User talk:ParisianBlade/Archive 2

Huggle

Could you really send me it? That would be great... Thanks. —Catz ^{[T • C]} 19:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have sent it —Catz ^{[T • C]} 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've received it, thank you so much!! —Catz ^{[T • C]} 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Thanks for all your help. —Catz ^{[T • C]} 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good... I haven't really used it yet, though :P —Catz ^{[T • C]} 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me :) —Catz ^{[T • C]} 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is Catz, to whom you emailed Huggle about 2 weeks ago (I changed my username). I was wondering if you had the latest version because I don't seem to be on the mailing list. thanks Moo Chat 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar.

Hello ParisianBlade, GO-PCHS-NJROTC has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Semi-protecting all living people

Here's the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Semi-protecting_all_BLPs. Corvus cornix_talk 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fan categories

As I said in the UCFD, take a look in Category:Wikipedian Major League Baseball fans and Category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams for more "fan" categories. VegaDark (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My username

Hi, thanks for the comments. Any editor who is offended by my name can ask me about it. I'll point out all the uses of the word cock that have nothing to do with penises; shuttlecocks, chickens, etc. I don't know what I'll do if they're still offended by it. I've only had two people mention it so far; one was you and the other was an obvious troll so it doesn't seem to be a problem. Perhaps I should just link information on my userpage? I would like to say thank you for the way you mentioned it though. Some users just get a big template and then an insta-perma-block for having a dodgy username (but usually combined with vandal only edits). Kind regards Dan Beale-Cocks 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more Huggle request!

Hey! I came across your response to Huggle and am posting here in hope that you are actually reading this during your wikibreak :)I asked for it by email a few days back and again yesterday, but I guess the users are busy. Could you send it to me.....please!Prashanthns (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring account creation

I think the consensus so far is that your essay is within bounds of Wikipedian policy. All delete votes are presuming that you want them deleted. I'd like to close it as keep, but I'd like to see what you say, since this is a rather special case. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thou art kind. . . Dloh cierekim 17:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again...

Miss Rose, I suggest that the title of your section "Here we go again..." on the page WP:VP/PR should be changed to make it more descriptive of the subject being discussed. This would make it easier for those browsing the page to find a subject of interest. Thomprod (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For carrying on regardless... Bencherlite ^Talk 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a certain page move vandal to be remained nameless

I brought it up in another thread that you are being trolled, and Jackaranga made a similar comment in the latest thread. Your zealousness inadvertently feeds the trolls.

Why I understand your desire to have said vandal stopped, what I and others are expressing to you is that you can't stop the single user, because it is not a single user. It was an idea brought up by someone in 4chan and is copycat vandalism. IPs will span the globe and in definition. Each thread that is dedicated to the vandal gives 4chan as well as the other source you mention for information the "lulz" they operate on. It is not hard to revert, block, ignore. Time and experience has shown this to be true. Deny recognition, because endless hunts and abuse reports will only excite them more.

Once again, thank you for your efforts. They are not in vain. But further threads and revelations of socks, sleepers, and IPs are actually what these users game you with. Seriously, it is fun for them. I know it is hard to turn the other cheek, but you should. Keegan^talk 07:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I honeypot my talk page - the IPs participating in the type of shit I got yesterday find it an irresistible target, which allows me to shut them down for three months apiece, removing another attack route. And when I do block, I almost never retort with a snide comment - I usually block without fanfare and apply the Anonblock template with same. I have brought it up before at WP:AN, and I will say it now: SHUT UP AND STOP FORUM-SHOPPING TO GET HIM/THEM SANCTIONED. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 08:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how in the future should I respond to having come across lists of socks that need to be blocked? Would it be better if I contact an admin via email than creating a thread?--Urban Rose 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be the best route, particulary try to contact one that has knowlege of the situation and/or IPs. You really have done a good job in taking on the monster, but there is only so much that can be done. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to History of Earth appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

The views you are trying to promote here are fringe beliefs that are not present in reliable sources on these topics. Please base your edits on reliable sources and follow our NPOV policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Earth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the creationist edits

Creationism is a WP:FRINGE belief, not contained in any reliable sources. If you persist on adding edits supporting creationism to scientific articles, you will find yourself blocked in very short order.Kww (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly recommend you do some research on this topic before you try to add more weasel words to these articles. You could start with this book from the United States National Academy of Sciences that outlines the true position of ID in the scientific community and should hopefully dispel some of the misconceptions you seem to have. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were an effort to make it appear that there is some significant level of doubt among scientists about the age of the earth and the common descent of all life. Such doubt simply does not exist. To mention it in the matter that you did is to provide undue weight to fringe beliefs. We have articles on the various forms of creationism ... any material that you wish to add about it should be added there.Kww (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent common ancestor

