User talk:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 3

TINMC

Just to let you know, I think I edited the page seconds after you added the "editing in progress" tag! Dan100 (Talk) 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bruning

Hi there, Nicholas. I noticed that you're asking Kim to contact you on some wiki page about MedCab issues. He can't, he's blocked from editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you missed this edit, and what's on this page? (No, those aren't jokes, he is blocked.) Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 20:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thief!

Dear Mindspillage: I've stolen your user page theme, which, amusingly, you originally stole from Talrias to begin with - I do hope you don't mind :) All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hah! It would be awfully hypocritical of me to mind, now, wouldn't it? And now we're categorymates, too. (You can keep your color scheme, though; I look awful in yellow...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy in the Machine

Hi Nicholas. I was reading up on things to do when one doesn't have a "meltdown" situation but rather a more minor difficulty, and found your committee. I've had a discussion with a user (link) who I think is "out of line" in terms of his process for discussions. I do not wish to challenge his dedication to contributing to the effort, but I think he's just behaving in a way that does not promote good will. I've tried my best to see if I can have some impact on his style, so we might come to a compromise on what is civil discourse. He and I do not really have any huge disagreement over article content (outside of a fundamental difference of opinion in whether Ignore All Rules is a good idea). I just don't like how I'm being treated, and I don't want to feel so depressed about the outcome of my conversation with him that I quit Wikipedia. So I'm interested in some cool heads getting involved in telling us what we're doing wrong here, and how people with our points-of-view might have a better conversation. Thank you! (P.S. I prefer having a note given on my userpage of an update, with a link, rather than have discussions duplicated! Thanks!) Metaeducation 09:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block User:Tommstein?

I went through his contributions since you warned him and he made no personal attacks. On what basis did you block him? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 03:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Nicholas. Based on your evidence, there was not sufficient reason to block according to WP:BP. The so-called POV edit was in fact largely accurate; it should say "most publications", not "all". (BTW, how did you establish that is was unsourced and POV?). And one mildly sarcastic response is not sufficient to warrant blocking for disruption. You warned Tommstein, and he stopped making personal attacks. The block was unnecessary and without grounds. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain in detail how you have personally determined that insertions into an article that are massively documented to be accurate on said article's Talk page are in fact not only POV, but block-worthy POV? Would you also similarly care to explain how mild sarcasm has now become a blockable offense? Given that WP:BP also says that blocks for "Disruption" should be noted by administrators on WP:ANI, and I don't see anything else that you could have possibly used as an ostensible justification, would you also please explain why you flagrantly broke Wikipedia policy on a very serious issue, user blocking, by not noting the block on WP:ANI?Tommstein 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put my objections to banning Tommstein forward. Banning one person and refusing to treat others on the opposite side with equal severity when they have been guilty of posts that are far more controversial is demonstrating major bias to say the least. The second point is that Tom had done nothing remotely offensive after he had been warned, and yet he was still picked on and banned, it appears solely due to 'daring to disagree' with NicholasTurnbull. If putting ones own side of the story and defence forward means immediate banning, then the Wikipedia project is one of the worst places for Freedom of Speech and debate, and is turning into a dictatorship if this kind of abuse is allowed to continue and possibly grow. The phrase comes to mind—'power corrupts'. Was this incident a 'one off', or is it a sign of underlying lack of good administration on Wikipedia? Central 21:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that such notification on WP:ANI is not always required, per Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks. Additionally, the block is logged automatically here. - CobaltBlueTony 15:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume that either you just made that up out of thin air, you didn't read Wikipedia:Controversial_blocks very carefully, or someone edited out whatever you were using as justification before I got there.Tommstein 07:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review, shall we?

Once you are convinced that a block is warranted, the recommended procedure for controversial blocks is:

Check the facts with care.
Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.

Place the block, exercising due care in the wording of the "reason" message, and include a link to the user page of the user being blocked. Hm, no requirement to use the noticeboard here.

Place a notice of the block on the talk page of the affected user, with additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies.
Be willing to discuss the block with other Wikipedians. Such discussion usually takes place either on the blocked user's talk page, or the administrators' noticeboard (the latter especially in those cases where it was already raised there).

I did not see any sentence which could be interpreted that the admin must use the noticeboard. Since the block procedure requires admin priveleges and additional data to be filled out, and the servers do the rest, I cannot tell where NicholasTurnbull violated any policy or guideline in his action. If you can quote and link the precise phrase which supports your assertation, please provide it. Otherwise, rereading the policy may be a ball back in your court, as it were. - CobaltBlueTony 03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read step 2 more carefully. And possibly steps 1, 3, 4, and 5 (if you had numbered the list right).Tommstein 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge the inclusion of more administrator's comments on this project stopping issue. There is too much animosity for one Admin to handle alone. Duffer 06:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you are still monitoring user:Tommstein's edits or not, but if you are, I feel I need to point out several more of his recent violations of wp:NPA and general harassment.

