User talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanz (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 18 September 2008 (→‎FYI: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1

Notes

Worked up

I'm not worked up. Sometimes my writing style can be seen as worked up, but that is because I tend to be direct and insist on rather clear and full details on things. That can be seen as a little excited, but I prefer to think of it as thorough. Discussions on wikipedia are debates, not votes, and I like to encourage that--Crossmr (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

In re [1]: I attempted to indicate on Sceptre's talk page that there are no IP similarities between Sceptre and Frosty Jack. They are both in the UK but on different ISPs. It is, of course, possible for one person to have more than one ISP, but at the moment there is no technical connection whatsoever between the accounts, and speculation to the contrary is just speculuation. Cheers. Thatcher 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shot you an email earlier (I believe it was the right address). Thanks again. rootology (T) 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not received it. Thatcher131 at gmail dot com? Thatcher 04:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thatcher at gmail just got a confusing email (no personal info--just probably absurdly out of context and bizarre to them!). I'll resend it right. rootology (C)(T) 04:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was frustrating when I tried to register. How dare someone take my name! By the way, I am almost certainly not running for Arbcom. Last year I wavered up until the last week of nominations and ultimately decided no. This year I'm not wavering at all, at least not now. But thanks for the vote of confidence. And if Kelly M. sees this, I wasn't mad, just disappointed. I also think a random or pseudo-random jury pool would be worth trying. The problem is that juries only work because they are supervised by judges who are empowered to rule on matters of legal interpretation, admissibility of evidence, and so on. I think for a jury system to work here it would have to be overseen by people with experience in arbitration-like matters to assist the jury on procedures and so forth, but who would be neutral on the cases themselves. I think it would be quite difficult to get such a system accepted. Some people would assume that the jury was being controlled by the "judge" (or facillitator, or whatever you want to call it) and would therefore think that decisions were being made by a cabal of one, instead of a cabal of fifteen. But it might be worth attempting as an experiment. Thatcher 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

As I've said now in at least three forums (including once about two inches above your most recent post), I, Matthew Bisanz, will not run for Arb Com in 2008. If nominated, I will not answer questions, if elected, I will not serve, yadda, yadda. Thanks for the thought though, at least half a dozen people have asked me to run, so I must be doing something right around here. MBisanz talk 03:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, you're screwing up my handicapping here! I'll never be the next Cosell. :P
For what its worth, I think you'd be one of the good ones, like I said on the Forum of Ultimately Supreme Human Deprivation. rootology (T) 03:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do know I saw a news thing on Artisan cheese a couple days ago, came here and was baffled we didn't have an article, and wondered how long it would take someone to write one. Thanks! MBisanz talk 15:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I was surprised when I saw it missing, too after I started that Beecher's article. Fancier cheeses up here are a lot cheaper it seems so its one of my few actual food vices beside pho. The artisan one could be a longer article by the time its done. rootology (C)(T) 15:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin

Tread lightly, I am not a newb.

With that said, Please verify your sources to make sure they are not one citation referring to another. Veriss (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not a newb either. rootology (C)(T) 07:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking for a conflict, just don't want to be run over. I just don't want the end product to be a partisan embarrassment to Wiki....that's my only goal.

Veriss (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, I might be new to all this, but I saw what was clearly a white wash rewrite of history to appease the powers that be. I just wanted to point out the history of the article and how it was re-titled to not sound so negative, when the fact is that she is under investigation. ~Carterartist[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the vote of confidence at WR, but unless something with my schedule changes between now and December, I won't be running for ArbCom. For one, at my current schedule I don't have the time to devote to it, and being as I was critical last year of the very same thing, I can't in good conscience run. Secondly, I've pissed off enough people to make it largely impossible, given the likely mechanisms ArbCom elections would use, but even if that didn't happen, the level of controversy that'd inevitably follow would be detrimental to ArbCom. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, time will tell. If you do find the time and jump in, I hope I do better at least than my meta prediction. :( rootology (C)(T) 15:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No winner

Thanks for your note. I subsequently found that you'd discussed the essay on another site, where I suppose the user has an account. It just seemed odd that he'd found an (essentially) unlinked page so quickly. Nice essay, by the way. Wikipedia:Is not about winning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Will. rootology (C)(T) 22:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the revert. DurovaCharge! 19:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. rootology (C)(T) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives for UFO Research

See User:Rootology/Archives for UFO Research. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stifle. rootology (C)(T) 14:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Copyediting

Sure thing. What is your time frame for getting this done? I can work on it this week. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! And no rush at all--totally whenever you can work on it, absolutely at your convenience. I've been starting to work on the linked articles under Template:Pike Place Market in the meanwhile. rootology (C)(T) 16:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking

Since you and I seem to be interested in this sorta think I set up User:MBisanz/ACE2008 to track the pre-election buzz. MBisanz talk 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fellow nutmegger

