, not a trace of memory about its existence except in some probably defunct-by-then electronic encyclopedia.

I was quite serious when I suggested you take a look at Everything2 (Wikipedia article here). I wrote for it for a while, but gave up in frustration with a so-called encyclopedia that feels that literally every contribution is worth keeping (well, some stuff does get deleted, but it has to be amazingly bad). It is true that you find the odd shining nugget, but you have to wade through some pretty wretched stuff to get to it. Frankly, my deletionist tendencies spring in part from that experience. I don't want Wikipedia to become a similar repository of irrelevance and trivia. Perhaps if you see what happens when keeping things gets right out of line, you will be less reluctant to vote to delete articles on such things as, oh, roads that go nowhere.

I have just noted your comment on The King Street Run. Perhaps this is a strategy we might have in common. While I don't feel it merits an article, I would not have an issue with redirecting a query to an article on Cambridge pubs, for instance.

Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue.

Cheers,

Denni &#9775; 22:21, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Heya! (from VPP)

 * I didn't really mean to imply that you wanted to keep the proverbial goldfish :) Verifiability is a good start, but it's sometimes not enough. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite for an example. And also WP:VAIN, of course. But that is my opinion, and feel free to differ. The whole point of VFD is that we do not have a clear policy about it; if we did, it wouldn't be so controversial. And of course, sometimes the solution is simply to merge - e.g. the father of a celebrity is generally both verifiable and not notable. So a solution may be to merge his article onto the celeb's. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely true; VFD is the focus of far too much negativity. Unfortunately we haven't found any suitable replacements yet, but I believe I'll be proposing something like this (Experimental deletion/XD5) soon (it basically goes "delete unless anybody objects", thus no evil votes). And just in case you have too much spare time, might I direct you to Category:Articles to be merged? :) (and Association_of_Mergist_Wikipedians, to make a shameless plug) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  13:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Username RFC
I have created Requests for comment/User names/Trollderella to request comments on your username. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 00:30, August 30, 2005 Ed Poor renameuser (Renamed the user "Trollderella" (which had 828 edits) to "EnduranceFan")


 * Pretty poor behaviour by Ed Poor. Give the guy his name back for goodness sake, what harm is he doing if he is making a constructive contribution to WP? And don't suggest I should get an account, this whole sorry spectacle is one reason that I don't have an account and probably never will. I will continue my minor work as and when I can, anonymously. Please, also, no platitudes about 'respect' within the community if you have a username - there is no respect, as demonstrated by Ed's actions. --63.239.116.254 07:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you will get your username back pretty soon if that is what you want. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not Trollderella, just an occasional editor disillusioned with the behaviour of several admins. There seems to be a new Trollderella who edited on the old user page after Mr Ed redirected. How can that be? How can a new user register the same name as a renamed user? --63.239.116.254 09:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Everything is reversible. Those who wish to contribute to the Wikipedia's project of organizing and presenting human knowledge are welcome, as long as they are civil and not disruptive.

The choice of EnduranceFan's orginal username appeared to some others (like user:Zoe) to be either (1) offensive or (2) chosen specifically to irritate. Either way disrupts the smooth operation of this project, in my opinion.

I have requested the other bureaucrats to review my decision. If a consensus (not merely a quickpoll) truly develops that (a) irritating usernames should be allowed or (b) that the old username didn't violate policy, then a bureaucrat will change the name back.

I personally feel that the name was chosen either as a harmless joke - in which case they've had their fun and can now get down to work. Or, as a deliberate attempt to push the boundaries of policy - which in my opinion falls under WP:POINT. Again, I call on the community (not just a quickpoll) to review my judgment.

Note to my "fans": I never said I wouldn't make quick judgments, only that I would consult other on hard decisions and avoid defying consensus. Please see my dialog with user:Angela at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Uncle Ed 11:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * You say "this is a wiki. Everything is reversible". Well, your action here is clearly not reversible by anyone other than bureaucrats! Even sysops cannot undo your change. There was a poll which showed opinions on the order of 11-2 in favour of the user being allowed to keep his name. A consensus seemed to exist even before you acted. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Ed, you rock! Thanks for enforcing the Username policy. For some reason there are a lot of people who want to protect and encourage trolls; thanks a lot for daring to swim against the current. Keep up the good work. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify who you believe to be protecting and/or encouraging the act of internet trolling? Within reason, I do encourage the freedom to select harmless account names.  Hall Monitor 18:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * While I can understand that Trollderella's name can cause some people to go off their food, I don't think that's cause to unilaterally remove it with only a bare semblance of order. It is one thing to call oneself a troll, and quite another to behave in a trolllike manner. There was absolutely no evidence that Trollderella misbehaved in any way. I am also concerned that an RfC called to discuss this very issue was essentially overruled by a single bureaucrat. What is the point of an RfC if its input is ignored? Yes, I think it would be a good idea for Trollderella to find a new name, but let's be reasonable. Give this user a specified time period to do so. There should be adequate time to come up with a handle one has to live with for as long as one is here, which could be months or years. Failing a change after that period, =then= consider other actions. Denni &#9775; 01:19, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

