User talk:Tbsdy lives/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruption from an administrator. Thank you. Please note that I have no involvement in this other than that I happened to click onto WP:AN just after it had been posted; I expressed some concern regarding your being re-sysopped but have not been following you around and haven't even really seen you since then except when we cross paths on ANI. —Soap— 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:DTTR, it's rude. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the templating the Regulars thing ussually.....but for not using a edit summary a warning is pretty dumb. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest

I see a good admin who has simply over-reached themselves, and made a couple of bad calls. It happens. Most of the time you are pretty much on the button, and I am sure that normal service will be resumed soon - possibly more effective for being wiser, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard, I appreciate your comments. Though you'll have to excuse me for walking funny, Giano tried to stick an olive branch somewhere he shouldn't have. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

flight time needs more help

Please can you vote for this article [[1]]Mlpearc (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Mlpearc (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs. It should be kept, though I know that the nominator had the best of intentions in placing it on AFD. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris-Carol Bremer

Hello, Chris. Since you're the Chris expert I thought I'd ask you this question. While fine-tuning the alphabetization of that article I ran across one name I'm not sure where to alphabetize. Chris-Carol Bremer is currently listed with the B's but that seems like a very unusual name. It seems unlikely that his first name is "Chris-Carol". I would expect the hyphen to be between Carol and Bremer. Looking for reliable sources, I came across CNN, which uses "Chris-Carol Bremer", ABC which uses "Chris Carol-Bremer" and the BBC which drops the hyphen entirely for "Chris Carol Bremer". Do you have any idea where the hyphen belongs and whether or not his article should be renamed? 152.16.59.102 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

urgh... wow, that's odd... I need to get some shuteye, let me get back to you! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the BBC (and the ABC in Australia) is wrong here. I found the following news sources that shows that German news media know him as Chris-Carol Bremer:

• Die Zeit, Chris-Carol Bremer
• Die Welt, Chris-Carol Bremer
• Der Tagesspiegel, Chris-Carol Bremer
• Berliner Zeitung, here, and here

I'm hoping this is enough :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Maybe I'm the one who should be getting the shut-eye. I don't speak German but it really should have occurred to me to check German sources. It seems so obvious in retrospect. Well, thank you. Now that won't bug me any more.  :) 152.16.59.102 (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all... I was stumped for a good hour or so on how to verify the spelling, I only thought of the German sources recently. :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. did you want to work on my article in my namespace? I intend to do a deletion merge of the history, so you would be attributed correctly, and we probably wouldn't step on each other's toes. Interested? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on it when I can. I'm only online on weekend nights and my time here can be pretty random. I'll just check when I get on and see if you're editing it. If you are, then I'll default to RC Patrol to avoid edit conflicts. If you're not actively editing it, then I'll see what I can help with. In other words, yes, I'd love to help but I can't guarantee an active role. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course! That's not an issue at all, with all the drama recently of people trying to ban me from talk and article pages, etc. I suspect that I'll be up to my neck in AN threads. It's not really something that I was expecting when I came back, but I suppose it goes with the territory. I'll be working on it when I have a chance, but I also may be tied up, though for entirely different reasons. Defending myself from bans is time consuming work! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, I've been following some of that - happened across it while checking your edits concerning Chris. My unsolicited two cents - just walk away from it. Not the project! Wikipedia can definitely use your contributions. But these areas... ten years from now it just isn't going to matter, and right now it is only distracting you from constructive work. The way I've always heard it put is "Choose your battles big enough to matter, but small enough to win." Unfortunately, this isn't either of those things. LessHeard vanU had some good advice. The first half of that thread is worthy of re-reading. Take care, and take heart. Now, get back to work!  :) 152.16.59.102 (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude. I think it best for me to stay away from the article, but I would indeed like to see if I can assist in editing it after Giano is done with his revision. It would be fairly easy for me to stay away, but I rarely make the easy decision, instead I try to make the right and just decision. But regardless, I have been congnizant of many of the comments saying to stay away, and in fact I posted a compromise suggestion, right before they tried to ban me.

