User talk:Sm8900: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:26, 26 October 2007

Welcome to my user talk page. Thanks for visiting. --Sm8900 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas User:sm8900/links User:sm8900/sonofilter User:sm8900/Archive user:sm8900/Abul Hussam user:sm8900/play by mail list

User:Sm8900/watchlist

Mini watchlist; histories

artilces to watch history and talk pages: Battle of Jenin
Talk:Battle of Jenin
Talk:Palestinian people
Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Talk:House demolitions in Israeli Palestinian conflict
Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus‎

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
House demolitions in Israeli Palestinian conflict
contributions Sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Artilces worked on:

U.S. Army Service Uniform
Robert Smalls

Interesting articles: SH-60 main us navy helicopter
World War II

Ideas

Article auto-notices

AfD nomination of Star Fleet Battle Force

An article that you have been involved in editing, Star Fleet Battle Force, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Fleet Battle Force. Thank you. Gavin Collins 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mideast article discussions

Schechtman

Dear Sm8900,
I would appreciate it if you would not describe Joseph Schechtman as a "hate source" and claim that "many zionists are hate sources" as you did in this edit. I don't believe Schechtman is a hate source or that very many Zionist historians are hate sources (at least no reliable Zionist historians are) and I doubt that you believe this too. Even User:JaapBoBo doesn't seem to use this ridiculous line of reasoning. The only person who says that Schechtman is User:PalestineRemembered. You may not know this because you entered the debate rather recently, but PalestineRemembered has repeatedly compared Schechtman's research to the pseudo-scholarship of David Irving, the infamous British Holocaust denier. I have told PalestineRemembered that his argument is weak and that his comparison is offensive, but he continues to do it to bait me, and I try hard not to fall for it. Your statement here makes things more difficult for me and for Wikipedia than I'm sure you intended. I understand and respect your spirit of compromise, but that doesn't mean compromising the truth by accepting lies. Thank you. --GHcool 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When GHcool refers to Schechtman's research, he's thinking of his work for the Transfer Committee's, who surveyed Arab holdings in Palestine (which crops grew, which buildings useful etc) ready for the time when they could be seized. Some of the Zionists may have felt "them or us" after the Holocaust, but Schechtman was working on this earlier, and he seems to have specialised in preaching fear and hatred of the Arabs. His background in the transfer (now we know what he did) is such that nobody would treat him as a reliable historian any more, and Childers (apparently?) claims that many of his sources were completely invented. PR^talk 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Sm8900 is smart enough to look at Joseph Schechtman's life and bibliography on Wikipedia or any other source and decide for himself whether he is a hate source on the level of David Irving or not. --GHcool 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe your position is defendable. Schechtman's bio and other links suggest he's less of an historian than Irving. And the very clip we've been using suggests he's a hate-source worse than Irving. PR^talk 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it once and I'll say it again: Sm8900 is smart enough to look at Joseph Schechtman's life and bibliography on Wikipedia or any other source and decide for himself whether he is a hate source on the level of David Irving or not. PalestineRemembered is entitled to his own opinion just as Sm8900 is entitled to his own opinion. I am also entitled to criticize PalestineRemembered's opinion or ask Sm8900 to clarify his opinion before cricizing it. A 3rd party that tells me what Sm8900's opinion is (or worse, tells Sm8900 what his own opinion is) shows that he is desperate for approval and shows that he is fearful that he is incorrect. I trust Sm8900 and Sm8900 alone when it comes to matters of Sm8900's own opinion. --GHcool 04:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for the comments from both of you. I do appreciate it, and I enjoy a good exchange, whether on my own talk page or elsewhere. In answer let me say I actually have no idea whether Schectman is a hate source. In fact I am quite sure he is not. I do not know what relevance that label could have here, but it sounds like he is simply an extremist at the most, if anything. In this conflict, there are many credible sources who might have extreme views. What about the many Palestinians who believe that Israel is a colonialist imposition which should never have been created? In effect, aren't they saying that Israel has no right to exist? does that make them a hate source? If it doesn't, then they too are extremists.

So my point here is that we cannot exclude the experts of one side based on criteria which are not applied to all sides. And PR, GHcool is clearly a credible good-faith editor. He is clearly not trying to finding a myriad of extreme issues to raise in order to disrupt the process; he is merely trying to include this one source. We need to start trying to give each other benefit of the doubt, and learning to compromise. i believe that Schectman should be included. I have little else to say on this matter, and will allow you and others to continue to offer most of the comments on this issue. thanks.

By the way, one final note, GHCool; I don't think PR was trying to imply that I couldn't make up my own mind. He was merely using this talk page as another forum to continue the discussion, since you were raising the issue here as well. I don't mind the use of my talk page as a discussion forum of a sort; I take it more as a kind of slight compliment, as it implies that at least you consider me an attentive audience. If I minded it, i would say so, but to this extent, I don't have a problem with it. Anyway, i appreciate the useful comments and input from both of you. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 12:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty, Sm8900. I hope that in the future, you will think twice before calling Schechtman or "many zionists ... hate sources." As you can see, PalestineRemembered has already taken advantage of your mistake saying that you "agreed with [him] that Schechtman is a hate-source." --GHcool 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steve - when you see me filling encyclopedia articles with quotes from anti-semitic Palestinians (and there are bound to be a few), that will be the time to start quoting Arab-hating Israelis.

I've been told off by HG, apparently Holocaust Deniers are not banned from Wikipedia because of their hate-speech (as I assumed), but because of their falsification of history. Well, Schechtman is plainly guilty of falsification a lot more blatant than David Irving (and that just comes from the limited clips I've seen here). In the end, you may not agree with me over Schechtman being a hate-source (despite having told me you do), but you should not be quoting him because it's clear that some people could feel that way about him. You and GHcool have got to find something better, otherwise you'll have forever linked yourself to hatred. You may not be used to the idea of dealing with other lots of other nationalities, but I am - I can assure you that stuff like that goes down very, very badly. PR^talk 19:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Actually, it came from me accidentally misreading the following post:

User:Screen stalker - as best I can tell, the reason you're facing "pro-expulsion, anti-EoF" editors all the time is that you're simply wrong.

As I read this, I thought (for some reason) that the word "you're" was "you know you're". My apologies for misreading your post.

I still think that there is overwhelming evidence that a substantial portion of the exodus (just how large still remains to be determined, but probably a super majority) of the exodus was caused either by the tribulations of war or by the actions of Arab leaders. The unfortunate thing is that there are two authors who do not actively push to remove these sourced and are actively involved in editing Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, namely GHCool and me. Screen stalker 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. I appreciate your reply. however that post was not from me. I can already tell, because I don't use terms like that. However I appreciate your helpful reply regrdless. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to keep saying "massacre"?

why do we have to keep saying "massacre"? that seems especially offensive. Can't you simply say "allegations that major human rights abuses occurred"? that seems to me to be just as fair to your concerns. --Steve, Sm8900 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence seems to be that that we have credible information for at least one small massacre occuring. It's only "mass-shooting" allegations that were never confirmed. Furthermore, I see no reason to claim that the word "massacre" should be offensive - this lists 24 massacres from about the same time. And we don't have secondary sources saying "allegations that major human rights abuses occurred" - we have RS sources stating that war-crimes were committed. PR^talk 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for offering that thought. that sounds interesting. at this point I have little to express on or comment on regarding this issue, regarding any viewpoint or opinion. So I'm not sure about this issue, and do not have any plans at this time to add further to discuss this issue. I really do appreciate you taking the time to seek my opinion, as I do consider this a helpful gesture. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people don't wish to involve themselves in the gory business of documenting massacres, or arguing whether allegations of war-crimes really come from proper RS secondary sources. I'll quite understand if you're one of those people. However, if you're not prepared to look in detail at this stuff, it would be better if you didn't try and partake in discussions on the topic. PR^talk 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at this point, you may feel free to make whatever edits you wish. also, i have no problem with you requesting my opinion or feedback here as you did. The one thing which i might tentatively add, though, is that i prefer to have these discussions at the article's talk page. I am not saying that i have any problem with you asking me questions here at my talk page. however, if I do have any problems at a later point, I still consider myself to have the ability to post a comment at the article talk page, at a later date. Of course, if you post a comment at the article talk page, and I don't reply, you can assume that for now i am willing to leave that issue alone for now.