"reinserted deletion justified by the most asinine argument ever seen on wikipedia or, indeed, the world" -edit summary-
User talk:Tommstein#Personal attacks - please stop - A list of comments made by Jehovah's Witnesses in direct response to his or user:Central's verbal abuse and non-stop harassment. I made a brief defence for myself, which Tomm subsequently deleted, twice. One of those "quotes" he attributes to me was infact several different replies, but Tomm had rolled them all into one as if they were one "quote." There's got to be a policy against such deceit..
General non-constructive and extremely hostile comments by Tomm (Special:Contributions/Tommstein), just click on whichever, you'll likely find a violation every other click.

I know Tomm has recently requested comments about the one day block you gave him so I am not sure if you had to recuse yourself from monitering him or not, if not, then please look into these continuous violations, if you cannot, then please point someone who can look into these matters to this post. Thank you. Duffer 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nic, if you are unable to do something then please refer me to someone who can, this guy's harassment is increasingly hostile and disruptive. This situation demands immediate review, he is out of control, and I'm tired of being the butt end of his abuse. Please do something, or get people involved who can. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=prev&oldid=35353761 this is entirely unacceptable behavior, and it has only gotten worse since you initially blocked him for a day. Duffer 06:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

I have taken your advice and requested arbitration regarding user:Tommstein. I encourage you to comment. I know you are busy, but please, even the briefest of statements would be welcome. You can find the request here (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#tommstein) Duffer 11:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TINMC

Bonaparte is playing musical chairs. Rob Church ^Talk 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was based on this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal&diff=33603157&oldid=33603063 Bonaparte talk 18:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have practically the willing and time to deal with mediation. And I enjoy very much, this nomination may come as an award. That's all. Bonaparte talk 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loxley

Well, I went ahead and moved back some of the material that Loxley deleted some time ago, merging it in with the current article. In response, he reverted my changes outright. He doesn't want to deal with this maturely, we wants an edit war. At this point, I'm ready to take this to mediation. Can you point me in the right direction? Alienus 21:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your code is now a box

This user opposes the ridiculous glut of userboxes, and thinks they must die.

now you face a dilema - you don't like userboxes so you want to nominate this nonsense for deletion - however, this box opposes userboxes so you want other users to adopt this box on their own user pages - i will let you think about it :) God of War 09:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Martin RfC

>I think that such things which do not fall under the purview of encyclopaedia editing really don't have to go through the cumbersome deletion processes, simply because otherwise we'll end up doing nothing else than squabbling rather than writing the encyclopaedia.

So you are suggesting that Kelly Martin's actions have reduced squabbling??? Kaldari 14:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? r b-j 16:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WISHING YOU

A Happy New Year!!!!!!!!! Jason Palpatine 22:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes, ohnoes!

KM	This user supports Kelly Martin for ArbCom.

Ciao. Rob Church ^Talk 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you Nicholas for your Barnstar. It means a lot to me. I feel good. I will continue my work. Thank you. Peace. Bonaparte talk 08:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/06_12_2005_Alienus_and_Loxley_edit_war_over_Dennett_and_Philosophy_of_the_Mind

In your summary of the Cabal you mentioned how philosophy is about the interplay of ideas, not whether a particular idea is right or wrong. So how do we stop someone with a particular idea from twisting all the articles in a field? In the Cartesian materialism article we are dealing with a user, Alienus, who has a 'thing' about Daniel Dennett. I have corrected many of his incursions into other "philosophy of mind" articles. Alienus is an expert at "edit wars", he started this edit war with an accusation that "Loxley" was about to begin an edit war, he reverts having made small, erroneous changes then accuses me of making reverts rather than revisions. You have got to admire his skill at operating the Wikipedia environment.