For the time being I'll be working on the Chris article though :-) Thanks for your kind works and sage advise! I suspect that I will be the subject of a thread in the next 24 hours, however. Regardless, in 24 hours I will be asking again on that talk page where I have been disruptive and why I cannot edit the article in the future. If they decide to run another article ban, then so be it and I'll bow to general consensus, so long as the debate is fair to all parties. If NW runs it, then I'm sure it will be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of NW. I wish you the best. I've got some paperwork to do IRL if I want to keep my job but I'll be back tonight. I'll see you then. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Financial Disclosures

I'm not sure how you can say my question was out of order when we have this behavioural guideline: [2] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I say this because you are effectively asking him to out himself. The two policies conflict, but I rather think the outing policy trumps the COI policy, others may disagree. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of proposed topic/interaction ban on Tbsdy

See here for the proposal. Since you're an involved party I thought you should know. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:50, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - not only am I an involved party but I am the subject of the ban proposal. Understatement of the year. I have made a few comments but have no wish to involve myself in the proposed ban any further. I will bow to what the community decides. I am sorry that you feel such that you could not even wait for 24 hours before you proposed the ban again, but I suppose that's the way it goes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed wait over 24 hours. The request to wait was made about 21:30, 13 Feb, and my proposal at AN was posted just shy of 0:00, 15 Feb. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:31, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Yet you decided not to use normal dispute resolution procedures. You'll have to excuse me if I'm less than impressed. I do indeed feel like I'm being lynched. That's my perspective, this might not be the case and I acknowledge this. Feelings are often not reality; sometimes they are. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

... :) Yes that's about the response I expected. Rather than admit you were actually wrong about the thing you complained about, you don't even acknowledge it and instead find something new to complain about. Sorry for your feelings on the matter, but it's behavior like this that's causing problems. Note that I was not involved with you or anyone else in this dispute prior to yesterday, and yet I came in and have concluded that your behavior needs tweaking. Coupled with the fact that so many others feel the same way, you should indeed examine your feelings, and consider the possibility that they are in fact not reality. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:07, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and opinion and will take this into consideration. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang about... are you the same editor who I got into a dispute involving whether trivia should be on Wikipedia or not? I've been racking my brains for ages because I know I've had disputes with you in the past. For the life of me I couldn't remember, until it just came back to me now! Surely this can't be the same editor... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No man it's cool

i'm done with this issue, some other people wanted to continue but I told them "subject closed. I will comw back with a new angle. And Thank you SIR for all your help, if you ever need anything user:Mlpearc:talk Mlpearc (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Appealing to Jimbo

Well, I did it, concerning the deletion of unreferenced BLPs, and Jimbo agreed with me. [3]. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said it won't work, I just said it rarely does. For a BLP discussion, of course that's something he's interested in, and this was a sensible and reasonable point to have raised :-) However, if I'm unhappy that Joe's Widget Factory got deleted, I doubt Jimbo will much care and I'm fairly certain it will just look like I'm attempting to get around community discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "The Bucks - Dancin' to the Ceili Band"

Hi.I just tried to "hangon" this one, but it was already gone. It's an obscure album involving several well-known musicians, but not under their name and hard to find info about anywere, that's why i created it (most of the principal artists have wikipedia pages, but the album is lacking in their discogs, which was my next step.)

Any chance to restore it?

Notneils (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh... is there verifiable and reliable evidence that the artists collaborated on this album? I didn't see anything, so per WP:NALBUMS I deleted it. Perhaps I was wrong, I can restore if you can give me the references, but I will need to take to AFD if the album is obscure. Alternatively, if you are still looking for the references it might be worthwhile taking this to WP:DRV and note the sources in DRV so that the article can be restored. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, i got it from the liner notes. Several members are named in the review i linked. And i footnoted Ron Kavana talking about the experience, i'm not sure what else? The allmusic guide entry is blank. I could link/footnote any number of reviews/fan pages, but they're hardly "official". That's why i was creating the page - lack of complete info!

Restoring isn't too important, i'd be happy to re-create the page, or do a "The Bucks" one instead, with album details, but only if it's not gonna get deleted again!

Cheers.

Notneils (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That might actually be a better idea, as that's the general suggestion in the notability guideline. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Done & done. you know how i make it so searches for the album title will point to the band page? i know i've seen the code somwhere before but now i can't find it!

199.175.219.1 (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that the correct spelling? Where do you want it to go to? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's dancin' to the ceili band though were it up to me i'd also do dancing to the ceili band, and i'd like 'em to go to "the bucks" .

199.175.219.1 (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you very!

