User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 16

• User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 15 Islander Day, 2010 - Construction Holiday, 2010)

Editing Help

Thanks for the help with the profile of Kansas State Senator Steve Abrams. I have worked into the early morning on the page several times. Including the first time you did an edit. I was fine with the first edit but I saw that some practical information had been removed later by another user and that it had taken a bias tone and removed relevant information, so I was trying to restore the neutral tone.

I wish I had the editing skills you have. Sadly, I am better at doing research and content than editing. After all, if everyone could edit then we wouldn't need editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petphotog (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Great job on your cleanup of the 99ers page. Thanks for the great example to follow. Oakbranch (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ZAP article

Just saw your inputs and cleanups of the ZAP_(motor_company), there is still a long way to go but personally I think you did a very good job.

Good work, great example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.241.164.132 (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Move Toronto streetcars back to Toronto streetcar system

There was consensus to move Toronto streetcars back to the original name of Toronto streetcar system as mentioned in the article's talk page. However, the Toronto streetcar system page (and its talk page) must be deleted before it can be moved back. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Finally. Ground Zero | t 06:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Ground Zero, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it may come across as a reference to the September 11 attacks. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24, I have been contributing to Wikipedia using this name for about five years now (and under a different name for over a year before that. I have been elected as an administrator under this name. On one occasion, my page was vandalized by somone who objected to my user name. I think that is should be clear from the Wikipedia article Ground zero that the term pre-dates the September 11 attacks by more than fifty years, and it has been used in a broad range of circumstances both before that terrible event and since then. The headline on 29 August 2005 edition of the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper was "Ground Zero", in reference to the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina. I made my choice of user name without actually thinking of the connection to 9/11, but because I grew up during the Cold War, as I noted at the top of my user page. I mean not offence, and I think that offence is only taken by those (well, by one person) who is ignorant of the broader and much older use of the term. Regards, Ground Zero | t 15:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tone and Approach

I have to say your recent approach is one of the ruder interactions I have had with an established editor on Wikipedia in a long time. As you can see, I am not a supporter of WP:overlinking. WP:Repeated links is a rule of thumb not a rule and open to a wide degree of lattitude. The point of linking is to provide the ability for a casual reader to navigate around while avoiding excessive linking. This is the founder and most prominent "alumnus" of the firm so having four links or six links is really not necessarily excessive in an article of this length (although it could be depending on the context). In this case it is appropriate for two links to follow in close proximity because one is the first occurence of the guy's name and then the next is part of an entire list of links - akin to a table. It would seem appropriate not to leave out the link here when the other names are linked. It doesn't affect readability which is the whole point of having a rule of thumb. If there is another link in the caption of an image and maybe a fourth somewhere in the body of the text that is totally appropriate. I wouldn't think it would be necessary for every occurrence in the same paragraph to be linked but repeated links does not give a hard and fast rule about how far apart repeated links should be becuase it is a matter of discretion in context.

Separately I couldn't care less whether you call it alumni or employees but your claim that there is some wikipedia preferred nomenclature is just nuts. What does trademarks have to do with anything. But as I don't care go nuts.

Finally, your approach on both fronts is not really conducive to getting people to want to work with you. It is just condescending and rude. I have noticed it before in some of your other edits but this time it was really a bridge too far. As you can see you have converted me to your way of thinking on the appropriate level of linking|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Response

With regard to my tone, I have reviewed what I have written both in the edit summaries and on the article's talk page, and I do not understand what it is that has offended you. I have been careful to explain my edits, a courtesy that you have sometimes not been extending to me and other readers in your recent edits to this article. I have further supported them with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is one comment that I agree was curt:

"Since you have add a fourth link to Sanford I. Weill yet again, and in the sentence immediately after the first link to him, it seems clear that you are unwilling to look up WP:OVERLINK for yourself. To assist you, here is the relevant text, which you can also access directly through WP:REPEATLINK...."

I was curt because instead of responding to my explanation of why that link was unnecessary, you just added it back. That is edit warring, and it is unproductive. Despite your re-addition of the link without comment, I took the time to explain the relevant part of WP:OVERLINK to you.

