User talk:Cobaltbluetony/Archive02

Shackamaxon

I added a link that doesn't mention Kensignton but gives the location better and also notes that the treaty is not certain. Dsbd 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, pinned the little bugger down--Shackamaxon Dsbd 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirects and typos

It all depends on the context. If the typo is common, a redirect should be used. If it's something which is just plain dumb, it should be deleted. However, I think it would be better (and quicker) to just add a speedy tag if you want a typo deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 17:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Repetitious Reverts

Re: Philadelphia County.

There was never a clear consensus. Sorry.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_8#Category:_Philadelphia_County

evrik 19:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal Resources

Tony, that is not a resource for public distribution, nor is it a document that can be accessed to verify its contents as accurate on the web nor at a library. How are we to determine this quotation is accurate???? Netministrator 00:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Request to join discussion group

Hello Tony, I was wondering if I could join the discussion group if still active re JW structure changes. Thx. 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Check your talk page. - CobaltBlueTony 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, there is no link on my talk page. Can you e-mail it to me? Thx. Missionary 09:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tony, this really isn't on point for this sub-topic but I didn't really want to start a new one. I just wanted to thank you for all of your assistance in explaining WP policy and how to use WP in a more productive and impartial way. You seem to be a very level-headed individual and although my days of editing under this category have most likely come to a close, I have truly enjoyed your input as a voice of reason among the unreasonable. I hope that my dry sense of humor has not offended you; it's often difficult to convey such humor in print. Thanks again, I wish you all the best. IP law girl 21:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and don't worry too much about personalities. We are taught (and are hopefully wise enough) to avoid giving undue credence to personalities, and to cherish the successful cultivations of the fruits of the spirit, as we observe it in each other. Who knows, in some period of time, we may wind up meeting one another. - CobaltBlueTony 01:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, it's a very small world, so you just never know. Hey, check out Retcon's talk page, "Tommen-whatever", is really being belligerent. Is such harassment tolerated on WP? BTW: I know my comments following his aren't exactly demure but I had only wanted to leave a message for Retcon when I found those unprovoked comments and yes, I am sorry to say, my sarcastic wit got the best of me. However, his comments were completely uncalled for and seem wantonly slanderous. IP law girl 08:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion group

Hi Tony. I have to say I'm a little concerned about encouraging the JW editors to be involved in an external discussion group to the exclusion of the other editors. I'm not implying bad motives, but I do think it gives the wrong impression.

I think the spirit of WP is to have everything public, which is why there are no private talk pages, and everyone's contributions available for all to see. Please don't think I'm telling you to stop, I'm not. Just letting you know that it might help improve relations between JWs and ex-JWs if discussion was held here rather than offsite. What do you think? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I think what will immediately improve relations and remove the fragmentation would be to censure users (names withheld, won't point fingers as individuals) who berate fellow users and mock their belief system in a disrespectful manner. Having a sincere difference of opinion is one thing and Wiki does encourage a brokering of thoughts from variant camps. However, certain individuals do not seem so inclined as to afford Wikipedians on the "other side of the fence", so to speak, with any dignity. Interesting the tulmult relating the Human Rights and respecting independent thoughts on the JW pages, when such individuals who criticize witnesses for not allowing this themselves vent hostility. Seriously, you have in the best position to administer some level of civility between the camps so that the issues, rather than the individuals, are dealt with specifically. Missionary 09:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are witty, with the "names withheld, won't point fingers as individuals" part and all. Did I miss the note that we're all pretending to be eight year old girls now? Or was it just posted in your secret Yahoo group?Tommstein 09:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and he'll probably still be first in line to complain the next time I so much as imply that the Witnesses here are partisan. What's a secret offsite discussion group for their eyes only here and there? All editors who aren't trying to think with one brain are doing it....Tommstein 08:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Summary response

To be sure, there has been little to no participation in this group, and it seems in hindsight to have been ill-conceived on my part. I accept this fact, and I am deleting the group even as I type this.

