User talk:NigelR/Archive2

This is an archive of my talk page for September 2006. Leave new messages at my talk page.

---

Excess links removed

Hi NigelR, I notice you have been revising a number of pages related to Devon locations, removing what you describe as excess links.

Please can you explain how you determine what is in excess, which links are to be removed, and which Wikipedia guidelines apply? Regards, Lynbarn 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, thanks for the explanation. I don't necessarily want to reverse your changes, just understand the rationale behind them! I'll bear the guidelines you referred to in mind with my own edits.

Many thanks, regards, Lynbarn 07:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nigel, I was surprised when you mentioned how many links there were, as I had certainly not made that many, and would have been very surprised if anyone else had! When I checked, however it seems that the majority are from a single reference in the transcluded "Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth" item - intended to link the various articles related to the historic L&B to current activities aimed at reinstating the line. It may be that the other railways you mention do not have so many other articles that relate to them in a similar way. Bearing this in mind, and with no criticism intended, I am reluctant to instantly remove all those links at the behest of just a single wikipedian, and would like to wait for a while to see if any similar concerns are raised by others. Regards, Lynbarn 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, Just seen and replied to your general post on this - good idea to put it there. Thanks, Lynbarn 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi NigelR, I noticed that external links to where2golf.com resulting in "no results", were added on pages such as : Auguste Boyer; Martini International; German Open; Marcel Dallemagne. I made some corrections (which were not activated) and thought that the external link to where2golf would also be valid and useful for all other golf professionals who won a tournament either on the European or US Tour. Of course I will stop adding them if Wikipedia considers this as spamming. I am currently looking at which professionals Wikipedia does not cover and plan to upload their bio in the near future with an external link to Where2Golf if that is OK?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [email protected] (talk • contribs) 07:30, 1 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Reads Like Corporate PR Statement

Hi NigelR, I am new. You suggested deleting my entry for "registered agent" citing "Reads as Corporate PR Statement", however I didn't specify any particular company over another. I just figured it made sense to include the "major players" that perform this service - just as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Cars includes links to "General Motors", "DaimlerChrysler", etc. (Also note that both of those companies are represented by one of the commercial links you purged - there is function in there. Also, it states that any attorney or accountant can act as an agent but no particular attorney or accountant is specified. I was trying to create a non-biased definition since virtually all definitions of "registered agent" on the internet are biased towards a particular service company and therefore in question. Please advise a "wiki friendly" way to make the page non-commercial and if possible include links to the major players without offending the wiki gods. (I tried to include them all so that there couldn't be any allegation of bias) - Dougieb Dougieb 18:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This is my first venture into Wiki so I'm still figuring things out - and sticking with what I know for the moment (lol). I would at some point like to put a list of links somewhere of at least the top-4 or 5 service providers (by volume) since those 4 or 5 companies represent just about every corporation from Chipotle to Intel. The reason is that for example, even though CT (Corporation Trust Company) is the largest agent, they don't really show up in Google or Yahoo searches for "registered agent" - same thing with CSC (Corporation Service Company). i don't know why this is - I guess SEO is not a high priority for them or something. (BTW, I have no affiliation with either of these two companies). I do understand the encyclopedia end of it though. I can't wait to see Wiki in another 20 years - dang! Dougieb 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

editing talk

Hi - thanks for message - but as long as it's not illegal or hiding anything I'll carry on editing my talk page - nice to keep things tidy. - Tony —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony in Devon (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Bizarreness

Hi. What do you think of the bizarre comment left on my user page (I moved to talk): User_talk:Lozleader#Comment_left_on_User_Page Vandalism? Personal attack? Best to ignore? I presume they obiect to the removal of some or other spam links. Lozleader 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this and took a look. It's interesting to note that User:Aleximpure doesn't exist: the strange user just edited the page arbitrarily. Life is pretty good, thanks, and I hope it goes well for you too. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have its origins in this edit [1] which added the text:

Alex Impur's college of choice since 2004.

Which I subsequently removed. Lozleader 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:83.147.139.193

More Scunthorpe related vandalism. User changed the subject of Paul Harrison (to himself?) and dropped links all over the place. I suppose I can look forward to having my user page vandalised again.Lozleader 08:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Motenhampstead

I took the view that the anon IP who contributed the text was the MHDT, and therefore was releasing the test under GFDL. I changed "written by" as that was obviously not true, but left a comment to acknowledge the author. I can find now, and could find then no evidence that it is a copyvio, and realistically MHDT aren't likely to care if it was, they'd rather be pleased. Rich Farmbrough, 17:55 5 September 2006 (GMT).

