User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 14

Tag and Assess 2008

Hello sir I have few doubts

1. while tagging B class articles. I have come across some articles which should be promoted for Class A where to report such articles?
2. some of articles are not eligible for class just because (B1=no) they have only one or two references otherwise they are fully eligible for class B should I grant them

class B status?? Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 03:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Refrences are from book since books covers vast topic I personally think B1=yes , Should I go on? Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag info

Cheers Buckshot. I was wondering what I was missing... First time using tags!! Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 09:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden

I am involved in a slow revert war with user:Colin4C over the Bombing of Dresden in World War II‎ please could you have a look and see if you could help to resolve the issues. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, enjoy your trip -- "be seeing you" -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request to intervene

Because I'm involved I can't do anything to respond to this. You could post a Wikiquette alert (which is fairly toothless), report it at WP:AN/I or see if the Digwuren restriction applies (which it may given that this involves the USSR). By the way, I see that you're off on a trip - I hope that it goes well! Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Buckshot06, you want something with "teeth", and not just a wimpy Wikiquette alert. As for calling you a yesman, well, you do say yes a to anything to oppose me regardless of subject, logic or facts.

But wait, isn't Manchuria in the Far East? :-) Or will anything do for a try at a block? Never mind, Nick will set you right. He's a fair dinkum ozzie, not like me, so he wouldn't steer you wrong.

There is a negative side though Buckshot06. Get rid of me, and you will just have to look for someone else to stalk, you tireless Defender of the Wiki, you. Hmmm, maybe that would be Guards tireless Defender of the Wiki? Gosh, I could play with titles all day if I didn't have to reference articles--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Mrg has made a complaint at WP:AN/I. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

German maps

Is the original text that was inserted. Just add as text the country names and the troop numbers. form the German source. If that poses any problems, I can do it for you.

The [Bild:EuropaNATOWP1973.png other German map] has the same root map and you can easily change it via gimp (free download possible for any system). So just tell me, if you need any more help. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

operation sea breeze

I don't quite remember how i got to the list of russian sources, and im a little tired now (been editing some india poltiics articles). But ive quickly put together some news links on the matter and the controversy. do you want to create Operation SeaBrezze 2008? (note- there was an older operation, more than a decade ago i think)

http://www.newstin.com/show-similar.a?edition=us&document_id=68395118&group_id=en-010-004084684&similarFilter=ALL http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/7638 http://www.topix.com/world/ukraine/2008/07/ukraine-sea-breeze-2008 (not citable, but info) http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=70421 http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38435 http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-261516.html http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/06/08/4757.shtml http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/136984.html http://forua.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-russia-doubts-about-peaceful-nature-of-the-sea-breeze-2008-maneuvers/ (not citable, but info) http://en.for-ua.com/news/2008/07/18/180007.html http://en.rian.ru/world/20080709/113599104.html http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=29574&cid=48&p=11.07.2008 http://www.interfax.com/3/410267/news.aspx

Lihaas (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of block applied to mrg3105 by Roger Davies and any other appropriate actions

Hello, Buckshot06. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As the discussion may be complete by the time you view this page, the diff for the start of the discussion is [1]. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga class helicopter destroyer still going on

I'm just pinging you to make sure you were aware about some more proposed changes at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, since you were involved in the last discussion to make sure you didn't have anything to add on this latest round. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many words?

I wonder if you might be willing to suggest ways to edit my writing to make it more succinct, less wordy -- more effective?

I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org. An unmindful insistence on what is published in a reference book without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context leads inexorably to mistakes in some instances.

Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise crucial issues from the body of the article; and this becomes a defect when it affects significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality. Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history reveals how otherwise credible edits and edits have thwarted, deleted or blocked, thus stunting this subject's development -- see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Article name

Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.

Although generally valued as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, and any reasoned consensus based on such standards is also defensible; however, neither can be considered determinative. There is an inherent caveat in reliance on the imprimatur of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the newly formed Ministry of Defense (Japan). When the logical progeny of such reliance produce deleterious effects in Wikipedia, this subtle cancer mandates giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.

As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name. As it relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.

Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name.

Sdsds construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- in that passage in which Juliet muses about "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet". In my view, this specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this somewhat complicated issue.

Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...

In that Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:

In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive." It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.

Prior to this, the non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted hypothesis.

Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors and others, the consequences of intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this non-NPOV cancer. Such illustrative "consensus" becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.

Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful data.

An ameliorative edit was initiated. This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion. The edit encountered further resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Go man go!!

