User talk:Musical Linguist/Archive01

Archive One Archive Two Archive Three Archive Four Archive Five Archive Six Archive Seven Archive Eight Archive Nine Archive Ten

Welcome!

Hello, Musical Linguist, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about you on the page linked below.

As you seem to be new here, as I am, I just wanted to let you know that there is a discussion criticizing the user NCdave at this link --> [1] in the section titled "Response".

I am telling you this because you are being discussed there too, in terms of 'vandalism', which I think is absurd. I just wanted you to know about this since you probably had no reason to look at that page.

My experience here has not been friendly. I observe a high level of bias and institutional thinking here, which I would describe as "pro-Micheal", only for the lack of a better description.

Tropix 20:15, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Reply to your message.

Your message got to me just fine, thanks. Yes, it is shocking. I am amazed at the hostility, ego and bias, and all the energy that is wasted bickering there. I never thought Wikipedia was like this.

By the way, the little "+" button at the top of a user's discussion page opens a screen to send message to a user. That is what I am using right now, and it might draw a section line. Or maybe not. I'm learning too.

(This unsigned message was sent by Tropix at 04:22, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC))

Bananas and Brussel Sprouts

It's so sad to hear that you don't like bananas and brussel sprouts!! My heart aches for you. Hehe. If you want me to upload your picture onto your user page, just leave me a note! --Gerald Farinas 21:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ann, since I opined below, I noticed this here. I too am sad to hear of your disdain with bananas: Indeed! They are quite healthy, but I myself find that raw bananas have a strange "biting" taste, probably because of the high amount of potassium, a very bioactive mineral. (Sometimes I drink calcium-fortified Orange Juice afterwards, and this helps; plus, that affords me more potassium, calcium, vitamin C, and other useful vitamins & minerals.) Brussel sprouts, however, are VERY good.

Let me suggest that being a strict vegetarian, that is, a vegan, is the proper diet. The only pitfalls are difficulty in getting sufficient Vitamin B-12 (get a supplement), and a perceived deficiency of protein. In fact, since I studied health and diet, posted at three mirrors [2], [3], and [4], let me summarize:

Factors in good health include, but are not limited to:

• Stress management (covered in my research, and probably the most important factor; reduction of caloric intake is a "stress-reducing" action and very beneficial as I find in my own research and personal experience)
• Sleep is important, as is moderate exercise of both strength as well as aerobic types
• Diet should not include cows' milk, as it's very unhealthy, and a very poor source of bioavailable calcium, probably the most important mineral for human health. (Mind you, I admit I was surprised when I heard that milk did not "do the body good," but this is correct.)

In short, the support for veganism is found in the Bible's first chapter, Genesis 1:29 and 30, which mentions animals as the "eaters," not the eaten. (We can conclude that eating meat, drinking milk, and divorce -a non-dietary practice -were all three allowed later for the "hardness of the heart" of the people, but not in the original game plan.)

The four classic reasons for being a vegan are:

• 1 - Healthier (objective fact)
• 2 - Tastes better (subjective opinion)
• 3 - More humane to animals (an argument many animal rights activists raise, and supported by Proverbs 12:10 in the Holy Bible)
• 4 - More efficient. To support this last assertion, let me point out that if a thousand calories were consumed by a cow, only about 100 or 200 would be available as edible meat, the bulk of the energy having been expended for items that are inedible, such as bone, gristle, or waster products. So, you can feed more people if they eat fruits and vegetables directly. These matters are explored in my research. I hope this information is helpful for you and for other visitors to your WIKI page. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Page history

Space for histories doesn't seem to be a problem — at least, I've never seen it mentioned as such. There are other reasons for doing a number of small editing jobs in one larger edit; for example, it makes it much less likely that you'll hit an edit conflict (when two editors are trying to save at the same time). I shouldn't worry about it, though. Do whichever you feel more comfortable with. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OTOH, from what I have read (somewhere in the vast world of Wikipedia), every edit leads to a new copy of the page. As Mel pointed out, it's often easier to save edits separately, and it's important if you are on a page that gets a lot of edits (to avoid edit conflicts). However, if you aren't too worried about other editors, you can always do an edit, check it with the "preview" button, and then do another...and end up with only one save (previews don't alter the history). The page length will say a lot about how convenient this is - if it's a long page you might want to edit only a single section - simply to be able to find what you want to work on. Still, I've heard many times that space isn't a big issue on Wikipedia, so you probably don't have to worry about that. Guettarda 21:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(copied from my Talk page)

(Butting in here, again, as people ask more interesting questions on Mel's talk page than on mine). Ann, firstly, diskspace is so incredibly cheap that you could type flat out for your whole life and you wouldn't fill a drive that cost 100 euros; so don't worry about diskspace. This issue of what to do in an individual edit is one purely for the convenience of other people who are reading it. So if you're doing a bunch of fairly trivial tweaks (fixing grammar, spelling, formatting, etc) then do all of those in one go (and give an edit summary like "various grammar and spelling tweaks". If the article needs tweaks and also need a higher-level change (adding or removing a big chunk of text, fixing some wording that you thing is seriously incorrect or misreading) then do the trivial fixes in one edit, and the other fix in another (with an edit summary like "removing nonsense about Father Dougal"). So (in summary) make changes based on what is a logical unit, not what's convenient for the software. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

I don't know if you're still unsure how to up-load images and place them on your user page, but if you are:

1. Click on the Upload file button (over there on the left), and either type the address of your image (or, which is easier, click on 'Browse' to find it on your hard disc), then tick the copyright box, and up-load it. You might find it best to open in a separate window the Copyright tags page, so that it's handy when the image has been successfully up-loaded.
2. When the up-loading is finished, you can click on the 'edit' tab just as if it were an ordinary article, and in the edit area add the correct copyright template, and a description of the image. If it's your graduation photo, I'd guess that you can release it as {{GFDL}}, but have a read through the options.
3. Then add the image to your page. Say it's called "ann_heneghan_graduation.jpg", then you'd probably add [[Image:ann_heneghan_graduation.jpg|thumb|My graduation]] (for "My graduation" enter whatever caption you fancy). Check other pages to see how they deal with images, and you'll get ideas about alternative ways to dispay the image (sizes, etc.).