Konrad, there are no relations between JWs and ex-JWs, (the group was intended for JWs only) and this is the point that so frustrates them. The only reason I engage any of them here at all is because of a sincere respect for the academic process. They wish to pick apart the faith, and can't just get on with their lives. Instead of growing on a positive level with their new beliefs, their goals remain to harrass, chase down, berate, belittle, intimidate, anger, trip up, stumble and tear down those who remain faithful. Their actions (and even their words here) belie any claims otherwise. Just note the vehemency with which they force every little point they wich for people to read and believe as accurate and truthful! I challenge them to operate purely on an academic level. They cannot. Watch the discussion pages carefully, and see that they cannot maintain their composure, or help but belittle or talk down to anyone disagreeing with them, especially if they identify themselves as JWs. In fact, all you need do is review the history!

My goal is to refuse to engage them in this. I believe that the academically sound goal of this site can be acheived only when the arguments stop. Moreover, those who repeatedly insinuate improper motives and attempt to intimidate by insult and accusations flying everywhere will eventually wear out their welcome on Wikipedia -- but only if enforcement is present. Otherwise, these ones will continue to abuse the situation and manipulate the rules to suit their agenda, and moderators and administrators who sit back and do nothing discredit the integrity of this resource, and expose the possibility of even the smallest amount of prejudice in their character as having an impact on the reliability of Wikipedia. Konrad, holding each and every editor accountable for their conduct in discussion pages, as well as maintaining more strict adherence to Wikipedia's rules on resources, will foster accuracy and the NPOV standard on this set of articles. Make sure that opinions on doctrines and practices are not presented as fact, but as a viewpoint about that doctrine. The precept of Wikipedia is that every editor is editing in good faith, but when such is apparently not true, good faith in Wikipedia must be restored by enforcement.

Respectfully, CobaltBlueTony 15:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You wish to use Wikipedia to make converts, and are frustrated at getting shot down. And yes, I can say that, seeing as you just had a sentence with about 10 attacks on ex-Witnesses. Such is life. Find a different forum. Go out preaching more. I hear you only have to preach for a little over 40 years on average before managing to make one single convert these days.Tommstein 15:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your tactic is apparent: make a baseless accusation, then toss on some belligerent asides and random speculation. I have no nterest in using an encyclopedia article to proselytize. I speak from experience and observation. No one told me what to think or feel when I observed ex-members behaving in the manner that they did. No one coerced me to reject the outright lies of individuals standing outside conventions bellowing at the top of their lungs. I know what apostates are, and I know who some of them are. I can speak to the common thread I've observed in these individuals. You strike me as no different, and you have yet to step up to the table and bite your own tongue. You can try to intimidate me, but I am dedicated to the academic process. Find reputable scholars who can see some validity in the spurious claims you continue to make, and then you'll have a leg to stand on. - CobaltBlueTony 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish I knew what the heck you were blabbing about... but I don't, so I'll just ignore it.Tommstein 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "You wish to use Wikipedia to make converts, and are frustrated at getting shot down."

This statement is false. You have no way of knowing this, you are wrong in your assumption, and you insinuate a less than scholarly motivation on my part, without any basis. Ergo, baseless accusation. The rest of your statements are random speculations on which you have no basis to speak. "I hear you only have to preach for a little over 40 years..." is self-stated heresay. You hear? From whom, disgruntled ex-members? Might take that long if their heart's not into helping people in the first place. But you wouldn't know, since you're not there. - CobaltBlueTony 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "They wish to pick apart the faith, and can't just get on with their lives. Instead of growing on a positive level with their new beliefs, their goals remain to harrass [sic], chase down, berate, belittle, intimidate, anger, trip up, stumble and tear down those who remain faithful." (among a million other things that I will not waste time addressing).