Obviously, in doing so I have as much freedom to do so as any other editor might to add my comments at some later point, if I feel it is appropriate. however, right now I have little comment to add on this issue, whether here or at the article talk page. thanks very much. i do appreciate you seeking out my input on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's "fair" of me to pull out examples of things you've said, go to your Talk and post questions/comments on them. I could equally well do it at the article - the reason I didn't do so is that starting a new section tends to obscure the main discussion going on. Thanks for your understanding - if I do this again and it bothers you, please feel free to transfer it to my page or back to the article. One solution that is "fair" is for you to transfer my most recent comment, and your reply, to my UserTalk, and apparently hold two identical conversations. PR^talk 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks for your reply. that makes sense. please feel free to do so anytime in the future, when the discussion appears to be more easy to carry out here. bear in mind though, that i may not be all that interested in delving further into certain comments of mine. I may simply have been reacting to the overall topic. so if you see me saying that I understand your point, but do not wish to comment further, it should never be taken as any reflection on my willingness to be in open discussion of something with another editor. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed "Back to Jenin" - Ha'aretz 17th July 2002, Ze'ev Schiff "None has since retracted the mendacious claims nor tried to find out how they were misled." My heart could warm to some sections of the Israeli media and Israeli people, who advertise the fact that the Jenin massacre deniers are completely isolated and more or less entirely discredited by everyone. PR^talk 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. It sounds like Schiff is sayinbg the claims themselves are "mendacious", in other words, false. So he would probably assert that various individuals' non-withdrawal of those claims is due to their malice towards Israel, not towards any attachement by them to truth or to the facts. --Steve, Sm8900 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for disputed articles

Steve, Hi. Thanks so much commenting at Jenin. I like your tone and much of what you say, but I suppose it's more interesting/useful for me to say where I disagree: (1) Your point about sources at Causes48 is not very relevant for Jenin. Whereas Causes is about competing theories and viewpoints, at Jenin -- for the most part -- we aren't (or shouldn't) be trying to describe different viewpoints on the topic. (2) So we need to rely on the most reliable sources in a fairly std WP way. Choosing sources shouldn't be about negotiating betw POV-sided editors, you get yours and I get mine. That's unstable, since editors change, and not good for the encyclopedia and our conception of our work. (Maybe Jenin looks a bit like a POV story when it deals with Isr and Palestinian reporting of the incident(s), but even here it would be preferable if we could rely on good secondary sources etc.) (3) In short, I think it's essential that we -- including you -- should still hold out the belief that peer-reviewed journals and major news media are better than, say self-published journals and newsy blogs. Sure, I suppose there is some tension betw the slants of the best journals and media, but I urge you to back down from the "Let's simply start accepting others' sources" quid pro quo approach. Therefore, I really think you should reconsider that part of your comment at Jenin. (I'd suggest the same for Causes48, but I haven't looked at the context of the Talk there.) Hopefully you'll taking this as a constructive criticism, per your usual good mood and optimism. Anyways, I appreciate our intermittent conversations. Ciao, HG | Talk 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what you say is true, and makes a lot of sense. Still in spite of your persuasiveness, i return to my original point (with a small rewording): if there are two versions of a specific event, each advocated by different sides in an ideological dispute, and each unwilling to yield t the other, the best option for Wikipedia to achieve balance is to use sources from both sides which are well-established in their own communities or ideologies. I know it sounds contentious, but in the end, it seems liek the best way to me to achieve balabnce and consensus. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision sounds much better, if I'm reading it right, because it is (implicitly?) limited to cases where there are only two POV versions and there aren't neutral reliable sources. Right? Otherwise, we still need to challenge the parties to (find and) yield to the neutral sources. Sure, it's a hard challenge because POV-advocates tend to dispute the neutrality of all sources -- so that's why we have 3PO, RfC and the Source inquiry pages. // Ok, if you've followed me this far, then let's ask... In what situations are we writing about something that doesn't have any neutral sources? Hmmm. Thanks for discussing this! HG | Talk 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS fyi. You've been called to the carpet on another part of your comment. Maybe you could strikeout or delete as necessary? Even while you mull over the section we're discussing. At a min, isn't it off topic? HG | Talk 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HG, thanks for your comments. Basically, i fel there is not a single neutral source on the planet on this. how's that for a moderate answer? here's why i feel that way: Is Israel a legitimate country, with a legitimate right to defend itself? The United States, the new York Times, and pro-Israel allies say it is. Or is it a criminal intrusion on local peoples? Most Arab governments say it is. Did the Palestinians do everything possible for peace? Some sources say they did. Or did their own leaders carry out criminal diversion of money and resources meant for peaceful development, choosing instead to incite divisiveness and hatred? many iother sources they did.

i am not saying these are the ONLY sources, but they are the main sources. if we keep looking for some mythical neutral objective view, we will only have more and more edit-wars. the only way to achieve balance and compromise, is to give both points of view some genuine respect; and in fact to make clear that any resolution or depiction of these issues means respecting, hearing and balancing the views, issues, concerns, goals, experiences, and legitimate grievances of both sides. --Steve, Sm8900 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to be a skeptic philosophically, but I don't think what you are expressing is helpful for collaborative work in a project whose vision and policy -- mythmaking or not -- is centered on neutrality. ("mainstream" views, etc. Not "objective.") You strike me as a very likable guy, but if I can be blunt, if you're not with the program then you're fueling disruption. Plus, again bluntly, you/we don't have another way to negotiate, or compromise. Your ideal is nice but it wouldn't put an end to edit wars. If you can't appeal to folks' mutual interest in WP principles and vision, then you're left with some kind of ad hoc bargaining. It won't work, it's unstable. Wikipedia is already unstable enough, but the forces of good (?) here are struggling for a particular kind of principled collaboration. Well, you are welcome to disagree. But really, Steve, you shouldn't be pursuing this idea on an article-by-article basis -- that really is disruptive -- but at the level of WP policies and guidelines. Propose changes. Propose to experiment with a given article or set of articles. Whatever. But otherwise I think you'll be feeding some "negative tendencies" (shall we say) here, rather than creating the kind of mutual respect I know you believe in. HG | Talk 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. i appreciate your reply. I enjoy hearing your input. However:

i do not agree with you that these ideas are disruptive.

i do not agree with you that my approach is counter-productive.

i do not agree with you that there is any need for me to stop trying this approach. i am absolutely not doing this in any dogmatic, partisan or philosophical style. i truly believe it to be the best and most benefical way to approach this. I will continue to use this on a case-by-case basis, where I feel it is appropriate and helpful to all editors involved. I am always open to your ideas, and you are always free to disagree as you see fit. However, one small suggestion; I think it might be better if you could please not judge my ideas as being part of any partisan or dogmatic ideology (by the way, I don't feel that you in fact have ever done so in the past, so it's not a big deal or big issue). you are free to simply disgaree or agree as you wish, based on the facts of each case. i do appreciate all your ideas and input. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you don't strike me as dogmatic. I'd add that it may be hard to say when a quid pro quo arrangement on POV sources would work for all editors, since future editors may prefer come along & seek a different deal or even the Noble quest for neutrality. Anyway, let me know of any results you come up with. Ciao. HG | Talk 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. truthfully, I find you to be a very positive editor, and even the concerns which i expressed above were not things which i was really concerned about. I also agree with the ideas which you stated in your message immediately above. So I appreciate all your good input, as usual. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article discussions

auto-notices - mil hist. group

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but sorry, I'm not interested. thanks anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Special file notices

Question responses

Procedure questions, discussions

Template question

is there a template which allows one to provide the name of a specific article and then automatically have a link to the article itself and to the edit history side by side? In other words, to look like this:

Battle of Jenin • history

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{la|Battle of Jenin}} produces Battle of Jenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which contains the links you requested and more. There's a whole set of related templates ({{la}} for articles, {{lat}} for article talk pages, {{lu}} for User pages, {{lut}} for User talk pages and so on). See Template talk:La for more details. --ais523 13:20, 1 October 2007 (U T C)

thanks so much. I knew it was probably a simple answwer for someone who knows this stuff. thanks very much. --Steve, Sm8900 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Now I have a simlar question, about user contribs. What template would allow me to write a user name, and view an auto link for their contributions? --Steve, Sm8900 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i found one: {{contribs|user name}}. any other suggestions?--Steve, Sm8900 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{usercheck-short|Wikidudeman}} produces Wikidudeman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Is that what you needed? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that's close. could you let me know what category those came from? i will look there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internal link templates, I believe. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. thanks for all your help. this is very helpful. by the way, what do you work on generally around here? just curious. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page or my main userpage. Or also my recent contributions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good. thanks for your help. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User, Big list of various styles of user signatures. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. thanks! Feel free to write anything further anytime. thanks very much for this help. --Steve, Sm8900 14:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive notes

Picture messages

Image:Starships-logo.jpg

- Hello, Sm8900. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Starships-logo.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Sm8900/game-info. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sfc_1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sfc_1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ironseed1.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ironseed1.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Starships-screen-1.jpg

Hello, Sm8900. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Starships-screen-1.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Sm8900/game-info. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Green army.jpg

[[Image:Nuvola apps important blue.svg|64px|left|Image Copyright problem]] Thanks for uploading Image:Green army.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Klingon acad.jpg)

[[Image:Nuvola apps important blue.svg|25px]] Thanks for uploading Image:Klingon acad.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi there.