199.175.219.1 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleteted "Brice Guidon" profile

Hi Sir, I just saw that you delete a article cause it was : 06:12, 15 February 2010 Tbsdy lives (talk | contribs) deleted "Brice Guidon" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://briceguidon.free.fr/home/en/biographie.html) I'm Brice Guidon, i guess a friend or fan did this article and it cause me no probleme that he used the biography from my website www.briceguidon.com. So if it's possible, please put the article online again. Feel free to answer me back at briceguidon@hotmail.com Best regards, Brice Guidon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.200.146.195 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've sent Brice an email. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing ? briceguidon@hotmail.com or briceguidon@gmail.com or the contact page on my website (www.briceguidon.com) Thanks (77.200.146.195 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Got side tracked (boss called me in to his office) - sorry about that. Sent the email to you now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Namık Kemal

Hi, could you please send me by email the content of this article you deleted? I want to write at least a stub about this person and this would help me to do so. Regards.--Kimdime (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not emailing you a copy of that article - it was deleted because it was a copyright violation. I also can't give you the source, per WP:BEANS. Sorry. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I Know that, I was the one signaling that this article was a Copyvio:) Though, not everything in the article was copy/pasted as I mentioned in the discussion page of the article Talk:namık Kemal. But it seems that you didn't read it even if I asked in my edit comment of the article to check the discussion. My conclusion regarding your admin job is that you shouldn't go that fast. Regards--Kimdime (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually went through the whole revision but I really couldn't see much that was not a copyright violation. The very first edit, sadly, was a violation! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK whatever, a last thing, when you state "I also can't give you the source, per WP:BEANS." it seems to me pretty ridiculous. First of all, the source is stated into the deletion log, and then, if you follow seriously this strategy, you should delete any reference or external link to an article, because who knows? Maybe someone is gonna use it for a copyvio? Assuming good faith is the only reasonable thing to do. Regards--Kimdime (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NB, don't forget to delete the talk page.--Kimdime (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot about the hyperlink. Yeah, when you say it that way it's fairly ridiculous. But are you seriously asking me to delve through all the history of that article just to get one revision? Oh all right. Let me try. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, given that I had to go through the entire history, I've just restored the revisions that weren't copyright violations. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! this is what I though, not every version was copyvio. By the way, do you have a better template than the one I used to signal this article? One which would state that the article should be cleaned and not deleted totally? Regards.--Kimdime (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of I'm afraid. Probably report it to Wikipedia:Copyright violations in future if there is salvagable material, speedy deletions will get, well, speedily deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Elliot Fletcher Article

I'd like to know why this article was deleted without the chance for a proper discussion of it's notability. It had been created less then 3 hours(I believe) before it was deleted and at the time of deletion there was a discussion going on about it's notability. A discussion to which there had been no resolution yet and a discussion in which (if i recall correctly) you had not participated in. The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is "to empower and engage people" and I don't understand how this can be accomplished when admin's disregard on-going discussions and delete articles in such a haphazard manner. Your explanation will be appreciated.Dancer0889 (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. If this becomes something that causes Qld State government or Department of Education policy to change, and if more information comes out in the police investigation that is signficant, then tell me. Until then, it stays deleted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that doesn't really answer the question. I'm not here to cause trouble but what was the point in me participating in the discussion if it wasn't going to be given the chance to run it's course. I also would have thought, seeing as one of the suggestions was it's integration into another article, that this article did not deserve immediate removal and there should have been a chance for it to be migrated. This is the sort of discussion we could be having in the relevant place(articles discussion page) if it had not been deleted.Dancer0889 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, you are new here (you haven't signed your name - use ~~~~). If you disagree with my decision, then please take this to deletion review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, don't assume my in-experience just because I forgot to sign. Second of all, my experience should be irrelevant and an attitude like that is unlikely to encourage people to contribute which is the basis of all Wikimedia projects. The moment I wish to ask for the deletion to be reversed(which I have not yet done at any stage) I will go to deletion review. The reason I am talking directly to you is because I would like to know more of the process you followed in deleting this article. There was discussion of this article being merged into another or changing it from an article about the individual to an article about the event he was involved in, which I believe is definately notable just like other school murders. I agree that Wikipedia should not be an index of everyone who is killed but there are extenuating circumstances making this case particularly notable in the media. I believe that taking this into account, it would not have hurt to leave the article there for a couple of days while events could continue to unroll and decisions could be made on the validity and proper location for the content. I am not asking you to do anything and if you do not wish to respond to this then don't but I insist that as an administrator you need to be less dismissive and less intimidating.Dancer0889 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if you just forgot I apologise. Please take to WP:DRV. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

talkpage request

I don't know if you saw Bish's comment in her edit summary but it was in reply to your post and IMO it is clearly a request for you to discontinue discussion there. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? She asked me to stop interacting with Giano. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not totally clear but best to err on the side of caution. Please stop in an edit summary is usually a call for an end to the discussion. As in.. . Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know you are trying to help, but knowing Bish as I do, I suspect that if she wanted me to clear off, she'd have said it. Would you please, please stop interfering here? I am trying to make amends with Bishonen, who I had a long history with. If Bish wants me to go, then she will and I will respect her wishes. But please, don't make things any worse than they are. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have absolutely no idea what that diff is meant to be showing me. The edit summary is a twinkle message where you reverted TreasuryTag, which is totally different to what Bish did, which was to respond to my comment. Please, just leave us to work things out? Seriously, you aren't helping here, though I know you mean well. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, as per your request. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jawa Technique Deletion