Hello from Wales

Hi Nigel, I had been thinking of getting rid of those links myself (Penmaenmawr). They were there plus a longer blurb about the festival - and precious little else! - when I started editing the page. If they were full scale commercial links they'd have gone straight away, of course, but they were amateur / semi-pro local bands playing for a charity event. Ineed that whole section is rather OTT and I may cut it to a single reference under Events. I'm so busy with other wiki stuff - mainly in Cymraeg (Welsh) - that I forget some of the things here. Hope you enjoyed the Penmaenmawr page. I've a bit more to do yet but it's getting there. Fôn. Enaidmawr 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: LED Stuff

Thanks. :-) I don't come by it naturally—I'm actually fairly impatient and hot-tempered when I'm online. To be a civil and useful member of Wikipedia I've had to really work on that. I think I've started to overshoot in my compensating, but that's not a bad thing! — Saxifrage ✎ 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD not getting attention

I'm not actually sure what can be done in cases like that. However, I have noticed that AfDs I've started that got very little attention have sometimes been re-posted with a little notice to the effect that it's been relisted to generate more discussion. Perhaps there's someone who sheperds the "stray" AfDs in this way regularly? Maybe it's part of the standard procedure when administrators are going through the list and closing out the clearly-decided ones. My advice would be to see what happens when it gets closed (which sometimes takes longer than a week)—it may get relisted—and to renominate with a similar "this has been relisted" message it if just gets closed with nothing happening.

Aside, on the topic of calling things spam, I'm thinking the term doesn't need to be avoided completely. I think it just might be that there will be times when it makes no difference to us what we call it, but using the words "spam" and "spammer" inflame the situation. I don't think there's a clear line, but I'm sure there will be times when it's very clear cut and the individual in question doesn't need to be handled carefully... — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi NigeIR thanks for giving me the info on getting started and for the comment about Megaupload —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulm27 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Yea umm..If I wanted to get a picture up anywhere on Wikipedia how can i do that? Thanks Paulm27 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hi there Nigel!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Totnes

Hi NigeIR,

I noticed that you deleted a couple of changes that I'd made on the entry to my home town and I thought that I would discuss them with you.

Kevics (I was there from 1981 to 1987) isn't 450 years old. It's a comprehensive school founded in the 1960s. It only has the most tenuous links with the grammar school set up by King Edward vi.

The passage about "the rapid rise in rents and house prices over the past ten years has now dispersed most of them. In their place are wealthy retirees and incomers with money setting up businesses to serve them" is very elegaic - but it's not v. objective is it?

Kind regards, 82.198.252.2 end of message —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.252.2 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Copy from user talk page - I've redone the KEVICS bit - sort of agree - sort of don't but that seems a compromise? I guess I see your edit over the other bit as better than it was. Comments more than welcome cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Totnes ii

Hi NigeIR, Thanks for considering my comments (v. open-minded of you) - look forwarding to reading your work on other areas of Wikipedia. Kind regards, 82.198.252.2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.198.252.2 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

??

Does it begin or does it end? The choice is yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.0.74 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

You have become allies with the evil one. So I ask you again. Does it begin or does it end?

If you continue to interfere, I will be forced to do the same. Don't be upset. I have no problem with you and I do not really know you. However, be aware that I will defend myself if I have no other alternative.

The choice is yours to make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.2.195 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Good job reverting

I see you're having some difficulty with User:68.171.24.148. You're handling it very well; I've reported the user at WP:AIV, so s/he should be blocked shortly. Just be careful of the 3-revert rule (maximum of 3 reverts per 24 hours per article)! I wouldn't want to see a great reverter like you get blocked for that. Also, if you warn a vandal with a test-4 warning and s/he continues to vandalize, you should report the user to WP:AIV so an admin can block him/her. Happy editing and keep up the great work!! :) Srose (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• (Ten hours later...sorry) I thought it did... I've seen a couple of admins block themselves for a little while for violating the 3RR while reverting vandalism. Anyway, have a good day! Srose (talk)

Page protection

Thanks for the page protection! And yeah... it's been only a kinda-sorta break as I predicted. I should get off the site and get started with my day now. ;-) — Saxifrage ✎ 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Camberwell Links

Hi Nigel,

I was just wondering about the most recent edit you made on the Camberwell page. So SLAM is removed, but King's is left in. The SE5 forum is removed, but a link to language classes remains in. From my point of view the links there are useful, and removing them does not add to the encyclopedia. Leaving them in does not appear, for my money, to detract from the encyclopedia. So my suggestion would be to reinclude them. Interested in your POV.