Category:Diplomatic conferences,
Category:Political charters,
Category:United States national commissions.
Sono filter Category:Akiba Hebrew Academy alumni
Sono,
Advanced Destroyer Simulator,
Aegis: Guardian of the Fleet, user:sm8900/glw
User:sm8900/mike
Hohoho
User:sm8900/idea
Major ww2 revisions: 3/20/07, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&oldid=115799022 User:sm8900/photo idea

15:13, 17 March 2007 Jack Naven Rulez (Talk | contribs) (→Cause of war in Europe) (cur) (last) 14:28, 17 March 2007 Oberiko (Talk | contribs) m (→Cause of war in Europe - - There was no Soviet Union during World War I) (cur) (last) 13:40, 17 March 2007 Haber (Talk | contribs) (→Causes - major removals and more stating of elementary facts)

|}}} | style="text-align: center"|

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Sm8900! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Netsnipe ► 08:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

need help

Why does it seem impossible to find any wikiprojects through regular searches???? How would I find these? I tried and tried everything I could think of. thanks very much. --Sm8900 17:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory and Category:WikiProjects. —P^urple ^RA^IN 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found this by typing "WikiProject" into the search box and then following a couple of links. If that didn't work for you, it may be that your default search preferences aren't searching in the Wikipedia: namespace. You can check this by clicking my preferences at the top right of any Wikipedia page, then clicking the Search tab. You can also set namespace preferences on a per-search basis by checking the appropriate namespaces at the bottom of the Wikipedia search page. —P^urple ^RA^IN 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

finding things

{{help me}} I am having a lotof trouble finding things. First of all, how does one access the advanced search page? Whenever I do a search, i get a whole bunch of checkboxes with the search results. Is there a way to access these checkboxes easilyin general?

Also, why can't I find the page on "user boxes"? I know there is one, but I was totally unable to find it, either by searching or using the index. hope this can be clarified. thanks.

1. Under My Preferences, click on the "search" box, and you can specify which search boxes will be clicked by default when you do a search.

2. You may find Category:Wikipedia userboxes to be helpful.

In the future, feel free to ask questions at the Help desk, as responses may be quicker. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

This user is a participant in
WikiProject
United States.

This user is a participant in WikiProject History.

This user is a member of
WikiProject Judaism

This user participates in
WikiProject Israel.

This user is a participant in the
Star Trek WikiProject.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Video games.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Well, you seem to have been here a while, but I haven't welcomed you yet. Regarding contentious articles, as you say, just follow my contributions and you'll find them soon enough. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note for users

help with ww 2 article please

Hi. could some of you guys please go over to the World War 2 article? There's currently a proposal there by only two users to rewrite most of the article, mainly to shorten it. I'm very concernred that only two people could rewrite an entire large article, consisting of dozens of people's work, without any underlying consensus. It seems to me that this would mean the removal of the work by many people by a small handful of users, mainly to attain what they consider the "correct" article length. So I'm disturbed that this is happening without any underlying consensus. i'd feel a lot better if a few more people could come over to the article, and take a look. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You've already left a note at WT:WWII, which is the best place for that sort of thing; please don't randomly add it to every other page you can find. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes are always subject to consensus (whether before or after the fact); but the WWII article has been a severely problematic one for a long time now. In any case, I've left some thoughts on Talk:World War II; maybe they'll be of some use. Kirill Lokshin 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon

howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:

lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chock

No problem. The WWII article should actually be longer. I work on Wikipedia Aircraft, just to let you know. ChockStock 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

idea

Category:Star Trek-type starship simulators

Category:Star Trek-style starship simulators

Sono arsenic filter

Begin (computer game)

Game Entry

Star Trek: Starship Tactical Combat Simulator

Wikipedia tools

Sono arsenic filter

Copyright issue with Sono arsenic filter

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Sono arsenic filter, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/professor-wins-1-million-for-arsenic/20070202224709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001. As a copyright violation, Sono arsenic filter appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Sono arsenic filter has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Sono arsenic filter. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Sono arsenic filter, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of Sono arsenic filter

As you're an established user and have made a heartfelt plea, and this is a worthy article, I have rewritten it rather than delete it, but you should know better than to just copy and paste copyright material. Please DON'T DO IT AGAIN. It's easy enough to just paraphrase like I've done. Thank you. Tyrenius 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no trouble with copy and paste, were it not for the fact it's just verboten! It runs up against all sorts of potential legal issues and we have to play safe. Happy editing! Tyrenius 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Steve, User:Sm8900|Sm8900 16:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Project Israel

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Statement Itayb 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2/19/07

{helpme}

Whenever I login onto Wikipedia, and then log out, it always remembers my login name on that computer. When i come back later, the sign-in screen still comes up with my log-in name on that computer. This has happened at web cafes, and has happened even when I was away for several days! (it happened at a web cafe which i come back to periodically). Is there any way to stop this from happening? Or is there a way to clear that field? By the way, I do not believe this is being caued by the "Autocomplete" function in Internet Explorer. Thanks. --Sm8900 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try unchecking the remember me field on the login page.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 01:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to click log out when you are done. --Selket ^Talk 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but actually I already do both of those things. (You are both right to make those points.) It still happens, though! Anyone have any ideas? Thanks. --Sm8900 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably a browser issue.--Commander Keane 01:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been asked many times before. See the "Design flaw in the login page?" section here. I think {helpme} cannot help you further white this question (since you have the solution). Try Help desk or WP:VP/T if you are not satisfied.--Commander Keane 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that the [edit] buttons were not working for my talk page, it seems someone placed a __NOEDITSECTION__ there by mistake. I ended up adding a FAQ (Nubio 149) for you question.--Commander Keane 02:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nubio is the only external Wikipedia FAQ site. At Wikipedia:FAQ there is a link to it at the top ("searchable FAQ"). It is also linked in the {{helpme}} template and on the Help desk. Nubio is hosted on the Toolserver, some servers donated to Wikimedia Germany. You can view its List of projects for other tools.--Commander Keane 02:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

test. --Steve, User:Sm8900 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ques re searches 3/16

Is anyone else having trouble with doing searches? I just did a search for the word "Charles," and it told me it couldn't do it. Anyone else? (BTW, please do not delete the 'helpme' tag right away.) Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, although you can always try Googling Wikipedia when it's not working for you. Xiner (talk, email) 17:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My revert on Effects of global warming

Hi Sm8900! Sorry for reverting you (again). I'm certain you are trying to be helpful. But I have trouble understanding what exactly you are trying to do. You seem to want to build a collection of recent topics. But the climate change articles are organized not chronologically, but by topic. I just don't see where such a collection of remarks would fit, and how it would contribute to an encyclopedic article, i.e. something that should have some persistence and stability. Also see WP:NOT (a directory). --Stephan Schulz 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Lost Tribes

I accidentally reverted your recent edits on Ten Lost Tribes just now, I have since undone the edit. Sorry about that, I thought it was vandalism. Terence 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Advice

Got your advice on mediation. Thank you. I shall figure out what to do. But I have a neutral thinking mind which sometimes gets me into trouble. --Blue Tie 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming (a few)

Sm8900, i'm quite willing to defend your hill, if you can convince me that its more than a handfull. I've been following this debate for some time - and am actively discussing GW in other fora. From my experience in reading sceptical literature (of which i've read quite a bit more than non-sceptical ones) i cannot honestly say that i think they are more than a few. Suggestion: how about actively trying to find more sceptics for the Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article first - to establish dissent(ers)? And please do not be shocked about the discussions that such inclusions at times lead to - there really is honest debate there, which is primarily to establish that we do not unintentionally include the wrong people. --Kim D. Petersen 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim. that's fine. My real intention is to try to give more voice to the Wikipedia editors who are striving for diversity. The specific point I was editing in the article just now is not the main issue. Let me know, if you want, if you feel like there are many other editors who would support an effort to bring more diversity to the main GW article. If you don't feel that is the case, then I guess you don't see the same problem which I do. Anyway, no problem, either way. Thanks. --Sm8900 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

Sm8900, I am really trying to assume good faith and assume you are for real not just trying to wind people up. WHAT is the notable alternative view on Global warming missing from the article? You have said many 8 or nine times that it only gives one view etc but I can see a wide range of theories and effects. So what is the article missing as a perspective? --BozMo talk 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. I appreciate you good-faith towards resolution. I really wish I could respond with a brief direct answer which would be as effective as your constructive helpfulness. However, the problem is not any one viewpoint, but the entire editing style which has steadily taken hold. there really is no foundation for a small group of editors repeatedly deleting new edits because they feel it gives undue weight against what they feel to be the consensus. Wikipedia articles are just not supposed to work this way. When editors make coherent, relevant contributions, they are supposed to be given some leeway, not deleted within 90 seconds.For instance, when I changed "a few scientists" to "some scientists," it is really amazing for someone to change it within 30 seconds. Even if that phrasing were totally wrong, (which it is not), there really is no call for any Wikipedia article to be so contentious.

