User talk:Lukas19/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

User:Psychohistorian RfC

I notice you were involed in a dispute with Psychohistorian before about personal attacks. I would like to introduce an RfC on him in an effort to stop him from this practice and if possible have his account blocked. I need your help with this to certify the RfC, under the username Thulean. If you would like to do so, please respond here or on my talk page and I will set it up. The RfC has to be certified by you within 48 hours of me posting it. I have found quite a history of personal attacks on his part, we should be able to have something done about it.

His insults toward me [1], again calling editors ignorant [2] and accusing them of "bitching" [3], calling editor "paranoid" and "unreasonable" [4], says editor has "inferiority complex" [5], again insulting editor's education and implying editor has not reached the 11th grade [6], education & "put it at your level" [7], etc.

He is so viciously concerned about promoting his agenda that he cannot contain himself, and anyone who disagrees is apparently stupid, ignorant or crazy. Let's help him adjust his attitude. Fourdee 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your message on my talk page, let's continue any discussion over there. Fourdee 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have created the RfC. Please sign it as User:Thulean here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Psychohistorian#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. We have 48 hours to get it certified. Fourdee 04:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetic evidence for race

You may also be interested in the comments I have posted at Talk:Caucasoid race#Y-Haplogroup Evidence discussing the genetic evidence for how distinct the Caucasoid type and ethnic groups are. I haven't read your comments closely but I think I support your position that Psychohistorian is wrong that Caucasians and Europeans don't have a clearly distinct origin in the sense that they all stem from ancestors not shared by other groups. My comments may bear further refinement and citations of evidence and while they do not support every statement made in honor of the white race I think they are pretty convincing for the position that it is a distinct group. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fourdee (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I refined the comments to be more strongly phrased in support of the uniqueness of Europeans. Fourdee 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Caucasoid race, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In your edit [8], you have deleted a whole cited section, without any explanation or prior discussion. Lukas19 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You can no more block me from contributing to Wikipedia than you can resurrect Der Führer from the dead. Gerkinstock 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem here. You say previously:

"My guess is anti-racialists (folks who oppose racial classification of ANY kind) are responsible for this. They seem to be using obscure sources and discredited 19th century anthropologists as their primary references in order to make racial classification look as arbirtary and ridiculous as possible. I wouldn't call that non-POV. -- Gerkinstock 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)"

Seems like we all more or less agree. Isn't the intent here to have the article accurately reflect the fact that Europeans are a distinct family genetically and in other ways and that there is a factual basis for defining a caucasian race, especially as far as Europeans? Infighting doesn't accomplish anything. Maybe I misunderstand your position. Fourdee 04:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image removal Vandalism

I'm having some trouble with a vandal removing the new image from White people, if you would care to help in preventing it from being deleted I would appreciate it, as I have already used my 3 reverts for the day. If you know anyone else who might be willing to help with this, please let them know. Reverts by groups of people are legitimate. Fourdee 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a 3RR violation report on him, and welcome the other reports. Fourdee 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

White people article

Great ideas for improving the white people article. I haven't looked at the other ones but it seems certain the culture and genetic history articles also need careful attention. How about European people? It looks ok after a quick glance but might bear some linking to the other articles. Thanks for your work on these. Fourdee 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone just told me

That in Europe, Caucasian is not a synonym for white people. Is this true? i thought you would know probably better than most. --Filll 20:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but in the UK we don't use the term Caucasian at all, likewise the term White is used for Europeans, and not for non-Europeans. Even so, we need to reflect all uses of a term here on wikipedia, so if the terms are interchangable in North America then we still need to express this in any article. See here. Just though I'd give my two penneth. Alun 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Something for you

Don't know if you've seen this, but I thought you might be interested, I thought it was quite an interesting perspective. You might be able to make some use of it. [9] All the best. Alun 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Caucasoid race