This statement is false. You have no way of knowing this, you are wrong in your assumption, and you insinuate a less than scholarly motivation on my part, without any basis. Ergo, baseless accusation. The rest of your statements are random speculations on which you have no basis to speak. As to the 40 years thing, take out your latest annual report and do some math. Try to not blame the calculator for the results, even if it was created by agents of 'Satan's system' that are all out to get you. I would give you the formula, but you're pretending to be a scholar, one would think you could do third grade math.Tommstein 01:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Tit for tat. Fair enough. Explain, then, why you insist on wasting so much energy on a religion you dislike so much? Do you see me attacking Catholics, or Scientologists, or Buddhists? What Witnesses have to say about other religions is not about their flawed human components, but [our perception of] the failure of the belief system(s) to provide real and lasting benefits to thase that adhere to them. My experience with detractors such as yourself is reflected in the above statement you quoted. Can you seriously insist that Witnesses are so horrible? Any Witness who doesn't accept your points you deem either brainwashed or "in on the conspiracy." How convenient. If you really are so convinced of your skewed and belligerent propositions, how can you possibly be expected to provide and maintain edits that are fair? Even if you do manage to contain your rage towards us, your subsequent edits are still suspect, as others will wonder as to your motivations. (Yes, your motivations are clear, even when moderators and admins must abide by the good faith presumption.)

It boils down to this:

• You need to relax. This isn't and should never be a forum for your "war" against Witnesses (nor is it a platform for preaching). We won't debate you here, nor anywhere else. We and every other editor here are (and should be directed to remain) objective to the extent possible, with the goal of accurately representing information with the import that it merits on an academic level, not on the level of any editor. (I intend to continue to push for this.)
• Few Wikipedians want to deal with these articles because you and your cohorts continue to deal with this forum unacademically, unscholarly, and without civility.
• The only reason you are successful on this forum is because you are louder and more unbearable than other interested parties.
• If your response to edits you do not like is filled with belittling statements, name-calling, and spurious accusation, who can respect you?
• If your edits are not motivated by malice, but "genuine concern" for "telling it like it is" in regards to Jehovah's Witnesses, you need scholarly and believable resources.
• Real problems/crises will have discernable evidence for which scholarly and impartial research can be done.
  • "Straw men" and "red herrings," to borrow terminology from your friend, don't have any more credibility just because you misquote, mischaracterize, and villify every statement printed by the Watch Tower Society or the Governing Body. Tactics, I might add, which you claim the Society uses in explaining their viewpoints on certain doctrinal or organizational matters.

This whole process will be much less tedious if we stick to a civil tone and academic criticism, and earnestly abide by the Wikipedia standards.

- CobaltBlueTony 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Explain, then, why you insist on wasting so much energy on religions you dislike so much? Do you see me devoting my entire life to preaching against the entire rest of the world, including attacking Catholics, or Scientologists, or Buddhists? What non-Witnesses have to say about Witnesses is not just about their flawed human components, but [our perception of] the failure of the belief system to provide real and lasting benefits to those that adhere to it. My experience with Witnesses such as yourself is reflected in the above statement you quoted. Can you seriously insist that non-Witnesses are so horrible? Any non-Witness who doesn't accept your points you deem brainwashed, "in on Satan's conspiracy," and future bird food. How convenient. If you really are so convinced of your skewed and belligerent propositions, how can you possibly be expected to provide and maintain edits that are fair? Even if you do manage to contain your rage towards us, your subsequent edits are still suspect, as others will wonder as to your motivations. (Yes, your motivations are clear, even when moderators and admins must abide by the good faith presumption.)

It boils down to this:

• You need to relax. This isn't and should never be a forum for your "war" against non-Witnesses (nor is it a platform for preaching). We and every other editor here are (and should be directed to remain) objective to the extent possible, with the goal of accurately representing information with the import that it merits on an academic level, not on the level of any editor. (I intend to continue to push for this.)
• Few Wikipedians want to deal with these articles because you and your cohorts continue to deal with this forum unacademically, unscholarly, and without civility.
• The only reason you are successful on this forum is because you are louder and more unbearable than other interested parties.
• If your response to edits you do not like is filled with belittling statements, name-calling, and spurious accusation, who can respect you?
• If your edits are not motivated by malice, but "genuine concern" for "telling it like it is" in regards to non-Jehovah's Witnesses, you need scholarly and believable resources.
• Real problems/crises will have discernable evidence for which scholarly and impartial research can be done.
  • "Straw men" and "red herrings" don't have any more credibility just because you misquote, mischaracterize, and villify every statement printed by anybody that is not a Jehovah's Witness and/or you do not like. Tactics, I might add, which you claim non-Witnesses use in explaining their viewpoints on certain doctrinal or organizational matters.

