User talk:Zero0000/Archive 1

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include: Have fun! --Jiang 06:46, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * Manual of style
 * Naming conventions

Great a editing conflict when I was about to post a welcoming message. Your edits/input at Palestinian refugees and the talk page was awesome. Have a nice stay, and enjoy your day! BL 06:52, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Zero0000, I was merely holding a position based on what I have read on this subject, based on the belief that my sources were accurate and unbiased. Don't all of us operate in this way? If it so happens that these sources are shown to be inaccurate and biased, then I simply will no longer support claims to accuracy on these issues. As I respect science and history as sacred domains, I try to keep an open mind. As it happens, I have been reading what you and Bl have uncovered and discussed, and have done so with an open mind. I thus am willing to change my mind on this subject, and I defer to your findings on this topic. So relax, I now agree with you. RK 23:47, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-

Um, I haven't heard any response from you, which is a little surprising since this topic seemed very important to you. But if you still are interested in this topic, let me know what you think about this excerpt on the issue of Arab population growth in Palestine; it is from The Encyclopaedia Judaica, Keter Publishing. RK


 * ISRAEL, STATE OF: ARAB POPULATION


 * In 1917, at the time of the British conquest of Palestine during World War I, the country's Arabic-speaking population numbered less than 600,000 persons; in 1947 it was estimated at 1,200,000. This enormous increase, by more than double in 30 years, was accompanied by steady progress in health, education, and standard of living. These achievements were partly due to the more efficient administration introduced by the Mandatory government, which improved security, consolidated land tenure and lessened the power of local autocrats, paid more attention to the needs of the villagers, expanded health and educational services, fostered agriculture, and abolished conscription. In the main, however, Arab progress-far superior to that registered in the neighboring countries, where Britain and France had introduced similar administrations-was connected with the growth of the Jewish community and its efforts to develop the country. This is shown by the comparative vital statistics, percentage of school attendance, and number of doctors, nurses, teachers, and so forth. Tax revenue received from the Jews by the Mandatory government enabled it to improve its health and education services for the Arabs. The Jews introduced better transportation and more modern banking and production methods; they provided an expanding market for Arab agricultural produce, as well as a convenient labor outlet. Their public services, which were partially at the disposal of the Arabs, stimulated them and the government to create similar facilities for the Arab population. Thousands of Arab immigrants, mostly illegal, entered the country throughout the period....


 * ...The first official census in 1922 counted some 752,000 inhabitants, of whom 83,790 were Jews. Of the 668,258 non-Jews, 78%-589,177-were Muslims; there were 71,464 Christian and 7,617 Druze and others. In March 1947 the non-Jewish population was given as 1,319,434: 1,157,423 Muslims, 146,162 Christians, and 15,849 others. (The figures for Arabs in 1947 were, apparently, inflated because of the institution of rationing in 1942 and the consequent reluctance to report deaths.) Most of the Christians were also Arabs, but their total included a substantial number of English, other Europeans, and Armenians as well.


 * Most of the Arab growth was a result of the extraordinary natural increase, due to the fall in the death rate and the rise in fertility, while the birthrate remained stable. Natural increase rose from 23.3 per thousand in 1922-25 to 30.7 in 1941-44. Fertility, as measured by the average number of children born to a Muslim mother, rose from 6.1 in 1927-29 to 8.1 in 1942-43...


 * ...Improvements in health conditions by the drainage of swamps, better sanitation, and modern medical methods were largely responsible for almost halving the infant mortality rate among Muslim children and raising the average life-span by more than ten years.


 * ...Part of the increase in Arab population, however, was due to migration. In the 20 years between 1922 and 1942, 20,015 Muslims, 15,645 Christians and 336 others (excluding Jews) were officially registered as immigrants to Palestine. Since there was considerable unrecorded movement of laborers across the borders, especially from Syria, the actual number of immigrants was undoubtedly much larger; it has been estimated as high as 100,000.