York city walls
Thanks for starting the York city walls article. I'm currently a resident in York, and I wondered if you were a current/former resident as well? (Of couse, you're under no obligation to reveal any personal info on the Internet!). Hope you're not too annoyed about the username business. Most rude and unnecessary, in my opinion, but I hope you'll stick around regardless. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is about the username. ..
. . . but it's just a question. Do you honestly believe it's wise to sign in areas as controversial as Vfd with a signature including the word troll? Although I'm aware "troll" has various meanings (I did read The Hobbit, afterall), the most common is that of an internet troll, and when you disagree with others it often leads to accusations of trolling. Regardless, it's your call, but it seems to me to be needlessly provocative.--Scimitar parley 17:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * For reasons which I have explained here, I must respectfully disagree with you.  Furthermore, I am not so sure that the word troll most commonly applies to that of an internet troll.  The decision to unilaterally enforce such a name change in this instance greatly disappoints me.  Hall Monitor 17:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

We Are All Trollderella

 * I am Trollderella. Trollderella 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am also Trollderella. Trollderella 02:30, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
 * I am Trollderella. Together, we are Trollderella.  Trollderella 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm Trollderella! And so's my wife!  Trollderella 02:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm Sparta-- errr, Trollderella. Trollderella 18:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC
 * Huh? – Quadell (talk) 17:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to say "I am Trollderella". Trollderella | (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And sign your name as Trollderella 05:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * V nz Gebyyqreryyn. Trollderella 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mff mmmppm Fmppffppfpmfpmfmpmmpppffmpppmfpmfmmm. Trollderella 00:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Article deletion note
You voted previously to keep the article Rogers Cadenhead. You may have changed your mind now that the author has admitted to writing the article himself “as an experiment.” He himself says, “I am somewhat eager to see this vote end with my deletion.”

Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_29

--Quasipalm 17:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A Warning.
No user has voted keep more than you, and I mean that in a keep to delete ratio. I close AfD's all the time and I have never seen you vote delete. You seem to vote keep when you are the only one voting keep. Now, may I suggest you vote delete on some articles, just to make sure your vote is always counted, as Boothy443 has been discounted on RfA's in the past just due to the reason he votes oppose so often. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, I hope.
Trollderella, I hope you are coming back now that we got your username back for you. --Durin 22:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As do I. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Count me in there too. The username thing was an unfortunate incident, but I think any editor who makes good contributions should find themselves welcome here. Friday (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome Back Going back to AFD or no? --JAranda'' | yeah 23:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No prob
No problem at all, welcome back, again. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Pure wiki thinking
I noticed your support at WP:PURE and I agree entirely with your reasoning. I invite you to read (and edit, if you like) User:Friday/XW. We seem to be of similiar minds, so I wonder if you'd agree with my thoughts there. Friday (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Another AfD
I saw your (correct) keep vote on Articles for deletion/Shari Evelyn Kendall. It's weird the bias against academics and writers when every minor indy band and or sports player has an article (and no one AfD's). Anyway, perhaps you'd want to eyeball: Articles for deletion/David Mertz. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
A big thank you for your help and support, I look forward to meeting you in more productive contexts - I am, in fact, a former resident of York - how about some photos of the bars and walls if you're there right now? I'd love to do some more work on the architecture and history! Yours, Trollderella 23:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice to have you back! I have a digital camera, and, while I'm not much of a photographer, I'll try and take a few snaps. &mdash; Matt Crypto 05:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back and edit summaries
I'm very glad that things worked out such that you got your username back. My views are expressed on the RfC about your username. But, in short, I think it was improper for your username to be taken from you like it was.

I'd like to ask that you use edit summaries. You very rarely use them, and using them greatly helps in vandal fighting for those people on RC patrol. ok? --Durin 18:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD voting
On some of your "keep" votes for articles nominated for deletion, you say, "Nothing about notability in the deletion criteria." However, this is incorrect. I quote from Deletion policy: Subject of article fails one of the following consensually accepted notability guidelines: Thus, I ask you to reconsider your votes for Hootie McCormick, Jonathan Krive, and others.
 * WP:MUSIC (for bands)
 * WP:BIO (for biographies)
 * WP:FICT (for fictional characters)

Regards, -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello: I too am interested in your votes on AfD.  For example you have voted keep on Intense frisbee.  Now, I'm all for seeing WP flourish and do not consider myself a deletionist. But in this case, even the contributor recognizes that it is not that notable a sport. Here are comments he or she left on my talk page: &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 21:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. The sport isn't getting into the newspaper or anything, so I guess I should just let it be delted. And don't worry, you're not breaking my spirit, I just proabably need set up a homepage or something. Maybe just set up some basic rules so me and my friends can play a little bit more of a strict game or something. I play ultimate frisbee now, and I really enjoy it, somaybe it'll be a link page to that one day or something like that. Thanks for the help.