EZ1234 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

re: Category:Types of military forces in the Napoleonic Wars

The best response would be to contact an uninvolved admin and ask that they invoke Mrg's editing restriction. I'd do it myself as this is clearly disruptive behaviour given that there's no consensus to make these changes and they have been reverted and discussed in the past, but as I was involved with Mrg being restricted and have been involved with these classification changes in the past it would be better if someone else did this. I'd be very happy for you to quote me as supporting this behaviour being labeled disruptive though, and will post in support of the request if you notify me of where you make it. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't really care what either of ether of you think. Me being "restricted" does not change application of Wikipedia policies, or guidelines...even if BS06's imagination is working overtime inventing them. What did I DISRUPT, his dinner? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mrg. Hope all is well in Sydney (sorry, I realise I do not know for certain that's where you are, but that's the thought, anyway.) I've noted your comments regarding this category on Roger's talkpage, and as he suggested, I will start a deletion discussion. I will mention your arguments, but if you wish, you can 'sandbox' your projected arguments in favour of keeping the category here - I'd be happy to help with phrasing - so that you avoid things not directly relevant to the topic (I've found that your long explanations sometimes stray from the point). Anyway, my message is I'm happy to incorporate your various arguments for keeping the category in the initial deletion discussion message. Regards from Wallingford. Buckshot06(prof) 09:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Buckshot06 -- I have filed a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I identified you amongst the relevant parties:

Involved parties

1. Tenmei (talk · contribs), filing party
2. BillCJ (talk · contribs)
3. Nick Dowling (talk · contribs)

Assent from the following need not be a factor in the decision to accept this dispute for mediation; but perhaps these contributors might consider themselves as parties because of their participation in creating the talk page record.

1. Buckshot06 (talk · contribs)
2. Parsecboy (talk · contribs)
3. Bellhalla (talk · contribs)
4. Optigan13 (talk · contribs)
5. Coldmachine (talk · contribs), mediator
6. Sdsds (talk · contribs), mediator

The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others;[2] but Nick Dowling's notice here implies that I have a responsibility to remedy that oversight without further delay.

At this point, Nick Dowling has already agreed to mediation. It's up to you to decide what, if anything, you want to do. Even if you don't decide to participate, I hope you will watchlist the page so that you are able to follow what unfolds. --Tenmei (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to participate in whatever way you see fit --Tenmei (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga notification

"Disagree" -- that single word from BillCJ's doomed my request for mediation, but it need not be the last word.

I have re-submitted the request as the somewhat modified Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2 -- seeWikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.

Changes include expressly incorporating Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer along with Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Also, the number of named parties is smaller. Another potentially helpful improvement -- first on the list of issues to be mediated is:

• 1. As per WP:LEAD, the article's introduction needs to be brought in line with the article's text and reflect the paragraph which was included after being endorsed by a unanimous consensus on the article's talk page which describes the fact that different reliable sources call these ships aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, helicopter destroyers and destroyers (Tenmai has stated that he chose to sit out this discussion [3], and instead restarted it after consensus was reached).[4]

• 1A. Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?

I'm much more concerned about getting this process started than I care about what or who comes first. I hope you join me in this concern.

I hope you will again assent to this request for mediation.

By sharing a copy of this notification with those who had not decided what to do about the first request for mediation, I am fulfilling my responsibilities as the filing party; and at the same time, I open a door to the possibility that one or more may yet decide to do more than watchlist this page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Craze

I started a discussion concerning the overuse of the disambiguator "(United States)" here. I tried to make it encompass more the U.S. units. Your support will be much appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AACCR crest.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:AACCR crest.gif. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate your agreement or opposition to a request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Anthøny 15:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have withdrawn from this mediation request. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I've asked the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's concerns about my "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling. If successful, it is my hope that this will remove any remaining barriers to re-initiating the mediation process focused on content issues. --Tenmei (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Help in improving article

Hi could you help in improving the article on the Battle of Tskhinvali, which now has a seperate page from the S Ossetia 2008 Conflict page. Anything you could help would be great really, pictures, links, ORBAT (I beleive Russian 58th Army is involved). Its really barebones right now.

Article

Thanks. --Sparten (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

102nd IW

Sure, and if I don't agree, we can always negotiate the final look instead of a revert. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do want to re-nominate the 102nd IW for A-Class review? I was looking over your edits and I like what you did. I'll talk about the lists after the review because I know that others will probably not like them. I would also want you to look at the 101st IS as it is basically the same information but with a different viewpoint, and numerous name changes. Well I look forward to hearing from you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues on Russian Ground Forces

• Hi Buckshot, i'm quite doubting regarding the accuracy of the numbers existent in the Equipment section of the Russian Ground Forces. I think warfare.ru has been updated recently and it reveals that only 5,500 tanks are active - for example, there are 2,144 T-72s active and 7,800 in reserve - link. Regarding AFVs, according to warfare.ru about 15,000 are active, while in our inventory chart a number of 25,000 is mentioned. I'm not sure if we should 100%-trust warfare.ru, but we should strongly consider updating the inventory numbers in the Russian Ground Forces.
• The 19th Motor Rifle Division of the 58th Army is currently involved in the 2008 South Ossetia war and appears as a Guards division within the Russian order of battle mentioned in this article. Was this division transformed in a Guards division since our last known referenced orbat (2003)? --Eurocopter (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me ask you a simple question: can Russia with its current military spendings maintain 23,000 tanks in active service? Let's not be absurd, you can't sustain that all of those 23,000 are active and well maintained (especially the 2,000 T-62s and 4,000 T-64s). In my opinion ~6,500 active tanks and ~16000 in reserve would represent the most realistic and accurate numbers of the current Russian tank force. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, but my question is: should we trust warfare.ru and post it everywhere as a reliable source similar to Jane's or IISS? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I've just sent you an email, maybe you'll have a look when you have some time. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at a few articles

I created three new articles today on S Ossetian crisis.