I would appreciate if you could explain what specifically in my comments you found to be condescending or rude.

With respect to your argument about linking, "it is appropriate for two links to follow in close proximity because one is the first occurence of the guy's name and then the next is part of an entire list of links - akin to a table. It would seem appropriate not to leave out the link here when the other names are linked", you are, of course, entitled to your own view about what it appropriate to link. I note, however, that that is not the view of the Wikipedia community as expressed in the guideline on linking. I have referred to specific guidelines above, and add this general principle from WP:OVERLINK: "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid adding obvious or redundant links."

The short list of names provided in the sentence to which you refer is not a table, or akin to a table. It is part of a sentence. The reader has just finished reading a sentence in which he/she is introduced to Mr. Weill, and is provided a link to find out more if he or she wants, or to ignore if he/she does not want more information. What value is there in providing that choice again in the very next sentence? Links are intended to provide those opportunities for finding out more, and not to provide emphasis or for formatting purposes. If you prefer, of course, you could link Weill not at the first instance but at the second instance in the list. This avoids the redundant link, and means that all of the names in the second sentence are linked, although I don't see the value in that.

My comments about "alumni" refer to the meaning of the word, and not Wikipedia nomenclature.

With respect to your comment that "your claim that there is some wikipedia preferred nomenclature is just nuts", I encourage you to review WP:CIVIL.

Finally, I do not seek to convert you or anyone to "my way of thinking on the appropriate level of linking", only to encourage them to follow the reasonable principles set out in the Wikipedia guideline, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). This guideline has been adopted by the Wikipedia community, so it reflects the views of that community, rather than my views or your views, or the views of any other single editor. Regards, Ground Zero | t 03:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Plans vs. "Future Plans" or some other wording

I'd like to point out there are previous plans or canceled plans in a historic context, so why can there not be future plans? (not to be a nit-picker or anything but not all plans are for the future as you stated - especially given there are a lot of historical/canceled plans that the TTC series articles deal with) Either way i don't really like the plans/future plans subheadings anyway... so is there some other word or caption that might more accurately portray the concept of planned development or construction that is to take place at some unspecified time in the future. eja2k 19:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I plans are also current. They can alos be in the past. As in those were the plans. Dincher (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If the TTC has plans to do something, the plans exist now for work to be done in the future. "Future plans" would be plans that do not exist now, but would be created in the future, so there is really nothing we can say about them now. Where an article talks about previous plans or cancelled plans, it should indicate so, but there isn't any need to modify plans when you're using the present tense. Ground Zero | t 19:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack P Shepherd

Hi i see you reverted my edit to this article, can i ask why as the source was relevant as it was to the british comedy central site. Seasider91 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Future plans on Central line

I've reversed your edit renaming this section "Plans", because although it's a good point, "future" distinguishes from "written or drawn" and "past plans that were not followed up". Hope that makes sense. Britmax (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Jagmandar Dass Jain - Article

Thanks for the correction of errors.HARRYMAGIC (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ach!

Sorry if I was a bit confrontational :) you did have a point and I was just in a grumpy mood. Though I still disagree in general that only very specific things should be linked :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance is requested

I see you have put in some work on the Emmanuel Ray page. Could you please contact him with regards to what he can and cannot have in the article. He would also like help with matters like uploading pictures and proving his right to upload them. socialite.evenings@gmail.com Mikezorander(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Blocks

Hi, I see you had dealings with User talk:24.23.162.249. I am wondering if you know why he was unblocked. He is continuing to make mass unsourced category changes. Ta. Span (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just got here in time to say "me too - helppp!" I was alerted only because of one article I watch but the user is clearly on some sort of campaign ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this user again. Ground Zero | t 19:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So we have to go back over 100 articles and check for sourcing before reverting the cats? Holy crow. A waste of wiki time. Span (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the history with this user, I have no qualms about just reverting his/her edits. I am entirely qualmless. I have done a whole bunch, but have to leave the computer now. Ground Zero | t 20:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance tags on Emmanuel Ray