But there is an issue here. Alienus has a hero. He is trying to insert the ideas of this hero as the principle and true ideas across a series Wikipedia articles. Should we just give way because he is persistent? loxley 10:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you have a villain whose existence you wish to downplay. The truth of the matter is that, every time you've made contributions, I've bent over backwards to integrate them. In response, you do blanket reversions of my changes. The problem here is you. The solution is for you to go away. Running around and harassing people like Turnbull is a fine example of why you belong in another venue. Alienus 11:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are bound to see it like that. Dennett's ideas are well represented in my version of the article. Please stop insulting me. I have taken this to arbitration. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cartesian_materialism

Bogdanoff affair "mentions"

I am sorry, but Ze Miguel comment in connection with the PHD mentions is not only approximate: it is false. The lax of April 27, 2002 does not apply to the theses of Bogdanoff. The regulations which apply to the delivery of a doctorate depend on the date on which the inscription in thesis was taken. In the case of the Bogdanoff brothers, it was in 1991. Therefore, the regulation that applies in their case is the law of 23 novembre 1988. Here is the law text (http://www.andes.asso.fr/GUIDE/annexe/node11.php) :

"Toutefois, les dispositions de ces arrêtés restent applicables aux candidats inscrits en vue de l'obtention de l'un de ces diplômes et ayant choisi, conformément aux dispositions transitoires prévues par l'arrêté du 5 juillet 1984 relatif aux études doctorales. de poursuivre la préparation de leurs travaux et de les soutenir dans les conditions prévues par les textes antérieurement en vigueur."

In English:

"However, the provisions of these decrees remain applicable to the candidates registered for obtaining one of these diplomas and having chosen, in accordance with the transitional provisions envisaged by the decree of 5 July 1984 relating to the doctoral studies to continue the preparation of their work and to support them under the conditions envisaged by the texts before in force."

It is clear. Grichka passed his thesis in 1999. Igor in 2002. They started their thesis in 1991, long before the "new doctorate" mentionned by Ze Miguel (27 april 2002). Therefore, as the law stipulates, the only legal text that applies to the Bogdanoff thesis is the text of July 5,1984 (http://guilde.jeunes-chercheurs.org/Textes/Doct/A840705-2.html) :

"L'admission ou l'ajournement est prononcé après délibération du jury. L'admission peut donner lieu à l'attribution de l'une des mentions suivantes : passable, honorable ou très honorable."

In English:

"the admission or the adjournment is pronounced after deliberation of the jury. The admission can induce the attribution of one of the following mentions: passable, honourable or very honourable."

I know well the circumstances in which Bogdanoff passed their theses at the University of Bourgogne. Taking into account their celebrity (and to avoid discussions), it was decided to allow a "discrete" passing grade to them (Honourable) and not at all "the lowest passing grade" (passable). Insofar as it was the text of 1984 which applied to the theses of Bogdanoff, the jury knew perfectly that the "Honourable" ranking was not the lowest one (which was indeed "passable"). Consequently what is written in the article of Wikipedia is absolutely false and should be corrected.

AMA Considering Mediating

Nicholas -- there's a proposal on the AMA talk page about taking on informal and formal mediation. I've steered folks to TINMC several times but it doesn't seem to take. Maybe if you could take a look at the proposal and give a comment about what TINMC is all about that would be helpful. Up to you though, just thought you might like to. --Wgfinley 01:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Please don't exploit MediaWiki bugs

I read that thing and I feal that in this case it is not being used for fraud and can't be because of how it works, however maybe not everyone should be able to get to the instructions on doing it. If however it had been proven that this was causing a problem with the database or the software I would remove it immidently. --A dam1213 Talk + 08:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JWs

Thanks for the heads up, Steve suggested opening up a different case to them apparently. I'll see if I can resolve their problem like this, otherwise from the amount of mediation they seem to be needing a more formal process might suit them better. - FrancisTyers 20:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Request

Thanks Nicholas. We (Natalinasmpf and myself) seem to be able to resolve our disputes now, so I don't feel a need for outside help. Thank-you for taking the time to be of service to the community. I will add a note to the Mediation Cabal page. --BostonMA 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

This is a pre-emptive strike: I'd offered to help Tommstein put his statement in order when it had barely poked its head into user space. While I'd imagine that you neither knew that nor actually cared (and why should you?) I just wanted to make it clear that it was only because I hate to see anyone going off half-cocked. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a kind, good deed to do, Aaron. You won't have to feed the orphans for a whole month now. Rob Church ^Talk 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Monsieur (I love the dramatic flair :P ),

I just wanted to apologize for this AMA proposal that's stepping on the MedCab's toes. We're doing everything possible to make sure no poaching is allowed to occur, as it were. The consultation you've provided has been invaluable, and I hope will be available in the future.

Yours,

Wally 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Working the Copyright Issue

As user Datacorner, I created an article "Voices From the Gathering Storm" documenting a book (http://www.voicesfromthegatheringstorm.com) or Voices. The article showed up under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages for about 5 minutes and then was apparently deleted. Why was it deleted?

ja

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Datacorner (talk • contribs) .