The answer of the pro-warming side is that their side has the weight of consensus. Sorry, but no article here is designed to reflect of one side or another. They are simply supposed to reflect both sides adequately and accurately. If Uber wants to add references from the other side, and they have proper sources, then there really seems to me to be no justification for preventing those edits. That's just the way i feel. So i really appreciate you putting so much time and energy into open communication. That's very helpful. So thanks very much. Hope what i have written is helpful. Sorry, but I have to sign off within the next few minutes. I may not be online again for a few days. Please feel free to leave any comments, and I will try to respond at a later point. Thanks. (sorry for any typos, BTW). --Sm8900 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know how quickly it would have been reverted if you'd changed "a few" to "hardly any" or some other increment in that direction. If inching one way is more aggressively removed than the other way then we certainly have an issue. At the risk of speculating I reckon I have noticed that reverts one way are quicker when Europe is awake but not the US and the other way after the EU has gone to bed. --BozMo talk 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. i replied to you at your talk page. For anyone else watching this, i am now signed on. thanks. --Sm8900 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.."Are you saying you completely agree with me, re that specific edit?" >> (1) The "IF" was a real if. I am not sure whether edits pro GW are reverted faster than edits anti GW, I would need the time to look through examples of this, but it does seem very plausible. (2) FWIW I marginally prefer "some" to "a few", but it really is marginal. I personally have changed "a number" to "some" in this sentence, so I must think "some" is ok.

.."do you agree with me re my feelings on the direction of the article itself?" I think "no". Personally I have found the "anti GW" editors much more aggressive, much less civil and more inclined to personal attacks than the "pro GW" editors. That's probably a function of which way my first edit went and what reaction I got, but also I have tended to find the arguments presented more coherent. But perhaps thats about the editors being better rather than the references. I am certainly open to be convinced but don't yet see systematic bias. I am thinking about Blue Tie's proposed new agenda, but haven't made up my mind yet.--BozMo talk 21:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. I appreciate your helpful and constructive reply to me. part of the reason you do not see any systemic bias by the pro GW side is that they've alrready done such a good job of enforcing their views and locking down the article, that they're little need for them to fight or contend any more. in my view, the entire article is mis-written and mishandled. My reason for this is very simple. I do not think this should be just an overview of the global warming theory in the first place.

i think this article should, rather, be an overview of the evolution and history of the global warming issue/debate itself. This means the article would present societal views, history of the debate, overview of political movements and ideas, dissenting views, as well as the theory itself. this would be much more comprehensive, and much more in keeping with other "overview" articles of a similar type. So that's my basic idea. Hope that sounds good. Feel free to comment. thanks. --Sm8900 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think to justify the shift you need a precedent from other articles or the manual of style. I haven't really looked around. What's your favourite on a comparable subject? Acid rain? --BozMo talk 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. How about this as a useful precedent: Nuclear power. Covers many subtopics and concerns at once. --Sm8900 19:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practical joke

Glad you liked it! Silas Snider (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Online

Actually, I don't know the first thing about ST online -- I was using Lupin's anti-vandal tool to check for spelling errors as they were saved, and I came across your edit. Silas Snider (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is at the above link (User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool), and the part I was using was the 'live spellcheck' tool. I actually live in Eugene, Oregon, not the UK though. Have fun with the tool! Silas Snider (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin powers

As I wrote on KBs talk page, I'm out of the mediation until a mediator steps in to restrain the PA.

Part of that is your apparent belief that I've abused my admin powers to intervene. As far as I know I haven't. If I have, do please list examples here. If you can't, then withdraw your remarks William M. Connolley 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i tried to make clear, I was not trying to cast any aspersions on you as an individual, or perhaps even as an editor. However, what I do feel is that your admin status gives undue weight to the pro-GW side. one example I would offer is the fact that you were able to lock the article recently; i realized it is now unlocked. However, the locking itself was not the main issue, as you have been also able to do numerous reverts in order to counteract what you consider to be unwarranted edits. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. --Sm8900 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins have no priv as editors. If people tend to respect them (clearly not amongst the skeptics, of course) then you might want to ponder if there is a reason for that and it may not be "undue". When exactly did I lock the page, anyway? And you do realise that Raul, DF and BozMo are all admins, don't you? William M. Connolley 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William. No, i didn;t realize they were. I'm not saying you did, but it seems like you did. Let me ask a question which is sincerely for information. Who locked the page around the time of the starw poll? I thought you had locked it, and were unlocking it? And you are the one who stated that you were protecting the page. that's why I was aware you were an admin.

Ok, just checked, and it was Bozmo, so maybe all my comments are valid, but in regards to him, not you. hmmm. have to think about this. So I guess you are saying you have never locked the page? I do appreciate your reply. BTW, I'm not claiming to be any kind of arbiter; as I said, I was not trying to cast aspersions on you personally. thanks. --Sm8900 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-d the page: as far as I'm aware thats as it should be. I would only lock it under extreme circumstances, because I *am* involved. Did you mean 2007-03-25T23:43:08 Michaelas10 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Global warming (Edit warring. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (Change)? Re arbiter: well of course not. And I don't understand as you have been also able to do numerous reverts - I've done no more than anyone else could William M. Connolley 19:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but when you do them, and also say (elsewhere) that you are protecting the page, people understand that you are an admin, and become reluctant to press the matter further. I know you'll disagree with that, but since I am an ordinary editor, I do know it does happen to be a fact from that vantage point. --Sm8900 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my Q re rv. I don't lean on my admin status: please don't flash it around in mediation. My request to you to withdraw your remarks remains. Meanwhile, you were defneding the finance stuff on GW Users do sometimes have the right to try out some new ideas, without having a few people veto them for no solid reason. You're unaware of N's history over this, clearly. But anway, I've listed some stuff against Stern and the current state of the finance section and invite you to defned it, if you still wish to William M. Connolley 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my answer. You have made several reverts. You have also identified yourself as an admin, and protected the entry. As far as I'm concerned, these two actions are related. i understand that you sincerely feel they are not. i don't question your sincerity, or your good faith. However, i do feel that these factors are giving undue weight to the pro-GW side, and are very relevant to the mediation and are therefore worth mentioning. --Sm8900 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand. Do you understand the difference between semi-prot and prot? If you do, what is this "relation" you're talking about? William M. Connolley 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you misused your admin powers to prot the entry. I said the fact you have used your admin powers in this article at all makes people reluctant to challenge your reverts.

Given the history of skeptics reverting my edits, I thinks thats obviously wrong. I'm giving up at this point William M. Connolley 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an issue because it appears I justified any personal attacks on you, i will gladly withdrw any comments which appear to justify such attacks. However, my feelings re the admin issue still stand, and are only reinforced by the fact you are not the only pro-GW editor using admin power. I appreciate your input and feedback, BTW. thanks. --Sm8900 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi. I appreciate your replies, and I will continue to give them some thought, as they obviously and clearly deserve. by the way, let me just add that you have my highest respect, for the fact that you do identify yourself openly, in your entry, and make no secret of who you are or your beliefs. that's different than many people here who generally remain anonymous, myself included. so my respect for you as a person is sincere. thanks. --Sm8900 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

I appreciate that you probably have a viewpoint which casts your actions on this article in a favourable light but please bear in mind that a perception exists that the article as is is pretty fair, well maintained by about 20 editors and gives due weight to both positive and sceptic views. If you keep going around trying to recruit minority view editors from around the place you will make an acceptable situation much worse. I think this isn't an impressive thing to try to do, and its seriously undermining your personal credibility with me at any rate. What's next? You post on the Republican Party talk page asking for right wing political editors to go there; someone posts on the science pages asking for scientific editors to go there and it becomes 200 to 50 instead of 20 to 5? Gosh won't that make the world a better place. --BozMo talk 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bozmo. You raise some valid concerns. However, i guess the main difference we have is that I don't view Global Warming solely as a science article. That's one of the reasons for our editorial differences as well; I think the article should cover a wider variety of sub-topics. However, just to reassure you, that last canvass was the only one I planned to do. As you know, those were posted a week before they became an issue, and I have not done any since then. Your point re whether there is existing consensus is valid; I was responding mainly to the open mediation, and also to the existing arguments which obviously occur at the article's talk page.