This whole process will be much less tedious if we stick to a civil tone and academic criticism, and earnestly abide by the Wikipedia standards.

Tommstein 00:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Parroting my words is hardly a credible response, nor does it have academic merit. Since this is my talk page, I have no interest in highlighting the fallacy of your method of response. I'll simply let it stand for others to see.

Let one point be crystal clear: it is not "non-Witnesses" that I have a problem with. It is individuals who use tactics like yours, who have nothing better to do, and who have no real academic integrity that I have a problem with. I am trying to maintain civility, even after you perpetuate this absurd "war". I do not intend to allow your imflammatory comments and surreptitiously calculated edits to divert me from abiding by the policies and purpose of this forum. - CobaltBlueTony 01:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let one point be crystal clear: it is not "Witnesses" that I have a problem with. It is individuals who use tactics like yours, who have nothing better to do, and who have no real academic integrity that I have a problem with. I am trying to maintain civility, even after you perpetuate this absurd "war". I do not intend to allow your imflammatory comments and surreptitiously calculated edits to divert me from abiding by the policies and purpose of this forum.Tommstein 08:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Helen Keller

Pretty long, it seems ;-) - CobaltBlueTony 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I hit a limit very shortly after. The summary maximium length apparently is a few characters more than the length of that summary. --Kizor 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ase500

If you check the deletion log, you'll notice that the page that I flagged was a page in the mainspace, not a userpage. I think you just put your message in the wrong place by accident. User:Ase500 also shows no sign of ever having been deleted or edited by me. Anyway, I don't think what you were trying to do was a bad idea, and please feel free to continue - you must have just clicked the wrong link or something this time. --Bachrach44 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello, CBT: Thanks for your welcome and I hope you have a happy holiday. Mikro05 21:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I think it would be best for all involved to give Missionary/Retcon (I will use Retcon because it is the oldest of the accounts) a chance to redeem himself, and for all parties to terminate the inquisition against him. Using a sockpuppet or changing to a different account to escape unwanted criticism is permitted at Wikipedia. If his actions had been limited to that, I would not have responded to Tommstein's request at all as an ill-founded request. However, what led me to respond were two factors: one, that Retcon had fraudulently attempted to mislead people into believing he and Missionary were different people, and two, that he created at least one impersonation account, impersonating a person who he was clearly at odds with.

In any case, Retcon has acknowledged and apologized for his inappropriate acts; Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy all but requires to accept his apology and move on. So let's please do so. I'd especially call on Tommstein and Central to lay off the rhetoric; it will not help defuse the situation. Personal attacks (such as Central calling Retcon a "compulsive liar") are neither helpful nor welcomed. There is bad blood on both sides of this issue, and frankly I'd like to see y'all work this out on your own with civility, rather than escalating the situation to the point that intervention by the Arbitration Committee is required. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In a private email to me, Retcon has expressed his desire to distance himself from Wikipedia, apparently unable to handle the abuses that seem to persist with Tommstein and Central in their discussions; I agree that it may be in his own best interest to stay away from this kind of situation, at least for a while. He is really humiliated in his own conduct in spite of the disrespectful and unkind conduct of others, which I think speaks of something worthwhile as to his character. In time he may return, but I would strongly advise him not to engage Tommstein and Central in any discussion pages or user pages, or anyone else who exhibits similar behaviors regarding opinions and beliefs that conflict with theirs.