I hope that that helps. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in again, but if you want to upload images that might be useful to other Wikis (other languages, etc.) you might want to upload to the Wikimedia Commons. If you go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page you can use the same process. Images are presented in exactly the same way in Wikipedia (you don't have to specify that the images are in the Commons), and the advantage is that you don't have to upload the image separately into each Wiki. Guettarda 22:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Scatology, et al

Hello Ann. I agree with you on the use of profanity on the Schaivo page (or anywhere, for that matter). Although I have in the past been fluently profane, I had an epiphany one day at work. A coworker whom I admired and with whom I had socialized and I were in a conversation and I took notice that he never colored his rhetoric. His response was something along the line, "I've never felt the need to use that language to have a conversation." My color went down 95% on the spot.

I still utter the odd epithet, particularly if I stub my toe, or the like, however, I find it very difficult to utter the "F" word anymore, and I definitely don't sprinkle my conversation with it as is the wont of a lot of people.

May I comment? I am on the same page as Duck on both points (of slipping up on occasion and also my views on foul language). I still sometimes utter a cuss word, like D--- or Sh--. I am human, I have to admit. However, I agree with my father's analysis that is it a "feeble attempts of a weak mind to forcibly express itself." (He also thinks it is very offensive.) In other words, Duck's friend is right, and let me augment and expand: If you have a valid point, you don't need to cuss to prove it. (Nonetheless, we are all human and miss the mark sometimes.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I also wanted to point out that I believe you are a little quick to rise to the defense of NCdave. He has pretty much earned the enmity he is receiving. It's unfortunate that he has, and it is unfortunate that he's getting it, but from my perspective, once I've beaten my head against the wall a dozen or more times trying to persuade an intractable someone of the error of their ways, it's difficult for the invective not to elevate. Not that that's an excuse for any of our own lack of control, but it's exceptionally frustrating trying to deal with him.

Well, Ann and Duck, I went back and reviewed a lot of the history of Dave, and I come to the conclusion that he is sometimes long-winded, a little repetitive, and sometimes wants to place an item in a place where it doesn't quite fit. For example: Once, I think he suggested that when Mike Schiavo is introduced as guardian that Dave wanted Mike be described as an unfaithful husband. I have no problem with this edit, but I think it can safely be placed in the disputed items sections (of one reason Mike's appointment as guardian was disputed). However, Dave is very dedicated to fairness and quite smart also. You are highly accurate in your analysis of Dave's edits, his character, and the fairness (or lack therof) of the way he has been treated. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I am not as charitable as you in taking his word that he didn't vandalize, which in fact he did, I have laid low since his appearance because I just don't want to get myself into flame war mode. I'm still trying to get out of it with the Gordon Watts character.

Well, I don't want to provoke or offend you either, Duck, but consider that my Habeas plea was filed in 2003 for Theresa Schiavo, e.g., case SC03-2420 at http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket_search%20 Not only did I get a higher mark on my rehearing motion than did Jeb in his before the same panel (his case was SC04-925), also, the court refused to dismiss my case for well over a year; If my case was bad, it would have been quickly dismissed (some are!), and that by a 7-0 vote, not a 4-3 vote. Therefore, my "notability," as you might call it is greater than what you and others ascribe, and this is justification for me to argue with you and others on that point. (If I didn't argue, it would mean I was OK with denying WIKI readers of relevant facts.) Look again at the Vanity page ... right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_page#Does_lack_of_fame_make_a_vanity_article.3F

...and note that I need not be "rich and famous," as the saying goes. Quoting, WIKI, "[f]urthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject." --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Regards, Duckecho 23:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

Aloha, Ann. I finally tracked down the "to better care for his wife" statement, even though it has been widely quoted by Newsweek and other outlets. It is apparently part of the testimony at the malpractice trial, so at least I now know where to find it. I hope you're doing well. BTW, why don't you like bananas? They're not only fun to eat, but fun to grow as well. --Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. I found the source for the quote here. Obviously, this will need to be confirmed for veracity, but the major news outlets have been using it. Oh, and not all wasps are bad. There are some tame varieties that are very helpful in controlling the insect population. They don't sting me (I've actually held them in my hand) but they do like to sting my neighbor who is very sensitive. I have the opposite problem with mosquitoes; for some reason, I'm always the first person in a group to get bit. --Viriditas | Talk 01:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ann, your help is requested with getting the autopsy report edited into the article. patsw 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Duckecho's talk page

I was replying to something on Duckecho's talk page when I saw this from you:

that FuelWagon made five edits [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tropix&action=history) to Tropix's user page, accusing him of being a sockpuppet (first vandalism), or a suspected sockpuppet (the other four vandalisms). The evidence [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive19#User_Tropix_a_possible_sock_puppet_--_No.) and [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FuelWagon&oldid=12203581) seemed to be simply that his edits showed considerable Wikipedian skill for an alleged newcomer. Placing a sockpuppet image on his user page seems spiteful and childish,