The article was deleted because the text was copied from a web site, and Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text unless it is licensed under the GFDL (see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ). - Evil saltine 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issue Redux

So I added the GFDL to the web site (mine) that the material came from...what's next? Datacorner 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mediation at Derek Smart article

Just thought you'd be interested in knowing that I filed a request at the Mediation Cabal here. Thanks again! -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 02:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hypocritical condescension he's using towards me while simultaneously evading the topic is driving me crazy. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I'm going to be out of town for the next four days or so (was so busy, I nearly forgot). So I guess we can start the process when I get back. I'd still appreciate it if you'd maybe weigh in on the topic in the meantime since I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle, but I do understand that your position in this is as a neutral mediator and not an ally. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 18:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engram

With all due respects, I would prefer an independant neutral source to take care of this issue. Thank you. Povmec 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engram disambig

Just a very minor point - usually lists of articles in disambigs are placed alphabetically, not in order of mainstream/non-mainstream usage. I won't revert, but I just thought you might wish to know for future as per the Manual of Style. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually took time to go around and look at other disambiguations, and I saw that the alphabetical order that I noticed you used didn't seem to be a rule. I thought the most common definitions should appear first as they are the most likely to be what the reader is looking for. Povmec 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from the outgoing AMA Coordinator

Nicholas, since you have shown some interest I just want to let you know that I have just resigned as Coordinator of the AMA opening the way for an election. If you want to see my statement check the Coodinator's page: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator. Alex756 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage me!

Sometimes it takes rather a lot of deep breathing to refrain from breaking out the guns. :-) Thanks for the welcome back... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule, Engram

Hello there Povmec: I just thought I would remind you about the WP:3RR policy, which states that no editor may revert an article in whole or in part more than three times in twenty-four hours. Also, I would be really grateful if you would please try not to edit war with Terryeo - I have never seen edit warring to be productive, and I think collaborative discussion rather than reversion would be a far better way of deciding this matter. Thank you, and all the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, I didn't and wasn't planning to break the three revert rule. That is why last time I chose to ask for a mediator. I may chose to do so this time too. Regards. Povmec 22:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave the disambiuation page, engram, as it is then. Povmec has made the point about reducing external links and I agree, its policy after all. But how would you all feel about a wiktionary link to "engram" if it were defined there? Terryeo 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Archive

How come this request didn't make it into the archive?

Philadelphia County and other Philadelphia Pages

evrik 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question about the searchability of wikipedia Help for editors

Possibly the information is in front of my nose and I can't see it. But I can't find a way to search for editing help. Any word typed into the "search" box to the left results in articles. There is no "search" box specifically for wiki editors? There are times when it could be quite helpful I think. For example, there are several help pages about citing sources, from policy and guidelines to more exact, Harvard reference style. Rather than work through the lot of them and then build a notepad page for one's self, it might be helpful to have a seachability function or action. You have a lot more experience than I do, how do other people handle it ? Terryeo 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a helpful reply, Nicholas, have a good one :) Terryeo 23:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appricate your letting me know why my edits to your creation, engram (Dianetics) weren't appropriate. I reverted the article to your creation and later slightly edited what you created. If you have an opportunity would you please read the Thetan article and tell me your reactions to it please? Basically I'm perplexed about how simply to state a datum. Terryeo 07:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On "Engram"

I saw that you recently moved Engram to Engram (neuropsychology) and made a disambiguation page. That's a really good idea; I've looked at the old page many times, trying to figure out what would be the best way to convey the various very different meanings of "engram" without hitting on that solution. I realize you might be quite busy, but would you consider taking the time to write at least a brief stub for Engram (Scientology) or Engram (Dianetics), whichever is more appropriate? I felt bad when I happened to see a note from you on someone's talk page, saying that you sometimes felt dissuaded from making edits that might be perceived as too 'pro-Scientology'; I just want you to know that I have great respect for you, and think we need more editors like you, who can fairly and clearly present the Scientology point of view, without presenting it as the only point of view, or the only rational point of view. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on "Engram"

I agree with Antaeus about the good job Nicholas did to make a disambiguation page and a start at engram (Dianetics). Could we talk a little about how to present a person with the idea of what an engram is? I think this sentence is too complicated to introduce the idea because it contains several additional ideas which also would need to be understood. (one possible version)

In Dianetics, the secular predecessor of Scientology, an engram is defined as a painful memory of unconsciousness stored in the stimulus-response unconscious (the reactive mind).

What need is there for "the secular predecessor of Scientology" in the first sentence when a person is hoping to understand this new word, this new idea? And then, what need is there for "painful memory of unconsciousness" when that has some redundancy to it? And then why is it necessary to tell about the storage in the first sentence? And finally, what need is there to introduce the additional idea, "reactive mind" in a sentence that the reader is trying to understand the first idea, "engram?" Why not something much more A to B and simple, so a person can grasp the idea and go on to learn those other informations about the context of "engram?"