I am an video editor who uses the jawa technique to produce. i would like there to be a fact based wiki entry for this multimedia music genre. there are many artists, and several labels or collectives who use these techniques. there have been many events, exhibitions, tours, and dvd or download releases of media adhering to this technique.

if wanted or needed many links of artists, events, media releases, and collectives can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmarven (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello: This morning the article I created (Jawa Technique) was deleted by you. Many people have asked me to set this up, and it is not intended as a self serving advertisement. What can I do to satisfy the conditions to have it up and running? I have added valid references. I will do my best to find a mainstream media reference, but like most "sub-genres" coverage is few and far between. Peteohearn (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion

Further to your decision to delete the image from Once Upon a Midnight, the image itself is not "non-free" as defined by this site, so the deletion discussion is invalid. It was in fact used with permission of the photographer, and has been published in all the reviews and journal articles cited on the wiki article. The photographer has freely distributed this image. Furthermore, the comment that it is replacable is also clearly invalid as everyone knows cameras are not permitted in theatres. So it seems an odd and unjustified decision, especially as other wiki articles on theatrical productions contain production photographs and these are illuminating for those who have not seen the production to observe costume, lightning, style, mise-en-scène, character and so on. What, exactly, is the issue? (129.96.112.134 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

Take it to WP:DRV please. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry, new at this. (129.96.113.84 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Pe-Et

I'm not really sure how this works, but I was wanting to appeal your deletion of the PE-ET page. This is an important addition to the wikipedia encyclopeia. Countless other collegiate secret societies are represented and the full knowledge of such category is incomplete without the addition of the knowledge of PE-ET. A brief description of the society can be found on the page for Secret Collegiate Societies in North America, but the information there is incomplete and summarized. Please reconisder. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coke7864 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that my decision was correct. We have a deletion review process, it might be best to take this here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

VK Bosna

Why did you delete the VK Bosna article??? Significance was clearly shown. Why don't you go ahead and delete other similar sport team pages that have even less information on them? (LAz17 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)).

I need the content please. I am going to make the page again soon. It would save me time if you gave me the content back at least... at any rate, if PVK Jadran may exist, there is no reason why VK Bosna may not. (LAz17 (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)).

It has no verifiable references. If you feel my decision is wrong, please take to WP:DRV, thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The official website of the team, and the official website of the biggest sports society in Sarajevo, to which this club belongs to and is talked about, were linked. You did not even bother to look at the page when you deleted it, I think. I do not understand how this deletion review works. Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)).

Please take to WP:DRV, I am happy to have my decision reviewed and, if necessary, overturned. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It says I should add {{Delrev}} to the page. I can not do this because you blocked non-administrators from being able to do that. (LAz17 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

Reread the procedure. It says that "Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{subst:Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion." - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's done. Sorry for the confusion. You may see it here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV#Active_discussions . Regards, (LAz17 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)).

Administrator?

Wowsers, I didn't know you had that thankless job. I was once asked to let myself be nominated for administratorship, but I wouldn't hear of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you would be a very good admin, GoodDay. But if you don't want to be an admin, it's still perfectly acceptable (it seems) for non-admins to resolve threads before they are resolved. Funnily enough, I designed the admin noticeboard for admins, who I assumed would administer the board themselves and accept input from non-admins. I wasn't expecting non-admins to make admin decisions! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Baiting