And I thought you might want to know that the reason I though Tropix was a sock puppet was in part because viriditas said he thought Tropix was a sock puppet on my talk page here at 11:44. I posted on Tropix's page "this user is a sockpuppet" at 11:52. My mistake was tagging his page as an identified sockpuppet. According to this a suspected sock puppet should be tagged with a template, which I changed it to later that same day (those four edits you called vandalism). That is what you're supposed to do with a suspected sockpuppet. That's what I did. It turns out he wasn't, but his behaviour and his edits and the timing when he showed up caused at least one other person to believe him to be a sockpuppet for NCdave. So, no it wasn't being spiteful or childish, it was dealing with what seemed to be a legitimate problem from NCdave, and trying to deal with it in the way that wikipedia protocol says about suspected sock puppets. I didn't get it right at first, but I had the correct "suspected sock puppet" template by the end of the day. I thought we sorted out that he wasn't a sockpuppet and that the template should be taken off his page. As far as I know, Tropix and I are cool with this. You on the other hand, have apparently been begrudging me for something that's 5 weeks old, that's "over" as far as I knew (as far as I thought Tropix was over it), and you barf it up on someone's talk page. If you've got a problem with me, you come see me, don't go nattering off on someone else's page like some old gossip. And before you go accuse someone of being childish, spiteful, or committing vandalism, make sure it doesn't happen to be following wikipedia rules for reporting possible problems. FuelWagon 00:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I also want to apologize to FuelWagon, as I had no idea he would act on my allegation. --Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, I take complete responsibility for putting the sockpuppet template on Tropix's page. He fit the definition at the time, and the response was following wikipedia's instructions as best I could to deal with it. As far as I know Tropix isn't begrudging me about it now. My only bone is having people gossip that it was out of spite or childishness. FuelWagon 21:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I will make an attempt to be more careful in the future. --Viriditas | Talk 06:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Background to above message

I have been extremely busy (and tired) in the last few weeks, but do not wish to leave this unanswered.

For the benefit of anyone who may be browsing these pages, FuelWagon was referring to my reply on 19 May to a message Duckecho had sent to me on 17 May. Duckecho thought I was too quick to defend NCdave, and I stated that I had found the atmosphere hostile towards anyone who seemed to support the Schindlers. I gave as an example the way Tropix was treated. Tropix had made some edits to the Terri Schiavo page which suggested that he might be pro-life. I don't actually know if he is or not. There are some people involved with this article who have the POV that the removal of Terri's feeding tube was right, and that there are others who believe it was wrong. Tropix did not make edits to the effect that Michael strangled Terri, or that Terri was fully aware of her surroundings. The style of his edits was completely different from that of NCdave. He argued that the POV tag should remain on the article, but never placed it there himself. He defended NCdave in the Requests for Comment page. I think that he, like me, would have wanted the article to say that Terri was diagnosed as being in a PVS (rather than that she was in one), that uncorroborated statements from Michael Schiavo should not read as X happened, but rather as Michael said that X happened, that it was unfair to point out possible bias or flaws in the doctors who testified that Terri was not in a PVS state, while ignoring the fact that Dr Cranford (who testified that she was) was known to be linked to euthanasia organizations, etc. Tropix always remained calm and polite. He did not rant or engage in revert wars.

Tropix arrived on 9 April. He seemed to be good at the technical side of Wikipedia editing. It must be pointed out that some users (myself included) make a few edits under an IP address before they decide to register. Therefore, they already know a little bit about things like filling in the edit summary boxes, etc. He did apparently ask JYolkowski, who had posted a welcome message, how to get to people's talk pages. He seems to have done this through the "e-mail this user" link; the reply is here [5].

On 11 April at 05.23, FuelWagon posted a message to Tropix's talk page[6]; he posted a second one at 05.41[7]. He would presumably have seen the message from JYolkowski referred to above, answering a new-user query. That message suggests that Tropix was not completely familiar with Wikipedia (unless he was being really cunning and using his question to mislead people). Later that day, at 11.44, Viriditas posted a message to FuelWagon [8], saying that his guess was that Tropix was a sockpuppet, that he was clearly an experienced user, and that his edits did not seem to be helping Wikipedia. Eight minutes later, without asking Tropix about his status, without replying to Viriditas (unless through private e-mail), presumably without consulting an admin to ask advice about how much grounds for suspicion there should be before the template is used, Fuel Wagon placed a "this user is a sockpuppet" notice on Tropix's page [9]. Later that day, he edited Tropix's user page four more times, as can be seen in the [10]. These edits changed "is a sock puppet" to "suspected sockpuppet", and inserted a picture of a sockpuppet. His final edit was made at 18.04; this left the image and the words "suspected sockpuppet" in place.

At 22.46 that day, FuelWagon sent a message to Tropix's talk page [11] saying, "First of all, are you a sock puppet?" Tropix replied at 22.57, [12] saying that he didn't understand the question. FuelWagon replied [13] at 23.04, referring him to a link which explained sockpuppet. Tropix replied at 23.15,[14] denying that he was a sockpuppet. FuelWagon was obviously still online, as he sent another message to Tropix at 23.33 [15]. Then, at 23.43, FuelWagon posted a message [16] to the Terri Schiavo Talk Page under the heading "User Tropix a possible sock puppet". (The whole thread can be seen in Archive 19 of the talk page.)

Tropix sent a message to FuelWagon's talk page at 23.48 [17] saying, "Thank you for answering and OK, I will take your sockpuppet question as legitimate. I am not a vandal, and I am using only one account as 'Tropix'." He may not have seen the message that FuelWagon had posted five minutes earlier to the Terri Schiavo talk page, and he was probably also unaware of the sockpuppet image, which was still on his user page. FuelWagon sent another message to Tropix on 12 April at 00.01 [18].