In Dianetics an engram is defined as a memory which contains partial or full unconsciousness. Why can't we use something very easy to understand like that? We are not here to overwhlem the reader are we? We are editing toward the reader understanding the subjects aren't we? Terryeo 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gmaxwell

Hi Nicholas, I'm sorry for taking so long to reply to your enquiry about Gmaxwell. I've looked at the request, but he doesn't say in detail what he feels needs to be mediated. I'm a little confused about that myself. To begin with, the dispute was that (as I saw it), he is too aggressive in the way he enforces his understanding of our copyright policies regarding images. More recently, he has indicated that, in his view, I object to his enforcement only because I, myself, am a copyright violator.

Grace Note has offered to intercede on the latter point. If Greg will forward Grace Note a list of images I have uploaded that Greg feels are problematic, Grace Note will sort out any problems. That leaves only the issue of how policy is to be enforced. I'm going to wait a few days before proceeding with dispute resolution on this point because it may not be necessary, but if it seems that it is, I'll either get back in touch with you or with the mediation committee.

Thank you for your offer of help, which is very much appreciated, and again, my apologies for the delay in responding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian materialism and Multiple Drafts Model

I created and referenced all the resources for both articles. I honestly believe that they will represent a POV if left in their current form. These articles are an interesting problem because there are only 2 contributors and there is deadlock. The arbitrators did actually agree with my point, they said that "If an RfC doesn't help, we'll have to accept, I think, but until then, reject" and "the article ought not to be about Dennett and his views, that stuff belongs in the article on Dennett" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cartesian_materialism . But then they didn't make a ruling. One of the big problems is that I cannot get Alienus to respond to any specific item, I just get generalities. Maybe I should just let this go but I have a feeling that if we do not make a stand in every article for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia the whole project is lost. If you can help in any way I would be very grateful. loxley 09:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

I appreciate you starting the mediation process, but other than that, I haven't heard anything from you at all. Have you been paying attention to the case? -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki User Wiki

You know that wiki that you and Robchurch gave me? Give it back to me. NOW.

Robchurch removed me from management of the wiki. GIVE IT BACK TO ME. WikiFanatic 07:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WikiFanatic: Firstly, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia:Civility; I will not tolerate rude messages like this one here on Wikipedia. Demanding and shouting is not going to assist you in any respect in this matter, and I strongly advise that some degree of a willingness for amicable conversation about this would be more in your best interests. In particular, this conduct is most unbecoming of a sysop here on Wikipedia, and moreover this matter is not related to Wikipedia.

Your unpleasant language towards myself and Rob Church that you vented at me via private message on IRC - out of the blue, I might add, without provocation and also with me having shown you nothing but civility - made Rob and I come to the decision that you are not responsible enough to maintain management of Wiki Users Wiki. You have, I am sorry to say, finally exhausted our patience. I am a patient man, and try my very best to be civil and pleasant to everyone; you have persistently abused my willingness for civility and continue to treat me poorly when you see fit to do so. We have both frankly had enough of your unkind and unpleasant behaviour towards us; as a consequence your sysop and bureaucrat privileges have been removed from your account at the Wiki Users Wiki, and a new maintainer sought.

As I see it, there is little more to discuss, since our decision has been made and the removal of you as maintainer has taken place. Wikipedia is not, I might add, the place to discuss this matter; feel free to e-mail me at nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com if you wish to talk with me about this further if you so desire. Thank you, and regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He sends a vitriolic, screaming, ranting message like this, and then begs for the thing back? Good lord, this kid has issues. I sympathise in part, but a wiki - while not hard to run - need someone with at least some consistent behaviour. Rob Church (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're never giving it back to me, I have no incentive to have consistent behavior. I will, though.

I have issues? Want me to leave? I think I am. (Wait, I have issues? Robchurch has the issues for provoking me, calling me fuckwit among other things.) WikiFanatic 23:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry? Oh no...

Accusations of sockpuppetry again plague the editors of Jehovah's Witnesses articles, namely, the sudden appearance of Rockumsockum, directly into the RfA against Tommstein. This is the LAST thing we need. I presume to speak only for myself, but I would not doubt if my fellow editors agreed on the point that no one wants the support of a sockpuppet. I am uncertain as to the proper procedure, but if would not mind advising on this, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe having warned you peckers about your bad behavior and the consequences thereof like I told him to (especially when the other specific person that was supposedly named from the outset was Retcon himself) instead of siding with a fellow cult and just warning me might have nipped this in the bud. See the consequences of fruity-cult-standing-up-for-fruity-cult bias?Tommstein 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting!