This would be an example. How is that comment constructive? Equazcion ^(talk) 00:09, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I didn't make it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong diff, sorry. So here, same question. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:22, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You aren't an admin. Why are you making admin decisions? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My question first, then I'll answer yours. How is this relevant to the proposal that you felt it should be mentioned there? It seems to be a comment intended to strike an emotional blow and incite further irrelevant argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:26, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You took it upon yourself to arrange a ban when you were not involved in the original issue. You resolved a previous thread that you have specifically noted was a cause for concern, yet you are not an admin. When AN was setup, it was for admins to administer and review each other's decisions. It was not intended to be administered by non-admins, though regular editors were of course totally free to comment. Admin decisions on that board are meant to be decided by administrators. You are not an administrator. Ergo, this is totally relevant. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was that I post the ban proposal at AN, and regardless, non-admins post there all the time. Nevertheless my general wiki behavior is not the subject of the thread. Yours is. So again: How does pointing out the fact that I've closed threads at ANI have any bearing on whether you should be topic-banned from an article? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:33, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I asked a number of questions about myself, in case you haven't read my response. You have not bothered to answer any of them. For one who is insistent that I discuss my own actions, you don't seem to want to answer the questions I have asked about my actions. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you explain to me how my closing ANI discussions has any bearing on whether or not you're topic banned, I'll be gad to answer. Otherwise the question would seem to be an attempt at baiting an irrelevant argument and muddying the waters. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:38, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It has a bearing because you a. don't understand how the boards are meant to function, and b. you appear to be taking on admin duties when you are not an admin. This shows poor judgment, and I am not at all happy that you didn't follow NW's request that before the next thread was started that you discuss it with him first. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're allowed to be unhappy. I'm unhappy with things quite often. But again, you haven't explained how my closing of ANI threads, or my general misunderstanding with how ANI "meant to function", has any bearing on whether or not you should be topic-banned. It seems rather like something you could take up in an RFC/U or even with a discussion on my talk page, and preferably not in the midst of a separate dispute. Why now, at the ban proposal, if not to bait? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:47, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you several times now, you should have taken this to an RFC, or better yet followed DU procedures. You haven't. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you had plenty of opportunities to suggest that prior to my posting the proposal. You evidently didn't think of it either, and instead suggested AN or ANI, so quit blaming me for the choice of venue. And yet again, how does your comment at that ban proposal thread about me closing ANI discussions have any bearing on whether or not you should be topic-banned? I'm still waiting for an answer on this.

I'm not just trying to be annoying here, there's a point. Think of it this way: If a couple is fighting about who should pick up the kids from soccer practice, things are getting heated, and one says to the other "You're being difficult just like you were when my mother came to visit, you should've let her bring her dog, I don't know why couldn't just let her, you can be a real dick," then that sends the argument off on a tangent about mother-in-laws -- bringing up something irrelevant from the past just to strike an emotional blow -- while the kids are still stuck at soccer practice. You see the problem? One party baited the other into a tangential argument, and the main point was delayed from getting settled, while sending the emotional climate up a few notches. People get angrier while coming no closer to a resolution, which doesn't help anyone. It muddys the water. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Of course I thought about it. You are accusing me of deciding the process with which you have decided to prosecute an article ban. Don't blame the subject here, it's not my responsibility to advise you on how to get me banned from editing an article! This is your baby, not mine. I'll be blunt: You brought the thread into being. You sent emails to Unitanode to discuss the ban off wiki. You didn't bother reading the last ban thread closure. You said that you had never had any interactions with me when you had. You are the one who haven't even made an effort to answer my questions on where I was rude. You have ignored how rude and nasty others were to me. You didn't check the talk page to see where I had been personally insulted. You have been closing off admin threads even though you are not an admin. You sent messages canvassing support for my ban and conviniently ignored the last ban discussion. And finally, you have decided that you would recommence ban proceedings on AN even when things had calmed down and you have nothing to do with the situation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some of those things, but it doesn't seem constructive to go through each one and start arguing about them. But on the choice of venue, we did discuss somewhat where that would take place. You said you didn't want it on the talk page but rather at AN or ANI. I never suggested you should advise me on where to take a ban proposal for you -- see straw man. However, that suggestion doesn't even seem all that unreasonable even if I had. Were I an administrator, I'd like to think I had the fortitude to offer advice to an editor on the proper location for a discussion, even if it was regarding sanctions against myself. I've seen admins do that many times for people. It takes a particularly level head to have that ability though, I suppose. RFA is intended to find those.