In the next hour, Tropix seems to have discovered the message from Viriditas, mentioned above[19]; and the User-Tropix-a-possible-sock-puppet message from FuelWagon to the Terri Schiavo talk page.[[20]] At 00.22 on 12 April, he wrote, "FuelWagon has made a ridiculous assertion (except for the compliments, which are well-taken, but just barely). I have just one account 'Tropix', and I log in like just like everyone here is supposed to do. If I am a fast learner it is just because I am trying to do this right. I have been trying to communicate in a useful way with FuelWagon on his talk page with, unfortunately, no productive results. Then I come here and see the above. A nice introduction." [21]. More messages followed (including two from FuelWagon). At 00.47, Tropix added the word "no" to the heading [22]

He then seems to have gone to FuelWagon's talk page. His next message, at 00.56 [23], is underneath Viriditas's message, and seems to be directed at both of them. "Boy, you guys are something else ... I am not an "experienced Wikipedian" nor a "sockpuppet", and I can't imagine what makes you think so and talk like this." He may not have known, even then, about the sockpuppet image on his user page. FuelWagon was apparently still online, but making no attempt to remove the template; he replied to Tropix at 01.13 [24]. By 02.52 on 12 April, Tropix had become aware of the sockpuppet on his user page. He wrote (to the Terri Schiavo talk page, but obviously directed at FuelWagon): "Please stop hassling me, as with the sock puppet that has been placed on my talk page. That is childish witchhunting, and no way to get my respect." [25] FuelWagon may have logged off at that stage. The sockpuppet template was finally removed by Viriditas [26] at 12.49 on 12 April. AnnH ^(talk)

Notes and Grammar posts; your opinion sought.

When I was replying to the NCdave controversy, I noticed comments on your user page about grammar. Although I was trained in Biology and Chemistry at The Florida State University, nonetheless, I pride myself in my good abilities in proper English.

• First, I will briefly comment on your post about liking semicolons: I sometimes find that they make my sentence structure more clear to the reader; therefore, I will use this paragraph as a typical example of how I sometimes squeeze in semicolons to my writings.

• Next, I want to thank you for clarifying why phrases such as "between you and I" are improper. I have long been annoyed by people who said things like that, and I suggested that this was improper, because it might be "between you and someone else," but it can NEVER be between "I and you," thus suggesting that you can't reverse the words to for the "you and I phrase."

However, I never knew the exact grammatical reason for this, but the link you provided clarified the distinction between normative and accusative pronouns.

• Also, you mention "oxford commas." I didn't know what they were, but I have always agreed that the comma should go after ALL the items in a series, even the last item, which sometimes doesn't have a comma. Just like the article suggests, it reduces ambiguity, but to me it is also more complete and follows a predictable rule, with less "exceptions" to remember.

• Finally, I see you don't mention it, but another pet peeve of mine is the practice of people ending sentences (or phrases) with prepositions. A funny anecdote of this phenomenon is found on the above link in WIKI, which I quote here: Winston Churchill is said to have received a memo, clumsily phrased to avoid ending sentences with prepositions, and to have put in the margin the parody: "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put!"

I guess only country bumpkins will accept nonsense like this, which I will not put up with (except here in this example).

• However, another grammatical faux pas about which I have heard is the split infinitive, about which I do not have the same lack of approval. Quoting from the WIKI page, I find: In the 19th century, some grammatical authorities sought to introduce a prescriptive rule that split infinitives should not be used in English. Most authorities from the last 100 years, however, agree that this rule was misguided, and indeed that splitting an infinitive can sometimes reduce ambiguity.

It is safe to say that I would fall into the latter camp, which accept the split infinitive as acceptable, even though it's use would change the meaning of the sentence slightly.

What are your views and opinions on my analyses of the use of prepositions and of split infinitives? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 00:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Delay in replying to messages

I am finishing a compulsory final assignment for a university course at the moment, and can give little attention to Wikipedia in the next week. I may, as a break from my studies, take an occasional look at the articles and talk pages that I am interested in, and but am unlikely to contribute anything other than very brief comments or edits. I apologize for ignoring people on my talk page, but will reply to messages or comment on them here when I have submitted my assignment. AnnH ^(talk) 22:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements

Well, Ann, I have a very strong feeling about the Schiavo case, but I flatter myself to believe that I try very hard to keep an open mind. For example, I hope you will agree that my response to you and Patsw regarding the bulimia had zero POV in it, just facts. With regard to the article on the Terri Schiavo case, that's all I care about. And I believe that my edits regarding that case are consistent in that regard. I have spent a considerable amount of time reading the court orders and other factual articles. I have a very good command of how the legal system processed this case. My only POV in that regard is that, reading the orders, I come away admiring the work that they did. This is irrespective entirely of the outcome. Even the judge that dissented in one of the FL SC cases was articulate, cogent, lawyerly, professional.

The very first document I read was Jay Wolfson's report (the 3rd GAL). I was very impressed by it, and took him at his word that these (the Schiavos and the Schindlers) were nice people caught up in a tragic, tragic case. That was complemented very well by a remark my wife made at about the same time. This was in the middle of March when the legal proceedings and press conferences were ubiquitous. She, however, was utterly disinterested. I also must point out that she is an RN of some 35 years experience, so she fully comprehended the import of the PVS. Because she has a very astute barometer of character, I asked her to look at a short broadcast segment featuring the Schindlers. After looking at it (and knowing some of the background of the case generally) she immediately assessed, "there are two parents who can't accept that their daughter is gone." That was spot on and I fully agree with her. It's the genesis of virtually all of the fifteen years of acrimony.