I appreciate your feedback and input. I do not feel I did anything wrong, so I wouldn't stop doing any of this based on those grounds. However, your point about how together we can just pursue some constructive means to pursue this article's quality is always a valid subject, obviously, so I don't mind a continuing discussion about that, now or anytime. Thanks for all your points. See you. --Sm8900 13:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can put together a coherent article that way and move the science detail to a sub page I think I would support it. But the article is very long...--BozMo talk 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! harmony! I agree too.--Blue Tie 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I did not act on this, becuase I personally didn't have them to generate the article, even though i appreciated his suggestion. And anyway, any compromise of course doesn't come from just the 2 or 3 of us, but from the whole group. However, of course you are free to act on this. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try

but no one is going to admit to being a page warrior ... except I guess Iblis. --Blue Tie 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Preview

Hi Sm8900! I notice on the edit history of talk pages that often times there are multiple successive edits made by you. For people who review edit histories, such as myself, this is burdensome when the edits are minor spell checks or what not. I just came here to suggest using the "Show preview" button before submitting new entries. This is in no way any obligation, just a helpful suggestion! I, too, often find myself finding inconsistencies or errors in my messages, so I understand necessity in constantly improving my messages. But I think using the preview button or reviewing the material before submitting has helped me cut down on these problems. Hope this helps! ~ UBeR 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. thanks for the suggestion. However, sometimes I notice there's nothing like seeing your words on the page, for inspring those last few intricate but vital edits! :-) However, i appreciate your point. thanks. See you. --Sm8900 20:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean. ~ UBeR 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for user contributions

recently, I was looking up my own contributions, and somehow stumbled onto a page with a search box, where I could enter different users' names, click "search", and instantly view a list of their contrib. Now I am unable to find this again. Can anyone please help? I am only able to access this now the obvious way, ie typing the users name diurectly into the browser address bar. Appreciate any help. Thanks. --Sm8900 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a function which is available to all users. Real96 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All i can think off is Special:Log if that doesn't work please try me help desk then tell me on my talk page using the links in my name. Have a good day Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would love to help you with the article in question, just let me know when, on my talk page and I will be glad to. I am still keeping a look out for that search box for you (i sworn i have used that before aswell), and by the way I live in Manchester United Kingdom. Its nice to meet you. Regards Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the search box, i have just found it Special:Contributions. Have fun Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 14:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a genius! Thanks so much! :-) Appreciate your help. See you. --Sm8900 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I want to express my appreciation for your support. But even more, for your kind but logical approach to problems. Evidently we have equivalent ways of dealing with things. I used to live in NYC... Governors Island to be exact. Loved it. --Blue Tie 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blue Tie! Appreciate you saying that. By the way, my name is Steve, and I currently live in Brooklyn. i appreciate all your help, too. By the way, you lived on Governor's Island? Were you in the US Coast Guard? Anyway, good to hear from you. (I'm logging off soon, but will reply again later.) See you! --Sm8900 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand the proposal

In this edit, you support VSmith. Not really sure what he is proposing or what you are agreeing to. Are you agreeing to: limiting the article to science or expanding it to all GW items? Are you saying it should not include the general sense of global warming but it should only address the current version? I see no reason to exclude historical global warming unless one wants to push some pov. Not really sure what you are advocating in any case.--Blue Tie 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI Blue Tie. Thanks for your questions. If it's not clear to you, of all people, then it certainly needs some clarification. I am agreeing to expanding the article to include all GW items. I am saying it should include historical global warming. It should NOT only address the current version, but should include the general sense of global warming. Thanks. --Sm8900 12:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No snarky personal attacks!

This edit is nothing but a snarky personal attack, forbidden by WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and WP:AGF. Don't do it again.

Atlant 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That post probably wasn't a good idea. It will just provoke others, as has already occurred. Thegreatdr 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

I'm a meteorologist. I used to know climatologists who made a distinction between mets and themselves, but most meteorologists have some knowledge of climatology. It is helpful in regards to forecasting, particularly more than a few days ahead of time. I did not want to broach the fluidity concerning most wikipedia article edits. There are other articles where one person (usually the person who initially developed the page) will watch the article as it is edited by others, and make sure no serious degredation is made to it. I think if civility takes place, and people keep the topic within the realm of the broad consensus view, regardless of the article, the article may yet evolve in a process similar to other wikipedia articles. Thegreatdr 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay edits

Note the policy that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. -M^ask? 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but we still don't need to necessarily have those expressions, do we? truthfully, i don't normally care about language like that too much, but in this case it did seem a bit unneeded. Appreciate your reply. --Sm8900 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It adds a bit to the humor of the page, that some of these cruft issues are so absurd. Anyway, sorry to jump on you like that :) -M^ask? 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no prob! I enjoy a good exchange! this wrangling in cyberspace is quite bracing. perhaps sometime we could wrangle over an idiom here or there! :-) Thanks for that note. --Sm8900 20:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RuneScape. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

New project page

I saw your reply to Michael Safyan at the Palestin project. I liked what you said, and wrote a reply to him also. however, then I thought better about doing it. however, i wanted to share it with someone. what do you think of this reply? thanks.

I like your idea. As we all know, Palestinians generally disagree with any pro-Israel editors as to whether Israel has a right to exist, has a right to assert itself, to defend itself, or to express itself, or to get out of bed, go to the mirror and brush its teeth. So by giving every single article disputed status, we can point out that while we don't actually dislike Jews or Israel,we do dispute everything they say; however, this is only because Israel's misdeeds are so huge and enormous, and so uttterly eclipse thoise of any nation in the history of the world, that there is no reason to grant validity to anything they say. however, we would be happy to do so if Isrel wasn't so bad. In other words, we want to make clear that we dispute everything the Israelis say, their right to say them, and their right to defend their right to say them.
(By the way, i was kidding when i wrote this.

Thanks, nadav. --Sm8900 17:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably good that you didn't include this there; sarcasm can cause some misunderstandings on WIkipedia. (Somone even wrote a funny essay about it WP:SARCASM.)

I think you're right. good to hear from you. see you. --Sm8900 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon debate

You're probably right. My biggest concern is that other editors will take him on his word, and not review his sources. My only hope is to try to put his sources into perspective, and hopefully convince other editors to review his claims for themselves. The move request ends in a couple of days, however, and I'm not sure if there's much left to be said anyways. — George^[talk] 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. thanks for writing back. see you. --Sm8900 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist

How do i increase the number of changes shown in my watchlist? I know how to set the time period, and changed it to .3 days. I have 675 pages on my list, but only see 68 chantges/ I 've been wondering about this for a while. I know I canm tell it to show all changes to every page, but then I get too many. Is there a way to simply increase the number involved? If so, what's involved? If noit, what are some options? thanks. --Sm8900 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Preferences and go to the section marked "Watchlist" and change it there..--Comet styles 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for your reply. I did do that. But I still get only a small quantity. I don't think I am seeing changes to all pages on the watchlist, even for those changed within the specified time period. Is there any way to get a larger quantity of changes to be displayed, without changing the time period? thanks. --Sm8900 14:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well select 2 for the "Number of days to show in watchlist" then in the second one "Number of edits to show in expanded watchlist:" add atleast 200 and then reload your Special:Watchlist ..--Comet styles 14:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will try that. thanks for your reply. see you. --Sm8900

"This is definitely true. Go to a local Best Buy if you don't believe me."

I reverted your edit. Your assertion that the majority of VCRs on sale do not have tuners is very questionable, and you can't just back it up by saying

This is definitely true. Go to a local Best Buy if you don't believe me.

