User talk:Random832/Archive 2

Re: Regarding this

When I first seen that I was looking on the recent changes page and reverted, Warn2'd the user, and moved on from there. I am going to leave the Recent Changes/Reverting Vandalism section up to someone else, it is just another department of Wikipedia I ain't welcome. Take Care and Happy 4th....NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: IRC again

I have a posted my 'long reply' on the talk page. Apologies for taking so long. —Sean Whitton / 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Response: Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob-omb&diff=143180656&oldid=142744762 Why did you make this edit? This makes the caption unreadable because the box is too narrow. --Random832 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorrry, on my system it's readable. Why not just revert it for me?→041744 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hi, you seem to be good at templates and saw that you recently improved the runfacts template. I tried to add runestone styles to the template but I seem to have messed it up since the option appears on the template, but it does not seem possible to add the styles when using the template in individual articles. Could you help me out, please?--Berig 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having a go at the template, but I still can't add styles to the template when editing an individual article. How to fix this is beyond my template skills, so I hope you can have another try. I'll be gone from WP for a week starting tomorrow, so it's no hurry.--Berig 12:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see on template:Runefacts that everything looks fine, but when I open up an article for editing, this is what appears (when there is no information added):

{{Runefacts|name=|

rundataid=|

country=|

region=|

city=|

produced=|

artist=|

text_native=|

text_english=|

picture=|}}

So there must be something wrong with the transclusion of the template that stops the runestyle entry from appearing. Thanks for looking into it.--Berig 22:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and I see that it works. Thanks a lot :).--Berig 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Templates

A few people have said that. While, yes, I chose a very bad way to go about 'fixing the system' (consequently breaking it again in the process), I still believe going through WP:TfD was a good idea; but, in the end, the forum is Templates for Deletion, not Discussion, so I'll ask for an immediate close of the nomination, and freely set up a cleanup project to deal with the Otheruses cleanup. --JB Adder | Talk 00:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: IRC

To be honest I am failing to see what the problem is at the moment. From what I can tell, the channel is running very smoothly (well, as good as can be expected) under the guidelines which are being enforced when they need to be, as much as is possible (evil timezones). I understand what you mean about being in the channel. I am in over a hundred but #wikipedia is window number 19, so I do need to look more. Thanks for the reminder on that. —Sean Whitton / 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My Templates

Well, i thought it would be almost immediately clear what these templates do - Rwc is a compacted version of three tags - really just a convenience matter, and a way to tag articles faster. And Makelist will prove very useful, I cannot see how you do not see this. It is still in the early stages, but it will soon be able to create lists as diverse as to hold 400 items. I dont really understand how you see these as 'pointless'. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Makelist is useful. There is no need to place [[]] round each list item, no need formatting, nothing. You do have a point about Rwc though. I will look into making it possible to remove 1 of the tags that constitute it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk

I'm not at all clear why you've decided to bring this up now, but:

1. That was nearly three months ago, so we're a bit past the fact now;
2. User:Socialdemocrats has been a difficult editor and has frequently uploaded copyvio material, made disruptive edits, personal attacks, and apparently has no understanding of Wikipedia policy, and has now been indef blocked;
3. A number of other users, including the administrator User:Sam Blacketer, have warned Socialdemocrats for exactly the same thing: as User talk:Socialdemocrats clearly shows, so I see no reason you consider my actions any more "out of line" than other users';
4. If we look at WP:ARCHIVE, "The warnings of vandalism and other abuse on talk pages must not be removed", and the revision of WP:UP that was in force on 29 April 2007, the date in question, we find: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. Please note, though, that the removal of good-faith warnings, even though permitted, is often frowned upon.". Therefore, policy appears to be broadly with me.

Given that Socialdemocrats was blanking their warnings, rather than archiving them, I consider that I acted quite appropriately. I'd be interested to hear why you think otherwise. Cheers, DWaterson 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given that the user has now been indef blocked, I consider the matter closed, so if you have no objections I'll assume, in good faith that your warning on my talk page was made in error, and revert it. Thanks, DWaterson 09:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, there's no conspiracy theory there - and no, I wasn't the anon IP that reverted the change you discuss on WP:ARCHIVE. I only linked to the current version because I couldn't be bothered to look through the page history when the current version supported my argument. I have no idea if the current version has consensus or not, but I ran with it. In any case, I strongly reject your suggestion that, "it appeared that [I] had set the whole thing off" - User:Socialdemocrats managed to do that quite on their own through their inappropriate editing practices. I merely happened to be one of the first users (not even the first, given that this was the state of Socialdemocrats' talk page after I first templated) to notice their edits (one of their edits happened to be to a page on my watchlist) and therefore I issued the appropriate template warnings. I don't know why you think Socialdemocrats has been so hard-done-by here; whilst I agree that some (even many) of their edits have been valuable and in good faith, many have been disruptive - especially the frequent uploading of copyvio images that then had to be reverted and tagged for speedy deletion. Given Socialdemocrats' (later) incorrigible behaviour and failure to control their temper, I have little sympathy I'm afraid. Cheers, DWaterson 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:UP