I experienced a similar scenario when my younger brother died ten years ago (aged 47). He had cancer and was gone in about six months from diagnosis to death. I very nearly missed being at his side when he died (I had to make arrangements to travel from Chicago to Miami; some 1500 miles) because throughout the ordeal my mother was in denial about his prognosis and did not communicate the gravity of his situation nor proximity of his demise.

My mother cannot accept it to this day. One section of her home is a shrine to my brother. I'm not talking about a few pictures. I'm talking about virtually every single picture (many duplicates), every award, every get well card she was able to collect when we cleaned out his apartment. She, too, has not come to terms with his passing. It's an unnatural act in the order of life for offspring to predecease their parents. The Schindlers are in the same category. They and my mother are not able to rationally manage their emotions on the matter. Sadly in their case, they have not chosen wisely their counsellors.

Now, to the order of business. Gordon and NCdave are not about putting together an NPOV article. Dave has his Michael-as-satan agenda and he pushes every phony conspiracy theory in the blogosphere as the reality that the article should be. He cannot stay on point in a discussion and he refuses to accept documentation that disproves his theories.

Gordon not only cannot stay on point in a discussion, he is a poseur who insists that he is a major player in the case, must be so acknowledged, and has equally unfounded theories as Dave. The only difference is that occasionally he concedes a point. Unfortunately we all suffer when he does because he then goes off with even more bombast and self aggrandizing than before. Witness the biblical exercise today (Thursday). And are you not sick of hearing about his unsuccesful visit with the supreme court?

It's those activities that try my patience. I don't have an issue with them raising a point once or twice, but when cites are given, they just sort of slide out of the way and attack the same point slightly differently (and sometimes not differently at all). When another editor can't even come on to the talk page and follow a thread because it's been so vandalized with POV breast beating I feel it's time to take some action. Yes, I did think it was funny. They cannot be taken seriously. So why treat them seriously? was my frame of mind.

Worse, without editors having to continually try to keep their edits within bounds, we face the prospect of a thoroughly polluted article, which ill serves all of us.

Now, I decided earlier this evening to take a timeout from the article and the talk page for a few hours (overnight, at least), and your point is taken with regard to the characterization there of the parties in question. I'll manage my own talk page quite well by myself, thank you.

Good luck on your assignment. I don't envy you the time and effort, but I'm sure the result will compensate.

By the way, if we're going to continue these lengthy missives, we may want to consider private email. My throwaway address is [email protected] . Oh, I'm in North Florida (Eastern Time Zone). Regards. Duckecho 03:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Ann, I have spotted the outbreak of controversy, and I think I'll reprint it here, just as a spare copy --good luck on your tests --rest assured, all will be well, and your efforts to resolve disagreements is admirable. Since I think NCdave once told me that he perceived you as having sided with the US court system in their decisions, Ann, I think you are certainly a good, open-minded neighbor to defend those on the other side. Here's the re-print, which, after all parties have looked at it, can safely be deleted to save space if you'd like: --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC) (please see below)

Sandbox - general reccomendations & suggestions

Since I see the sand bowl blowing, I'll make a sandbox to try to have a place to address the wind storm:

EXCESS QUANTITY: First, I may have been a little at fault of the "excess quantity" of clutter for being long-winded, but 1,000,000 questions (by duck and others) deserve 1,000,000 answers that are detailed.

"Quality:" As far quality of a few remarks I made, YES, they were directed at Duck who asked, and theists, in general who might find them helpful. To that end, they were a little clutter, but I limited my Biblical Canonical comments, so don't worry about that.

General Recommendations: If Duck or others think that the board is cluttered, remember!! --cyberspace is rather limitless: We could each have our own sub-header --or our OWN PAGE, for that matters. So, his idea of a sandbox is not a bad idea.

Yes, there were some attacking comments, like that 25% figure, and that vandalism comment, that looked like they were aimed in my direction. However, I think that if we all strive to make (a) Brief (b) Polite and (c) On-topic replies, this will subside. (Proof of that theorem is the fact that such comments of sandbox creation have not been surfaced in recent times; The human DNA is strong enough to permit rational logic and cool heads, trust me: That was my specialty at FSU.)

Now, my only objections to sandbox activity would be that it would tend to confuse editors who want to go looking for something on the talk page. ("Huh? Why's that here?" -sort of thing.) Also, there is the possibility that posts could be accidentally deleted -or duplicated. So, instead of moving someone else's post, sometimes it's best to run to a less populated place. I forgot to mention: While I was certainly annoyed by some comments, I'm not mad at you, Duck, or anyone, for that matter --at least not here on these pages and boards. You can trust that, for all my opinions and views, I am not easily offended, so don't even sweat it for a second.

Notice here that I am "practicing what I preach." I have run to a less-populated place --AND (more importantly), I DON'T tamper with or disturb (read: delete) others' posts -no matter how much I might dislike their illogical point of view. NEWS FLASH: I survived the posts that others posted, and so can you. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Whig RfC

You probably realised that you'd caught me away from the computer (I had to go to London for the day). I've never actualy closed an RfC, so I'll have to read up on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

More TS disagreements

Well, Ann, I thought that you were focused on removing bias or unsubstantiated remarks on the Terri Schiavo page, but I see by the following that you are an anti-Terri partisan. I'm disappointed.