Please read the rules on original research if it isn't clear why. Thanks. Fourohfour 11:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: article edits

So far nothing I object to. If there was something I disapproved of, I would have edited it. --GHcool 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Lebanon War Mediation

Hey, I know you've already expressed interest in taking part in the mediation Shamir1 opened, so I've added you (along with some others) as parties to the discussion. Cheers. — George^[talk] 23:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! let me know if I have to do anything to confirm my support for pursuing mediation. see you. --Sm8900 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should put that you agree to the mediation on this page. Chers. — George^[talk] 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, probably shouldn't remove people from the list. :) Both he and Flayer haven't responded yet, but I think they're given 7 days to do so (which is another 5 days from now). In any event, might want to check with the mediator, Daniel. Cheers. — George^[talk] 18:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.touro.edu/med/ . As a copyright violation, Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Conscious 09:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comment

Sorry for not replying to your comment sooner, I overlooked it. My mistake :-(

Reply is at User_talk:Fourohfour#VCR_article. Fourohfour 19:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Charter

Is there really a need to post the charter here, when one can just as easily link to the UN and get the text there? It's also posted on Wikisource, making your post redundant. --Finngall ^talk 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You make a valid point. However, I was just helping to fill out a link posted in red, in the {{UN charter}} info box.--Sm8900 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems to me that the problem is not that the article is missing, it's that the infobox needs to have those links removed. --Finngall ^talk 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maybe. I don't presume to be the definitive authority on this issue, of course. thanks. --Sm8900 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add something meaningful about this chapter (what it's for, who wrote this section, background and historical context) like Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter has, then it might be useful. If it's just going to be a copy of text that already exists elsewhere, I'm going to prod-tag it. --Finngall ^talk 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok. appreciate the update. thanks. --Sm8900 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I reviewed you. Yechiel Man 14:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:St bc1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:St bc1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Gather (website)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gather (website), by DarkSaber2k (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gather (website) is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gather (website), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Gather (website) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hi thank you for your useful contributions on the talk page of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please, if it is not asking for too much, could you state whether you oppose or support my proposal in the way I have done here I think that will make it easier for any user to see whether it got support or it didn't. Thank you very much.--Jorditxei 10:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because i'm a pragmatist, not an idealist :)

--Urthogie 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What made you think I was an idealist?--Urthogie 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely energetic and opinionated but in my own way, not really for any specific idea I suppose.--Urthogie 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi. could you please tell me what happened to the "Leave comment" tab which appeared on talk pages before? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. You may have been looking at someone's template that had a "Leave comment" tab. But it's always been an "edit this page" or the "+" tab that allows you to add a comment. Do you have a specific page where you remembered seeing it? Hoof Hearted 17:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thank you. --GHcool 02:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome! see you.--Steve, Sm8900 13:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your edit on Barnstar? I recognize that "Confusion with..." was clunky wording, but simply removing it leaves the section without the context that these things are incorrectly referred to as barnstars. Pjbflynn 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That is the only reference I could find, on all Wikipedia, ewhich explains the function of those little star-shaped metal things you see in old brick houses in odneighborhoods in places like Washington, DC, Phila, etc. In the Northeast US, those things are all over the place. So I changed that section name, and created an article Star-shaped adornments which redirects there. i figured that might be a question which soime people have. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 13:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For setting an example of what consensus building, neutrality, and fairness might look like and helping defend the edits of those who don't necessarily share your POV Tiamat 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tiamat 13:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tiamat! I really appreciate your kind and encouraging gesture. it means a lot to be appreciated. thanks. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions, deletions

Hi Steve. I made a report at WP:ANI about the mass deletions of material at the Palestinian people page. Thought you might want to check it out. Tiamat 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irony

Yes, I am American too. And I love the irony when it is so deep, juicy, and good that one falls in and needs hip boots to wade out of the crap! :) --Timeshifter 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canaanite civilization material

Steve -- Hi. Thanks for you kind words. You asked Tiamut to comment on "a compromise on the table right now." While I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind, I think your q is helpful and you might pursue that with her directly. However, assuming that she deserves a chance to step away for some time, are you willing to work on -- edit, implement -- the compromise? Well, presumably a compromise that you can live with? BTW, if you look at her and my talk pages, you may get a sense already of her level of agreement/reservations. Regards. HG | Talk 16:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i definitely am willing to do so. thanks so much for asking. however, I am not the main party to this, so I would hope she would still be free to come back later and ask for more. The fact is, i might even agree to things which she would probably disagree with, since we do not have the same approach to this whole matter. How does that sound? --Steve, Sm8900 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek music

Hi Steve, please note that I just nominated the redirect Classical Music in Star Trek for deletion. I think the category is bound to be deleted, following precedents and consensus that TV series are not defining categories for actors or any other people associated with them. Lists are the way to go, e.g. List of Star Trek production staff which I finished yesterday.

Can you trace the other articles that used to be in Category:Star Trek music? I know I had put some in there myself! - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

err, thanks for the note. i do appreciate it. however, how do I trace articles in a category which no longer exists? :-) Anyway, i think most of them were moved to the soundtracks category. so I do have those in an article. --Steve, Sm8900 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I half hoped you might have made a note of them somewhere. Without that, you can look at the page history of one that you know about, then look for other contribs by the same editor who changed the history around the same date & time. In this case, I couldn't find any that way. I think perhaps the other articles have all been deleted, including I Hate You (from the fourth film). There was another one about a special instrument that was constructed to make a special sound, but I can't remember its name at all. As for those that are left, have you made an article yet (not counting the category)? - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did make this page: User:Sm8900/Trek composers. By the way, thanks for at least trying to find or preserve those articles. people who delete good articles on other people's hobbies/interests should be throttled. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 13:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well done. I've found what I was looking for and added them to your sub-page; hope that's OK by you. - Fayenatic london (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rhat's excellent. please do that as much as you want, and on any topics in addition to this one. the more information we have, the better. it's good to have your help on this in this way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Do you prefer the table to the list? Do dive in and add info if you have time; you'll see that I found several more composers listed at Memory Alpha, and most already have articles here too. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic, my old friend. Fayenatic...so good to see you. If you only knew where I've been. I have been in a conflict which will probably fragment half the galaxy and edit-block the other half, You have no idea ot the battle which is breaking out over our heads. What am I talking about? I'm only half kidding. Go take a look at these articles to see what i mean: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Anyway, as far as your comment, I sure appreciate all your help. i'll try to pitch in, but as you'll see, most of our forces are currently pinned down. :-) See you. --Steve, Sm8900 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean... and will keep my opinions to myself! Nearly done assimilating the MemoryAlpha list. I propose to actually move the page from your user space into article space when it's done.

Did you have time to eat today? Look after yourself! Best, - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! you're a real trooper. If I get a starship, you'll be my first choice to be Chief of Ops! :-) thanks for your help. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

If you think the Arbitration committee or some other body should judge content disputes, the correct place to raise the issue would be the Village Pump, or perhaps the en-wiki mailing list (which I'm told is the Jimbo-approved official off-wiki method for discussing policy). Please don't continue to make comments in the case just to prove a point. Thanks. Thatcher131 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am sure you will have seen it, please note that you have been named as a subject of a proposed remedy on the proposed decision page of the arbitration. You may comment on the evidence page, the workshop, or the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad 11:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

saving material

21st Century Jewish Autonomous Oblast

- In 2004 the Regional Government of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast of Russia announced that Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar has agreed to take part in the 70th anniversery celebration for the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Rabbi Lazar and Avraham Berkowitz, the Executive Director of the Federation of Jewish Communities CIS will lead a delegation to Birobidjan for the event. Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, the Chief Rabbi of Birobidjan and Chabad Lubavitch representative to the region, said "Today one can enjoy the benefits of the Yiddish culture and not be afraid to return to their Jewish traditions. Its safe without any Anti-Semitism and we plan to open the first Jewish day school here". It is estimated that at least 3,000 Jews live today in the city. Mordechai Scheiner, an Israeli father of six, has been the rabbi in Birobidzhan for the last five years. The town's synagogue opened in 2004.[1] The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia estimates the number of Jews in Russia at about 1 million, or 0.7 percent of the country's 143 million population. Sheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan -- just over 5 percent of the town's 75,000 population. [2]

- The Birobidzhan Jewish National University works in cooperation with the local jewish community of Birobidzhan. The university is unique in the Russian Far East. The basis of the training course is study of the Hebrew language, history and classic Jewish texts. [3] In recent years, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast has grown interested in its Jewish roots. Students study Hebrew and Yiddish at a Jewish school and Birobidzhan Jewish National University. In 1989, the Jewish center founded its Sunday school, where children studyYiddish, learn folk Jewish dance, and learn about the history of Israel. The Israeli government helps fund the program. [4]

Arbitration case status

Responding to your question on my talkpage, the case is definitely still open and the arbitrators remain in the process of voting. There has been no motion to dismiss, so a decision on the merits of the case will eventually emerge. Beyond that and in terms of timing, I'm afraid I don't have any more information than is publicly available on the proposed decision page itself. I have no way of knowing whether there is intensive discussion underway on the arbitrators' private mailing list, or whether arbitrators are still reviewing evidence, or whether they are backlogged on other cases or away on summer vacations. A post of your query to the proposed decision talkpage might (or might not) elicit a response from one of the arbitrators. Sorry I can't be more helpful with this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. that is fairly helpful actually, so thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your confidence

