User talk:Anthon01/Archive 1

BDORT

I am new to Wikipedia. I noticed your comments under BDORT and was wondering what happens next with this issue? If you don't mind my asking, how do you resolve a situation where a reference exists but the reference, on close examination, does not support the content? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to respond -- I was on vacation.

The direct answer to your question is that there is a mediation process. The informal mediation pages are WP:3O and WP:MEDCAB. There is formal dispute resolution and WP:MEDCOM and WP:ARBCOM.

At the BDORT article, there is a long and tired history of dispute and various levels of success at resolution. You may want to look through the talk archives there.

If you have any more specific questions, let me know.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi Anthon,

You can try WP:LOP as a starting point. Crum375 (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some policies are actually sections or subsets of others, e.g. WP:SYN is part of WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too controversial

Many of the people who vote at WP:RfA believe that no personal attacks and civility should be the hallmark qualities of an administrator. These qualities are not things I possess in the way many would like since I'm often dealing with users who are here expressly to push an anti-mainstream pseudoscience agenda. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you? Are you pushing the opposite or searching for balance? --Anthon01 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that neutral point of view implies that the mainstream will always be given the most weight. I am also of the opinion that the editorial opinions of those who are expert in the relevant academic fields should dominate Wikipedia. I do not believe that pseudoscience should be accommodated or given special treatment for the same reason I do not believe that the opinions of any random person found on the street should be accommodated. In an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standards for inclusion must be kept very high in order to avoid subverting the aims of the reference by publishing original research or allowing believers in fringe opinions to soapbox beyond their relevance or legitimacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on my talkpage is always the best way to get in touch with me as I do not have your talkpage on my watchlist. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demarcation is an editorial decision that has to be made by considering the verifiability and reliability of the sources and the claims being made. There isn't a clean line in many cases. Acupuncture and chiropractor have aspects that are pseudoscientific in them, but there are also aspects which are not necessarily contradictory to science or perhaps are "complementary" in a way that scientific medicine doesn't mechanically address. These issues are currently being dealt with at various places (for example, Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts). ScienceApologist (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology and sourcing

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

So what is a SPA? Anthon01 (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single Purpose Account: editing in a very specific topic area. It's not necessarily a problem, but in contentious areas such as alternative health and medicine, it can be a sign of someone pushing a viewpoint, so I asked for it to be checked out.

Very unreliable sourcing. Please define what you mean by that? Anthon01 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in sources that are not up to Wikipedia standards for reliable ones per WP:V and WP:RS. These require, for instance, reference works of generally acclaimed origin, peer-reviewed journals, quality newspapers, books that are not self-published, neutral articles of solid credentials that cite their own sources, and so on. The American Butter Company Building article is a good example of a reliable source: written by a well-qualified historian, commissioned by a US government office, well-cited, and clearly with no agenda on the topic of Schnabel and wheatgrass.

As to the opposite, for instance, Wheatgrass: Nature's Finest Medicine is a small-press polemical title from a small press, extremely unlikely to be peer-reviewed; it's probably fine as a source for what is claimed for wheatgrass, but not a reliable medical and scientific source for truth of such claims. Sites selling and promoting the object in question, because of their promotional interest, aren't viewed as reliable either (like Enzyme University, annwigmore.com, The Wheat Grass People, etc). 86.155.206.174 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal communication with Barrett

I'm sorry, but I'm going to take a shortish WikiBreak, as it's proving a bit stressful. Could you post them on the relevant talk pages and let them hash it out? Thanks. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Vote Is Requested

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine/Quotes, I would appreciate it if you were to start your comment out with either a Keep or a Delete comment. It is required for your comment to count when they get around to counting votes. -- John Gohde 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions before I vote. How long is it open? Do many portals have quotes? If so, how can I find them? What is the point of having quotes? How does the average user find these quotes? Thank you.

Talk:Quackwatch

Thanks for contributing to the discussions in Talk:Quackwatch. I don't like to repeat myself on article talk pages, so I'm responding to you here. I hope you don't mind.