Raid on Poti Occupation of Gori Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Borisov commander Russian forces in Gori. Got his bio from fas (link provided).

Wondering if you could take a look and add anything esp on ORBATs and force dispositions. Maybe pictures? I got most of the info on Maj Gen Borisov from the fas link, and although its written on my own words, I hope it dose not violate copyright.

As always thanks.

Sparten (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Information on Turkish Armed Forces

I saw your request for up-to-date information on the Turkish Armed Forces in the logistics department of the Military History WikiProject, and I have two articles which you may be interested in. One of them was published in 2005 and is titled "Ten Year Modernisation Plan of the Turkish Armed Forces", and the other was published in 2007 and is called ""History Decisions" for Turkish Defence Procurement". Both were published in the magazine Military Technology, and although both are not completely up-to-date perhaps they have some useful information. I can send them over email if you'd like. JonCatalán (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces

Russian Ground Forces has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Hey Nick

At the risk of being really obvious, the guidance at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Admin coaching is pretty much on the mark. When considering RfAs, other editors tend to look mainly for evidance that you won't abuse the admin tools and have some previous interest in doing behind the scenes work. As such, you need to be able to demonstrate that you have a good understanding of the key guidelines and conventions (especially those relating to deleting articles, behavioural standards, sanctioning editors and WP:BLP), use appropriate dispute resolution processes and want to help keep the project running. I'd say that you're already there and that you'd have no trouble winning support, but if you're worried participating in AfD discussions is a good way to get up to speed with the article-content guidelines and demonstrate an interest in keeping things running smoothly. Hope that helps. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to nominate you. Let me know when you're ready (though note that I'm going to be on holiday in Japan for most of October). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Heavy cavalry

I noted your accuracy note on this page. I have had an extensive discussion with User:mrg3105 and cannot seem to budge him from his views on this subject, which do not coincide with accepted military history usage.

I have already corrected his confusing renaming of the article 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword, which he called the '1796 cavalry sabre' despite the fact that it was referred to as the "pattern 1796 heavy cavalry sword" in contemporary documents, has been known as such ever since, and that 1853 was the year that the first British single-pattern, 'universal' cavalry sword was introduced.

I just thought I would bring you up to date on the matter.Urselius (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Formatting references in Russian Ground Forces

Would it be OK with you if I formatted all the references in this article using Wikipedia's citation templates? Let me know how else I can help - I'm keen to see this article keep its FA status. cheers, Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Miyokan (talk · contribs), who if I remember correctly you've had some run-ins with, has been community blocked: [5] Nick Dowling (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

behaving himself

You just don't have a clue, do you?

I am not "behaving myself". I do not accept Wikipedia brand of behavioural modification administered by the likes of Raul. If I had to go through every one of those block-inviting "discussions" I would say the same things because they are true. Consensus through voting is not something that belongs in the Wikipedia process. Consensus that is not reached within the context of improving article quality policy is a travesty. Neither my first block nor my last by Roger was remotely deserving, and quite frankly I can not give consideration to the people who solve disputes by shutting out disputants from the subject matter without investigation.

What your tireless stalking of my articles achieved, is to stop me contributing to the Eastern Front articles, something you know nothing about it seems. There has been 0 substantial expansion and improvement in the articles,a nd no significant additions to the category. That, is why you have not seen much of me, although no doubt you are still busily looking through every article I author. What you, and it seems others have misconstrued, is my unwillingness to be politically correct and devoid of a point of view (or having a "pastel personality" demanded by Wikipedia), as "incivility". What I think is, that any edit that lacks a citation with a page number from an authoritative source is a candidate for deletion. That means, should I choose to do so, that I can delete probably as much as 50% of Wikipedia content in accordance with its own policy.

I also think that outside of anti-vandalism, administrators should not have any authority to exercise in the content of articles, and the "policing" should be left to clear and succinct policy, which Wikipedia currently lacks. Single-minded and obsessive insistence on following guidelines and conventions that you exhibit should not be enforceable as "federal laws" as you seem to believe, and voting practices of any sort should be banned outright.

Now you can go and complain to Nick or Roger or whoever that "big bad mrg" is picking on you again, being so uncivil, what with speaking his mind and having an opinion. How dare I do so without presenting an amicable "community face" and being an individual. You would think I'm an actual physical person living in a democratic state with actual civic rights. Community probation indeed...childish games. The community ought to be actually expanding articles and making them more authoritative and error free than this "I'm an administrator" charade --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)