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrock and Deathrock Fashion Mediation

Hello, I added some input on this manner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-16_Deathrock_%26_Deathrock_fashion

Thanks, --Danteferno 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god. I really messed up

Hi. I think that in all aspects you are performing above and beyond all expectations.

Our last discussion on IRC gave a different impression, because I am an idiot. My apologies. Please *PLEASE* continue your work here.

Kim Bruning 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it shall be exceedingly difficult to find a person to take over at all, and I am now placed in a difficult position. For this however, I blame myself. Kim Bruning 00:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section temporarily removed

I apologise, it is not a modern wikipedia custom to remove other people's comments. I have not done it in over a year I believe. However, in this case I feel it is warrented to temporarily revert you , while we discuss this, if you feel like it.

If you truely insist, I shall reinstate your comment immediately, but please contact me before doing so.

Kim Bruning 00:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you insist, I shall sadly respect your descision. :-(

Mediation cabal

Hey man, sorry to see that you resigned, I thought you were doing a great job. I'd definately encourage you to reconsider your resignation. - FrancisTyers 00:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello & IRC

Hi Nick, urgent chat required please (tomorrow sometime). Talrias (t | e | c) 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you reconsider

I think a lot of what has happened to you in the past 24 hrs is a good dose of bad wiki-karma. I hope you reconsider your decision -- you've done a great job with MedCab, you've made great strides in many areas. I didn't agree with your decision on the unblock but I similarly didn't agree with you getting pummeled on AN/I either. I hope you take a much deserved wiki-vacation for a bit and will come back to us. Best regards. --Wgfinley 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will be missed....

I hope you'll come back, but I'll understand if you can't. Whatever you do, I hope your heart finds peace. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled section

I'm not sure what to put here, because few words can express the ominous feeling that if such resilience can be driven off, the wiki is doomed. This is, indeed, a sad day for Wikipedia - even though I agree, the Wikipedia would fail to recognise it.

Good bye Nick, and good luck for the future. Rob Church (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell

Fare thee well! and if for ever,

Still for ever, fare thee well

Enjoy the real world! --Oldak Quill 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/me waves

Hey Nicholas, just wanted to say: best wishes and I'll be thinking of you, whether or not you decide to come back to Wikipedia. Good luck in your future endeavours. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'm sure I'm not the only one to tell you that you'll be missed, and I look forward to maybe seeing your return in time. Ambi 06:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You leaving

It appears that the mediation process for the Derek Smart page has resulted in the emergence of some kind of acceptable majority, even if an agreement based on consensus seems impossible, so I just wanted to say not to worry about it, seeing as it appears you have far larger things to deal with.

I seriously regret not having had the chance to get to know you better before this decision, as I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation on IRC; you seem like an intelligent, evenheaded, experienced person. Good luck wherever life takes you, and here's hoping I see you back again someday. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 08:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nononononooo you can't leave

Well, obviously you can, it's entirely up to you, and I completely respect your decision. But perhaps you just need a break. Anyway, good luck and enjoy yourself -- Gurch 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and Deceast request from GREYFOX.

I here to ask you to remove the indefinete ban from user tommstein. or I will take this up with with whoever I need to to get it undone. Jimbo Whales if necessary. --Greyfox 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will except a limited ban if you want. Indefinate ban reeks of abuse of power.--Greyfox 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make threats against users who have left, and watch your tone. No-one has a right to edit Wikipedia, and there was a request for comment against Nick which was filed some time ago. There was no clear conclusion arising from this, and despite attempts to reconcile the issue, that remains the case.

Throughout this issue, Nick has been polite and open to discussion, and your little group has done nothing but push POV, make personal remarks, and be incivil and abusive. Don't push any more buttons - of any user - or you may find yourselves banned out of sheer disgust. Rob Church (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Talk:Engram

To fostor NPOV, the discussion space at Talk:Engram should not have been moved or redirected under neuropsychology. Transporting discussions of engram to Talk:Engram (neuropsychology) is an act which, in my opinion, violates NPOV and consigns discussion under the light of neuropsychology and inherently proscribes discussion of the Dianetics Engram. According to Wikipedia's articles, Hubbard's Dianetics explores the engram with almost entirely different bounds. --JimmyT 02:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

I'm glad you're back, and hope all is well with you. Don't bother to reply if you're not feeling well. I've always appreciated your courtesty to others, so I was sorry when I read your farewell message. Best wishes, and do take things easy. :-) AnnH ♫ 23:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

You've been sorely missed! Hope your time off helped you feel better... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy Help