--PaulWicks 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines you suggested and I can't really see much that would definitively include or exclude any of the links there.

A few ideas:

• Camberwell is divided between two boroughs, Lambeth and Southwark. King's is Lambeth, SLAM is Southwark. So I think the SLAM one should definitely remain there if the King's one is going to stay on.

• SE5 Forum is a local group that works to promote Camberwell. The Tooting article has their own link to the British Library's site of similar info and "Tootinglife", Brixton has links to local sites of interest like The Windmill and Urban75, Streatham has the Streatham Society, East Dulwich has a link to www.lordshiplane.co.uk..... I think all of these sites are valid and should remain unless there is a convincing reason we should not have them. Whilst I agree Wikpedia is not a directory I don't see any benefit in removing such links.

• Agree people can find their own bus maps on TFL.gov.uk

• Think language school shouldn't be there, there are LOADS in South London and this one is not particularly well known in Camberwell. This is also a primary school which already has a link in the right place, under John Ruskin.

Those are all my thoughts for now, let me know what you make of them! --PaulWicks 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the issue is that in some respects, one could easily get rid of all those links, on the basis that if a user really wanted to find out more they could click through to the original article. For instance there is a link to King's on the King's article, so it's duplicative to have two. I'm being ignorant here but is there anyway to check how often a set of links is used? --PaulWicks 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I think the only link I would support adding is the SE5 Forum one as this is a local umbrella of community organisations who want to improve Camberwell. Do you have any objections? --PaulWicks 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: EL

No need to thank me, but you're welcome! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's half the reason for the project's talk page. Cheers --AbsolutDan ^(talk)

Lake District links

Why did you remove the link on the Lake District page? It is not a comercial one and contains no advertising, in fact other links there have content that infringes these guidelines. I have no links with any of the sites so am impartial but would like to know the reasoning behind it. Geoff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.123.253.194 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Hi Geoff - I'll post here and your talk page to make sure you get this. As to the link you placed. I looked at it again & realised it was familiar to me - I'd reviewed it in the context of Helvellyn and felt it relevant. The trouble is it is now on a number of pages [2] and so looks far more like linkspam which is not needed (WP:EL & WP:SPAM) so I will set about reducing these as you brought it to my attention. The other link has now been removed by a fellow editor anyway. Your contribution to wiki [3] does seem to have involved placing links more than making other contributions and this can be viewed as not very positive behaviour - I am sure that your intention is to contribute so why not register? Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Update - you will see less links now on the search above as I removed a few yesterday. Muliple links are frowned on - and of course if other users are on the same IP as you it is hard to know who is posting what cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! My apologies for the slow reply. Generally, I find that if a link is added by someone who hasn't contributed to the article content at all, it has a 90% probability of being spam. It's always worth checking, but it's a decent rule of thumb! As for the picture site problem - this is a loophole in WP:EL that quite a few sites slip through. I've found it a big problem for city articles like Prague and London, where the common reply is "WP:EL allows pictures so why can't I add my holiday photos from flickr?". In these cases, I'd say (i) try and see if there is an official photo repository (e.g. on the tourist board website) (ii) add a link to a dmoz entry for photo sites of that place -they do exist for the odd place, or failing that (iii) pick the one with most comprehensive coverage/best photos/least advertising bumph/least plugins required to view/best encyclopaedic commentary and annotation, leaving a non-displaying editing note discouraging further contributions without discussion. It doesn't cover all eventualities, but those are the things I tend to bear in mind. Hope that helps, best wishes Aquilina 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rubber Ball

I think this is not very clear-cut. The Rubber Ball is not transient, in that it has taken place every year for some years. Given that the Skin Two site is linked, I suppose it does no harm to omit this link.--Taxwoman 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo

Hi. Strange edit indeed but JzG (talk · contribs) is usually to be trusted. You should probably just contact him about it so that he can explain the rationale for the edit on the talk page. Pascal.Tesson 13:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

External links cleanup

Nigel, thank you for the heads-up about the old-time radio and logo links. I appreciate your input and support. If you ever need a second opinon about links or any other issue, you're welcome to let me know. Cheers, Wmahan. 19:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Commercial pages issues