OK, I understand your point. Can you think of another way to word it? Editors should be encouraged to archive rather than simply delete without WP:UP being worded in such a way that an editor who doesn't archive gets hit with warnings, etc. for removing comments from their talkpage.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

degree symbol at MOS

No idea what you mean by "not a degree symbol", nor the difference. Can you explain for us? Tony 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the font color=black was unintentionally reintated by the reversion of something else. Thanks for your changes—I'd never dreamt there were competitors for the real degree symbol, and by using your link to "degree symbols", I discovered that, yes, I've been doing the right thing on my Mac. The mirrored text at MOS central will need to be updated, too, with reference to "as at MOSNUM" in the edit summary; if you have no time to do this, I'll oblige. Tony 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Link font color

Actually the information -- namely, that the link is external -- is incorrect and misleading, which is why it should be "hidden" so to speak. The links lead to internal Wikipedia pages, but because we want to pass arguments to them, we must use external link format. It's much more informative and accurate to make those links look like real internal links. Andre (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I didn't think of that. Andre (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Good point you made, but I think you meant to put it under findings of fact instead of principles, which is where it is now located. --David Shankbone 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Christianity Explored - request for advice.

Hi,

I noticed that Christianity Explored has been created and deleted twice - I think with two entirely separate articles - and I gather that the last to be deleted was a no-contest deletion as a spammy article with no assertion of notability. I haven't seen it of course, since it was deleted.

IMO Christianity Explored is notable and Wiki should have a good article about it ... but rather than leap in where Angels fear to tread (or fly?) I have created a personal sandbox page to draft something.

I would be grateful for your views - I am contacting all those who commented in the last deletion debate, as you will have seen the previous article.

The article is at [[1]]

Regards

Simon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 21:07:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Broken discussion

Hello again Random832. An administrator asked us to quit the talk on the actual page. Please write me a note (below) if you care to continue the discussion from where it was redirected (I will watch your page here for some time to check if you want to respond). Otherwise, Nice talking to you. Take care and good luck. With kind greetings, former BMJ. --85.89.80.140 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC) "Please, Random: Both man and woman have the same INTELLECTUAL capabilities. Is that a problem for you? If it is, please say so, and this debate ends here."

To say a man and woman have the same intellectual capabilities, that is, that there is no difference correlated to gender is one thing. To say whether Albert Einstein (a man) and Britney Spears (a woman), for example, or any other particular two individuals, have the same intellectual capabilities is quite another, and trying to relate two claims is a straw man argument. And, furthermore, even if it IS true that everyone has the same intelligence, that in no way follows from "equal in rights and dignity" - any more than "fire is hot" follows from "the sky is blue", though both are certainly true. --Random832 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Random. Please again. Albert Einstein as an example contrary to Britney Spears relies on OPINION: TODAY, in a world reigned by modern academy ideas, most of us, with a free language, would say, yes, of course, Britney Spears cannot compete the genius of Albert Einstein. But that is not because of INTELLIGENCE, Random. Please. It is because of OPINION, because of SUBJECT, because of FOCUS on the matter. Britney can sing, can’t she? What is/was Einstein to that? See? OPINION. Not Intelligence, again. [BMJ--85.89.80.140 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)]

Right, but singing talent and intelligence are two different things. Why is "intelligence" such a magic word that it's a matter of opinion - I mean, take athletic ability - it's a matter of opinion whether being able to jump higher or lift more weight is worth anything, but not whether one person is able to do more than another - how about I concede that it's a matter of opinion whether being intelligent matters, but not so much on whether one person can be more intelligent than another --Random832 21:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note, Random:

1.”Equal in dignity and rights DO MEAN equal in ability”, my conclusion from (your contribution) before

2. ”everyone has the same intelligence”, your statement, recent

”Everyone has the same intelligence”, your sentence above, is, really to get down to pedantry, syntactical erroneous, because intelligence is a property of nature including the human brain — IF we recognize human rights: everyone has the same ability of intelligence (provided medically OK), because intelligence belongs to nature, not to us. Then the sentence fits OK. Would you agree to that?