You've evaded the issue again though. Whether or not you're topic banned has nothing to do with my archiving discussions at ANI. That's an inconsequential, tangential argument. See ad hominem -- Saying "You have a record of ____" as a means to undermine a proposal I made is a non-sequitur, a fallacy, as are most of what you've pointed out above. The substance of the proposal is what matters. Attacking the "credibility" of the proposer is irrelevant, especially when done just to provoke a reaction -- and unless you are actually under the impression that these are valid arguments, I have to assume provocation was indeed your intent. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:31, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

OK, so do me a favour. Give me a summary of why you think I should be article banned. Seriously. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Already done, see here. I don't see the need to type it all out again. This talk page discussion is about your behavior during the time the proposal has been posted, mostly. I'm hoping to get through to you and make you realize what you're doing and why it's bad. It doesn't appear to be working. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:39, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

And I have responded to this. But as you have issues reading, here we go again:

1. I wasn't rude in any way.
2. I was not trolling Giano
3. I had a genuine interest in that article, and I wanted to improve it.
4. I tried to find a compromise. You know that term? It means find a solution that is mutually agreeable to both parties. Compromises need good faith from both sides, and need the ability of each side to give some ground. What I was asking for was the ability to improve the article when Giano had moved it over. And by improving it, I meant some copyediting, removal of peacock terms and improved referencing.

So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not particularly impressed that I was:

1. called a liar
2. called a troll
3. told not to edit the article
4. called incompetent

Incidentally, don't give me that garbage that admins should just take whatever crap that regular editors dish up. That's a ridiculous argument, and I can assure you that there is no policy or guideline anywhere that says that this should be the case. You should feel ashamed of yourself for saying this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said "admins should just take whatever crap that regular editors dish up" -- that is indeed "a ridiculous argument" that I never made. See straw man again, as you seem to have had "issues reading" it the first time.

I'm not sure who you're talking to, but I didn't ask you for a rundown of your grievances. You have my sympathies; but my question was how your comment about my closing ANI discussions had a bearing on whether or not you should be topic-banned. I'm accusing you, Tbsdy, of deliberate baiting. Add that to your list, if "troll" doesn't already cover it, but this is a prime and textbook example, and if you have some adequate defense for it I'm interested in hearing. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:08, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

You have never, ever addressed the specific things that I was doing on that article, apart from being there, that was so terrible and disruptive that I should have been banned from it. There is not one edit on that article or that talk page that you can present to me as an issue.

To review, I never said that I would revert Giano's work. I never insulted him in any way on that page, and I never said that the quality of his work was in question, in fact just the opposite - I said that I admire his work (if not his person), but there were some overall minor issues with peacock terms and a lack of referencing. I offered to do some research myself to help improve the article, and I discussed all the suggestions I had for the article, as is standard and civil practice. I was willing to try to understand the issues on the page, and I was willing to listen to reason and bow to consensus. Those who wanted me gone had no reason to do so; there was not even one thing that I did wrong and you will not be even able to find a single diff.

However, as I have said, I was called a troll, a disruptive editor, a liar, that I was not allowed to edit the article, that I was incompetent, that my personal skills are lacking, that I was an inflammatory presence on the article, that my attempt to find a compromise was an ultimatum, that I was "incessant[ly] bitching", that I forum shopped, that I am a vandal, and that I had no interest in the article whatsoever and that any edits I were doing were in bad faith.

Then Unitanode tried to ban me from the article by proposing a talk page ban, which you yourself had to later admit was out of order. You have accused me of making straw man arguments, that I am deliberately muddying the waters, that I have no right to complain about emails you sent to another editor to organize the ban off-wiki, that I was not trying to seek any resolution at all, that I am a tendentious editor, that you have never had any interaction with me before (not true, and you never clarified this point), and on top of this you canvassed all the people who opposed my editing of the article, but none who were happy for me to edit the article or that believed I was not any of the things you have accused me of. And finally, you are not an admin and you closed off a genuine issue with the bounty board being reverted constantly before you reviewed the facts - as a point of fact you didn't even read the first few lines and accused me of not communicating with Unitanode; something you had to apologise about when I pointed out the diff that showed him blanking his talk page. Of course, I shouldn't have had to provide the diff, because I actually said that I'd been communicating with him on his talk page before I went to ANI. I was forced to undo your archiving of the thread before you even decided to look at what the problem was. When you got to the talk page, you saw that I was right and you basically forced him to put the bounty box back - but because you were shitty with me you claimed a great victory and that you "compromised" with him - which is the biggest load of bollocks I've seen in a long while. You aren't an admin, and you made things much much worse by bring the ban thread to AN. Your judgment is poor and your own constant messages to my talk page have been condescending and inaccurate.

I have not been able to sleep because of the drama laden thread you decided to put on AN. You don't understand how to mediate, and you have no idea how to bring about a dispute resolution. You can't assess the full facts of a matter you had nothing to do with, and you clearly didn't see NW's message about talking to him before bringing about another thread. You didn't understand why another editor should not have brought about a ban discussion on another talk page until Durova gave you a detailed and clear reasoning, which you were forced to agree was reasonable - when I raised this same issue you told me it was a smokescreen to disguise the issues at hand.