I didn't know that! I know your user name from seeing it on various discussions, and the "Rootology" brand makes me more likely to buy into whatever your comment is, although I'm sure I disagree on plenty of occasions. In recent months (up until a couple of days ago) I'd neglected edits to local subjects because it's just so important to get hot and bothered on Obama related pages, where I can bang my head against the wall, get steamed and watch my edits go down the tubes in partisan wrangles. It's just so much fun! I get the impression that, like me, you like fair treatment of users on this site, but I think I've seen you more on bureaucracy pages (AN/I? Arbcom? Mantanmoreland?). I've also found your comments at a certain other website don't tend to make me knash my teeth (but don't ask me now to remember any -- oh wait a minute, something about helicopters a while back? Tell that Guy that anyone can invent a helicopter -- we happen to make and develop the world's best). Every now and again I go around the area and take (generally awful) pictures of local things, and for some strange reason I've taken pics of train stations, a subject that I don't find very interesting (I guess the local angle is interesting). One day I'm going to visit that vast and intimidating National Helicopter Museum at that old train stationhouse in Stratford.

I noticed some pretty cogent comments by you on the Palin page (I know they were cogent because they were agreeing with me). Discussing these kinds of topics on the Obama pages, on the John Edwards paternity Afd, on the McCain lobbyist controversy article and now here makes me think about how the same principles need to be applied evenly, although circumstances also are going to matter in whether we decide to cover something and how we do it. I've been a big defender of the right to include information under WP:WELLKNOWN, although I'm now wondering how much other sections of WP:BLP should come into play. The problem with a lot of these discussions is that much of it is made up of judgment calls that policies and guidelines don't really address (or can't). That may be more of a strength than a problem, actually, but it means that there isn't always a lot to guide us when a very emotional issue comes up, like the nasty Palin grandmother-of-Trig rumor or the Palin-soon-to-be-a-grandmother fact. The idea that Palin's husband's 20-year-old DWI should be in this article is something I find ludicrous, but it seems just important enough to me to put into his own bio. There was just a discussion on the Talk:Barack Obama page about whether to include Obama's own drug use while in college (25-plus years ago). I think it's worth a line on the main page, and not much more on the "Early life" page, and of course, what's more important is that he says he stopped using it in '83 or so.

I think on the Palin page we're seeing a lot of inexperienced Wikipedia editors and people new to Wikipedia who have an interest in Palin. These people don't understand things like WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:RS, and that's hardly their fault. The more I edit contentious articles, the more I want to stick to policies and guidelines, because they help anchor me to reality. I went through that same process when I got involved in AfDs -- at first being a strong inclusionist, now less so. I tend to be very inclusionist when it comes to WP:WELLKNOWN public officials, especially candidates, but I lean strongly for deletion of gray-area material that's hurtful to people who are not WP:WELLKNOWN. Palin's daughter is a bit on the edge -- I think it's worth including, but not much information. I think mentioning the discredited rumor about Trig is probably not even necessary in the article, although it probably should be in the Campaign article.

Just noticed how long my comment is. I'd better cut it short here (fast typing has its disadvantages -- mostly for readers of what I type). -- Noroton (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long write up for this, but I'll just say thank you, and that (despite the fact that some of my posts on the Board of Divine Human Flaggelation are a little... colorful? in regards to the Conservatives) I'm never going to import stupid political crap here if I can help it. Hell, one of my best friends growing up is as conservative as I'm liberal, and we used to just laugh at how far apart we were, then have a beer and laugh some more. I think the Palin thing will sort itself out fine (as long as there's no new "Shoulda vetted her, John!" drama like today, with AIP--wtf?) over time. The helicopter thing back home is a sore point for me. The museum is OK--its fun, don't plan to make a day of it. Hit up Paradise Pizza up Main Street if you go, in Paradise Green--about 2.5 miles north of the museum. Great stuff, or it used to be 3-4 years back (I was partial to the meat pie and the greek salads). Oh, and I swear to God, I'm sick of these people denying the true Huskies with their fake fake Huskies. Jonathan would kill them all and let Geno Auriemma sort them out. rootology (C)(T) 18:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely check those out. One of the ways you tell the classy from the non-classy editors here is whether they're capable of separating what they want politically from what they want wikipedialy. Somewhere on this site they say "write for the other side" -- try writing something that fairly describes something favorable to the other side. I actually find that enjoyable. (I was checking out an article in order to add something about Obama's law school experiences to Early life and career of Barack Obama, I read one article from New York magazine in which -- I think it was Robert Reich who said that when he was in law school at Yale, he could look around his classroom and see Michael Medved, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and, in the back, not saying much, Clarence Thomas. I love that. No, I don't even care what your politics are. It does tend to color someone's edits (sometimes in ways that hurt an article, sometimes in ways that help restore balance), but most people can be pretty successful in separating their political views from their views of what's good for an article. -- Noroton (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN

You really don't want to know how much I despise users logging out to do the sort of thing that is going on at AN right now. The fact that policy isn't clear enough to let me block them outright, and usually isn't good enough to get a checkuser, drives me NUTS. /me ends rants. Happy editing. MBisanz talk 18:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me when I saw that watching that stuff from the sidelines for a yearish drove me crazy. The day that everyone is forced to login and have only one account bound to one email address in some gloriously restrictive way will make me quite happy, as counter as it is to our "wiki way". Specifically to shut down a ton of games and make checkusering and all that hunting the exception and special event rather than the rule. rootology (C)(T) 18:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: 3rr

I have removed the material 3 times and don't plan on doing it a fourth. However, the user in question has added the material at least 6 times.--ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Thanks, even though I think it's really a BLP I will leave it to others now, you are right that sometimes these things are contested. Hobartimus (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just no

Do not ever refactor my comments on WP:AN. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to enforce this. Sorry. We do not vote on BLP protection if they're getting all but metaphorically raped and slandered rapid fire. rootology (C)(T) 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree with me. But do not refactor my comments. A simple request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the circumstances I'm happy to honor the good faith request here. It was your initial language (coming in, as you are an admin) that concerned me. But we're copacetic now. Just don't violate consensus and abuse BLPs with misuse of the tools. A simple request. rootology (C)(T) 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello! I just wanted to pass along my thanks for your support in my RfA from earlier this week. I hope I did not disappoint you. I am going on Wikibreak and I will let you know when or if I am back on the site -- I am trying to take time away to clear my thoughts and refocus on this and other priorities. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of sorts

File:Moosehead.png The Sarah Palin Honorary Moosehead
For proof that BLP can and does transcend partisanship. Thanks for your efforts. Cool Hand Luke 22:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Luke. rootology (C)(T) 05:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a compliment...? Anthøny ✉ 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats how I read it, but sometimes my irony-o-meter goes haywire? rootology (C)(T) 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Allegations

Christ almighty, if it wasn't so ridiculous I'd be offended. I was trying to talk a situation[2] down, or at least escalate it to more definitive action. Looks like I got caught in a Big Hairy Deal.--Tznkai (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got no idea. Even after a couple hours, a dinner and drinks away, I'm still scratching my head at the absurdity of it all. So who are you really a sockpuppet of? Is this Jimmy? :P rootology (C)(T) 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HA! You know, I think thats the second time I've been accused of that, and back when I started, people thought I was a sock because I was a very... uppity and competent newbie.--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at it the less it makes sense, and the more entangled it seems to get into wikipolitics almost as old as the project.--Tznkai (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up on trying to understand the whys of it a few hours ago, myself. rootology (C)(T) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Traffic

For the record, the main page averages ~6 million hits per day. Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll update the evidence. rootology (C)(T) 06:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case

Root, just wanted to offer you props for the work on the Arb case. I had planned to put together some evidence together today, only to find that you've said everything needing saying far more thoroughly and eloquently than I ever could. Awesome work! Kelly hi! 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) A round of minor insomnia helped... rootology (C)(T) 16:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here is a convenient list. Kelly hi! 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rootology, thanks for the evidence review on edit volume. Would it be worth also adding in some or all of the various sub-articles and related articles then existing? I had wanted to stay the heck away, but got drawn in when the mess spread to other articles. A responsible editor really also needed to be dealing with these articles at the same time. Heck, even just including Political positions of Sarah Palin would provide a more comprehensive picture, and it was probably the worst, though the mess was getting to be quite widespread. GRBerry 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. I think it would be helpful, but my brain is fried after everything I pulled this morning. I might add more later, but I think I'm going to leave the subjective digging on good vs. bad edits for everyone else. I might be too close at this point to do it objectively for that. The side articles would be helpful, especially that one. I mean, God, we're going to be up to 3.00 a minute if we factor that in... rootology (C)(T) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you left the "anyone can add more evidence to this section" in the bit about edit warring, I've done so. Feel free to purge it, reduce it, or just go back to your last, since it is after all your evidence. GRBerry 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, thats fine, keep at it. Since that stuff is partially subjective it made more sense for us to work on together. rootology (C)(T) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree that it is subjective - one of my edit summaries noted that I wasn't sure about all of your entries. I will also say that I made no attempt to look and see what edits in that period might have been reverting by hand edits from before that period. The revert count would undoubtedly go up, as well as the largest N for NRR - which I think was about 8 just within the period. Not to mention that missing a revert would be easy to do when everything was being done by hand. GRBerry 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. I set out to just simply demonstrate there was an edit war that warranted protection, because I honest to goodness believe that to be true. As sad as it was, I think the BLP concerns were just the icing on the war cake. 56 likely to definite reverts in just 220 minutes is insane, I've seen articles locked down for 1/5th that much with no objection. But that's why I wanted to let anyone tweak it, I was sure I'd missed some. I honestly don't want to go edit by edit again through all 178 to try to parse it all out. I'd guess it would be plus or minus five to ten either way. BLP wise, I just really looked closely for that over the last half hour, earlier. If anyone wants to take on that analytical beast, more power to them. I'm prety satisfied you, I, and MBisanz have pretty conclusively demonstrated an epic edit war plus a host of BLP violations and concerns. I know Jossi is going to keep objecting, but he's also objecting that there was no consensus to protect to begin with, despite his being outnumbered a clear as day 24 to 1 there... what are you going to do? rootology (C)(T) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cook vandalism