Consider the evidence in the article itself: rate of natural increase from 23.3 per thousand in 1922-25 to 30.7 in 1941-44. Even 23.3/1000 is enough to explain population doubling in 30 years, and 30.7/1000 would double in only 23 years. So it is hard to see where an extra 100,000 could fit. Also, these rates of increase are not all that high by Arab standards--in fact by Jewish standards either. The current rate of natural increase amongst Palestinians is about 45/1000 and for Israeli haredim about 40/1000 (doubling in 18 and 16 years, respectively). -- zero

-

I am sorry, Zero0000; I should have read your words more charitably. I was just pissed because I have been dealing with a lot of new contributions on Wikipedia, containing some truly terrible stuff. (i.e. moral equivalency between any actions of the USA, and the World Trade Center bombing, and long-winded apologetics for Yemenite Arabs to murder Americans. Heck, people even suggested ratios of how many Americans could be murdered, and still be considered fair and ethical.) Many of the comments which I have been fighting off were a form of moral equivalency presented as "balance". So when I read your words, it (at the time) seemed to be in the same boat. Now I know better. I apologize for being quite wrong about you. RK 03:20, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Edward Said article
Hello, I am curious: For what reasons do you think the Edward Said article "badly needs work"? -- Viajero 15:33, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's not as bad as it was when most of it was just a (mostly ignorant) attack on him, but the main thing missing is a proper analysis of his writings other than his activist writings. Orientalism is mentioned briefly but incorrectly--he didn't revive anything, he used the word to label a particular existing discipline that he attacked. I've been trying to get a friend who understands this stuff to write a few paragraphs, but nothing yet. -- zero


 * Ok, I'll take that as a backhand compliment; I recently gave the article a complete overhaul, removing a lot of what I agree was a lot of nonsense, but I suspect you could have done the same, and in fact you should have; it would have been more constructive than a non-specific slag-off on your user page. I also agree that the piece begs more discussion of his academic writings, but in the absence of a specialist I hope it will do. On the other hand, maybe it is now a decent encyclopedia entry: just the basics, with pointers for those that need more information. -- Viajero 19:50, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I dont know exactly whats going on bettween you and RickK on Hezbollah -- I want to know --whats the issue? why the back and forth? - &#25140;&#30505sv 03:02, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * I tried to explain on Talk:Hezbollah. Don't know if it will help. --zero 08:43, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You beat me to the RK revert on Edward Said...thanks. Bcorr 16:25, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You'll get your chance, he isn't done yet alas. --zero 04:15, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Palestinian National Council
Zero, I put together a rudimentary page on the Palestinian National Council. Since you seemed to be interested in Palestinian topics, perhaps you'd like to take a look/add/change/... -- Viajero 14:19, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent start. I made some trivial edits and hope to add some additional material over the next few weeks. --zero 03:49, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. Perhaps you elucidate the relationship -- whatever it may be -- between the PNC and the Palestinian Authority, something I wondered about while writing it but found no answer. -- Viajero 06:57, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I'll try, but it is complicated. It doesn't help that there have been at least three organizations called the Palestinian National Council (which should also be explained...so much to do). -- zero 08:41, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the discussion between Adam Carr and myself at Talk:Adolf Hitler. I think we are veering into POV in the article. Thanks. Danny 14:27, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Zero, thanks, I had seen that reference. See my new piece on Herschel Grynszpan Adam 05:59, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence! The IDF article certainly needs some help. The same old propaganda sneaks up in the strangest places, in this case it seems like someone decided that the article needed a fast-forward version of Israel's history. But I'll try to clean it up to the best of my abilities right now. BL 20:30, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Nice recovery from the edit conflict. I think your version is better than mine. I know little about what happened; I was mostly copy-editing. It's not easy to write neutrally while taking sides (I'm pro-Jewish), but *sigh* we all try. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Uncle Ed. Btw, we all much appreciate your work around Wikipedia,  --zero 23:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Zero, re your comments.
 * If people raise issues with me on Talk pages, I reply on the same page. If people raise issues with me at my Talk page, I reply at their Talk page, as I am doing now. Is that not the etiquette?
 * Yes, it is OK, but what usually happens is that the same debate resurfaces later on on the Talk page, introduced by people who know nothing of the earlier discussion. So then someone (perhaps you) will need to rehash it all.  Overall it is better if substantial issues (not just quibbles) are debated on the Talk page so that people can see what has been debated before and understand the reasoning behind what is in the article.  It also keeps the debate in one place (as opposed to two places like you are doing it now). --zero 07:46, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Cheers Adam 04:46, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * On deleting the old Talk:Adolf Hitler, I said: "I don't know if I am allowed to delete old Talk, but I have, because otherwise the file is too long for me to open it. Someone can restore it if they want. It was mostly irrelevant anyway." No-one objected and no-one restored the deleted text, so I assumed no-one missed it.

