User talk:StuffOfInterest/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwinnett ARES

Gwinnett ARES was nominated for deletion on 1/24/7. I am not so well rounded on deletion, but I can't figure out where the discussion is for it. Am I looking in the wrong spot, or is it just not there yet? Anonym1ty 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It was done using the Proposed deletion process. Basically, if someone puts a prod tag on an article and nobody objects (by removing the tag) within five days then it is deleted. I've removed the tag. It amazes me that someone would try to prod an article which is over a year old. OK, you know the drill. Odds are the person who put the prod tag on will come back and make an AfD nomination soon. We'd better get some references in the article soon to support its importance. I really wish people would do merge requests on articles like this rather than trying to kill them all the time. With a merge the content can be salvaged into a parent aricles, like the main ARES one, and broken back out if the content grows large enough. --StuffOfInterest 19:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I'll see what I can find on this group and try to expand the article as best I can. Anonym1ty 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gwinnett ARES is up for deletion again... Anonym1ty

Thanks. I'm going to start suggesting merge on a lot of these as it gives a better chance of at least preserving the content. --StuffOfInterest 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

List of amateur radio organizations

The article List of amateur radio organizations was nominated to be deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amateur radio organizations Anonym1ty 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez, User:Cornellrockey is quickly becoming a pain in the neck! Thanks for keeping an eye out. --StuffOfInterest 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

Did you get a chance to read my last comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amateur_radio#Notability and if so, what are your thoughts? Anonym1ty 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw it. I just hadn't really had a chance to think too much on it. Notability guidelines do need to be established. Unfortunately, I'm involved with some things for the next couple of weeks which will keep me from putting much wiki time in. I wish we could get a few more people active on WP:HAM to help with issues like this. Thanks for all of your efforts. --StuffOfInterest 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Extrude Hone Corporation

Hello, I recently created this article Extrude Hone Corporation. A few days ago it was recommended for a clean-up. I have made a few changes to it so I was wondering if the tag can be removed now. You seem like a well-established user, so mabye you could have a look for me and see what you think. Hope to hear from you soon. ~ JFBurton 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, JFBurton. I see a few things which are still needed. First, the article title should be bolded in the introduction. Next, you may want to add a company info box to describe the company. Finally, a corporate stub would be helpful. Above all of that, make sure you have something in the text which establishes notability. Otherwise, you are likely to see someone try to delete it. Take a look at MFJ Enterprises. It is a short company article which has these elements. I could do it myself, but it would be better for you to have the practice. Please feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Good luck! --StuffOfInterest 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll finish it now. Oh and thanks for adding my signature to the Wikipedia administration page. I think an administrator should create more articles and add material instead of JUST reverting stuff. Not that I can talk! JFBurton 14:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people who do more cleanup than article creation acitivities. It does bother me when somoeone doesn't put thought into those activities. It is easy to throw a bunch of prod and afd tags out there and move on. It takes effort to actually research the topics and decide of those tags are warranted. I'll keep an eye on the article you are working on. If anything else jumps out at me I'll make an edit or leave you a note. --StuffOfInterest 14:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hi Stuff - someone again changed Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton without consensus or further discussion. The editors who work on the page are in agreement that the name the page should have is Hillary Rodham Clinton - but move doesn't work nor does undo, at least not by us mortals. So ... could you once again help us out and change it back? Very much appreciate it. Tvoz | talk 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You got me with the "leave a message"... but I do have another question: do you think it might be wise to move-protect the page so this doesn't keep happening? Apparently the page was renamed and then there was another attempt to vandalize/move. I don't have any experience with move-protect, so thought I'd raise the issue. Thanks very much. Tvoz | talk 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn't seen the WP:RM entry when I posted here. HOw would we go about requesting move protect? Tvoz | talk 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Make a posting on WP:RFPP explaining the two recent non-concensus moves and the high visibility of the page in question. That will hopefully be enough to warrant protection. --StuffOfInterest 20:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

thanksTvoz | talk 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually - I don';t think we should ask for full protection - sprot seems to be working more or less - but I'd like to see the name protected which I htought was called move-protect. So before I go and make a fool of myself... is WP:RFPP the right place for move protection and keeping semi-protection intact? Full protection is too extreme and wouldn't fly. Tvoz | talk 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Move protection is just another form of protection, I believe. WP:RFPP should be the place to ask for this. --StuffOfInterest 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now - should have read on before writing to you again! thanks Tvoz | talk 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yaesu ft-107m

Yaesu ft-107m was tagged CSDA7 on 8 Feb 2007. Although they may be right on this one I'd like a chance to expand the article Anonym1ty 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Geez, another 2-1/2 year old article being put on CSD. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. If you have a chance to work on it, please do. I'm pretty much out of pocket currently and won't have a chance to do anything. Another idea might be to propose merging the material into the Yaesu article. Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'll see what I can do for the article. a merge may be the best answer in the end, but lets just see what I can do... Anonym1ty 15:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

atheist hams

this evening I am doing my monthly google quest for other ateist hams like me and I got a link to your page.I'm writing in the hope you may know of an "atheists net ... either SSB or digital modes (20 meters probably since we're pretty widely scattered.) like you, I'm also a begining/aspiring python programer (the books have just been delivered and I've not cracked them yet.

73 thanks for your time and consideration please pardon the intrusion if I've crossed things up.