... in me, though overstated, is greatly appreciated. Anyway, one clarification, Steve. You said "I feel that currently we are responding to a specific tangible effort by HG to resolve things. he is someone with much crdibility in resolving and handling debates and contention. So I would suggest that we continue this debate, ..." As you will notice in the same section, I am suggesting that we work on recording a synthesis of the arguments, not to keep polling and voting. Thanks again! HG | Talk 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that sounds good. I will start trying to reflect that distinction in any future posts, discussions, etc. thanks very much for your message, and for all your great efforts. your efforts are very helpful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Per your suggestion, I tried to give facilitating advice on Talk:Battle of Jenin. Let me also take the liberty of pressing you on the way you chatted in that section. When you are arguing against somebody, esp if you're perceived to be on opposing sides, then I'd suggest keeping your tone and language more neutral, less breezy or sarcastic or personal. (E.g., Ummm, not sure how to break this to you... this is baloney. PalestineRemembered, are you not noticing... Have you read your own quotes? ... dude, you;re exhausting me. try reading your own quotes and then we can talk.) Please accept this as a friendly prod, recognizing your willingness to engage in such difficult topics. All the best, HG | Talk 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. you're right. Appreciate the point. I willt ry to be more aware of that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more detail at Battle of Jenin

Hiya Steve, when you first came to the Battle of Jenin article you said things like "what is with all this unneeded bickering? simply state the Palestinian allegations, and then the Israeli allegations. this is a highly controversial topic. there's no need to try to create objectivity where there isn't any." and "My point was also, do you guys want to express all Palestinian allegations abouyt Israeli actions. Fine; i see no problem; in fact my attitude is the more we express of Paesltinian ideas, allegations and sentiments, the better."

But later, you seem to have changed your mind completely, you now appear to have trouble with Palestinian (and International) allegations/evidence appearing in this article. Did something change, or have I mis-understood you? PalestineRemembered 16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PR. I appreciate the open and positive tone of your email. And I am glad to hear from you, and to talk anytime, and to help with anything if you feel I can ever be helpful in anyway. However, sorry, but we do have a definite disagreement on this. So yes, I guess i do admit some room for some debate and contention in any article. however, the main difference in my approach, in my opinion, is that I make it a point to never battle with palestinians just because they disagree with me. Also, more importantly, I also do not battle with palestinians over viewpoints which some might call fringe theories, because i feel some viewpoints might be considered fringe, but are still real expressions of Palestinian concerns. I feel this last point is what distniguishes me from some other pro-Israel editors here, many of whom are good-faith and quite positive and neutral, but who are less inclined to include some narrow view. So that is my atitude. And I really appreciate and feel complimented by your attention to my previous comments.

In regard to your recent points, we have a distinct disagreement. First of all, at first i couldn't understtand how you could be arguing for a massacre when all your quotes indicate there was not a massacre. Kyaa's posts helped me understand; i realize you were trying to point out that major media outlets paid little attention to retractions of the massacre story. Hoverver glossing over some retractions is not the same as refuting those retractions. So given that all the articles and columns which you quote say that major media outlets were distorted if they claimed that a massacre did take place, i feel this upholds the mainstream view that no massacre toook place. I certainly don't feel that the view that there was no massacre should be treated as minority view. That seems to me to make very little sense. However, I really appreciate you writing,. and being able to discuss things so openly. Thanks very much for writing. --Steve, Sm8900 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not "battling Palestinians" here, but you are "battling" WP policies if you accept what "windsofchange.com" want you to accept. Their references are some tiny portion of everything that was written about Jenin (they're also angry, polemical and nearly fact-free). Overwhelmingly (as they tell us in great detail), Jenin was treated by real RS's as an atrocity. And that's how the article should be written. It's in a shockingly POV state at the moment.

I was extremely disappointed that you refused to "write for the enemy" with the "Kurdi Bear" story. We're here to write an encyclopedia, after all - a small portion of personal accounts like that most certainly belong. That's how collegiate and cooperative editing is done. PalestineRemembered 21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You make some good points. I appreciate your ideas. I will try to sincerely think about this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 01:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jenin and a documented massacre

You posted: "gimme a break. there is no support for massacre allegations, from any source. I think we need to stop arguing over labels and charged weasel words. --Steve, Sm8900 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)".[reply]

I think you should know there is at least one direct and "investigated" allegation of a "mass-shooting" style massacre[5], and it appears to have been confirmed by Major-General Giora Eiland, the Head of the IDF Plans and Policy Directorate, described this case as one where IDF soldiers found three men hiding, one with a suicide bomb belt. He said: "There was one time when a company commander called on people to come out. Some women came out. The soldiers asked them if there were other people in the house. ‘Some visitors’, they replied. ‘Tell them to get out’. Three men got out; one held a baby. The IDF officer told him to give the baby to the women, he refused, the officer insisted, eventually he did so. Then they told the men to come closer and take off their shirts. Two took off shirts, one refused. Eventually he did and had a belt. He was shot."

This case is exceptional, because one of the men survived and disputes the allegations made by Israel against the men. He was able to give us the first names of the soldiers who did it. International observers have visited the spot where it happened and expressed unhappiness at the Israeli account. An autopsy was done on one of the dead men (this is almost the only such expert examination that Israel allowed to happen). No investigations was carried out by Israel, as is required in such cases.

But I'm glad you told us you believed that "Palestinian allegations" should go into the article, this one is clearly pretty credible and quite worrying. PalestineRemembered 10:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. thanks for the input. i will think about the items which you mentioned. At this point, my position is the same. I think I'd rather discuss athe article at the article talk page. I appreciate you letting me know about this though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking you to think about it, I'm simply pointing out that you've made a statement that you almost certainly now think is a mistake. I'm inviting you to withdraw it and assist me in getting the massacre information into the article (since I know you're in favour of including credible evidence of this kind). Regards, PalestineRemembered 19:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. thanks for your comment. however, sorry, I do not feel my previous statement was a mistake. at this point, I am doing very little editing of this article, but I am willing to follow this dicussion. I do appreciate your ideas, and your positive view of how we might both work to improve things. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I recently noticed you posted requests to watchlist Battle of Jenin to a selected group of users. I can't help but feel you are trying to "call in heavies" here, since you contacted only "pro-Israel" editors including a few notable edit warriors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this type of behavior is frowned upon. Eleland 18:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eleland. thanks for your message. you're correct that such behavior is not generally encouraged. howeverm it is considered accetable, when communicating in a neutral manner, with various specific editors able to lend their editing efforts in a good-faith manner. WP:CANVASS does not prohibit contacing specific editors in a neutral manner. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that you've infringed on policy, just that you've made a fairly dubious decision to "stack the deck". There are established procedures for attracting wider attention to an issue, rather than specifically bringing in more people who agree with you. I could go searching around for "pro-Palestinian" editors to turn this into more of a slugfest, but Wikipedia is not a battleground, or rather, it's not meant to be one. Eleland 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. you make some good points. I will try to keep these points and concerns in mind. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(following comment was self-removed by poster, to helpfully avoid too much contention, then restored by page owner.) The same thing seems to have happened again, this time to User:Nadav1‎, User:Humus sapiens‎, User:Amoruso‎, User:Jayjg‎ and User:GHcool‎. I trust these accounts were not "preselect recipients according to their established opinions." which would appear to be a breach of campaigning. PalestineRemembered 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good grief. no, they are just reliable editors. I don'tr know what the label is. I felt the article could benefit from their attention. If you think they would batter this article away, why trust anyone at Wikipedia? Anyone looking for a war could easily start one without my help or requests. the whole point here is that since they are not looking for random article to fight over, and defintely not looking for a war to start, it is beneficial for me to let them know that there is an article which could use their help and/or input. --Steve, Sm8900 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom is considering blocking you for a month for your previous "disruptive call to arms", I have notified them of this further example. PalestineRemembered 20:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your comment unwarranted, unjustified, and inconsiderate and disrespectful in the extreme. --Steve, Sm8900 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's contact with me falls under the category of a friendly notice. PalestineRemembered is correct with reference to my history of edits that see Israel in a positive light. I do not deny that I am what some people would call "pro-Israel," even though I dislike the term because it a more zealous attitude than the one I actually have. On the other hand, contacting me isn't that much more of a crime than contacting anybody else who edits extensively on Israel-related articles (most of whom seem to share my views on the Jewish state, perhaps because my views happen to be based on reliable sources).