Editor login, Dnyhagen, owner of DigitalDeliFtp.com (a commercial sites selling old time radio downloads) has started a removal campaign to remove and delete all other "commercial" links to other old time radio sites from Wikipedia. While deleting competing website's entries, Dnyhagen is expanding and slowly getting approval from other editors for his own 'article' for his commercial site. His self published article on Digital Deli Online is not publically valuable (despite his elaboration efforts) for public knowledge, but he is currently revising to thinly fit into Wikipedia's guidelines. Based on these guidelines, Wikipedia should remove this self published article and cease Dnyhagen's campaign to only create links to DigitalDeliFTP is regards to Old Time Radio. 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.126.42.87 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 Sep 2006 (UTC)

I share some of your concerns - however, you have placed external links and been warned by me, not a good start. I suggest if you want to be part of the discussion and not just place links you get an account. Your views may be made more credible by your behaviour? Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 16:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tools & Spam

Thanks for the tips on additional tools. Was a bit overwhelmed for a while so it made it difficult to keep up with the vandalism. I'm working on a bot so I'm trying to do as much manual entry to see exactly what to look for and how to correct it. I actually had two monitors with at least 20 browser windows open trying to keep up with the vandalism... good times. I will try and leave more info in the log. Thanks again. --I already forgot 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes to WP:EL

There have been changes made to WP:EL that you may be interested in. Looks like a handful of editors made a few changes and may be gearing up for a rewrite.--I already forgot 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Digital Deli Campaign to Remove other old time radio sites while promoting it own

NigelR; here is a reponse posted in Wmahan's talk page; since you were included in the discussion over DigitalDeli, I thought I should be included:

Backing up previous allegations in above notation;

DIGITAL DELI IS A COMMERCIAL SITE In regards to DigitalDeliFtp selling and being a commercial site, this website creates revenue from selling FTP credits (http://www.digitaldeliftp.com/FTPSite/ftpsite.html) selling memberships; ftp transfers at $5.00/gig and $20 for MP3 disks. On the same page it compares itself to other "commercial" website claiming that they've downloaded shows from them; a fact refuted by other many other sites (including a very negative website http://www.digitaldeliftp-sucks.com/) WikiOTR 22 September 2006 (UTC)

DIGITAL DELI HAS CAMPAIGNED IN WIKPEDIA FOR THE DELETION OF COMPETITOR WEBSITES *** In User:Dnyhagen talk and contributions logs, he is removing 'commercial links' and Dnyhagen says:

"The 220 I found and deleted were as follows: a.) they were all posted by two anonymous sources, b). they referenced the exact same two sites (otrsite.com and freeotrshows.com) over 90 times each (both of which should be banned for spam link abuse. How does one initiate this?], as did radiolovers.com (28 links), libsyn.com (23 links), and otrcat.com (18 links), c.) many of them simply opened a media player page without warning, and d.) they all promote a commercial endeavor (mostly 'OTR' .mp3 sales or membership to their sites}."

Digital Deli fits this exact definition of a commercial site - selling .mp3 sales and membership downloads to its ftp site.

The sites he has removed from Wikipedia: Radiolovers.com is a free site with banner advertising and offers online content free of charge to any listener to wants to visit the website. Many of the other links Dnyhagen deleted are sound files from his competitor's website which are free downloads visitors can listen to (which actually do relate to old time radio and are a publiclly valuable resource to hear the shows online and were useful to wiki readers wanting to hear the actual show). Many other link of the 'commercial' sites he has removed actually have immense content with radio history (far more than DigitalDeli), radio logs (which are valuable to radio show collectors) and episodes online to listen to (more than digitaldeli offers and free of charge; not a membership service).

Dnyhagen has parsed all of wikipedia old time radio content from various sites ("commerical" and otherwise) which offered radio show broadcasts in context of many old time radio related articles; stripping wikipedia of these content links has actually been a detriment to Wikipedia as a publicly valuable resource. It place of all the removal of resources, Digital Deli has a self created article promoting itself and website while deleting its seeming competitors links from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Deli_Online is not a publicly valuable resource, but an advertisement created for the sole purpose of link to digital deli's commercial website. If Dnyhagen appears to be opposed to all commercials golden age radio links (with exception of his own); this article should also be removed without further delay as it is a direct advertisment for digital deli. User Dnyhagen's removals should be reanalyzed; they are actions of a competitive website removing content from wikipedia to further its own links; and this user's action should be suspect in future articles and removals. WikiOTR 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Received notice of a message from you, but can't find it