Hi there, just to let you know (in case you've inadvertently done it elsewhere) I've changed the maintenance tags you added to Emmanuel Ray from {{Citation}} to {{Citation needed}}; I presume that's what you meant. :) --BelovedFreak 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course. Thanks for fixing that. With respect to that article, an anon user had undone a lot of the edits that I had made to the article, including changing first name references to last name references. Can I ask you to revert such edits before doing anything else to the article so that I don't have to re-input them? Thanks. Ground Zero | t 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sorry about that. I hadn't realised that the anon was undoing your edits as such, I presumed it was new material. Sorry I didn't alter the changed spellings etc. There was some more concerning issues which I mentioned on the talkpage. Anyway, it's not on my watchlist, so I'll leave you to it.--BelovedFreak 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

British National Party

I see that you last edited on the BNP's page, now no-one is able to edit it. Would it be possible to unlock it and allow people to add some information please. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveredhair (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Henry Williams (alias Cromwell)

While I fully understand why you made this edit but as the text makes it obvious which house of commons we are talking about please in future consider hiding such links behind the pipe works. -- PBS (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Archimedes, Inc.

FYI - As someone who has worked on the page, it might interest you know that Archimedes, Inc. has been nominated for deletion. At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archimedes,_Inc. Danieldis47 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, as you have a financial relationship with the subject, you are concerned that your client's article could get deleted, but indiscriminate canvassing to get your article kept is discouraged. It is perfectly acceptable to notify contributors who have added substantial content, but notifying every user who has only done so much as fixing a typo (in this case, fixing overlinking), is borderline inappropriate.--res Laozi speak 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My good friend, am I being being stalked? What proof do you have of any so-called "financial relationships"? Why are you so averse to other editors knowing of your own good work? If something is "borderline," but only that, then why do you feel the need to sound an alarm? Thanks! Danieldis47 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse noticing a clear guideline violation with "stalking", which is a serious charge; as an editor involved with the discussion, I have a right to reply. Campaigning for !votes is against established consensus, and is considered a form of talk page spamming. Notifications should be given to users who have made substantial contributions to articles, not every editor in the editing history, especially if said controbution was just a typo correction. As admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry first brought up on AfD and then WP:SI, you've admitted to being paid to write on articles on your Twitter account. This is an explicit violation of the neutrality policy.--res Laozi speak 03:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As you can see, my messages are entirely non-partisan and neutral, and they total only four in number. I do not know these editors and I have no idea what their opinions on anything are. They are simply the editors who made some edit(s) to the Archimedes, Inc. page. In addition, I should note there are no mentions of any payments of any sort for anything on my Twitter account. Cheers! Danieldis47 (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate to notify users who have made substantial edits, like the anon IP. Notifying everyone in the edit history, even if their edit is as minor as a typo correction, is disruptive. I understand your frustration that your client's article is being nominated for deletion, but please refrain from breaking behaviour guidelines.

You posted a message specifically linking to the article (that you've now removed), but another post remains: Just put the finishing touches on a trio of Wikipedia pages for a client in Texas" (which will likely soon disappear as well). But as Chase me Ladies pointed out, and as you've admitted on the AfD and your own talk page, there is overwhelming evidence that you have been paid to edit by a client, please do not obfuscate the point. Also, let's keep and continue the discussion on your talk page, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. --res Laozi speak 03:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I have made no admissions about payment for anything in the locations you list. Go and see. (And I have not removed any links from anywhere - I would not even know how to do that in Twitter, if it's even possible...) Now, let's keep and continue the discussion elsewhere, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your admissions on Wikipedia are still there, but yes, let us end it. :) --res Laozi speak 04:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I sincerely apologise that this dispute on a user's financial COI has spilled on to your talk page. It shouldn't have escalated the way it did, but the issue has been resolved. This is my first time encountering a paid editor, and I apologise for any incovenience that the dispute may have caused.--res Laozi speak 05:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please sir

I did fix them - [1] removed a fair amount of unwanted links. I will fix the others. --George2001^hi 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit shows clearly how you are continuing to link plain English words, and link the same words twice. You are also making really dense linking in every sentence. This is not helpful to the reader. Please read and ­­­respect WP:OVERLINK. - GZ