Maryville Middle School
Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 05:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway
Hi, could you please look at WP:ANI#User:Trollderella and commnet. To me the evidence looks ludicrous, if not non-existent, but your input would be nice. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been cleared up. So you may just ignore these messages. Sorry for sending you the first message. I think Tony found it kind of amusing though. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Trollderella! I just noticed that you agreed with Sjakkalle on this page. Therefore you are obviously his 3vil sockpuppet!
 * (I found that accusation on ANI rather funny; I hope you had a good laugh as well, and don't let it get you down) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, if you have something to say to me, (a) don't ape someone else's message and (b) add some substance before putting it in the user space. Half the problem on new pages patrol is having to deal with one- and two-sentence stubs. I'm also getting extremely weary of unfounded personal attacks. Please don't contribute to the problem. - Lucky 6.9 05:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, nor would it kill you to expand your stubs a bit before adding them. And yes, I take it as a personal affront when someone apes a rude message left by someone else. The article is back, you're working on it, all is right with the world. Sorry to have disturbed you. - Lucky 6.9 05:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

See you 'round. Thanks for the friendly goodbye. - Lucky 6.9 05:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You bet. Sorry if I bit you. Been one of those nights probably best spent off of this crazy site. :) - Lucky 6.9 05:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Damn, to think that I actually talk for a living and I can't get my point across in print. Jeez, I love this site. :)) Signing off for now. Sleepy-time here on the Left Coast. - Lucky 6.9 05:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Again
It seems you ignored my last request. I am not capable of comprehending your rationale of keep votes on many articles. For example see Articles for deletion/Intense frisbeee. My understanding is that AfD debates best end in consensus. Please explain further your vote on this article. Thank you. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 05:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits at Kayak
Good work on the Kayak article! A comment though-- you might want to make more use of the Show Preview button, rather than loading up the edit history with a dozen minor updates. It makes it much easier for another editor to look at what you've done if they don't have to page back through a bunch of slow loading pages to see it all. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion
As one of the most pro-inclusion editors I've seen, I'm curious what you'd think of Articles for deletion/Autumn Capers. Currently, it could be deleted for lack of verifiability probably without controversy, but I've additionally made the argument that even if verified, it should be deleted for lack of notability. Friday (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I just read your comment on the Afd. I pretty much agree- I went ahead and added 1 setence about it to the school article.  The unfortunate thing is, it probably means a lot to the students who are writing it, but there's no way the article can stay as is.  Come to think of it, I'll leave a note on the author's page (who has now created an account), suggesting that they create a wikicities site for their high school for things like this.  Friday (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Curious about your position on public buildings...
I've noticed you voting keep on quite a few unusual articles (a dorm, a tram stop, etc.), but I'm having a little trouble determining how you feel in general from the examples.

What is your bar for inclusion on public buildings? Do you feel all public buildings merit their own discrete articles? Why/why not?

Regarding the dorm example, would you feel all dorm buildings merit their own articles? If not, what separates the ones which do from the ones which don't? Why?

Regarding the High School tram station example, how far would you extend this view? Are all bus stations worth including? All tram/light rail/subway stops? If not, where do you draw your line? Why?

This isn't an attempt to attack your views, just ascertain them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh! While I'm thinking about it, there is something we agree very strongly about. When you see an AFD that isn't actually an attempt to have the article deleted (e.g. Articles for deletion/Yakov Liebermann), could you drop a note on my talk page? I'll close it out and get it out of the way, as AFD is strained enough without nominations made in error. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, have I deleted something I shouldn't? I tend to delete from New pages, so it's alway going to be fairly quick. I assume that if something has been saved, and has no obvious value, that it it will remain in that form - but I make mistakes.