IF you do, you, really, would NOT differentiate between ”singing” and ”intelligence”, because BOTH use the same mathematical foundation:

resonance. Harmony. Standing waves. BMJ--85.89.80.140 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What does intelligence have to do with math. You don't think it does, I don't tihnk it does [you apparently think i think it does] - so what are you talking about? --Random832 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Random. Shame on you. Don’t you know that? I can tell you, exactly, what intelligence have to do with math. I can tell you. I can show you. But first. I would very much like you to REPEAT the request: Are you, really honest? No joke? No leg pulling? You mean you have no clue? Please, say it again.

Take your time, Random. Because I’m going to finish my day for now. Have been up for about 24 hours, so I will come back to you first thing ”tomorrow”, if you wish. (Don’t forget to repeat your request. I don’t believe you otherwise).

With kind greetings. BMJ--85.89.80.140 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Put these two in nature under the stars, and there is no intellectual difference between them. Both have the same natural born ability to apprehend, to BE intelligent, to develop intelligence, but the don’t have the same point of view. There is no difference in intelligence, just in view. I think, Random, you (may) refer to social valuation, not to natural property as I do. I think you know what I mean. If not, please clarify, even more.

(meanwhile) In case you wonder: I would say like this, if someone asked me to ”define” intelligence (see also intelligence in Wikipedia, not so bad really). Please object if you find it noteworthy: Intelligence is nature: its history of evolution, the building of elements and forms, the birth of organic life and its diversity of organisms, the top crown beauty: woman. You didn’t miss that, did you? The stars in the universe. That is intelligence. The child. That is intelligence. We die. Nature, intelligence, survive. We wake up to her. And we go to sleep in her. BMJ--85.89.80.140 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you’re still here - what I don’t understand is this: Clearly, not everyone has the same mathematical ability. So you seem to be arguing that intelligence is not based on mathematical ability. Yet, as far as I can see, no-one you’ve been arguing with has been of the belief that intelligence is a matter of mathematical ability. It’s almost as if we’re talking past each other —Random832 00:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