Z: No worries. I must read all your Palestine stuff some time. Adam

Re Amira Hass, we shouldn't be using extlinks as a cheap substitute for missing articles. If someone writes articles about those awards (which is completely likely), your extlink reference won't "light up" with the Wikipedia explanation. Those articles will also have the appropriate external links, better there than replicated in each recipient's article, plus the reader isn't stuck when the website goes dead, which has been happening to a bunch of extlinks lately. Stan 14:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do you really think John Elliott is worth an article? I don't. Also, have a look at the edit war I have been having at Jim Cairns and Junie Morosi. Where do these people come from? Adam 13:12, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Z, Thanx for that, I look forward to yr comments. I don't know who you-know-who is but I dare say I can handle him/her/it. Adam 09:02, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Zero. I had a lot of problems writing that statement, precisely because of the point you just raised. I may personally stand by it for a number of reasons, but it certainly can be modified. My general response is that yes, many (but not all) Messianic Jews are, in fact, ethnically Jewish, i.e., they have a parent or grandparent who was Jewish). There are also many who have no connection to Jews in that sense. Instead, they are either evangelicals on a mission or people trying to revive some anachronistic idea of the Early Church. On the other hand, it is undeniable that there are many people of Jewish origins in groups such as Jews for Jesus, and these are the people that the groups tend to highlight. The question is, then, the hotly contested--what makes someone Jewish. Messianic Jews are rejected wholesale by the Jewish community, but I will try to modify the sentence to meet your concerns. Let me know if it is acceptable. By the way, the debate you are having over the Judaism = a tumor issue seems to me to be totally unrelated to the article. That pastor was referring to converting Jews to Christianity proper, which is not Messianic Judaism. I will take it out. Danny 14:06, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Zero, does that conclude your comments on my Zionism article? I will change the reference to the population of Palestine (not that that is an issue that this article ought to get too deeply into). I think I am going to restructure it so that there is a section heading Opposition to Zionism, at which I will discuss: opposition to Zionism among Jews before 1948, ditto after 1948, opposition to Zionism among Arabs (which will lead off to Israel-Palestine conflict article), and opposition to Zionism among everybody else. I will use some of the more respectable bits from anti-Zionism. Is there anything else you think I ought to cover? Adam 14:36, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Zero, If you think this paragraph needs replacing, you will need to tell me why and with what.

''And indeed relations between the Arabs and the early Jewish settlers in Palestine were generally harmonious. Jewish settlement and investment in Palestine stimulated Arab immigration from other Arab countries, and the Jewish and Arab populations grew in tandem to their mutual benefit. At this time, it seems, there was no sense of Palestinian national identity, and apparently no opposition to Jewish settlement. '' Adam 10:17, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re your two separate comments on the above para. If you could write a paragraph to replace it that would be good. BUT bear in mind this is an article about Zionism, not about the history of Palestine, so it can't be too much longer than the para it is replacing. It might indeed be easier just to delete it. Adam 12:58, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re the Bund, take it up with Danny, he contributed that bit. The finer points of Yiddish are beyond goyischer understanding I'm afraid. Adam 13:02, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK well you two have a conclave and see what you can come up with.

I am writing Edgardo Mortara now (I seem to be developing an obsession with Jewish history) - are you an authority on this too? Adam 13:25, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You will hear lots about Edgardo Mortara soon because there is a film coming. Adam 14:02, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I am checking with someone at work who knows quite a bit about the historical Bund. I noticed the differences when I added the Yiddish, but just left it till I could check with him. I have a day off tomorrow, so I will see what I have about Ahad Ha'am around the house. Mortara is a fascinating topic. Not very well known now, but it was a major sensation back in the days of Pius IX. His great-grand niece is still around in Italy and was very upset, apparently, about the beatification of Pius as a result. Didn't get quite the press as Mother Teresa (thankfully) or even as much as St. Edith Stein, but it is an interesting story and relates to the issue of forced baptisms. In some way it relates to a project I am working on now--non-Jewish rescuers during the Holocaust--since there is an ambivalent attitude about Catholic rescues. Many were genuine acts of kindness (I like the term "a conspiracy of good"), but in certain instances, there was a lot of pressure on some people to convert. I won't get into Cardinal Lustiger, because I haven't researched all the details (What's the difference between the Cardinal of Paris and the Chief Rabbi of Paris? The Cardinal speaks Yiddish), but Mortara was also a forced conversion, ostensibly for the good of the child. Lemme do some checking. Oh, and Zero, Yiddish is really easy to read if you can read Hebrew and speak German. Aleph is an "a", Kametz aleph is an "o", ayin is an "e", vav is a "u", yod is a "i" and two yods are a "ei". All the rest is the same, more or less. It's mostly German, with just a smattering of Hebrew. A German Catholic roommate of mine a long time ago used to say that when I tried to speak to him in German and ended up speaking Yiddish, I sounded like a Bavarian. And that is Yiddish in a nutshell. Danny 23:14, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Edgardo Mortara is done, but it is mostly cribbed from online sources and needs to be checked by someone knowledgeable. Adam 00:07, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I made another major cut to Anti-Semitism. Still needs more pruning, but now I will wait for the controversy over this cut to die down. Danny 15:15, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sadly, I think I agree with you. I laid the basis for a skeleton, but got a lecture on the "wiki way" and had someone add the France 2001-2003 bit again. It is very frustrating. We could try what you suggest, but I wonder if people won't do the same to that article. We can try. What do you think of the skeleton I proposed? Danny 00:20, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the Armenian quote is an urban legend (ranks up there with Christian X and the yellow star). Danny 00:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Reminder:

Team: I have now placed a somewhat trimmed version of Zero's text on Zionism and the Arabs in the article, and done a general edit. Comments please. Do we think we are close to having a text that can replace the existing Zionism article? Adam 13:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi. The thought just came to me that the Elon Peace Plan doesn't actually qualify as a Proposals for a Palestinian state. How can giving someone an already existing nationality qualify as "creating a state". Shouldn't the short description of the Elon Peace Plan and the link to that article be removed from Proposals for a Palestinian state. WDYT? --snoyes 15:55, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The Palestinians are already the majority among the Jordanians. Another reason why it qualifies is that Jordan was part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Der Eberswalder 16:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * If only Jordanian citizens are counted, Palestinians form a slight minority. Counting all Palestinians living in Jordan, the percentage is too close to call.  Adding the residents of the WB would make a clear Palestinian majority.  The British mandate is irrelevant. --Zero 00:37, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Zero, while you're at Zionism, you might like to come up with a new bibliography and set of external links. Adam 11:30, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done. I'm just tired of arguing about this topic and all its subtleties with someone whose arrogance overshadows his ignorance. I have long been limiting my Wikipedia presence as a result. Danny 14:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Not worth the effort. As someone else pointed out, his world is black and white. I prefer a little diversity and color in mine. Danny 02:24, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not that it matters but I think JeMa is RK. Danny 00:08, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Z, re Ariel Sharon, yes, looks clearer; i'm pretty ignorant of the subject matter (and don't even recall how i wandered into having him on my watchlist), so i just deal with the logic. I think of it as leaving stubs for someone like you to weld facts onto. Tnx! --Jerzy 14:57, 2003 Nov 29 (UTC)

Zero, do you have an e-mail or Instant Messaging applet of some sort? It seems much of our back and forth could be taken care of much more efficiently if we can debate these issues in some fashion other than summary sections of our edits. -Leumi


 * Sorry I don't have an email address suitable for this. You can write messages here if you want. --Zero

Zero, I am in the process of documenting User:Leumi's extreme impartiality and could use your help. Could you collect about a half-dozen of his most egregious edits for me? The most useful form would be the URL from the "Page history", like this:
 * http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Zero0000&oldid=1756590

You can drop them on my Talk page with any additional comments you'd care to make (or send me an email via the email link). In any case, I could really use your support on this. Thanks. -- Viajero 20:23, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I was just working on Palestine Refugee and saw your comment on the Talk page. Zero, please, please, PLEASE do not allow Leumi to drive you away. This project (Wikipedia) is too good to let it be overrun by zealots. I know that it is a frustrating, emotionally draining experience dealing with his monumental intransigence, but the important thing to realize is that you are not alone. The overwhelming majority of people in this online community are committed to encyclopedic neutrality; the problem is that not everyone is equally well informed about all the issues, and this is where we really depend on. Once others understand what is going on, Leumi will be stopped. That I am sure of.


 * In the meanwhile, I moved the reference to Peters out of the Palestine Refugee into a Talk with an excerpt from a review of it which should make it abundantly clear etc etc.Can I entice you to return to the article? As I see it, our options are as follows: we can either rewrite the text from scratch or merge it with another article. Or simply pare the existing text down to bare facts, three or four paragraphs at most. What do you think?