In short, you have meddled in areas that didn't concern you, you have usurped dispute resolution procedures that have been done us all well and have been designed to deescalate situations, and you have proven that you were not an impartial third party. You claim to be fair, yet you cannot tell me where I was rude, and you certainly didn't comment on the ownership issue that Giano was exhibiting, nor did you investigate the clearcut baiting and intimdation of Labattblueboy, who had only ever expressed an urge to work on the article and was clearly disturbed that Giano thinks that article is his own to do with what he wants without allowing anyone else to edit it, which is a clear violation of the ownership policy. You are a singularly unhelpful and controversial editor, and I don't ever welcome you taking me to AN for a ban discussion ever again. Should you do this, I'll consider filing a user RFC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to claim WP:TLDR here, but I may read through it tomorrow. I skimmed it and found complaints about me generally, and about your grievances, again. But this still doesn't address my simple question that I keep repeating. I'm glad to discuss my general wiki behavior if you like, but not until you properly address my question. On the other hand, I can also leave you alone if that's what you want. Simply ask me to discontinue this discussion and I will honor that. The ban discussion is over, and while I feel your behavior is still problematic, this discussion seems unlikely to resolve it. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:52, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to make this more clear: Go. Away. I have addressed all of the concerns that I raised in point form. If you are unable to see my side of things, then I suggest that you not try to mediate again. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello Tbsdy lives. I have just sent you an email via the Wikipedia email form. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm going to have to make this clear - this has nothing to do with the ban discussion. It is about an entirely seperate matter, and I have agreed to keep the matter private. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to Unitanode and I, I don't think either of us would've suggested otherwise, per WP:AGF. Plus as far as I'm concerned you're allowed to have private email discussions regarding anything you like, even the proposed ban. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:22, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the ban, and I did not initiate the email correspondence. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just said I believe you. I never suspected otherwise -- per WP:AGF. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:33, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone misunderstood. I'm not involved with that discussion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Page Aleksandar Jeftimov deleted by you

Please take a second look at Aleksandar Jeftimov. While I bet it wasn't a great article, WP:CSD#A7 does not apply, as he is a soccer player in the Macedonian First League which might be enough to be notable. Remember that Speedy Deletion is not to be used in case of any doubt. Thanks for undeleting, PanchoS (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh is that what FK Pobeda means? I thought that was patent nonsense - sorry! I've restored, stubified, wikilinked, copyedited and flagged as totally without any references. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just undeleting would have been enough, but thank you for making at least a one-sentence stub from this, which in this case is certainly better than nothing.

Same applies to Dennis E. Bolen, also recently deleted by you. He seems to be the author of several books that are available in all bookstores. This may be enough to make him notable, or it may not. However, you know, this can't be decided via speedy deletion.

There are some people around placing Speedy Deletion tags on articles without taking care of WP:CSD. The overenthusiasm of the user who tagged these two articles led to dozens of untagged or undeleted pages, and probably some more that didn't get recovered. So please reevaluate each article before deleting it as you can't trust Speedy Deletion tags. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh.... I didn't make it a one sentence stub - that is what it was! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you got me wrong - "one sentence stub" was a compliment by me! What it was before was less than a "one sentence stub" ;-) PanchoS (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol! True - sorry, I'm a bit touchy at the moment. I undeleted a whole raft of them, btw. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Shantanu Gontia

Hi, I was the editor that placed the db on Shantanu Gontia and was just about to remove it and place a notice up on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (for a page move), just when you deleted it. If you check the page history User:Gontia0 pagemoved his userpage (including talk) out into mainspace some time in December. Is the deletion a problem? Can the page (and talk) be un-deleted and moved back to user space to preserve the userpage/talkpage histories or is it not an issue and leave as is. --blue520 12:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the user talk page (history) than the user page. I am happy if you delete my speed del notification on the current user talk page and just restore and page move the old talk page if it saves effort.--blue520 12:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bethel Lutheran Church (Manassas, VA) Request for restore