My edit there was in line with a discussion on the talk page. If you disagree with the edit then please participate in the talk page discussion. There is no point in edit waring. So far the options for this article are to redirect it to Caucasian race or to have it specifically about the Caucasoid craniofacial race. There appear to be no other real options. At present it is merely a POV-fork of Caucasian race and cannot remain as such. Please make suggestions you have on the talk page. Alun 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also please do not use spurious "warns", I have asked you not to do this in the past. My edit was clearly in line with a discussion on the talk page, to call this edit "vandalism" is ludicrous, and is a breach of Wikipedia policies. These warns have a specific purpose, they do not exist so you can try to intimidate good faith users over a content dispute. This is a vey bad habbit you seem to have got into. I urge you to be less agressive in your approach. Alun 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And I urge you not to delete a section, which cites acedemic sources, and replace it with geocities.com or blogspots on the basis of that 1 (one) person agreed with you in talk page. You should have waited for more comments. What you did was clearly vandalism. I stand 100% behind it. Feel free to report me...Lukas19 14:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care whether you think it's vandalism or not. I'm not looking for an appology. You can believe what you like, it doesn't make it real. No admin would ever consider that edit vandalism, if you think it's vandalism then you can use it to report me for vandalism and see how far it gets you when you describe the edit as vandalism. You seem to be under the impression that any edit that you don't like constitutes vandalism, you also seem to be under the impression that just because you think it's vandalsim that it somehow is a proper "warning", well it's not and you will never be able to use a warn such as this in order to push any sort of "action" against me Indeed there may now be enough evidence against you to form some sort of "action" against you, but I'm not the one to do it, I don't think it's the correct way to solve problems on Wikipedia. But be wained this does not mean that I won't do it in the future if you continue with this sort of harrasment. You've made me very angry, this may have been your intention I don't know. I do know that the article as it stands does not conform to any sort of properly defined "race", indeed you state clearly on the talk page that it's about what you think Caucasoid is. Wikipedia is not here for you to include your ideas. Please provide proper citations. The genetics papers you quote don't even mention the term Caucasoid, and so don't support your contention anyway. The one paper that does mention Caucasoid in the section also states that biological races don't exist. I'm just saying that my edit was in response to a discussion on the talk page of the article. I took a previous version of the article that was actually about the Caucasoid race (the current article is not about this race) and used that. The genetics section does not support the existence of a "Caucasoid race" that is distinct from a Caucasian race. It seems increasingly clear that this is just your opinion and is a POV-fork. Alun 14:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The genetics section has three sources:

1) Genetic clusters

2) A scientist thinks that these clusters correspond to more or less traditional races of anthropology.

3) Traditional races of anthropology includes Caucasoid (not Caucasian).

It's all there. It's quite simple to understand. Lukas19 19:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Race and multilocus allele clusters

Hi, I have placed a mergefrom template at Genetic views on race and have copied your post on the talk page to Talk:Genetic views on race. It's normal to have the discussion on the article that is being merged to. Hope this is OK by you. I actually agree with you on this. On a different note I'd like to say that I am not your enemy. We seem to edit some similar pages, we also have different points of view. This need not mean that we have to be antagonistic towards each other. We often seem to misunderstand each other, I don't think either of us is at fault here, but it seems to be true none the less. I hope we can work more productively together in future and at least try to understand each others points of view, irrespective of our different world view. The article I posted on your talk page a few days ago was because I thought you might have a genuine interest in it and was made in good faith. Hope you understand this. All the best. Alun 09:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetic Distinctiveness of Europeans

Great work, that's the best citation yet! Fourdee 02:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I Skateboard BTW

Just thought you might like to know that i've been skating for 7 years. some tricks i can do :I can nollie bigspin switch manual a manual pad and i can nollie tre flip. My favourite company right now is blueprint skateboards, i'm looking froward to the new lakai vid 'beware the flare' and i'm 17 and from the UK. peace.--Globe01 16:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Constant harrasment with spurious "warns"

Regarding [10]. Please stop. You can be blocked from wikipedia for spurious "vandalism" warns. This edit is a POV edit, it does not belong here as the work in question does not pertain to any "Caucasoid race", as such it has been correctly removed. Alun 11:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Next time explain your delitions. Unexplained delitions of whole sections may be considered as vandalism. Lukas19 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetic views on race

Your use of this quote "Scientists have shown that the genetic make-up of humans can vary hugely - far more than was previously thought....It would seem the assumption that the DNA of any two humans is 99.9% similar in content and identity no longer holds"[11] is in breach of two fundamental wikipedia policies and guidelines. Most importantly it does not reflect research into hereditary traits or "race". If you have bothered to read this article (which it appears you either have not, or if you have you have not understood it at all) you would know that this is a measure of copy number, it is something that happens to individuals during developement. It has absolutelly nothing to do with hereditary or "race". It is therefore not relevant to the article. This is either a deliberate distortion that you have introduced into the article (and I note your quote was extremely selective and did not put the research into proper context, another breach of correct encyclopaedic standards, and an apparently deliberate attempt to distort the science to support your own point of view), or it is simply that you do not understand this research at all. Either way you are way out of order to include this information in the article. Secondly it is a breach of the reliable sources guideline, which clearly states that in science try to avoid citing the popular press. I am very fed up with your racialist POV pushing, you clearly have no interest in producing a neutral encyclopaedia, and are only interested in promoting a racialist minority POV at any given opportunity. I am seriously thinking of asking for an RFI regarding your continual breaches of the WP:NPOV policy, it is extremely serious for an editor to constantly breach this policy. Alun 12:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can simplify this enough:

1)Genetic views on Race does talk about human genetic variation.