Hi there, you might find the article linked above worth reading. Here are some papers that also deal with this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rohde DL, Olson S, Chang JT (2004). "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans". Nature. 431 (7008): 562–6. doi:10.1038/nature02842. PMID 15457259. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Santos-Lopes SS, Pereira RW, Wilson IJ, Pena SD (2007). "A worldwide phylogeography for the human X chromosome". PLoS ONE. 2 (6): e557. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000557. PMID 17593958.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Liu H, Prugnolle F, Manica A, Balloux F (2006). "A geographically explicit genetic model of worldwide human-settlement history". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 79 (2): 230–7. doi:10.1086/505436. PMID 16826514. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Moon Dust

Just so you know, the "moon dust" argument was so bad, even Answers in Genesis figured it out 15 years ago, in September 1993 ... Answers in Genesis statement on moon dust. Kww (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please read WP:V. Especially the sections about what we regard on Wikipedia as reliable sources and questionable sources. If you have any questions about if a particular source is acceptable for an article, post a question at the RS noticeboard. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid so

I've been following this (and participating to some degree), and I'm going to do my best to explain. Yes, any modern source you find that casts any doubt on the age of the earth or the existence of a single common ancestor will be discarded as unreliable. There's a simple reason for that: there is no evidence that casts doubt on the age of the earth or the existence of a single common ancestor. That is why you cannot find a peer-reviewed science journal that contains it. To interpret evidence and come to any other result, you have to use the Bob Jones University method, which states

(1) "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take. . . ."
(2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
(3) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible."

I hope that you can see that that isn't a scientific method, and not one that can be used to support the contents of an encyclopedia. Even if you think the results are true, I think you can see that it can't be treated as a valid form of scientific enquiry.

The arguments for young-earth creationism have been dismantled and refuted. There isn't one left that hasn't been refuted, and, as you come up with them, we can dismiss them quickly. People that work with creationists are practiced at this, because we have had to do it for a long time, and newly miseducated creationists continually show up. It gets old, and tiring, to deal with them all the time. Your moon dust argument is a case in point ... you popped up with it as an argument, I recognized it, and was able to point you at a refutation in about 15 seconds. I could do the same with any others you pop up with. Will I bother? No, i won't have to, because Wikipedia defends itself. We insist on peer-reviewed content for science articles, and you won't be able to find a counter argument that has survived peer review. If you insist on placing poorly sourced material in articles (or simply phrasing things to cast unreasonable doubt on well-sourced material), you will get blocked. Not as quickly as for a 3RR violation, but eventually.

In one sense, creationism cannot be disproved: the universe could be an artifact, created by some outside force billions of years ago, with the big bang simply being the creation moment. It would be difficult, if not impossible to disprove that. However, since that time, no one has found evidence of outside intervention. If it is a created thing, it seems to be running on its own accord, however it may have been set it motion. If you believe in a creator, you should sit in wonder about the complexity of it as an artifact, not try to cast doubt upon what we have learned about it.Kww (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes, I'm afraid that a lot of what you have probably read has been very misleading. To get a very clear idea of the status of creationism in modern science, have a look at the mainstream scientific literature. (go to PubMed Central and search for "creationism"). In particular this article give a good historical background to the area. The problem is that although there is zero support for these ideas in normal scientific journals, the creationists set up their own publications that are designed to appear to people outside the field as genuine science journals. Here they publish their own ideas in a non-critical and unscientific environment. It's like a parallel world, but one that has no respect for truths that don't conform to the literal meaning of the words of the bible. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I'll probably try to skim through a few of these books.--Urban Rose 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if we seemed a bit ill-tempered, but this does tend to happen all the time on these articles, so it's hard to keep explaining the same ideas again and again to different people without becoming impatient, especially when very few of them are as reasonable and open-minded as you are! All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your earlier message

Done. No problem. Let me know, one way or the other, if I can assist in future, either proactively or reactively, if you see what I mean! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

Apologies for the revert on this, I had not seen the discussion, just the change to the header, and it looked very incongruous. -- SonicAD (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Urban Rose 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubeus Hagrid's baby half-brother

WP:DENY does not mean "let's never ever bring it up and fiddle while Rome burns". This is a very serious issue which requires a lot of input on how to deal with it. Besides, even as an essay DENY is flawed when people apply it - it's supposed to mean "don't create sockpuppet categories with 20,000 userpages in", but instead it's used as damnatio memoraie even when it needs to be discussed. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it all before. Just don't. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About

I don't know, I've never ever felt compelled to revert vandalism. Ever. Wikipedia is full of volunteers, we get to do our own bidding. I pitch in on the CSD side occasionally and have never blocked anyone in the five months I've had the tools. As for me, I've been steadily withdrawing from working on Wikipedia but I don't think I can never leave because I have to constantly protect my watchlisted articles from cruft, which is an ever ongoing job.