I have read it, and I'm currently trying to comply my recent edits to it. --George2001^hi 23:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I've fixed all of my Wikified articles, are they done adequately? If you find any errors please fix them. Thanks --George2001^hi 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• You really must drop your obsession with linking so many things in an article. It is distracting for readers. What part of WP:OVERLINK don't you understand? The Wikipedia community has decided that plain English words should not be linked. Why are you so determined to ignore this? Ground Zero | t 02:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had removed all of them - please fix them if there is any. I must say, your approach to me has been extremely rude, reverting my edits - instead of fixing them or simply leaving a note on my talk page. You have automatically assumed bad faith, bashed my edits even after have fixed them, you use of "obsession" and "...don't you understand" have offended me, and you have acted in the fashion that I was a vandal. I have to say it's not what I expect of a administrator. --George2001^hi 09:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I've just noticed - "STOP MAKING LINKS TO PLAIN ENGLISH WORDS" - lovely, shouting at me - very professional. --George2001^hi 09:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for that. I could not think of any other way of getting your attention after you kept mucking up the articles in the same way and deleting the comments that I had left on your talk page so that no-one else could see how you were ignoring Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 13:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:REMOVED. I read and listened to it, no need for it to be archived. --George2001^hi 14:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you say that you "read and listened to" my comments, I will take your word for it. The problem was that you were continuing to add scores of repeated links and links to plain English words to the article(s) in question, which is what led me to believe that you were ignoring my comments and Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Taxation in Canada article

Hi, I've noticed that you've made many contributions to the Taxation in Canada article. Just for personal info, I've been wanting to find a pie chart (or set of pie charts) showing the proportionate contributions of various forms of annual Canadian federal income (e.g., personal income tax, corporate taxes, sales taxes, government investments). My Web search so far has not been terribly successful, since Google provides me with a large amount of hits that seems to go beyond my actual search parameters.

Do you by any chance know of any on-line sites that have such pie charts? Joel Russ (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a bar chart on the Department of Finance website in the Fiscal Monitor here. I can't think of anywhere else that would have it. You could try the Budget documents on teh Finance website. They may have something. Ground Zero | t 17:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

512 St. Clair

See the talk page. GoldDragon (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As for this comment, no, there is really no attempt here to present a balanced view of the issue - GoldDragon clearly has an agenda to push on this issue, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. I did find it particularly offensive. If there are cost overruns, project delays, a consultant's report, and a pending lawsuit, that isn't covering one or the other side of an issue, that is what actually happened. GoldDragon (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't diasgree that there were cost overruns, delays, etc. The issues were not as simple as you portrayed them. Some of these were caused by changes to accomodate the demands of the community. And some of them were caused by bad planning and inocmpetent contractors. And you did not mention the reasons for creating a right-of-way -- faster and more reliable transit, more effective use of the expensive streetcars, etc. Ground Zero | t 22:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

No problem then. I do agree with you about the disruptive behaviour. I'm sure you must know this by now, but the section titles are only one part of the problem with that editor. I could list a whole slew of them, but your talk page isn't the place for me to vent my frustrations, so I'll leave it at that. I'll make sure to keep an eye on his edits also. Cmr08 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Ground Zero's Day!

Ground Zero has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Ground Zero's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Ground Zero! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The above is given on behalf of User:Maclean25. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You're Welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Privy Council

I should be grateful if you would go here and perhaps add your thoughts. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Brighton Voice

Thanks for the improvements. And your advice on grammar is great. It should be more widely available than just on your User page. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I`m glad to be of assistance. Happy 2011 to you. Ground Zero | t 17:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Grant Mitton (politician)

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Grant Mitton (politician). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon vs. Napoleon I

I do think that "Napoleon" is still the better wording due to sheer common use (for example, none of the published references in the Napoleon article use "Napoleon I" in their title). However, I am curious about your edit summary. In which sentence is Napoleon I mentioned along with another Napoleon? Napoleon III is mentioned elsewhere in the article but in an entirely different section. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to the third paragraph under "British rule, a Crown Colony, 1834-1981":

In 1858, the French emperor Napoleon III successfully gained the possession, in the name of the French government, of Longwood House and the lands around it, last residence of Napoleon I (who died here in 1821). It is still French property, administered by a French representative and under the authority of the French Foreign Ministry.