In response to Steve's specific request, I regret that I do not feel comfortable adding Battle of Jenin to my watchlist because I honestly don't know very much about it and don't have the time right now to research it. From what I've read about Jenin, it seems to me to be a case of Palestinian terrorists from Jenin starting a fight by killing dozens of Israeli civilians, the IDF kills a handful of Palestinians (some were civilians), and then the world buying the Palestinian propoganda version of the story. I think the article is acceptable as it is. --GHcool 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. appreciate your reply. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the Arbcom of your disruption to TalkPages. PalestineRemembered 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I kinda got that from your previous message. thanks for confirming that though. appreciate it. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talkpage: Thanks for the invitation. The article is already on my watchlist, but unfortunately this month I don't think I will be on wikipedia often enough to be of much help in this. I'll look at the talk page and at least try to follow the debate. Best, nadav (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Re above: I took the notice to be in good faith, and I hope it was. Also, have I received a reputation as a pro-Israel editor? I'd much rather be considered a neutral editor and keep my personal opinions private. nadav (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your reply. i think of you mainly as an energetic and articulate editor, with insight into various topics. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sm8900 canvassing a 3rd time

At [6]

Sm8900 also canvassed User:HG to go Battle of Jenin saying HG .... Palestine remembered posted some quotes which obviously and glaringly dispute the claims of what he himself is saying.. (Sm8900 presumably chose HG to post this to because he could see HG and myself disagreeing about something else on the topic of I-P). This is a third example of the "Call to arms" behaviour he was accused of (by others) in this ArbCom.
Please hear me out while I add something else that that may or may not be significant: When HG acted very honourably to the above canvassing and tried to start a mediation of the article refered to, Kyaa the Catlord (utterly perversely, under the circumstances!) accused him of being "far to buddy buddy in tone with PR". I mention this because I think you should know there is a pattern of really tendentious, non-WP-like and non-AGF behaviour going on - and Sm8900 is right in the thick of it. Collegiate behaviour is at a premium - HG's much appreciated civility to me is counted as proof of bias on his part. Needless to say, this attitude is likely to have quite damaging effects on building the encyclopedia. A further statement "This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the chosen few who have decided to take part in a witchhunty kangaroo court." from the same editor is a clue to how serious this problem is becoming. (That statement was later struck through by the author, though I think that's as a potential personal attack, not as an admission of edit-warring). PalestineRemembered 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that PR just called me a pervert. Sweet. Kyaa the Catlord 12:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possibly. good to see you here, Kyaa. Drop by anytimne. thanks.

Steve (PR et alia), FYI, I've placed evidence against the canvassing concern, as it pertains to me. For what it's worth, instead of denouncing PR's allegations as "totally excessive..." etc., you might try simply stating that you consider the allegations as off-topic and that you have addressed them elsewhere. Take care. HG | Talk 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this last part of the notification to the ArbCom. PalestineRemembered 13:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you saying that you deleted part of your own message, in order to be constructive? I am always open to any positive actions on your part, so if that's the case, thanks; and thanks especially for taking the time to let me know here on my talk page. However, perhaps you were saying you deleted someone else's comments? Just want to make sure i fully understand. Anyway, thanks for contacting me. --Steve, Sm8900 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I fail to understand why you're having such a very hard time understanding the norms of the project, and the fact that HG claimed he was not being canvassed is neither here nor there, but I decided to delete it anyway. PalestineRemembered 16:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply. In regards to my conduct, we have differing views on that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Allegations of apartheid" workshop page

Responding to your message on my talk, regarding the recent edit to the Allegations of apartheid workshop page, I am afraid I do not know the basis for this action and have no information about it. I could offer a surmise, but I do not think that would be useful. I suggest that you ask Fred Bauder directly on his talkpage, or on the proposed decision talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok. however it is possible for you to follow up as well, based on the fact that you are the clerk for this case, and have not ben given a rationale for this? I will be offline for the next three days for holidays, and can take this up again when i get back online. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Fred to post further information. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV

Per WP:AN/I#PalestineRemembered_IV are you prepared to accept me as PalestineRemembered's mentor?Geni 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I haven't looked into this matter at all, but I assume you are a good, reasonable editor. Thanks for taking the time to write to me and to ask me. --Steve, Sm8900 16:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your CfD nomination - a suggestion

Hi there - as you yourself created the category that you've nominated for deletion, you can just add {{db-author}} to the category and an admin will happily delete it for you. No need for the drama of a CfD nomination if you've made a mistake (we've all been there...) Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 21:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GW

Replied at GW about what misleading means. --BozMo talk 10:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for the thoughtful note. I'm doing much better now (I haven't taken antibiotics in years, so when they went to work pretty fast). The house is also coming along slowly but surely. We'll probably move in with it half finished before the end of the month to avoid paying another month's rent. The rest will take some time anyway. I want to try to get artisanal tiles and do some mosaics on the floors and walls. It will be a lifetime work in progress. Great fun. Hope you're doing well too. Tiamut 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user page deleted

Simply because I wonder how to leave wikipedia and this is a first good step :-) Alithien 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh, ok. I hear you. however, I think right now your efforts are needed here at Wikipedia. :-) Hope you'll stick around for a bit, or at least be here every so often. I don;'t edit so much myself anymore, so i sort of undersatand. Thanks for writing. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 19:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi Steve,

I have speedy deleted Category:Alliances, per your request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 16#Category:Alliances. Since you asked, the way to this more easily is to use the tag {{db-author}}. For the full story on speedy deletion, see WP:CSD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using CategoryTree - fayenatic

Hi, I note that you added CategoryTree to a couple of head categories today. I wasn't aware of that feature before, and am really pleased to have learned it -- see e.g. Category:Hebrew Bible people, an example of a sub-category page that includes template text, so I only had to add CategoryTree to the template for all the relevant sub-cats to show it.

However, it seems a bit pointless to add the tree on the head category page Category:Star Trek, as its contents are compact enough for all the sub-cats to be visible there, and one can use + and - to explore the tree. It would make more sense to add it to some or all of the sub-cats. What do you think? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I guess you're right. I really just put it up there to see what people thought, and maybe to get a few positive and/or interesting comments. So you fit the bill on both counts. so I appreciate it. Please feel free to make any changes you want, or just remove it entirely.

By the way you seem to be pretty consistent in terms of your involvement. What are you up to generally? Do you have any favorite Trek series? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a compulsive daily habit here! You may have noticed I've joined my first WikiProject, and not an obvious one. I've wikified various name pages since Zechariah, and watch them for vandalism; one thing often leads to another, and I do enjoy improving messy ones. I'm pretty unfocussed on Wikipedia, but also try to keep up with WP:PROD, because valid stuff can be deleted by that route with less scrutiny than AFD.

My favourite Trek series is New Frontier! I set up a userbox & category for its Wikipedian fans, but as nobody joined me in it -- not even users who named themselves after its characters -- I recently deleted it. For more info see my page at Memory Alpha (not that I am an active user there).

Thanks for your message; I must have "unwatched" you inadvertently. I looked at your new categories, and suggest there should be a navigational link between Category:Diplomatic conferences and Category:Treaties. If one should not be within the other hierarchically, then I suggest adding a "See also" link on both Category pages. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds good. I may give that a try. thanks so much! Star trek Frontiers has been doing plenty, from what I hear. good for you for starting that. --Steve, Sm8900 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Steve, thanks for your kind note -- but, by all means, you are welcome to yourself write or comment on the review page itself. Feel free to speak your mind, I welcome your constructive feedback, criticisms, advice for improvement, etc. Here's the link. Best wishes, HG | Talk 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome! thanks for writing. i will add my comment right now. thanks for your help. --19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't bite the hand that feed you. Oops, wrong cliche, because here I'm going to give you a hard time. Your last comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Proposed decision seems ill-advised and unhelpful. Esp since you're an involved party. Maybe it was fun to write it. Don't spend it all in one place, but my 2 cents is that you would be better off with a self-revert. Whatever you decide, I remain, yours truly, HG | Talk 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. however in this case, I feel a little humor is not always such a bad thing. appreciate the suggestion though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Well done Sm8900 (Steve) you have made number 1 on my top 5 of Wikipedians! Rick-Levitt ^Talk ^Contribs 08:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came into contact with you with the Green Service Uniform. Very recently. Rick-Levitt ^Talk ^Contribs 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh sure. i realzie that. i just didn't know if that was the idea which got your attention, or something else. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate your noticing me. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 00:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 346: / Line 346: @@
 |}
 |}
+</font>
 ==need help==