Hi, there is so much bucreaucy on Wikipedia that I`m not sure where to start. Anyway you can look at these pages, and kindly push us towards the right direction as to what we can do to resolve disputes, ban a user; namely user Aucaman, and stop the discussion pages of the related articles from turning into e-board rooms, or chatrooms if you may? The links are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aucaman, and also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people pages, then please do so, it would be appreciatedZmmz 03:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please give me some updates on the Rfc and the Mediation Cabal.Zmmz 03:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to thank you personally for working on this case. --Kash 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

You're a real asset here! - CobaltBlueTony 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't trouble you by creating yet another subsection, but welcome back! :) - FrancisTyers 15:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're back. Cool. Nice to, you know, have people unquitting. Hope you're feeling refreshed, or at least not depressed, after your break. (I said it would do you good) -- Gurch 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy Cabal

It's a good idea, but you probably ought to have at least some basic vetting of the advocates. The last thing you need is someone who is already having trouble picking up an advocate who is given to immoderate actions, or someone who tends to fan the flames of dissent. Just zis Guy you know? 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, as does the above comment. Have't been in a dispute yet and hope to avoid one, but would be glad for the help if I were. Thanks. The disclaimer message on your user page is a hoot and the layout of the rest of it is lovely.--Beth Wellington 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image transparency

I saw the 'new' Scientology logo you uploaded, and you stated you made it transparent in The GIMP. I was curious as to how you went about doing so (making it a transparent image)? Thanks. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return?

I'm not sure whether to welcome you back or have you arrested for insanity. I'll go for the former, for now, although I might not be around much longer. What was the spark? Rob Church (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I would, except for the fact that the old will to live is slipping here. I don't have enough strength or patience to lift up the phone. Rob Church (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd's welcome

Either way, welcome back. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of my user page

I take strong exception to your decision. It would seem to me that users are free on their user pages to express their opinions about the project. Not only is your action precipitous and completely without warning, giving me no opportunity to salvage anything, it as a high-handed, gross abuse of your authority. It appears to be a unilateral decision taken by solely you that is, to my way of thinking, appallingly inappropriate. deeceevoice 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas, maybe you should try talking before you delete someone's user page. There's been far too much bad blood here already. No point in WP:POINT. Guettarda 01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate thing is, given your action and given the crap she has been put through in the last week or two, your request probably has only a tiny fraction of the impact it would have had if you'd made it before you deleted her user page. I don't doubt you acted in good faith, but it's a sad mess that has absolutely no upsides, as far as I can see. Guettarda 01:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the content of her user page - she says she is quitting. I assume that if she changes her mind and decides to stay, she can be convinced to clean up her page. If she leaves, someone will clean it up in due course. I just wish you had talked first. Guettarda 01:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across your comments on Guettarda's talk page. Okay. I really do believe your action was simply a lapse in judgment. My apologies for assuming bad faith, but under the circumstances.... I hope you're feeling better soon. Love, light, joy and all that seasonal crap. No. Seriously, you're cool wit' me. Peace. deeceevoice 21:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Wikipedia

Hello, I;ve noticed that you've done a few spoken articles and are currently doing none, I don't know if you can help me, but I'm going to ask anyway. I put up the article Columbine High School massacre, for request for spoken wiki around September 22/23. Since then, no one has really taken it up, one user said he was going to do it, but then stopped contributing in late October and hasn't contributed since. He was about 14 years old, and I don't know how serious he was towards the project. Either way, I'm asking if you could possibly take on the project or see if there are any other participants that you know that could do it. Thanks. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get some rest!

--Bishonen | talk 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TINMC 2

Thanks for your reply, that makes complete sense and the finished version is a lot better. I saw a half-finished version - that "Stage A,B,C" stuff looked rather over-formal! Dan100 (Talk) 10:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you adn your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year - Guettarda 16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus' dispute

I have completed the "comments by others" section of this dispute. I am happy to enter mediation and would appreciate help on focusing the discussion on the 5 or 6 actual changes that are in dispute. loxley 16:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is a real problem. I cannot really be bothered to continue it but this just means that he who reverts most frequently wins. Do you think that an article such as cartesian materialism should be defined in terms used by its principle detractor? Surely it makes more sense to put the comments made by the detractor in a "criticisms" section. What are you going to do? loxley 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should definitely stop reverting my work. Instead, contribute to it, changing what you feel is not supported by citations. As it stands (after reversing your vandalism), the article puts a number of definitions on pretty much equal footing. Some of these are by supporters, some by detractors, but nobody is treated as the ultimate authority on what the term means. NPOV, eh? Alienus 23:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, could you help me a little?

i can't find your email address at the moment. this is User:Rbj.