I almost wasn't going to respond, as I posted answers to these questions on the talk page, but my conscience compels me: I don't see how any of these statements or questions would show that Ann is biased. (By "anti-Terri," I think Duck means that he thinks you would have been in favor of feeding Terri and getting her medical help, in spite of the court's ruling that these were not her wishes. I've seen him use "anti" in to mean this before, but that was a long time ago.)

Am I correct in thinking that a pdf document takes up more space on a server than a html or txt document? And wouldn't that mean that it's more expensive?

A pdf probably would take up more space. I downloaded all the ones I could from AbstractAppeal and I have pdf documents ranging in size from 21 kb to 8+ mb. The largest HTML file in that collection is around 40 kb. Depending on how busy their server is and how many downloads occur, it could get expensive, although that's a relative term. I don't know what their bandwidth costs are, but it's cheap compared to protracted litigation.

You are right, Duck, and said the same thing in my post, which was posted after your answer here, but I had not seen it and came to the same conclusions: [27]

Remember that the Schindlers were ordinary middle class people who had to mortgage their house in the fight to save their daughter's life,

Okay, I guess if you have an anti-Terry POV, it would manifest itself that way. Since we're discussing it, I came to the sad realization early on that they were basically unable to come to terms with the reality that their daughter no longer existed. She essentially died on that apartment floor in 1990. I have some experience in this regard, as I related to you in my earlier communiqué to you (still on your page above). The reality is that they fought Michael's effort to carry out Terri's wish not to be kept alive artificially. Your POV, I'm sure, will not permit you to view it that way, but it was thoroughly litigated and that is the fact of law. To deny that is to buy into the idea that Judge Greer was bought and paid for.

That is neither anti, nor pro: It is a mere statement of fact. For one thing, if she died in 1990, then why didn't they bury her? (Answer: She didn't die then.) Further, Ann's statement about the poverty of Terri's parents is neither an admission nor a rebuttal of the hypothesis of whether or not Greer was bribed and paid off. Lastly, being fed by a feeding tube may seem to some to be artificial, but standard food and water is not artificial; if it were, you could be starved oh, so easily.

while their opponent had unlimited access to his wife's medical fund to be able to fight them off.

And if they hadn't been so selfish (see Wolfson's report about their stated intent to keep her body alive at all costs—even if deteriorating health necessitated one (or up to four) amputations) and unrealistic, they wouldn't have forced Michael to have to defend Terri. The reality is that it wasn't his wife's medical fund. It was the jury award to her from the malpractice trial. Those awards have no contingencies as to use. In any event, those funds were used in the fight to carry out her wishes, obviously a legitimate use of them, or the court would not have permitted their use. To deny that is to buy into the idea that Judge Greer was bought and paid for.

If it truly were her wishes, no matter what a doctor said about experimental treatment (Wagon's theory), then Mike Schiavo would have told the court his wife's wishes right then. Also, the statement of fact about Mike Schiavo having access to large sums of money is a statement of fact -and, as such, is neither pro, nor anti.

...you'll just have to take my word for it that many (not all) of these documents were there originally as pdf.

Sorry, I wouldn't take my mother's word on that.

Duck, you are right in not jumping to conclusions, but you are wrong to disbelieve Ann. She has no reason or motive to lie. Furthermore, I too saw the "Mele" affidavit in PDF format. Since I uploaded it to WIKI and posted a link, this proves Ann is right. You owe her an apology for disbelieving her -and you also were wrong to claim she was biased or "anti-Terri," as you put it, simply because she said that she remembered seeing this affidavit, which, in fact, did exist, as i proved by uploading a copy from my computer to WIKI -and posting the link.

That is not to say that something unverifiable should be inserted into the article, but it is just to answer what seems to be a suggestion on the talk page that the reason the documents are html is that they have been forged.

Ann, you are right: We should not edit the article and make statements than can not be verified.

That's my suggestion and I stand by it although I believe I've qualified it so that your statement should say, "that they may have been forged." I have done a considerable amount of HTML work and I know how dirt easy it is to create something that looks legitimate. I've seen the documents to which you refer, and they are plain, unattributed text. Is that the sort of evidence you would make a life or death decision on?

Duck is right: HTML docs can easily be forged by simple text editing! However, since you told him that you read the document (in the talk page), I don't understand why he disbelieved you. Perhaps you didn't see her post, but in fact, she posted at slightly after midnight Universal time, BEFORE you posted here, and gave her word that "...you'll just have to take my word for it that many (not all) of these documents were there originally as pdf."

The other common characteristic of those files is that they appear nowhere else but the anti-Terri blogosphere.

Duckecho 04:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Falso: I found the document in PDF format, which is strong proof that the HTML docs in the "blogosphere" were not false. Look in talk: I've uploaded it to WIKI.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your congratulations, and thanks also for supporting my RFA; I really appreciate it. I've been having lots of fun this afternoon (Eastern time zone) being able to revert vandalism with a single click (-:

That's neat how you were able to find a website for your course from the links on my site. I've occasionally had the experience of finding something I'm looking for serendipitously on the web too. Funny how that can happen sometimes, isn't it? JYolkowski // talk 19:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The post that [I] removed

I'm glad you got your project done. I can't respond to the other aspects you raised due to rude, boorish onlookers who feel compelled to respond to me on your talk page. I would be glad to email my sentiments if you send me one at [email protected]. Duckecho 14:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Filioque

Dear Ann,

I had a shot (on the B16 page).

I rephrased this into

...in which the famous "filioque" clause ("and the Son") is quietly ommitted. The changed Latin sentence reads "Et in Spiritum Sanctum (...), qui ex Patre procedit" ("and in the Holy Spirit (...), who proceeds from the Father") instead of "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" ("who proceeds from the Father and the Son"). ...