If you have any objections regarding my signature, I'm all ears. And please remember that not every IRC chatter needs to be defended on ANI in haste. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your sig, it just seemed a bit hypocritical of you to complain of someone else using Cyrillic in their sig. I'm not sure what you mean about IRC. —Random832 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not require any knowledge of cyrillics to read my name in the signature. Not so with Suva, while Digwuren's signature is completely disconnected from his user name. This does make a difference, doesn't it? I'm surprised that I need to explain this to you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(I can continue this discussion on here or on my userpage, whichever you prefer) - It takes only a mouseover to read the usernames in either. I think it is a slippery slope. Is Redvers's signature (REDVEЯS) acceptable? What about JzG, whose signature reads simply "Guy"? How about User:Radiant!'s, which I mention only because it lacks a punctuation mark present in his actual username. (I see what you mean about IRC now, though, it's worth mentioning that I've been in and out of #wikipedia in the past week and seen not a breath of this "campaign of harassment" - this was, indeed, my first encounter with any of you that I was aware of) --—Random832 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no comparison between the signature of, say, Radiant! and a random set of Chinese (?) characters. It is presumed that the signature reflects the name of your account, or some part thereof. Digwuren's signature does not reflect anything of the sort. Furthermore, the editors mentioned by you are in good standing, something which cannot be said about either Suva and Digwuren. It certainly looked like they were trying to obfuscate their real identities on the noticeboard. Given the background, I'm not surprised by Bishonen's reaction at all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain it takes only a mouseover. They weren't hiding their usernames, they weren't impersonating anyone. If they've done something wrong, condemn them for what they have done wrong, rather than something that is done every day by many wikipedians, yourself included (seeing the connection "Ghirla" has to "Ghirlandajo" is one thing, guessing the latter from the former is quite another). --—Random832 00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess what i'm trying to say is - no, you don't have to AGF if there is evidence to the contrary, but making such an accusation when nothing they did could have possibly, in fact, had the effect of obscuring their identities on the noticeboard, goes beyond merely not assuming good faith. —Random832 12:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I was the first one to mention the fact that Suva had changed his signature, which may have made it more difficult to see the connection to the Digwuren RFC, and someone may bring up my signature is not connected to my nickname either, I feel I may say a few words here. I know Ghirla's signature has been stable for some time. Personally, mine has always been what it is (a Belarusian battle cry from a famous Polish book) but experience with nationalist editing has turned me more and more German, so I recently switched to the nick name I used on five other wikis. I am still using the old signature so as not to confuse people who know me from earlier discussions. Now compare that to what happened at that AFD: 3 of the Korp! members seem to have suddenly changed their signature, Alexia Death the Grey being the third member concerned. Digwuren even changed in the middle of the discussion. Unless Digwuren has started work on Chinese Wikipedia, I fail to see any other reason for that change than the fact that they want to avoid being associated with that RFC, or with disruption elsewhere ([2]) on Wikipedia. Digwuren has been blocked before for stalking Petri, so AGF does not apply. --Pan Gerwazy 01:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh.... you know, Paul, these accusations are ridiculous. Not to mention, Digwuren's block log explicitly states "Shortening block due to inconclusive evidence of stalking.", so that accusation is once again baseless. If Digwuren, Suva and Alexia want to distance themselves from RFAR (not RfC), they would not have linked their pages on their signatures and Alexia would not have her full alias in the signature - they would have just made a new users or used signatures that are misleading about their identity, like, say, "Pan Gerwazy", for example. Trying to associate their signature changes with RFAR is laughable, especially since it is so far going very well for so-called "Korps! Estonia" and rather badly for Soviets-Forever! - Irpen hasn't managed even to bring any evidence whatsoever to the table in a month. The purpose of the RFAR is clearly just to have a sword of Damocles above the heads of Estonian editors, to be used as a threat and an attempt to show us in a bad light - like all you, Irpen and Ghirla have done - and in a long run, try to get rid of editors, who bother them in their attempts of Soviet glorification by inserting such nasty well-sourced NPOV in "their articles" and want articles to follow both real events and sources, instead of fantasies and Soviet historiography. -- Sander Säde 05:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Softredirect

My apologies. I rebuilt the code and I just missed that piece. Fixed. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Book of Mozilla

Your edit summary[3] is incorrect, Image:Book of Mozilla 7-15.png does not in fact contain the logo in question (the firefox logo. I don't think the red lizard head is under non-free copyright restrictions like the firefox logo is.) --—Random832 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that the red lizard head (which is in both images) was under the same licence. I might be wrong, though. - Green Tentacle 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion gestapo

Thanks for your help with the Deletion gestapo article. I think as a result of one of your edits, footnote 12 became erroneous/corrupted. Could you fix it? Thanks again... --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

reply to your question from earlier today

Re: Identifying the sock. It has nothing to do with the username at all. It has everything to do with familiarity... simply recognizing the all to easy to spot bad habits of a repeat troll. Look at the user history of Shutup999 (talk · contribs). Then look at the edit history of Zephead999 (talk · contribs)... then look at the edit history of Zubt555 (talk · contribs), Poe76 (talk · contribs), Duff man2007 (talk · contribs)... etc. NOW.... let's go back in time a little... look at the edit history of Zabrak (talk · contribs). Then... back a little further... look at the bad habits of Dragong4 (talk · contribs). Do you see the repetition? It jumps right out at you after a while. I've been catching this particular thorn for a very long time. I can spot his typical editing modus operandi with my eyes closed. That's why the user is tagged and that is why he will be blocked. But... unfortunately as you can see by the editors history.... he will return another day... under another name... and continue to use Wikipedia as his little toybox. He's not the only one. His kind is one in thousands who seek to undermine what Wiki is all about. Sooner or later he will get bored of if(sooner.. hopefully) But until then... it'll be up to regular editors to tag him and see that he doesn't do too much damage. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.158 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And all is well in the Wiki-world ... for now. Shutup999 has been blocked. But that editor will return tomorrow with another name. And we'll have to go through this all over again :D . Isn't Wikipedia fun? My AGF is thin to none on a good day... and I lost my faith in the efficientcy of WP:ANI and WP:AiV and WP:3RR a long time ago. But tonight the system worked and I thank you for copying my little blurb off of your talk page and over to where other eyes could see for themselves. My AGF is a little sturdier this evening so I guess I'll stick around for a few thousand more edits.. :D . Have a nice day and thanks for your assistance in "putting another sock back in the drawer". 156.34.226.99 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland flag

It's not the elements which is the issue but the arrangment of them. You simply can't do an imitation of a copyright image and then argue that since it is not an exact copy there is no infringment. The one is clearly a copy of the other.