Please restore the page for the church. The church is an old and historic institution in the Manassas area, the church is a key hub for many activities of importance to the community. There are ESL, AA, Al-Anon, Boy Scout and other things of import that occur at the church. I am working or the article but between the issue of copyright and the fact that the article got marked for deletion in 8 minutes from initial draft and then got deleted in less than 24 hours in spite of a hangon request it is hard to get the article in shape. Honestly it feels pretty hostile, particulary as I patterned the article after a long standing article on Reformation Lutheran in Columbia SC. Please look at that article and let me know how mine is different? Thanks much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K1goalie (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 161.107.18.136 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry somehow I got logged out K1goalie (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for got the 4 tildes, always do that K1goalie (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have a request for mediation in on the copyright issue. Once I have that resolved I will have the history back on the page and then the article reads more like it should. K1goalie (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I was being hostile, that was not my intent. We have a deletion review process, it might be best to take this here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are hostile to me personally, but the culture feels hostile to new contributions. Literally with in 8, 8 actual minutes, the article got marked as CSD, then the same guy who did the CSD, marks copyright stuff on it. Then when I tell him I can release the source history he puts a COI tag on it. I put a hangon on the CSD but that didn't even buy me 24 hours to make my case, discuss my case, resolve the copyright issue, get through the request for mediation. Didn't even have a chance to get through mediation and get the history back before the delete, doesn't that at least merit a couple of days on the hangon request? Additionally the inconsistency makes if difficult to figure out what to do. I patterned my article after one that had been around for a long time. What should I do, give up on Wiki? I am also looking for some feedback on this from you. Looking for your experience and wisdom on how to proceed. I will go to the deletion review but at this point would like to have the hangon request work for a while so I can go to the deletion review after the request for mediation. K1goalie (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One more comment on the A7 criteria which was used to mark this "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. " Under the policy stated as A7 criteria I would think that a church founded by civil war veterans of the north in the south in 1889 has a least a credible claim for importance. The history I am trying to get in the page through mediation indicates this or at least rates more time under the hangon tag. Again, looking for help here. K1goalie (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentle nudge here. Any thoughts or response? K1goalie (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My Userpage

Hi, you deleted my userpage citing "(R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)". I believe you were mistaken. Could you please restore it? User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 07:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother - sorry about that. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this. And when I looked further, I noticed a disruptive div, which I removed. I see another on the page you just restored. It is disruptive because it interferes with the MediaWiki UI. I then looked at his navbar and noticed that the gradient (modern browsers only) was directly lifted from my code; see [4] and [5]. And I'm rather wondering if User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Image Switcher was based on more of my code. The code re-use is fine in itself, but I thought I'd ask what you can see. There's the similarish username, too.. Also, I see other issue boxed and I saw the talk with ms'zilla; hope all is sorted well enough. I'm off shortly; cheers, Jack Merridew 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I did lift the code for the boxes from you Jack, but the image switcher was mine. As for the div, fooling people was the point, and apparently it worked a little too well, so I'll leave it out. Sorry for the disruption. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 07:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This: User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig is highly disruptive, too; please cease using it and refactor all uses or I'll take it to the next step. You're certainly not fooling me. Jack Merridew 07:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack M, I'm listening here. Why do you feel the signature template is disruptive? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He's right about the template. SIG does absolutely forbid transcluding templates as a sig. I have refactored my sig, and am willing to refactor more if this version is still unacceptable. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 07:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You see what it does? It presents a different name on successive viewings. Some anon has already raised the issue at User talk:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Archive 1. It's also a WP:SIG#NoTemplates vio. This is at best highly disruptive and, likely, one of the usual trolls. Many focus on me due to my history. If he doesn't cut it out I'll either refactor them all, MfD it, or go the ANI or CU route. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I see you just edited it - that was exactly what I was about to do. I've protected it - I'll note this on ANI. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just commented there. There are only a few instances left, so I'm going to finish substing. There are bunch of other subpages that it used; they should not be used, of course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

fyi, my current belief here is that this is User:Drew R. Smith who has quite a history, most notably faking a scan of a book page to support a statement he had made and making an RFAR request and then saying that he hadn't, as his account had been compromised. He was indef'd and then let off with a month. If I'm wrong, again, it's a troll feigning to now be Drew. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seem familiar

Do you see any similarity of editing patterns between Wikipeacekeeper (talk · contribs) and Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs)? You know HRB much better than I do. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. This is really all I needed to see. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A sock for sure :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Note on previous ANI case on MarshalN20

Hello Tbsdy

As I told you before I had to file another ANI report on MarshalN20 because he didn't respect the terms of our agreement here since you were the admin who attended the previous case I think you should be informed. Best regards Erebedhel - Talk 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think enforced mediation is the only way to deal with this protracted dispute. I have made a suggestion on moving forward, I imagine that neither of you will like it. My suggestion would really slow down your editing, but as you are both battling it out I think this better for the neutrality of the articles. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I provided a response on the ANI. Sorry for this inconvenient situation Tbsday, but thank you for taking the time to fix it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)