How dare you revert my restoration of that important appraisal of the subject! While it may not have been sourced, it's commmon knowledge obvious to anyone who simply looks at the subject's photograph. (But seriously - I don't know how that revert happened - my mouse must have slipped - thanks for catching the error.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for reminding me of the sheer manliness of the bold mustache this guy was sporting. All men should grow these again, just to say: we're dudes. rootology (C)(T) 01:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hee hee - with all the political stuff lately, this gave me a mental image of McCain and Obama at the debates, both of them sporting gigantic moustaches. Somebody should do a photoshop. Kelly hi! 06:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of, when the hell are we getting a Jib Jab about Obama and McCain! I demand satisifaction. rootology (C)(T) 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Six weeks ago... Dragons flight (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol! Wow, I suck. rootology (C)(T) 07:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Greencards

Passed.--andreasegde (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! rootology (C)(T) 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NY, NY

The New York nomenclature is complicated. That's one reason why naming conventions are just guidelines - it's important to have some leeway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... doesn't it make sense though that major locations like Boston, Seattle, Rome, and Paris which have no real other notable name counterpart be just the name? I'm just not getting why some US cities would be exempt, but not others. On the national level, shouldn't it then be Paris, Île-de-France or Rome, Lazio? rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the U.S. different from European countries is the relatively large number of places with the same name. There are so many Portlands, Springfields, and Lancasters, etc., that many articles have to be disambiguated. To make it more consistent the convention calls for all U.S. places to use a standard format. Also, in the history of many European countries provinces have been redrawn or renamed from time to time, while states in the U.S. have been very stable. It's not a perfect solution, but it generally works. I don't know how many articles we have on settlements in the U.S., but I suspect there are at least several thousand. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be a good idea to make cities with no other US named-municipalities their own one, though? Maybe it's my Seattle bias, but we're the only one. rootology (C)(T) 20:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventiosn are most effective when they're used consistently. For example, when I look at a link and wonder what kind of thing it is, when I see it in the "city, state" format I know it's a place right away. As I mentioned in the other discussion, naming conventions sometimes mean that articles aren't at unique names even if they could be. There are no articles at Princess Diana, Spruce Goose, or Prius, even though those are arguably the most common names for those topics, because of naming conventions. Anyway, it's a long-standing debate on Wikipedia, and I'm sure editors will be discussing it for as long as the project is active. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seat on ArbCom

I shouldn't ask for things you don't want, you might just get them ;) Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha! The day you see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 20xx/Candidate statements/Rootology is the day Bacon is healthy for you. rootology (C)(T) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

This discussion is about the suitability of the peer review process w.r.t. the Millennium '73 article, not about the content of that article. Consequently I suggest to move that discussion from Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1 to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Millennium '73/archive1.

I post this same suggestion on Jossi's, Will Beback's and Rootology's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible. I finished the move. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/12/08 DYK

Updated DYK query On 12 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beecher's Handmade Cheese, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) rootology (C)(T) 13:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Rootology, thank you very much for your "strong support" of me both in your comment and throughout the RfA. Your unexpected supportive participation throughout was most appreciated and I am honored by it. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe

Per the comments in the DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted the AFD. Dreadstar † 23:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I weighed in there. rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

All user talk: was de-indexed last week, but it just hasn't populated through to google, a debate on de-indexing Help talk: Template talk: Image talk: Portal talk: and Category talk: is indicating a preference for keeping them googleable, I do not think there has been a debate on User: yet. MBisanz talk 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User definitely needs to be covered. Categories should be indexed, but talk? I can't see a compelling reason for any talk page except possibly Wikipedia: rootology (C)(T) 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who proposed deindexing the other talk pages, and people felt it wasnt a significant enough issue to warrant hiding them from google. User should be done, but I suspect if people can't agree on de-indexing Help talk:, they will never agree on User:. MBisanz talk 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoneAwayNowAndRetired&oldid=239313591"