I think that this would be ambiguous: "the French emperor Napoleon III successfully gained the possession... of ... last residence of Napoleon...." While common use may be just "Napoleon" for the first one, we should err on the side of clarity in addressing Wikipedia's international and non-technical audience. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I did manage to miss that paragraph entirely. You're right, disambiguation is appropriate there. I still believe it sounds odd in the lead, etc. where there is less chance of confusion. There's a similar discussion going on at the Napoleon I talk page, and I'm interested to see how that turns out. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Marijuana Party

I wasn't soapboxing---I quoted the Marijuana Party's web site as a way of demonstrating the radical point of view espoused by the Party. Isn't it all right to do that?

Oh, yeah, and you reverted to a too-early revision---I fixed a load of grammatical errors before I added that extra section. --Nmatavka (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Radical Marijuana Party" name was used in error in a few ridings in the 2008 election. It is not the choice of the party. You provided no evidence for this change, and then you added a ton of additional information without reliable sources for the most part. Ground Zero | t 23:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I simply paraphrased---in fact, I tried to remove unsourced information. Tell me where exactly I went wrong, and I'll change it. Besides, the name "Radical Marijuana" is used on THE PARTY'S OWN WEBSITE. --Nmatavka (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops -- now I see that it was not you who added this. It was someone else. I will take a closer look at your edits. Ground Zero | t 23:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What sounds better: " Bigger parties, that are able to get more than 2% of the national vote make money from elections. They get money for each vote they receive, and they get most of the money they spent campaigning refunded. At the same time, smaller parties go broke attempting to participate, since everything they do ends up being worth nothing but, perhaps, a nebulous change in public opinions regarding some issues." (the old version) or "In January and May 2004, changes were made to Canada's electoral laws which significantly reduced the fund raising abilities of the Marijuana Party of Canada; specifically, its political contribution tax credit scheme was disallowed. The end result of the change was a significant drop in the party's funding. Also, in 2004, parties with more than two per cent. of the national vote were eligible to receive more money per individual vote, effectively refunding funds spent campaigning; on the other hand, small parties, such as the MPoC, earn nothing." (my version?) --Nmatavka (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WMYB

Where did you get your information? I seriously doubt WMYB was in "many" Hollywood films.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think I put that in. I also doubt that it was in many films, and have added a citation-needed tag. Ground Zero | t 20:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You did some cleaning up. I wasn't paying attention to what I was doing, and all I noticed was the green. It looks like vandalism to me, and the person who did add it has been warned about something.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not a vandalism-only IP, because some contributions that look constructive have been made. But the person made two contributions to WMYB, and the pattern looks suspicious.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it out. If someone wants to add it back in with a reference, they can do so. Ground Zero | t 23:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's probably best. How that lasted two years is beyond me.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

New User is Disruptively Editing Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent

If you have a moment or two, any help you could give in dealing with the disruptive editing would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He is at it again. Since I seem to be the target of his wrath, I am stepping back to avoid an edit war. Any help would be appreciated. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Is that really what the semi-protect template is supposed to look like? Ebikeguy (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I'm not sure that semi-protection is even appropriate here. I haven't done this for a long time and the rules have changed. Ground Zero | t 21:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohio General Assembly and socks

Thanks for your help keeping an eye on this article. I don't know what they're trying to do, and their contributions are in general getting better over time, but trying to keep up with all of the socks simply because they're too enthusiastic to slow down and request an unblock from their original count is getting to be a real pain. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Interstate_Van_Lines

Thanks for your ce and disambigs at Interstate_Van_Lines. I was going to go back to do the disambig but, boy, I was struggling enough trying to remember to spell the word "Defense" rather than "Defence", as we have it here in the UK - you have saved me a lot of wear of my "z" key. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)