 * If you have further conflicts with Leumi, revert him a few times and then drop a note on my page or someone else's asking for support. I repeat: you do not have to wage this battle alone. In solidarity, -- Viajero 22:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the note. FYI, I have just left a message on User talk:Leumi which sums up my view of the situation. Comments welcome. To be continued... -- Viajero 11:28, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi zero! Sorry I haven't gotten back to you earlier. Life has been busy and all that and WP hasn't been a priority for a while. I do like the Kfar Kassem massacre article. It seems fairly complete although I know there are a few more details missing. Like the quote that compared the trial after the massacre with Nuremberg because the soldiers said they were just "following orders". I just can't find the book where I found those details. And thanks for coming to "my" defense regarding the destroyed villages article. I really don't understand why that page is generating so much heat. Cya 'round! BL 11:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero, see:
 * http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-December/008928.html
 * User:Viajero/Leumi
 * -- Viajero 15:46, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello, you seem like a reasonable person. Can I have your opinion on ? Thank you. -- 213.73.231.245 01:49, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I wrote something in that talk page. I'm not likely to work on the article itself, but the comments and links I left might be useful for someone else who wants to, such as yourself. --Zero 12:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done!: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-December/008946.html -- Viajero 12:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

New: From Time Immemorial. Just in case it escaped your attention. -- Viajero 12:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * never mind, just saw your comment. -- Viajero 12:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

progress? maybe
Hi Zero, as you will have seen, we seem to be slowly reaching the point where we can have the pages unlocked and we can move forward. It is good to have Ed Poor involved; he seems to have boundless energy for handling conflict and is absolutely committed to editorial neutrality. He occasionally makes strange decisions, but he is quick to undo them if asked. In any case, I hope you will henceforth not be left to wage solitary edit wars. As I am sure you realize, in such a bitterly contentious area, these articles will never be really good; the most we can hope for are texts which no one has any major objections to. Asi es la vida. Take care, -- Viajero 11:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please leave me out of your personal vendetta against Mr. Rk. Your false accusations have only convinced me that your critics have valid points, and that I have been treating you far too charitably. In the future, I will treat your claims with far more suspicion. JeMa 17:55, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Zero, I just noticed your comment viz-a-viz RK and JeMa on the talk page of Zionism. If you have such suspicions, it best not to air them publically. There are ways of determining whether this is true or not. -- Viajero 16:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * A developer checked for me. Not likely the same. -- Viajero 03:12, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, actually is does matter. RK has been banned once already. If it were proven that he is using a sock-puppet account here, it would have serious repercussions. To be more precise: both users appear to be in the NY area and log in at different times, hence it could be a home/work scenario. IOW, if it is the same person, they are covering their tracks carefully, as you suggest they would. Sorry, wish the answer was more definitive. -- Viajero 13:07, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero, thanks for the article. I was aware of that story from previous things I have seen online but I didn't know it had reached such an acute stage. I will draw it to the attention of some people here. I imagine their long-term solution must be emigration to a third country. You might know that the High Court of Australia has just granted refugee status to a gay male couple from Bangladesh, which establishes an important precedent. Adam 06:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Golan Heights - Viajero has asked to be consulted before it's unprotected. I'll go ask on IRC right now, and see what people have to say about it. Pakaran 03:31, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * As an update - I now unprotected all 5 Israel-related pages. They may be re-protected if there's massive edit wars, but I'd like to think Leumi is quieting down a tad now.  Pakaran 03:48, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I was waiting for someone to delete the crap. Danny 23:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero you are editing the wrong article. I copied my draft (with some modifications) into the main anti-Zionism article a few days ago. I should have re-directed the draft page to the main page, sorry to have wasted your time. Adam 13:01, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero, I am glad that we are improving each others work rather than deleting it in wholesale now. Its much better, and harder, to work together to improve an item than to delete it. OneVoice 13:28, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The truth is, I am getting quite tired of that page. If you check the history, you will find one of the more vicious fights I had with RK (he removed a lot of it from the Talk), because he wanted to vilify all ultra-Orthodox as anti-Semites (I shit you not). Now Ezra Wax, who is on a divine mission to insert his POV. It's too tiring and stressful. I would much rather clean up the anti-Semitism mess, or even just add in my movie tables. I will wait till the fanatics wear each other down. Danny 01:55, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero0000 we had an simultaneous edit conflict? doesnt Wikipedia have a method of alerting people that a page is in edit! Senseis Library does (senseis.xmp.net). Please take another look at Proposals, some of your edits may have been lost due to the simultaneous edit

I'll incorporate sections from Elon's page verbatim. We can agree that his words are his words. OneVoice 13:35, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; looks similar indeed. As for Elon, I suggest we wait out the voting period (-/+ five days) and if it doesn't get deleted, we pare it down to a bare minimum, similiar to how it was a month or so ago. Either that, or merge it somewhere else. -- Viajero 19:26, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Tanya Reinhart: like to add anything? -- Viajero 20:53, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Continued at: User talk:Zero0000