i've been blocked by Phroziac for (IMO) no justifiable reason. he has not stated his reasons to me in any way. only after i sent wikimail to him via the block page, he sent a message to "just calm down" yet still does not explain or justify his block. i'm sure this has something to do with a really nasty editor named Rchamberlin (who is a prolific POV warrior and occasional vandal), but for the life of me, i cannot understand his (Phroziac's) justification for blocking me.

this is the first time since before creating my account that i am on wikipedia using an IP. can you help? r b-j 71.161.209.24 17:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your intervention was helpful, Nicholas (thank you!), but it doesn't change the fact that Rchamberlain (talk · contribs) is editing prolifically with a clear POV axe to grind, and his edits are not careful or thoughtful. it's like he has a nice ATV and thinks the whole wikipedia woods are his to drive over and to leave turds that others have to clean up. i'm giving your soft-ban 24 hours, but i am confonting Rchamberlain with specific issues of arrogant POV edits and his arrogant bad faith, because that is simply what it is. and i have every right to.

also Phroziac was wrong in not contacting me in advance or even at the time of blocking me. that had to be clear. the least he or she could have done is contact me and ask me what is going on, i was not vandalizing Rchamberlain's page at all, and my initial contact was perfectly legit and his responses were completely illegit. i was about to bring this to admin attention when, out of the blue, i was blocked without explanation or prior or contemporaneous notice. and that was wrong. r b-j 20:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did not say you were vandalizing. You were just edit warring. And i'm a she. And, in the emails, i forgot to mention that because a blocked user can edit their user talk page, blocking him would do no good anyway. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you should have blocked him anyway (or not blocked me, to say the least, without prior contact). blocking me and not him is clear evidence of endorsing one side over another. it may have been a good faith mistake on your end Phroziac, but to deny that is, frankly, ludicrous. r b-j 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, i will leave as the most obvious recent example of POV of Rchamberlain (talk · contribs) is his latest insistence that the Roman Catholic Church be simply called the "Catholic Church". (there are other much older edits where people have responded on his talk page that he is vandalizing, but since he is in denial, he blanks it.) about the Catholic Church thing, he has edit several, perhaps dozens, of pages that had "Roman Catholic Church" to just "Catholic Church", he has repeatedly moved the page History of the Roman Catholic Church to History of the Catholic Church with no discussion of such a radical change with other editors and no consideration to them when they reverted it back. he says somewhere that he is a Maronite which is, i believe, the source of his POV. on his more recent move of the History of the Roman Catholic Church page to History of the Catholic Church his stated reason is "the proper name of the CC is not the Roman Catholic Church, because the Roman Catholic Church encompases one Rite in the CC. We have eastern Rites such as the Byzantines and Maronites and Coptics too." which simply does not address why other Christians make the distiction between the Roman church (Catholic with a captial "C") and the universal "catholic church" (small case "c") which appears in both the Apostles' Creed and Nicene creed which are in use by christian groups outside of the Roman Catholic Church. in trying to undo his damage, i became aware of many pages that he has made 6 or 8 or more edits in the time of one or two minutes. he clearly does not use the Show preview button which is indicative of the fact that he is not being particularly thoughtful about the edits he makes. he thoughtlessly leaves his turds everywhere and just moves on (so that other people have clean them up lest his POV is left in WP) and that is a very selfish and arrogant thing to do. i think User:Husnock might have something to say about this. r b-j 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas, I walked away from it, but they are not. I'm sorry about this.

Arbitration has been requested in a matter you are involved in. (not as a defendant, but you should know that i mentioned your name.) Please see WP:RFAr. Sorry Nicholas.

BTW, I edited User:Rchamberlain's talk page, but I had every right to. I left an arbitration notice. r b-j 05:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!!

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 16:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal work

Good morning Nick, and a Merry Christmas to you. Hope you're enjoying the time with your other family. Meanwhile, in a fit of insomnia and partial madness, I've taken it upon myself to do a spot of mediation on behalf of the Cabal. Marked the case as more or less open and shut, for you to review when you return.

Happy holidays! Rob Church

Ahhh, so you're the IP who mediated on the anal sex drawing case! Nice work Dan100 (Talk) 15:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Rob Church ^Talk 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Alright, having reviewed everything, not to mention the stream of talk page messages begging me not to leave, plus certain words from Geogre, Bishonen, Ambi and Mindspillage, I've decided to give it another shot - apparently I am the sort of person people want around.

I'm having to stand for confirmation, though. Damn, I miss my buttons already. Rob Church ^Talk 16:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

For sorting out the cabal, making it sooo much easier to manage, and breathing new life into it in the process - Dan100 (Talk) 15:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

Hi, we've never worked together but I wanted to say thanks. I think closing this one early was very prudent. I bet it was a tough decision for you to take. I expect you might get some that think it wasn't the way to go... oh well. ++Lar 01:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]