No. It talks about human genetic variation as applicable to race. This article measures variation in a different way, it measures copy number variation between individuals, not allele frequency variation between individuals/populations. If you do not understand the difference then I might suggest that you go and find out.Alun 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2)"The new map provides a much clearer picture of human genetic variation, says geneticist and co-researcher Charles Lee of the Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts." This is a scientist, not an editorial from a newspaper.

It is an article from the BBC. Go and cite the original paper, but be warned this research has no bearing on race, or genetics as it applies to race. If you attempt to once again distort genetic work to introduce unfounded POV into an article, I will remove it forthwith.Alun 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

3) "The findings "will change forever the field of human genetics," commented James Lupski, professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas." Again, this is a scientist, not an editorial from a newspaper. Lukas19 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So what? Please explain to me how this is applicable to Genetic views on race? He does not mention "race" at all, only genetics. This article is applicable to genetics and developemental biology, and to genetics and Gene expression. It is totally inapplicable to the article it is cited in. Alun 06:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Please learn to cite sources properly. See WP:CITE, especially Full citations. You have several times reverted edits I have made that have included a proper reorganisation of the "Notes" and "References" sections. Be aware that these sections are not the same thing. It is very bad editing to simply provide a link to a website. This is not a citation. Provide a footnote with the author and year, and then provide a full citation in the references section. Alun 12:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. But I also suggest you to be careful of your own edits where you delete whole cited texts. And not just mine. Lukas19 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted several cited texts. This has been done because they were either:

1. long quotes from papers with no context. We are not here to simply collect quotations, it can also be considered plagiarism to simply include quotes in sections rather than a proper discussion of the subject.
2. Irrelevant or misleading citations. You have many times included "citations" that did not actually support the claim you were making.

You have complained about me "removing cited material", but it is you that have included this material inappropriately. It doesn't count as a citation if it does not say what you are claiming it says. You should also avoid just copy pasting long sections of text from papers. Not only have you included long quotes with no proper explanation, but you have copy pasted text from published sources without making it obvious that this is a quote. In these cases the text appeared to be an original contribution from a wikipedia editor, this is very serious and is essentially plagiarism, it leaves wikipedia open to all sorts of problems.[12] Alun 06:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Report on WP:PAIN

I was referring to your report of this which is a content dispute not a personal attack. The other report had already been dealt with to the extent it is likely to be. Deletion from the noticeboard usually means no action will be forthcoming on the report. Gwernol 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In case a second opinion is required, I endorse Gwernol's view that this is not a personal attack or anything near one. Furthermore, filing spurious reports of personal attacks is every bit as bad as making personal attacks. Please behave yourself; if I got a comment like [13] from an editor in good standing, I'd examine my own behaviour leading up to such a comment, rather than go complaining. Perhaps you might consider taking a similar course of action yourself. --Guinnog 03:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd take your advice if I considered you to be neutral but your behaviour of ignoring Wobble's previous comments and focusing on the last in PAIN report suggests that you are not. Perhaps you might consider taking a similar course of action to what you have suggested. Please behave yourself. Lukas19 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly continue to try to. I saw nothing in what Wobble said to you that you should take offence at. Have you ever looked at WP:NPA? If not, you should. If so, which heading did you consider his comment fell under when you filed your report? --Guinnog 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian

There has been no input to this for a month. I propose archiving it, and if the dispute is unresolved I recommend mediation, as it appears to involve only a few users' interactions with each other. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/KillerChihuahua

If you want to add anything to this case (I have noticed that you had an incident with her as well), please add to the page. Feel free to contact on my talk page, thanks. Bearly541 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good morning (GMT time); I have accepted the above case on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. The first issue I would like to address is whether or not you would like to conduct the mediation via email or via MedCabal talk subpage.

Regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop your revert warring

Please stop making spurious reverts. I included your citation in the edit I made. It was more comprehensive than your edit. My edit was not a reversion, as any even slight checking would have shown, there were three different versions made after your last revert, so how could it be a revert? And it was explained, there was a proper edit summary explaining that more information had been added. If you cannot be bothered to edit properly, but insist on revertying to very old versions of articles, then I don't see why you bother at all. Your POV pushing and total lack of any understanding of science is getting boring. Alun 15:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is basically crap Lukie/Thulie. Firstly if you only object to that section then you should not revert the whole fucking article. Secondly you clearly have a massively racist POV to push and clearly know nothing about biology or science. Your arguments are facile and often based on sophisty. Please do not revert a whole article just because you want to change a single section. This is a breach of wikipedia policies. Since you love rules and policies and reporting people just because they do not share your racism or agree with your view of the world, I will tell you that it is a breach of policy to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. I'm not that bothered about the section regarding Edwards, but I am concerned that you are commiting plagarism. You claim these are Edwards own words (see my talk page), but if they are then it is illegal for you to include tham in the article as if they are your own words, they should be in the form of a quote. Alun 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well make up your mind. Either this is the wording of the scientist himself, in which case they should be quoted, (they are not). Or they are your words in which case it is not plaigarism. You can't have it both ways. If they are Edwards words then you need to make this clear. If they are your words then they cannot be the words of the scientist involved. Simple, Thukie Lulie. Alun 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Thukas, don't fucking call me a vandal. This is hypocrisy of the highest order given the amount of times you have tried to compromise Wikipedia by claiming a source supported your racist POV when it does no such thing. I am a very experienced editor and do not do vandalism. Your constsnt claims that other editors that do not agree with your lies and racism are either "vandals" or are "personally attacking" you are pathetic. I suggest you learn to edit in a more mature manner. Learn that you need to compromise, you need to know that Wikipedia does not exist to promote your personal racist/Nordicist oppinions. Alun 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Profanity

Your profanity in this edit against User:Alun with the statement "no shit" twice is commonly considered profanity which Wikipedia's policy on profanity suggests not to make. On the profanity article there was a poll that showed 91% of British people considered that word to be a profanity.--^DarkTea 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

About the infobox edits on "Germans"

I couldn't find a discussion about the matter in the talk page, actually, so I'm explaining my edit here: Reasons why your version is not fine: Total population is supposed to be the total of all the entries in "Regions with significant populations." However, you misused this and instead "Total population" was only the population in Germany, while "Regions with significant population" includes only people who claim german ancestry in other countries. First off, that's a misusage of the infobox. Second, it's not in order with any other article about ethnicity in Wikipedia: Total population either includes migrants, or, in some cases, "Total population" is not used. "Regions with significant population" definitely includes the mother nation. Third, it is wrong to deem that all people claiming to be german in other countries are not actually ethnically german - the data we know comes from a censuses; if a person claims to be a german or of german ancestry, then we count him as a german, disregarding whether or not he can actually speak the german language. Take a look at similar articles like Jew and Filipino people. Aran|heru|nar 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please learn English properly

• And I didnt call you a vandal. I said "reverting vandalism", please learn to read properly.[14]

You are such a massive hypocrite. You really are unbelievable. You constantly "report" people because you can't take criticism (you act like you are in a school playground, please miss he disagrees with me), but you are one of the most offensive people I have ever met. I it was you who pointed out that it is a personal attack to repeatedly make the same derogatory comment about an editor. Well I will point out that you have told me to learn to read at least three times. This is clearly a personal attack by the criteria you yourself use, personally I an not as thin skinned as you, I am old enough and mature enough to be able to take a bit of criticism and conflict, without crying about it. I have also been mature enough to accept when I have been wrong, and even to appologise to you, whereas you have never once accepted that you have ever been wrong, despite the fact that you have obviously been wrong on several occasions, and you have never appologised for your obnoxious behaviour. You complain of my behaviour, but you called me clueless almost imediatelly we ever posted on the same talk page. If our disputes have been difficult, it is largelly as a result of your initial, and continuing self-righteous and superior attitude. You know as well as I do that I have several times attempted to make a peace with you. When you have called other users stupid or an idiot, you respond by trying to defend your behaviour, instead of just appologising and moving on. I also think that you may have exausted the patience of certain admins with your constant complaints, and gained a bit of a reputation. I believe I have as much cause to make complaints against you as you have against me. You have been offensive and rude, your attitude is not cooperative. You have stated openly that you are not interested in trying to acheive any consensus on any article. It seems that you may have read somewhere that it is not necessary to get a consensus, this is not the same as saying that it is not necessary to try and build consensus, wikipedia stresses the need to attempt to build consensus, whereas your attitude is obstropolous and antagonistic (see Wikipedia:Consensus). What do the Americans say, If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. I would suggest that if you actually attempted to work with people instead of taking such an intransigent and negative attitude to users who disagree with you, you might actually find you achieve more. On another note, your editing style is very poor. You seem to think that it is acceptable to provide only very long quotes from articles and papers (this can be considered plagiarism) without including context. You have even complained about the factt hat I "summarise", whic is in actual fact the correct editing style. Encyclopaedias are not repositories of quotes, they should summarise all points of view from any given subject for an article. This is not the correct way to edit an encyclopedia. It displays to me that you have a limited understanding of the various subjects at hand. I suggest you learn English. Just what do you think a vandal does? Do you actually know? Shall I educate you (to use one of your favourite put downs). A vandal is someone who engages in vandalism. If you state that my edits are vandalism, then you are de facto (linked so you can educate yourself) calling me a vandal. Alun 13:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