Kelly, I appreciate your efforts thusfar. I won't ASK you to arbitrate in the articles, but it is a persistent problem, and admins have been scared away or given up because of the reems of screen space wasted in theological debates and so forth. While I have been trying myself to formulate and stick to a civil method of editing and discussing, encouraging other JWs to follow a similar pattern, it is exasperating. Are we to simply hope that someone will be of a steadfast and civil nature so as to be able and willing to arbitrate? I fear that we will never be able to lax off in keeping our eyes open for POV and subversive edits, and sifting through countless dissection of cumbersome and infinitessimal points interlaced with condescending personal jabs, trying desperately to find an article point worthy of real and academic discussion. - CobaltBlueTony 02:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If he can't handle it, he really shouldn't start it. But there you go again apologizing for the lying, deceitful sockpuppeteer (those adjectives are provable at this point, not opinion) and trying to shift the blame to everyone else.

I agree with the second paragraph, although with different things in mind than you have.Tommstein 18:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Tommstein,

Obviously, he could not know unless he tried, as there really aren't forums like this readily available. You have to get your feet wet to test the waters, now don't you? You accuse him of being lying and deceitful, and when he apologizes for those actions you continue to attack him? Really now, that unforgiving harshness is just the kind of thing that will find its way back to you to bite you in the buttocks. The treatment you dole out to others is what will come back to you sooner or later. And in my observation, the later it takes to get back to you, the more painfully it hits.

Tommstein, when you make edits, you are viewing things from your viewpoint and belief system. Yours happens to be strongly opposed to Witnesses, not simply different, as many of the major/mainstream religions. This opposition causes you to view everything you see as "just another example" of some deceptive undertone of the leadership of the Witnesses. You see deliberate subversions because you view your own ideas as being "honest and truthful," instead of just being another viewpoint/opinion. 'Witnesses must be blind or agents of the Liar, Satan, because they refuse to see the truth of the church of Tommstein!' It's as if you're taking the beliefs of exclusivity that Witnesses hold and are turning them back on them out of spite! If you've honestly examined the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and rejected them in favor of something else, that's fine. But your relentless attack of those beliefs because you can't accept that others believe them is a massive waste of your energy; anyone who professes to have found inner peace with their beliefs and acts in harmony with that claim is rarely ever seen pounding at the beliefs of others.

By default, EVERY other religion is different than Jehovah's Witnesses'. Shall we insert every view on every topic? That's both a tedious proposition as well as an absurd one. The articles are about Jehovah's Witnesses, not about their critics, detractors or disaffected former members. There are obviously issues that involve non-Witnesses. But the main topic here is 'Witnesses', not 'everyone.' When you inject your views in as the impartial description, you pollute the integrity of the articles. Even when you add your views as the opinion of critics, you are presenting your views as the only criticism. Yet presenting every other view which intersects with Witness beliefs, is likewise undesireable in main articles. So where does the compromise come in? The widespread acceptance of arguments against various Witness beliefs is unnecessary if you have your own set of articles, which can be referenced similarly to other relious group articles. In other instances, we can say that, for example, Protestants differed from Catholicism on this, that and the other, and this generated the impetus to form their own church. In your situation, however, we simply have a bit of a hodge-podge group, largely unorganized, and facing nothing like what the Catholic Church truly was back in the days that Protestant challenges were gaining strength. Nevertheless, I really think that, both for conceptual and editorial purposes, a separate, concise and all-encompassing article, or set of articles, could ease tensions, and give you a forum to express your views. Of course, both sets of articles must still maintain the standards of this forum. Your sincere thoughts would be helpful in this idea. - CobaltBlueTony 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

He couldn't know that unless he tried, that he shouldn't start things he can't handle? We're not here to raise the kid, that's his problem. You might want to review his initial 'apology' before Kelly Martin's posts if you seriously expect me to play stupid and think he's sorry. Yet you continue apologizing for the behavior, which I'm sure you would be doing if he wasn't a Jehovah's Witness, say, a Catholic. The only effect of that is to hurt your credibility, nothing more. I do fear your Hindu karma beliefs or whatever they are greatly.