It's been pointed out now by multiple editors that there are many facts that are not true about Quackwatch. I've even suggested there are an infinite number of such facts. You appear to be arguing that somehow certain facts that are not true deserve to be included in the article.

As I've pointed out, there have been many discussions in Talk:Quackwatch and related discussion pages where this same argument was given. I urge you to read the past discussions. However, the relevant policies and guidelines have already been brought up in this matter (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV). I'm happy to explain to you here how any or all of these apply, but I don't want to repeat past discussions on the article talk page if they can be avoided. --Ronz 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. --Anthon01 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm happy to answer your questions about the policies/guidelines, or past discussions. --Ronz 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Barrett mentions something about a review process. We need to do the best we can to represent that. --Anthon01 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, but it's going to be limited by what sources we can find. I've looked for independent descriptions of the processes Quackwatch uses, as well as descriptions of the types of articles it publishes, and haven't found anything useful. Independent sources are the best to use, because they not only verify the information, but determine importance and balance. I don't think we can get anywhere trying to write about what processes he does not use, especially without any sources. --Ronz 17:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 150+ statement was WP:V citing Quackwatch itself, not an independent source. Should we be searching for an independent source in that case also? --Anthon01 14:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, though it would be a better article if it were supported by an independent source. The number is verifiable, and no one is arguing that it's not important to the subject matter. See WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz 16:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why do we need an independent source for review status but not one for 150+? --Anthon01 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because some of the information that is currently in the article, "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review" is not verifiable, there is strong disagreement about it's importance, and editors are arguing that it violates multiple policies and guidelines. --Ronz 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I think it's best if we don't repeat arguments. Please go back and read the results of the last time this argument was made. I discussed it with you above. Multiple editors have already discussed it on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding WP:V: Yes, if a source does not include the same or similar wording as what it is supposed to suppor, an editor should expect it might be challenged. If the source is challenged, and editor should expect that others will ask for rewording or removal depending upon the situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion, and some of your comments, are moving into issues of WP:NPOV. NPOV covers a large number of related issues: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Please check chart in WP:CCC of WP:CON --Anthon01 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did check that chart prior to my edit, and I didn't see how it supported your actions. If you were following it, you should have reached the "Think of a reasonable change that might integrate their idea with yours" point. Such a change might have been to simply keep the wording the same but add in the reference (if you wish to do this now, I have no problem with that). Instead, you reverted. I changed back to Fyslee's version as I thought the wording there was more accurate in any case. However, I see this is now being discussed on the talk page, so I'll refrain from further edits on the article on this until we've hashed this out. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chart says "Make an edit(Fyslee)"---> "was the article edited further?" Yes by Anthon01---> "Was it a revert?"Yes by Anthon01 --->"Do you(Fyslee)agree w revert?" No. ---> Take it to the talk page. (Fyslee). That means that the person who made the original change needs to take it to the talk page, not the person who made the revert. So beautifully organized. --Anthon01 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say in my short time here, this flow chart is generally ignored on pages that I have been editing. --Anthon01 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going strictly by the chart, then we should have started applying it from your first change: "Make an edit" (Anthon) -> "Was the article edited further?" (Yes, by Fyslee) -> "Was the edit a change or revert?" Change -> "Do you agree with the change?" No -> "Think of a reasonable change that might incorporate your idea with theirs." This is where you broke off. Instead of changing to a compromise, you reverted.

The reason people don't generally hold strictly to flowcharts like this is that it's a guideline for behavior, not an absolute mandate. Often, strict adherence to rules can cause more headaches than it's worth (hence WP:IAR). Be aware that if you try to force in your version based on an overly strict interpretation of the rules rather than reasoning for why your version is best, you're guilty of being a rules lawyer. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've taken things out of order. The editing started with fyslee's edit. He started the editing. --Anthon01 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee's edit was a unilateral edit on a historically highly contested page. Consensus had already been reached on that page prior to Fyslee's new edits. --Anthon01 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a certain sense, the flowchart is irrelevant in this situation. The edit was suggested at Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts, where it was objected to so much new material being used there, but suggested that it might be better in the article. That's why I did it. (Actually it is mostly references that make it look large when looking at the code.) I moved it there where it made the article even better. It included extremely good references, was not some undocumented private opinion, but was backed up by good sources, and no guidelines or policies were being violated. An addition of that quality shouldn't be outright deleted. It should be discussed first. In such a situation a deletion is disruptive, and deleting good sources is nearly always a bad idea. One of the major references was added to back up a previously unsourced statement, thus giving it very good backing.