This addresses all your four points, only the implied "I believe" is not explained in the text, though I'm not sure whether this is needed.

My former edits on this where only looking at the upper/lower case thing. And if it is "Spiritum Sanctum" it must be "Patre" and "Filio(que)".

I share your ill-feeling towards the mistranslation.

Your understanding of the issue is quite right. The original Nicean creed had only "proceeds from the Father" - the inclusion of the Son however is used by some Church Fathers (don't know which ones) and was later gradually adopted by the Western Churches (first the Spanish Churches, than the Frankish Churches (under Charlemagne) and than the Roman Church (under the influence of Emperor Henry II)), probably to combat a subordinationist mis-interpretation of the creed. However, the Eastern Churches have rejected this unilateral act as conflicting with provisions of the Council of Ephesus. So the opposition was mainly on the formal level until the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople claimed a difference in substance, in order to paint his Roman adversaries as heretics. I think, it was also him who came up with the wording "from the Father through the Son" in order to phrase the supposed difference, so of course he didn't change the text. Attempts of reconciliation have basically always interpreted the Western "and the Son" as equaling the Eastern "through the Son". These reunions were, whenever they were achieved, short-lived.

The ommission in Dominus Iesus might be a gesture of ecumenism towards the Eastern Churches. However, it also backfired, since some Protestant leaders in Germany complained about the ommission and denounced it as tampering with the creed. (This was a very hilarious complaint coming from Peter Steinacker. I won't get into details about him. If you want to know more, please tell me.)

Str1977 21:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Ann! I know this is a bit overdue, but I wanted to thank you for your support vote on my RFA. Thanks to you and everyone else who supported me, I am now an admin! I have used my new powers to help further Wikipedia as a whole, and I want to thank you for being part of the reason why. Thanks! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Steinacker

Dear Ann,

thanks for your note - I can relate to what your saying: editing really takes over. I can imagine what it's like over at Terri's - I myself am a bit wrapped up in other places (Ludwig Kaas, Centre Party etc)

About Steinacker:

of course, I see this all through catholic-coloured glasses, and maybe he is not the arch-liberal (always understood as theological liberal, for lack of a better current term, the former ones are considered inflammatory nowadays ;-)) I think he is - there may be worse ones out there.

Steinacker is the president of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Hessen and Nassau (evangelical (Evangelisch) here doesn't mean what it means in English (Evangelikal), basically it means Protestant) - this church is covering Wiesbaden, Darmstadt, Frankfurt, Gießen.

His picture is here: http://www.ekhn.de/bilder/portraits/steinacker_peter.jpg

Maybe one could compare him with the American Bishop Spong, but without the charisma and the crazy ideas.

In fact he is all grey in grey.

When the regional Hessen TV did a series on Church leaders in Hessen (3 catholic bishops, 2 protestant bishops/presidents), Kamphaus of Limburg was talking about spirituality and practical charity, Dyba (rawwww! and RIP) of Fulda about his years in Africa and fighting abortion, Lehmann of Mainz talked about liturgy, theology and ABBA, the Protestant bishop of Kassel talked about Luther and Steinacker talked about money, finances and budget problems and nothing else.

But then he was the sole representative for Christianity on another show on the same programme and portrayed all his beliefs as the beliefs of all Christianity (except for homosexual blessings - he only said that it is not a sin in his church.)

Anyway, imagine this guy suddenly writing an letter to a national newspaper, in which he complained about no less than good ol' Cardinal Ratzinger, "chief inquisitor" and "nemesis of all liberty" (not his words), and of his straying from the truth of the faith and pandering to the eastern schismatics.

And then he sent him to the stake. - Well, no, he didn't.

It was a very bizarre thing to read.

Str1977 20:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please remove all of my comments when you have a chance.

You may also consider withdrawn my offer of backchannel colloquy. I had been laboring under a misapprehension that there may have been some common ground that we could exploit without airing minor disagreements in public. However, we are too far apart on the singular issue of philosophy regarding the Terri Schiavo matter and far too far apart on the understanding of the facts. I don't apologize for my remarks elsewhere—I stand by my sentiment for self evident reasons. You have let your POV get in the way of producing a good document. Good luck with your health. Duckecho 03:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comments from A ghost

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:'Quote of the month' - By your request, M'Lady. The quote was not intended as a slight ot any indiviual. If it was, I'd have inserted a name, or link. But I'd rather not make you think differently. Bright Blessings--ghost 04:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Per your minor edit, you may want to check out this. I've recently taken up a concept of "reading" for the enemy. The guys are giving me flack, but they'll get over it. Please let me know other issues you'd like too see addressed. I don't mind walking in your shoes, but they don't seem to fit well... ;-) Oh, and I'm glad to see someone else can't stand Wasps. I guess they have their place, just as long as it's not within a km of me or my kids. Bright Blessings--ghost 5 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Hi, Ann. Good to hear from you. Like you, I think that every editor of every POV should have a voice. And I have no interest in any of those voices being silenced. My years of choral singing taught me that the Higher Beauty of Music is served best when all voices are lifted, even if they sing different parts. In fact, it's often more beautiful when they do. (I'm a big fan of Chanticleer.)