For the first time I seriously looked over ED and...yeah. I don't think they're funny at all. I'd personally go for Uncyclopedia or the Simple English wiki instead. Simple has 1.20% of the articles that en does and could definitely use a lot of expansion, so I've contribued there under another pseudonym. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief review of your contributions

I've been looking over your recent edits, and I seem to be getting the picture that you are 'targeting', for want of a better word, Sceptre (talk · contribs) due to a number of factors, including his monthly edit et al. I don't these events particularly constructive, and I've only looked briefly over his contributions, but before this goes any further, I'd like to ask you both to refrain from 'sniping' at each other when the time feels right. I hope you understand that I am not working on any side, and I am partial to evidence from both sides. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 13:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Unclosing an admin'c close of a DRV you have opened was not the least disruptive action you could have taken. I have reclosed this. We need a draft. OK? Please do not reopen it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a draft, already - [1] Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing

Your recent contributions have given me cause for serious concern, and indeed, it's become clear that your edits are disruptive. Put simply, you have recently filed a second deletion review of the ED article (of note, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO) in a day. This preoccupation is opening old wounds, and verges, I'm sorry to say, on drama-mongering.

I strongly counsel you to leave this be. Opening discussion to re-esablish editorial consensus is one thing, but your recent actions are quite another. They go beyond editorial interest, and veer towards a strong preoccupation with ED. I have placed a block on your account for 12 hours, to prevent further disruption. Please leave the matter be: it's disrupting the project. Anthøny 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be unclear. You have not been blocked for 3RR or edit-warring. You have not been blocked for failure of common sense. You have been blocked for disruption. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the only reason I proposed a second deletion review was because the first one was closed immediately because I did not have a draft, and the closing admin requested one. I returned with a draft and started a new legitimate review. I personally don't believe I was being disruptive, but even if I was, Sceptre certainly was all that more so. He closed a review he had no business doing (he is not an admin) [2], abused rollback and Twinkle by reverting my reversions to the page, my report of his disruptive behavior on WP:AN [3], and my requests on his talk page that he stop [4], and by marking my edits as vandalism [5]. Yet he remains unblocked and no clear reason has been given to me for my block.--Urban Rose 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on block: I really don't see how your recent edits could have been made with good intentions or with the sake of the project in mind, so I think this was a good block. Sit this one out and decide whether you are here to help or not. John Reaves 05:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Hi. I just saw this diff on AN. While I actually agree that the discussion is not resolved, the action of marking it as such was clearly not yours to take given your obvious involvement in the affair. As I say, I shall not be rolling it back, but I would strongly advise you to avoid taking actions such as these when your objectivity may be called into doubt. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, fair enough -- that does make it more justifiable! Apologies for missing that. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN thread

I have started a thread at WP:AN here concerning your actions both at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia Review. Undeath (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Email spamming

I'm not angry about what you said on WR, that's between you and the other user, and do not appreciate the fact that you are accusing me of having hidden agendas. I just think your dispute with the other user (who, for the record, I have had disputes with in the past) and the mudslinging (especially off-Wikipedia mudslinging) is pathetic enough to begin with, but running off to AN to complain about it reminds me of young children who go crying to their teachers because someone touched their pencil. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of PS. Whether you were posting as yourself or the pope, you were still immature and offensive. J Milburn (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people beat me there, but at least he had evidence... You chose to complain without evidence, and knowing that the other user's complaints had already been as good as ignored. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about you getting angry; you can do that all you like, it's none of my business. Your whining on AN was the immaturity I was referring to. On another note, yes, I'm sure it's possible that other users have been immature; that doesn't change the fact that you are being, nor does it suddenly make it acceptable to behave like a six year old. J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yet again

ED is on DRV again thanks to me. This time, I am at least using your draft of the new article as a core for the argument now. ViperSnake151 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of advice