Regardless of how it all went down, a refusal to discuss on the talk page is disruptive and not at all collaborative. Common sense should rule and new users would do well to adapt as quickly as possible to the editing environment here by cooperating with experienced users and taking their advice. We are flexible and try to work things out by discussing them on the talk page, not by edit warring. An exception to all this is when a new or anonymous user makes large additions or many changes at once, thus upsetting a carefully balanced consensus. Such edits are often reverted so the new editor will take it to the talk page to explain what's going on. Otherwise an article can quickly get vandalized or filled with small and sometimes unnoticed edits of dubious quality, often in an attempt by a new editor to bring the article into line with their opinion of how the article should read. They don't realize that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs or use as a personal website. NPOV requires that they include POV which they may find abhorrent, but if well sourced often must be allowed. -- Fyslee / talk 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of your post? To set the record straight? The objections were to much more than just "too new much material." The objection included a WP:COI issue. You are a physical therapist and I didn't realize you had an anti-chiropractic blog.

Fyslee you're mistaken. You said "The edit was suggested at Talk:List of Pseudo..., where it was objected to so much new material being used there, but suggested that it might be better in the article."

Levine2112 objected soon after. On the Talk:List of Pseudo... page Levine said

"PTs also practice AK. In fact a whole host of practitioners use the questionable technique including doctors, dentists, chiropractors, osteopaths, naturopaths, physiotherapists, and nutritionists. I think it may show a conflict of interest on your part, Fyslee, that you keep removing your own profession from the description of this practice on this article. Please be aware of at least the appearance of this WP:COI"

"You (Fyslee) are a PT, you maintain a very anti-chiropractic blog, you participate in very anti-chiropractic groups on and off the web, and your anti-chiropractic agenda has been clearly demonstrated on Wikipedia from the moment you arrived here until today. I am tell you that here you have the appearance of WP:COI and per your ArbCom decision which warned about this, I am telling you to be careful. Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits."

Fyslee's RfA. On the same page my objections were much more than too much new material

You classified "the normal use of MMT by PTs" and inadvertently left out any references to PT use of it. I'm sure it was done unintentionally.(AGF) I didn't realize you have a possible COI issue. Your edit does sounds anti-chiropractic.

First impressions. This is a little commercial for PT and an attempted derogatory at chiropractic. I'm sure it was unintentional. It also leave out the fact that PTs also practice AK. Your modification of the text written mostly by Eldereft is an unnecessary edit. You're filling the reference with a disclaimer of sorts, PT good, Chiro bad. I understand you have an anti-chiro website? Is that true? --Anthon01 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The objections were to much more than just "too much new material." Contrary to the warning given to you in your ARB case Fyslee's RfA, you instead of seeking consensus first, decided to publish your highly questionable text on the contentious consensus-reached AK page. While we were trying to reach consensus on the Talk:List of Pseudo... page you posted your text on the AK page, effectively by-passing the consensus process.

Re: Your second paragraph and listening to more experience wikipedians. Although you are a more experienced wikipedian, you COI issue makes me leary of your recommendations on these particular pages. Fyslee's RfA In addition your constant personal attacks, insinuations and assumptions about other editors motives make me question your ability to be objective.

You said above "Otherwise an article can quickly get vandalized or filled with small and sometimes unnoticed edits of dubious quality, often in an attempt by a new editor to bring the article into line with their opinion of how the article should read. They don't realize that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs or use as a personal website. NPOV requires that they include POV which they may find abhorrent, but if well sourced often must be allowed. -- " Are you suggesting that this related to me? Do you believe I am trying to right great wrongs?