As to my issues with one of the editors recently: I expect a higher standard from those that lead. And IMHO, the person you mentioned as behaved just as poorly as the person they chastized. Don't get me wrong, the chastizment was well deserved, and the behavior on the pages has benefitted. But then, the person that was punished attempted to make make good and made public apologies. These efforts were treated with a level of contempt that I find shocking from leadership. It was followed with a withdraw from the efforts to fix the real issues with a backhanded slap to everyone involved. I may call the efforts of other editors alot of things. But I would never belittle a hard-working group of editors in such a callous manner. So, the tone you saw wasn't one of anger. I'm simply saddened and disappointed by someone I'd put alot of hope in. But it's in the past, and will be forgiven in time. Bright Blessings to you and yours, M'Lady.--ghost 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on the assignment, btw. We'll have to chitchat about it at some point.--ghost 22:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Support

I think your mediation summary catches my problem with the "Michael Schiavo gets to the write the article" issues in the Terri Schiavo article. There's my issue which I guess that was dropped in the reboot of the mediation -- do the legal arguments and public statements of the Schindlers get any presentation in the article? I don't have the time to commit to this, and I applaud you for hanging in. It can take 20 mins. to get a source right, and then it takes 2 secs. to delete it from the article. The pro-Michael abuses civil people like you and me because they are well-practiced in the art of Wiki-intimidation. They wore me out: The "wedding vows" quote which is cited all over the public published discussion and pleadings in the guardianship cases was deleted several times. Whenever I addressed a reason for one of the pro-Michael cabal for deleting it, they could always find another. If they were honest they could just say "We're not letting that in. We're in charge." patsw 29 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration against User:JarlaxleArtemis

This message is to inform you that a Request for Arbitration has been initiated against the user JarlaxleArtemis. Since you have previously been the target of this user's alleged attacks, you are invited to join yourself to the proceedings and/or present evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2/Evidence. —Psychonaut 29 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

RE: (Reverting to SlimVirgin - can't see what was wrong with that edit)

The answer is spelled out fairly clearly on the Talk Page. FuelWagon 21:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Your input is requested at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. Uncle Ed 19:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Uthar

Thanks for your help, but I don't see any vandalism by Uthar in my talk page edit history. However, he did violate the 3RR five times on Terri Schiavo. --Viriditas | Talk 23:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the vandalism to my user page, Ann. You're absolutely right: he tricked me into thinking it was a spelling fix, and I never actually checked the page, other than my watchlist. I can't believe I fell for that.  :-) Thanks again, Ann. I owe you one.--Viriditas | Talk 09:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have removed some entries under the "evidence of disputed behaviour" that had been inserted by another editor that went beyond the original intent of the RFC. I have ammended the summary of the RFC to list its two specific goals: that SlimVirgin's edit contains too many errors to be reinserted into the article and that she has held herself above any criticism of her edit. There seemed to be a misunderstanding of the scope of the RFC. Hopefully this clarifies. FuelWagon 19:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

NCdave rfc

So, I don't even remember this discussion. I looked at your diffs, and your explanation, and if I understand you correctly, NCdave didn't mean to edit anonymously. However, it is his edit that is inserting the NPOV tag, correct? I modified the RFC to take out the reference to NCdave doing the edit anonmymously on purpose, but I left in his attempt to insert the NPOV tag, because if it was NCdave, it is still relevant to his RFC. The diff is here.

Is this an accurate reporting of facts? FuelWagon 06:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I, Robot

Thanks for noticing... I'll be glad to help you, but in fact all you have to do is go to Ergative verb; it will redirect to Unaccusative verb, but you'll see at the top a little message saying "(Redirected from Ergative verb)". If you click on that, it will take you to the redirect page, and you can edit it as you please, removing the #REDIRECT [[Unaccusative verb]], and adding your text. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

• Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo

Thanks for your note, Ann. I'm going to continue to keep an eye on the article and talk page, just not the mediation. My only interest in the article is to make sure others are allowed to edit it, and that includes you, so you shouldn't feel hesitant to do so (easy to say, I know). Regarding personal attacks, there's no particular place, but it would be appropriate to leave a report on WP:AN/I, which is the place for general incident reports. I'll take a look at Uthar's latest contribution. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Infant Communion

It is absurd to deny that scrupulosity prevented many people from receiving the Eucharist, when the Church, herself, admits that. Check your history. Most people thought they were simply unworthy to receive. [Unsigned at 01:08, 26 July 2005 by Sophroniscus]

Hi Ann: I hope that you will respond to Sophroniscus with more courtesy than he has shown to you. I have found it constructive to cite specific sources for challenged assertions. With luck, Sophroniscus will bring his arguments to the talk page. He is a relative newcomer to Wikipedia so I hope that we can help him to behave more collaboratively. —Theo (Talk) 01:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Curious... --Sophroniscus 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems that I was mistaken. Sophroniscus had already commented on the talk page. I have apologised to him. —Red-faced Theo (Talk) 16:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Our Lady of Mount Carmel

Thanks for your edit. I really need to do more work on that page... --Sophroniscus 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OU

I was warmed to see the familiar turquoise on your User page. —Theo (Talk) 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Kate's tool lists breakdown

Earlier you wondered if SlimVirgin's edit count of a certain editor referred to the number of articles edited. Because of this, I then wondered if she was able to see a breakdown on the types of articles. Well, admins don't get special privileges here: Anyone can see a breakdown, so the Duck probably did really only make about 213 edits at the time she wrote, when you count edits only to articles. His current count is like 218, and his total count is like 667. Go to my own count at Kate's tool ,and see that I've only made about 164 edits to articles, but about 573 to "article" talk pages -and about another 294 to "User" talk pages, with about a total of "Total edits for GordonWattsDotCom: 1119." -uh, 1,120, when I make this edit here.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your support on the RfC. I couldn't thank you earlier because Agriculture and -Ril- ganged up on anyone I talked to (or edited) like SlimVirgin, but she held her own. --Noitall 04:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

[28]

Smart. Thoughtful My thanks.--Tznkai 17:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)