It may be better for you to disengage a little bit from trying to get an ED article - you're going to get a lot of enemies and, if persistent, get blocks for trolling. Combined with your WR comments about me, it looks either: a) creepy, or b) made just to get a rise out of me. I'm saying this as an anti-ED poster child - even NYB had a very low opinion of ED and tried pushing against an article and links. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this is about social networking. If you do stuff disruptively you'll get less support for actions later on - look at User:Giano and User:MONGO - both good editors, but their persistent comments against Wikipedia IRC and 9/11 truthers respectively have rather polarised the community and most see at least one, if not two, as drama-whoring. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now my advice. :-) I followed an edit I spotted here, and I found this, which I applaud as a creative way of trying to document a little bit of what ED is within the constraints of a Wikipedia article. If you can find enough refs for a short paragraph in a general article about websites or internet culture, then it might actually stick. I'm of the general opinion that there are midway houses between no article and a full article, namely mentions in broader articles. But more than that, probably not. Carcharoth (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is Enough

Your recent editing has been exceedingly disruptive and your last action, to report Guy on AN when there has already been a discussion at ANI smacks of Drama for the sake of Drama. Please stop now. You are experienced enough to know you are not currently adding any value to the project. You will be blocked if you carry on being disruptive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adwar

You don't need my permission but frankly tagging as an SPA seems like enough to me. Removing SPA comments generally just makes them more unhappy and doesn't accomplish much. If he becomes disruptive then it might make more sense but for now I don't see any serious problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Replied via email. Apologies for the delay; the reply was lengthier than I intended. — iridescent 01:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The JzG RfC

I fixed it for you. You were editing the original basis for the whole RfC, then put it in the wrong place. Your section is now at the bottom of the page where new comments are added. Others also present new evidence in their sections, like this one. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hug for you

Hi! I've seen you commenting around policy pages, and I see from your userpage that you're encountering some frustration. If there's anything I can do to help please let me know. For now I offer you this consolatory hug: *hug*. Dcoetzee 04:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what's made me discontent with the project lately is it's vulnerability to vandalism. I've begun to view that what would be best for the project would be for account creation to be required and for an email address to be required as well. This would certainly deter petty vandalism, but I know it is a controversial stance, as Wikipedia (falsely in my opinion) believes that its success is due to anyone being able to edit without registering. But as they are unwilling to even try requiring account creation for a period of time, we'll never know whether requiring account creation is truly responsible for Wikipedia's success or not. I used to be a vandal fighter, but I've given up on that after realizing that it was a waste of my time when Wikipedia could fix vandalism by simply requiring account creation and an email address. Anyway that's what has been making me discontent lately.--Urban Rose 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your viewpoint - and you're right that it's difficult to draw conclusions about how effective a tradeoff this would be without actually trying it. I'm skeptical of it for the usual reasons - I think a lot of important contributions come from anonymous editors, that this is how a lot of good editors start out getting involved in Wikipedia, and that vandals would just register accounts if they had to. An effective counterargument is that some portion of vandalism is just opportunistic and they wouldn't bother trying very hard; another argument is that accounts make it easier to track vandals and to limit access in a fine-grained way. I certainly think there's a tradeoff to be made though, and it's something that deserves study; but Jimbo has been unequivocal about maintaining anonymous editing on Wikipedia at least, so maybe it's something that would need to be tested on another wiki. In any case I hope you'll stay and continue to contribute in some manner, as we appreciate you. :-) Dcoetzee 21:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment on AN

Hi. Firstly, I did not accuse you of trolling. Indeed, I said I would ignore you if I thought you were trolling. As I didn't ignore you, I think it's fairly safe to say that I don't think you were trolling. That said, I can understand why Guy could have thought otherwise. Secondly, I really don't think Guy was closing the deletion review because of a personal dislike for the site; "just, no" reads to me as "we don't want the mess that comes with an ED DRV". And I agree with him. His justification reads to me as "the fact that they have abused Wikipedians does not make an article on them necessary".

If you still don't understand why your actions were disruptive, let me explain again. When DRVs for controversial subjects (like GNAA, for example) come up, the debate is messy, ugly and unpleasant. You were advised not to carry on doing it, yet you still did. If the only way to prevent a hugely disruptive yet unnecessary act is blocking, then it is probably the right move. Your essay explains this well.

Finally, the relevance of the nature of your edit pattern is that it seems to demonstrate obsession with the subject. Read it in the light of the previous sentence; I am simply advising you to spend your time on something not so demonstrably pointless.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Three of them to be precise. — iridescent 21:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG arb case

Your edit to add this back to RFAR was reverted as the case was merged, by arb vote, into [[6]]. You may submit evidence there if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ED expand tag

I placed the "expand" tag because I felt that with 20 sources on the article, there must be more verifiable info in the sources. 20 sources seems like a lot for only a three-paragraph article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll consider reviewing the sources and seeing if there's anything I can add.--Urban Rose 20:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]