By the way, do you actually know what a minor edit is? I don't think so. An edit that introduces new information and new cited sources cannot be considered "minor". A minor edit is an edit for language or grammar that does not introduce any new information. It should be clear that my edit was not minor. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word. from Help:Minor edit. You were clearly not competent to state that my edit was minor, as it clearly was not. Alun 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reprting me again

Look, you are equally as offensive as me. Your complaint against me is disingeneous. I have not reported you because I do not think it is at all constructive to do so, but you are far from polite, and have made several "attacks" upon me. If you do not like people being nasty to you, then you could consider that they are only behaving towards you the same way you are behaving towards them. I suggest that the best way to solve conflict is not to keep "reporting" people, this smacks of trying to "get one over on another editor", especially when you are equally as guilty, if not more guilty than I am. I have several times tried to appease this situation, and there must be diffs in your user page history to support this, but you have responded with your usual agressive behaviour. Being agressive and obnoxious to other editors will only lead to them behaving in the same way back. To then constantly complain about it is really sad. How many times have you "reported" other editors? Or accused good faith editors of vandalism? Or called mild rebukes "personal attacks"? Many many times. Alun 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Literal

I'm going to say this here because the talk page for White people is getting a bit confusing. I have not actually disputed what you said about how physists define colour. What I ahve said is that this is irrelevant. White is a colour because that is how people perceive it, how physics defines it is a different and irrelevant subject. You seem to have come to the conclusion that when the term "literally white" is used, somehow this implies or means that only the definition of white that physics uses is relevant. This is not the case. Literal is not a synonym for "scientific". If we had wanted to say this, we would say that people are not "scientifically white". Literal is the opposite of figurative. When we use a term figuratively we are using it by analogy. Literally on the other hand means that we are using a word in it's most understood sense. So actually it is perfectly correct to state that humans are not literally white. Here's what the wikipedia article Literal and figurative language says words in literal expressions denote what they mean according to common or dictionary usage, while words in figurative expressions connote additional layers of meaning. Here's what the OED says about the word literal 1 using or interpreting words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.[15] So I must say that I think this confusion has been caused by you not actually understanding what the word literally means. Hope this observation clears up the misunderstanding. Alun 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edwards

• It is the wording of the scientist as the sentence begins with "Edward claimed...". So, plagarism charges are stupid at best. The fact that it is not in quotes is a simple mistake, not "stealing his ideas". Lukas19 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

When a sentence starts with "Edwards claimed.." this does not per se imply a quote. I can say :Edwards claimed that Lewonin was wrong. This is not a quote, but it may (or may not) be an accurate summary of what Edwards claimed. Alun 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wobble

I'd post one more time on ANI, because it may have been busy. Feel free to open a user conduct RfC if there's still no response. --Coredesat 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the tirades that both you and Wobble have posted on my user talk page, combined with what was on ANI, I am strongly recommending that both of you drop it and cool off for a while, or pursue dispute resolution. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Continuing the argument may result in both of you being blocked for a short period of time. --Coredesat 06:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through your edits and through Wobble's (twice), and I can't find any POV pushing or harassment of you by him. I am finding evidence of POV pushing on your part, however, as detailed in your rejections of various compromises on the Mediation Cabal case and in additions such as this. Adding statements sourced by references that support your POV is also a violation of WP:NPOV, and this will constitute your only warning for POV pushing. Continuing to do so may result in a block. --Coredesat 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: My response: [16] Admins response, in which he seems to be admitting his poor handling of the situation: [17]