So your opinion is that if an editor adds 'well sourced' material to a consensus-reached page, that it should never be reverted? Is that the rule the we are going to work by? That seems to conflict with WP:CCC which gives editors the right to remove newly added consensus-breaking material and directs the editor of the new material to take it to the talk page, not undo the revert. That means if I add well-sourced consensus-breaking new material to a page, you will not revert it? --Anthon01 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Please do not characterize my revert as some sort of vandalism. The editor who posted that made a personal attack against other editors and was trolling on the talk page. In accordance with WP policies, such drivel can be swiftly deleted, as it was. Don't revert it again. Baegis 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is obviously trying to come to the talk page in order to provoke some sort of a reaction. His edits could best be summed up as useless. Specifically, when he says: "The people who claim it (that creationism is pseudoscientific) are atheists". That is a blatant personal attack. Baegis 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it that way. I will let the user respond and repost if he wants to. The statement "people who claim it (that creationism is pseudoscientific) are atheists," can be taken in more than one manner. Thanks for clarifying. --Anthon01 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, its quite clear that the connotation of the comment was meant to be derogatory, especially considering calling someone an atheist is a tactic used by many a creationist. It was meant as an insult and should be taken as such. There is no fine line here. I will be deleting anything he reposts that is not going towards helping the article. He can discuss refs or specific details, but creationism will always be included on that list. I don't want to see that page turn into a war over creationism like so many other pages that touch on creationism and/or ID. The best way to prevent that is to not feed the trolls. Baegis 20:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in a "creationism" discussions so was insensitive to that interpetation. My apologies. However, you insistence that creationism "will always be included on that list" is supposition, inflammatory and insensitive to those on the other side of the debate. According to WP:Policies, he has the right to post on that page any argument in that regard as long as no offensive remarks are included. And it is not your place to judge, and then "deleting anything he reposts that is not going towards helping the article" unless there is an offense remark. Even then, you have the right to remove the offensive remark only. Please correct me if I am wrong otherwise. --Anthon01 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not parse with the details here. Creationism will always be on that list. It is not supposition, inflammatory or insensitive. It is just a fact. And he does not have the right to post whatever he pleases on the talk page. From the top of all talk pages: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. He was in no way discussing an improvement to the article. If he wants to debate the merits of creationism being termed pseudoscientific, the place to do so is the creationism articles. Not on that page. Baegis 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and am 'still learning the ropes.'I am not trying to parse. Regarding "creationism," that is your belief and not a fact. In that "He was in no way discussing an improvement to the article" I would agree. As per WP:TALK he has the right to discuss this on this page. If there is a policy page the refutes my comment please provide. Otherwise good day. --Anthon01 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's as much a belief as I believe the sun will rise every morning. Or that the Earth spins around the sun. Reread WP:Talk before you cite it. Specifically, reread the part in which editing other people's comments are acceptable. Baegis 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it before I commented. --Anthon01 10:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reread it so you are clear. Baegis 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the instruction. Perhaps you can quote the part that you think I am not comprehending? --Anthon01 13:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the part that you need to reread: WP:Talk. Pay attention to points 3 + 4. The user in question firstly committed gross incivility in his first edit, therefore it was removed in whole. In the second edit, he was not attempting to help the article but only to troll. While you will say "Thats your opinion", frankly it is not. That particular talk page was NOT the place to argue what he was arguing and I even instructed him on what pages to visit, notably those related to creationism or Evolution. Baegis (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Warrior

Thanks, I did notice that and didn't think it a particularly appropriate comment. But I think its more important to get the wheels moving than deal with nonsense. WP:SUICIDE is quite clear and I've seen a few cases lately, all involving dragging of feet because it wasn't taken seriously. In one of them, Jimbo got involved himself, showing how seriously these things should be taken. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthon01, next time you accuse me of vandalism back it up with evidence. Black humour on a talk page is NOT vandalism and do not delete other's comments. --WebHamster 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to email

I just noticed this email in my Wikipedia folder. Sorry for the wait.