All I found was an implication on the History page at User talk:Dnyhagen that someone 'moved' a previous comment of yours. Just to disabuse you of the notion, it certainly wasn't me, since my answer to it was posted and indented just below it's original location (check the history). I repositioned it below your restored comment for clarity. Parenthetically, the cut and paste nonsense above was posted by Wikiotr himself on the page he cut and pasted it from. But I'm sure you've determined that independently by now. Dnyhagen 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User page protection

Thanks again for the user page protection and the vandalism reverts! I'm back for now (somewhat sporadically). They haven't started up again with the vandalism, but if they do I'm going to try using the "slow revert" troll-management technique described in Wikipedia:What is a troll#Not feeding the trolls. So if you see them on a spree again, leave the Talk page's reversion to me. Feel free to revert stupidity aimed at my user page, though. Thanks again! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay, thanks for asking. :-) Just tied up with schoolwork most days, so I'm avoiding getting embroiled in Wikipedia stuff that is ongoing and makes me want to constantly check back instead of do my readings, like the external links stuff you mention. Among other things, I've discovered the satisfaction of reformatting disambiguation pages to follow the manual of style, so for now I'm contributing little improvements like that here and there instead of going toe-to-toe with the barbarians at the gates. At least, for now... I know I won't be able to resist that permanently. ;-) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam

I noted your reversion to edits by User:82.133.95.21. there are 37 edits by this user since February, all of which are spam links to the same website, inserted into several different pages, all of which have been reverted by various editors. Although the user had been previously warned of a block on editing wiki, the spamming still continues, which is wasting the time and resources of other editors. Perhaps it would be better just to block the IP from editing access, as no contributable editing has been offered?. Richard Harvey 08:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dnyhagen

I have warned Dnyhagen about his habit of selectivity in the removal of links. I think that future link removals should be done by someone else, and you seem to be a good candidate. Is that OK? Guy 11:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bournemouth Links

Hi Nigel, you removed my See Bournemouth site from the Bournemouth Wiki profile. This site is neither commercial or personal and I think should be included. I do have Google ads in some sections but that provides minimal income and are kept low key. I am developing the site as a testbed for mapping code and the site has been featured on a few mashup reviews such as http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2006/08/uk-google-maps-mashup-roundup-part-3.html. I aim to apply the code design on a commercial basis at some point but for now the site is non-commerical. I have used the See Bournemouth site in framed content on two other sites for SeeDorset.Net or SeeHampshire.Net. These sites are both non-commercial, but if these are the reason you removed all my links then I won't include them. SeeWhere.Net 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

County Watch Vandals

Are you a county watch vandal or do you just protect this scum?--84.9.193.96 13:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fencing?

I am indeed a fencer and an epeeist. Perhaps someone could create a userbox for fencers?--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mosaic

Thanks for the spam link assistance. -- Solipsist 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I learned a lot

Thanks for your edits to my external links on the Orkney article. At first I wondered why; then I wondered why you handn't been consistent; then I realised you had and at that stage I learned a lot ... thanks. Abtract 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: A view?

That looks like a great way to open dialogue and get some concerns on the table without provoking a knee-jerk defensive reaction. It looks like he's disagreeing yet, but at least doing so in a calm way and by presenting interesting reasons. Good show! — Saxifrage ✎ 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of external links, twyford, berkshire

Thanks for the advice re removing the reference to the Twyford Yahoo group.

I think the one remaining link should be removed, having looked through it it's basically a business directory and I think it's the web-version of the small local business directory that we get through the post in hard copy which has a few token articles to make it look like a magazine.

I think most people would use their yellow pages or phone book to get this information. Furthermore it has no information about the entries, just phone numbers and addresses.

Should we remove it?

Scott. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scotbotuk (talk • contribs) 10:00, 29 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Enough agro. Time to move on

As I told AbsolutDan, I thank you for your clearly tortured civility (heh) and constructive criticism, as I traversed the naked underbelly of Wikipedia this past two weeks. I'm now convinced beyond any doubt that there's something intellectually amiss among the group of editors and 'contributors' over at Old Time Radio, and it's simply not worth the continued agro. I hope we get the chance to cross metaphors sometime in the future. I enjoyed some of it. The latter portions, especially.

Best regards to you, NigelR. You helped redeem my conviction that there's something inherently well intentioned and useful about Wikipedia at it's best, and clearly so shamefully much to repair yet, at it's worst.

You gave far better than you got . . . . most of the time.  :-) Cheers. Dnyhagen 03:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)