We had a vote over which symbol to use some time ago. The Shamrock was the popular choice although not my preference. I do not think that you can simply change that unilaterally with no vote. Without a clear decision on the image's legality, I will vote "no change". No point in putting an image on Wikipedia that will likely be deleted.GordyB 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the flag can be used under "fair use" just as the IRFU logo can be. However "fair use" means that it can only be used on selected pages at the top. You can't use it in a template.GordyB 10:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that it was on Commons.GordyB 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gregoriancalendarleap.png

I found the source. I have a pascal program that outputs a table which I imported into Excel, but it's not doing anything fancy, just using the Gregorian rules, leap days every 4 years, except multiples of 100, but not 400. And then comparing to a constant earth period, 365.2422 days/year. Tom Ruen 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Magic underwear

Re your message: The content I deleted had a reference to Mormons, but there was also an expletive along with it so I deleted it as an attack page. There was no attempt at making actual content, just a cheap shot at Mormons. -- Gogo Dodo 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Asof

Template:Asof has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rocket000 05:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration

Dear Random832/Archive 2, you have been listed as a party in an arbitration request. Please click here for the request. Regards, nat^tang 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

17 reverts

Since you were the only one who bothered to comment on my question in WP:AN/I, I thought I would ask you about it. I replied to your comments but I guess no admin read it. Anyway, I'm still wondering if it's acceptable for users to remove/revert 17 edits by multiple editors just because they didn't like them? My edits (some of the 17 edits that were removed) were referenced from some of the most reliable sources on the topic so it definitely wasn't an issue of vandalism. Also, where is the proper forum to go to in the future if there are other examples of this or WP:OWNERSHIP, since it was obviously not WP:AN/I? –panda 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I didn't know which forum to go to and guessed that maybe it was time for admin intervention since discussions in the talk pages had ceased and my + others edits to the article were promptly removed for no reason. –panda 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your evidence to Alkivar's arbcomm....a couple of the links don't work correctly. --Rocksanddirt 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I like the banner...."notwithstanding the above...." --Rocksanddirt 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Uppercase vs. Bold

"Not a plaintext medium". The operative word there is "medium". Television is also called a "medium", and according to Ernie Kovacs, it's called a "medium" because it is neither rare nor well-done. The fact it takes so long to deal with misbehavior is another example in support of that contention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI semiprotection

WP:ANI#Deathrocker/Daddy Kindsoul/Soprani block evasion, with interventions by several socks of User:Soprani (apparingly sock of User:Deathrocker himself). Feel free to unprotect it if you think my decision is wrong. --Angelo 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. In any case, I still can't unblock it as this user is continuously recreating socks and socks (just blocked another one). --Angelo 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi. User User:Inder315 clearly seems to be a sockpuppet. His acct is just 2 days old and his only contributions are on the Talk:Sonia Gandhi page. I'll keep an eye on him. Chow! Amit@Talk 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Good faith

When the choice is between giving an assumption of good faith to Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, or to Miltopia, editor of Encyclopedia Dramatica and accused troll, I'll side with Jimbo. While Jimbo may have felt it necessary to impose a ban even as he was heading out the door that doesn't mean he didn't spend time considering it before placing it. When someone as respected as Jimbo announces ahead of time that he'll be away from his computer for a few days and requests that his action not be overturned until he returns, it's a clear sign of bad faith to go ahead and overturn it anyway. If folks don't think that Jimbo has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind then perhaps this isn't the best project to devote their volunteer time to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad image?

Re [4] - I made a sucky looking image deliberately! Oh ye of little faith etc etc. Neil ☎ 11:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopiakuta

Hi - unfortunately I don't. I gather you saw where I raised this at AN/I and I also tried here, but I don't think anything has come of it. Perhaps if someone has contacts at the Foundation they'd be interested in pursuing this - I can't really figure out what the problem is, but it became apparent after an initial assumption that it was disruption that actually this was someone who needs some assistance. I just don't know what kind, and really have no expertise in this at all, and wouldn't know where to begin. I hope someone does. Tvoz |talk 00:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)