 * I see - Kofta I must admit I hesitated, but in the absence of "Indian" and "spicy", I hit the button, my apologies. jimfbleak 20:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Corbin Chau, Connor Chau
Hey Trollderella, can you confirm the source from which you verified these two articles? I couldn't turn them up on Google, but I may have missed them; this might help establish their claim to notability. Thanks! --Dvyost 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No no no... thank you. =)  --Dvyost 20:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

AFD Spam?
Are you accusing me of something? --Syrthiss 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't bring that afd. I merely made my comment as an editor here.  Unless you are saying that my votes on afd are inconsequential and add nothing.  I suspect we're suffering here from the limitations of plain text, or you're being passive agressive. ;)  Btw - I replied on that afd refining my comment. --Syrthiss 18:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * not a prob. I thought that was the case, but since the 2nd part of your comment was directed at me I thought all of it might have been. :) --Syrthiss 18:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Um
Before you keep voting 'Keep' on nn people read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biography
 * Thanks, I did - the first thing it says is "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy.". Thanks though! Trollderella 02:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network
Hi! As per AfD suggestions, I rewrote the ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network article. Since you voted there, I thought you'd like to know. --William Pietri 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Article Defense .............
The article Contact Consequences is being cleaned up by the Clean Up Task Force. IF there was anything that is wrong with it, the Clean Up Task Force would NOT mess with it. Will you reconsider your vote ?Martial Law 08:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:SCH
Despite our occasional disagreements on AFD, I would greatly appreciate it if you could come and comment at WP:SCH. I fear the dialogue is breaking down, and I feel your input might help. In particular, I feel the questions of neutral parties on the reasoning for keeping all schools and not merging stubs are going largely unanswered. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you over at WP:SCH; hopefully things can get rolling now.

I had a thought that was troubling me, based on one of redstucco's comments. A lot of these entries are based directly on the schools' websites, which are sometimes inaccurate (consider the Family Altar Christian School situation, where it wasn't even clear that the school still existed) and sometimes even an advertising tool of the school in question, particularly in the case of private schools.

I think WP:SCH is going to need some reliability standards for sources; did you any ideas as far as this goes? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey there! I agree with you, that some of these articles are problematic on the source front. I guess that the way that I look at this is that schools are just like any other articles, I don't really think that they need new guidelines, but I may be wrong. Here's my challenge to you. Let's assume that we apply the policy in; Cite sources; Verifiability; No original research; especially NOR, which I think is particularly relevent here, and see if you can come up with a school article (or any other for that matter) that meets these policies but you still think is problematic. I agree completely by the way, that the 'we win so it doesn't matter' approach is problematic, but it's not limited to the schools debate. I guess I'm on a 'back to basics' drive right now, because I feel like we ignore a lot of the good policy we have. See you around, Trollderella 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't quite clear; I think we're not on the same page on this point, since I noticed similar comments on the WP:SCH talk page.

I don't think there's a problem with current articles that needs fixing; I think there should be a useful guide for making articles in the first place. Guidelines like WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:WEB aren't rulesets for picking things off on AFD; they're guidelines explaining how principles like verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, and NOR apply to these specific subjects. How these principles apply to different subjects is a subject of nearly constant debate, and subject-specific guidelines (hopefully) reflect current consensus on how these policies apply.

Now, what I was suggesting was a mention of how to verifiability applies specifically to school articles. What are reliable sources for school info, both in general (the local government) and in particular (a particular school registry)? What are unreliable sources, both in general (the school's own website) and in particular (rob discovered one widely used registry that was lousy with out-of-date or just-plain-wrong info)?

If this guideline is done right, it won't be a guide to how people should vote on AFD; it will be a guide to what topics to cover and how, and the basics of what kinds of sources are and are not good for school articles would be a major part of that. Does that make sense?

Incidentally, I moved your comment here from my talk page, to make the discussion easier to follow and more open to third parties; I hope you don't mind. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

missing image
Most probably your file was deleted because you did not observe the copyrights policy. Please read it carefully if you are going to upload any files. Images without source and copyrights status or with incorrect copyright status are a fair game for deletion. mikka (t) 17:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

" NonCommercial " is not admissible type of licence for wikipedia, see Image copyright tags. Sory, but the image has to be deleted. mikka (t) 22:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to find these guidelines - has anyone ever thought of posting them somewhere where they would be seen, like on the image upload page?! Also, are you serious that all images that are not licensed for comercial use are to be deleted? Trollderella 23:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The upload page has the drop-down list of license types. Surely you cannot put the whole policy onto the upload screen. Even this small text was nearly always ignored. Forbidding commercial use is incompatible with GFDL licensing unsed for wikipedia. mikka (t) 00:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Matrow (Mortal Kombat character)
Hey, can you take a second look at this AFD? I'd agree with you 100% if this article were about a real character, but there's no Mortal Kombat character named Matrow; see the Google results for 'Matrow "Mortal Kombat"'. While the Google test isn't perfect for everything, any videogame trivia not mentioned on Google probably doesn't exist. (Personally, I checked my own copies of MK4 and MK Gold to be sure, but I can hardly show you those.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beurger King Muslim
I've added a comment in support of your "$.02" to the AfD. I would value any further elaboration you may have of any points that I may have missed. Cheers. Youngamerican 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)