From what I can tell you edit warred to remove content sourced to a peer reviewed journal. I would have blocked you in a second. You appear to have a tenuous grasp on the goal of a Wikipedia article. It is not to reach a consensus on what all the editors think about the subject; it is to find the most accurate encyclopedia article, as supported by credible external sources. Peer reviewed journals trump everything. You were way out of line and, if you continue citing guidelines rather than credible sources, I have no doubt that you'll be blocked again. If you cannot find any credible sources to back up your opinions, you should walk away from Wikipedia and start a blog, as you will find Wikipedia frustrating and will undoubtedly frustrate other users. And that's my unvarnished opinion. User:BanyanTree 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This excellent advice needs to be heeded, not deleted. Such deletions make it hard to AGF and I fear your stay here will be short and littered with a record marred by edit warring. Please stop deleting warnings and good advice and show that you are interested in becoming a good Wikipedian. If you will show good faith towards other editors who are trying to help you, you will find they will treat you with respect and will AGF towards you. Editing here can actually be a pleasant and enriching experience if you will only try to adapt to the editing environment and learn to follow the policies here, and most of all to learn what Wikipedia is all about and what it is not about. Good luck. -- User:Fyslee / talk 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike off-wiki discussions of on-wiki matters so I will reply here. I would appreciate it if you would keep the discussion on wiki as well.

It is not an invitation to leave. It is a advice, based on long periods of observation of many users, that users on your trajectory (e.g. minute parsing of policy in disputes and edit warring over preferred versions of articles) tend to grow increasingly convinced that other editors are being totally unreasonable, which makes them dig in their heels more, which results in more drama and stress. This normally ends in either the editor quitting in disgust after accusing various other users of being inconsistent, biased and/or mean spirited OR being banned for exhausting the community's patience, which results in the same sorts of accusations. In the meantime, everyone involved gets stressed out, and vast amounts of energy are diverted from content improvement to dispute resolution. The one good thing about such situations is that users tend to add citations like crazy, which improves the disputed articles. Speaking entirely analytically, I would give a better than 50-50 chance that you are heading towards either quitting in frustration or a long block. I would really prefer that you simply start citing sources, and graciously accepting defeat when someone provides a better source, since you're clearly passionate about the subject and I like passionate editors. I doubt that this will occur based on one piece of evidence: you previously asked me for advice, I advised you to take a break and described the absolute tyranny of citations - you then immediately went and edit warred to remove cited content, and then asked me for a second opinion on the block, describing it as a 3RR matter. It doesn't inspire confidence. - User:BanyanTree 12:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

You possibly may wish to review WP:USERPAGE, particularly WP:UP#NOT. Shot info (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. What do you see as a problem? Anthon01 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, you just need to review the pertinent policies and be confident that you comply with them. That's all. Just think of it as a friendly heads-up (ie/ advice from one editor to another). Shot info (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask?

Why do you have my user page on your's under policies? I am not a real active editor nor am I one of the better editors. I am just a slow editor who tries at Wikipedia the best I can for personal reasons. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Because of your list of WP's and the other links near the bottom of you page. Would you like me to remove it? I also would like to know how you found out about it? Anthon01 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way to be honest. I just felt weird seeing my page linked on yours since I have had no contact with you until now. I just was following links and arrived here to see my page. But I am curious, how did you come upon me to see the links I have accummulated to help me remember where they are? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an edit but I don't remember where. I wondered if you had Crohn's and decided to take a look on your page. Anthon01 16:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, yes I have Crohn's, seven years diagnosed, three surgeries later and counting. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me. Hope to see you around, happy editing! --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable

That random person's webpage that Levine keeps quoting. The person may be slightly notable, but his webpage and opinion of Quackwatch is not. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an opinion piece, not scientific research. He may be notable enough for the criticism section, but what seems to be happening is an attempt to insert criticism, from a minor article not published anywhere notable, into the neutral "Mission and scope" section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOTE

Thanks for continuing to help with the discussion in Talk:Quackwatch‎. However, note that discussions progress best when editors explain their viewpoints. Please see WP:VOTE and WP:TALK for more information. [1] --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you read and followed WP:VOTE, to help the discussion progress. Thanks! [2] --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]