You again assume bad faith on my part. See WP:AGF. - CobaltBlueTony 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony, when you make edits, you are viewing things from your viewpoint and belief system. Yours happens to be strongly in favor of the Witnesses, not simply neutral. This favoritism causes you to view everything you see as "just another example" of some deceptive undertone of the rest of the non-Witness world 'controlled by Satan.' You see deliberate subversions because you view your own ideas as being "honest and truthful," instead of just being another viewpoint/opinion. 'Non-Witnesses must be blind or agents of the Liar, Satan, because they refuse to see the truth of Jehovah's Witnesses!' If you've honestly examined the facts and rejected them in favor of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, that's fine. But your relentless attack of those facts because you can't accept that others believe them is a massive waste of your energy; anyone who professes to have found inner peace with their beliefs and acts in harmony with that claim is rarely ever seen pounding at the beliefs of others, as Jehovah's Witnesses devote their lives to in their preaching work.

You are correct, the articles are about Jehovah's Witnesses, not what Jehovah's Witnesses want to be told about Jehovah's Witnesses. I have no desire to segregate all the critical views in their own separate articles and leave the main article in la la land.Tommstein 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's my experience, as an Arbitrator, that it's rarely only one party in conflicts such as these who is acting inappropriately. The fact that Retcon was caught doing something inappropriate does not excuse the inappropriate conduct of anybody else involved in this conflict. All of you need to stop and reflect on your behavior in this conflict and decide whether or not what you're doing is helping to write an encyclopedia. If your reason for being here is anything other than "to help write an encyclopedia", please waste no time in finding another hobby. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I made him create an army of sockpuppets and use them to attack everything critical of his religion. What was I thinking. I take it you're a defense lawyer, with all this disgusting community blame crap and inability to call a turd a turd.Tommstein 20:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)   WP:NPA

The only thing that remotely warrants negative labelling is when someone persists in negative behavior beyond all challenges. The punishment continues long after the crimes have ceased. Retcon has desisted; you, on the other hand, barrel on like a freight train. Admitting any flaw on your part means having to subject yourself to the possibility that other editors might treat you the same way you treat them. You needn't expect that from JWs, at least, for we and many other editors work at practicing the 'forgive-and-forget' principle for those that are truly sorry. - CobaltBlueTony 05:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Once a crime is done it should be forgotten about? I take it you're not a criminologist, what with such intelligent opinions on the subject.Tommstein 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC).   WP:NPA

There are always consequences for a crime, but there should also be forgiveness in the face of repentance. Justice is not perfect unless it is tempered with mercy. If one shows oneself unrelenting and unable to forgive and forget, such harshness is returned to them. Even if you don't believe in God, you must accept that the universe is very fair, and as such, "what goes around comes around." - CobaltBlueTony 22:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tony, you're not advocating karma, are you? ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, it's a concept that is fairly universally understood, that is: what goes around comes around. Obviously, I believe that it is God who sooner or later executes justice. But the concept for discussion purposes is more widely understood. Now that you're done drifting off of your arbitor's station, swing back to "center" and address the issue of fairness in dealing with Retcon in the future, please. - CobaltBlueTony 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the fruitiness went well beyond advocating the concept of Karma.Tommstein 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)   WP:NPA

Re: Smokeydoggy

No, the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA comment was not directed at you. I indented my text because I meant for it to be a follow-up to your warning, but I apologize if the formatting was confusing. As for the sockpuppet issue, Smokeypuppy's edit patterns are strikingly similar to those of Smokeydoggy, not to mention their related usernames. Why don't we just keep an eye on them for the time being? Thanks, Sango123 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

crisis changes

You, Tverbeek and the other guy have a long history, according to your discussion threads, of retracting other peoples contributions without discussion or comprimise. The article, crisis on infinite earths, is under arbitration. Since none of my changes retract anything written, I'd ask you to save us all time and leave it be until the arbitration goes through. I will gladly remove my contribution should they decide against me. Meanwhile, the fact that you guys just remove things without discussion does not go in any way towards presenting yourselves as reasonable cooperative people. Plus, ive got all day.