Harv Nelson n9AI/ex AI9NL Washburn, WI

http://hamshack-hack.sourceforge.net/

a knoppix re-master. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.118.236.175 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but I can't say I've heard of anything like that. Because of the international nature of ham radio, most tend to avoid religion or religious discussions on the air. I know there are a few Christian nets down on 40 and 80, but fortunately those usually won't propegate out of the US too far. Good luck with your search. --StuffOfInterest 13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Barack Hussein Obama

I went through the archives looking for mentions of his middle name and, though I found discussions that featured strong voices on either side, I was unable to find a consensus. Would it be possible for you to provide me a link to the discussion to which you referred in justifying your reversion of my addition of his middle name? I want to be sure I understand why this politician's infobox is formatted differently than those of other politicians who do not typically use their middle (or formal) names, such as John Kerry (infobox says John Forbes Kerry) or Bill Clinton (his says William Jefferson Clinton). Thanks. Interestingstuffadder 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In cases where there is a strong voices on both sides then the usual course of action is to seek consensus before introducing a change. If you think his name should be in the info box, and you don't agree with the earlier discussion, then please try the next step of WP:DR. Otherwise, you will likely reopen an edit war that happened earlier. Any more questions regarding this topic, please direct them to the article talk page so a wider audience can participate. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

About trans-border Institute

Hi there,

Recently, I noticed that webpage located at wiki has been removed. We are new to editing in Wiki and we may bave missed certain format. We are planning to add more information about our institute in Wiki website. Please let us know that if our format is correct!

Many thanks

Sam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Transborderinstitute (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Occasional user seeks advice

Hello,

I'm sorry to trouble you, but I can see that you are an experienced Wikipedian, and I could use some help and advice on how to deal with a problem. I'm finding it difficult to contribute to Wikipedia because of one particular user, who tends to revert my edits, often with some insulting message seemingly designed to provoke an angry response. As such I seldom bother to do so.

My own area of interest and specialism is patristics, and I run the Tertullian Project and edit the Additional Fathers collection. My focus is on data rather than opinion.

I'm currently placing online the works of Porphyry, so happened to come across ][Porphyry of Gaza|St. Porphyry of Gaza]]. The article was pretty terrible, so I edited it, added a whole bunch of data from the only ancient source, and a bunch of scholarly material from google books. I also removed various bits of invective directed at hagiography ("a tissue of falsehoods") and Christianity. I explained what I did on the Talk page.

Today I find that they are all back, and a rather insulting message on the Talk page by someone called Wetman. I have encountered this person before in the religion articles and he seems to be rather a bully, never contributing data, always editing to introduce his own (Christophobic) opinion and picking fights with people like myself who don't know how to work the Wikipedia system. As far as I can tell this sort of thing is contrary to how Wikipedia should work; but it is by no means obvious to me how to resist this treatment.

How do I deal with a user who insists on introducing invective into an article, and hurls accusations at me when I demur?

I note from your page that you are an atheist, and this is one reason why I approached you; so that no confessional issue arises. I don't want bias in this article, but just the raw facts, expressed without fear or favour. Saint's lives (as far as I know) are often very historically suspect, and hagiography frankly makes me wince. But I don't see the point in studding a page on a saint's life with pejorative statements about hagiography.

I don't want to fight with people -- I haven't the time. But it seems that I cannot contribute to articles on which I know something without encountering this chap, pushing POV.

All the best,

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

Hi. Unfortunately, religious topics always seem to bring on the worse conflicts. Wetman's comments to appear a bit rude. I haven't gone through his previous postings enough to see if this is just is usual behavior or if perhaps he was having a bad day. On the Porphyry of Gaza article, comparing the changes from just before you edited until just after he did shows that he didn't revert your changes out but did make a lot of changes to them.

At this point I'd encourage you to try and engage him on his talk page to try and reach an agreement on wording. Also, any references you can cite will greatly help is eliminating POV disputes later. It is more difficult to say "my way is better than your way" when there are hard references cites in the text (using the "ref" tags and "cite" templates).

If you and Wetman can't reach an agreement, start reading up on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which shows the proper way to escalate efforts to resolve the dispute. Wikipedia has a long history of working out issues to try and reach a neutral point of view on topics.

Good luck! --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot keeps changing the same link

Mets, would you please take a look at the page history on WP:HAM. MetsBot has changed a template link three times now. This page lists both the old and new locations for the template in question and the bot keeps messing up the listing. The bot really shouldn't try and update the same page multiple times for the same edit. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sticking {{bots|deny=MetsBot}} on the page will prevent MetsBot from editing there. —METS501 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Content removal

this is an open encyclopedia. - so why would you go and delete information links that may be useful to others from an article without even bothering about discussing the removal first? - you sure could consider initiating a dialogue taking a more benign stance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zickermann (talk • contribs).

Would you mind providing some context, as in links to edits, to what deletion you are referring to? Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

- sure & thanks for looking into this. The lead article on phpmyadmin includes a section refering to a few software applications serving related purposes. I had taken the liberty of adding a link in that section pointing at a new application (http://mydbaccess.net) which you opted to take out. As I believe that articles in this encyclopedia shouldn't be proprietary to a limited number of editors I was wondering about the reasoning behind that deletion. thanks & regards Zickermann 14:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for showing me where. The reasons I took it out were:

• It read like an advertsisement rather than encylcopedia content ("If you are looking for...").
• It didn't have proper reference to an internal Wiki article and instead marked it as a full external link.
• Was giving a link to a website unrelated to the article at hand, phpMyAdmin.

If notability can be established (WP:NOTE), then an article can be created for mydbaccess which could be referenced from phpMyAdmin as a related product. Finally, since your user name is the same as the author for the product, please make sure you read the sites policy on conflict of interest (WP:COI). You are not prohibited from edting on that topic but you do have some additional considerations to keep in mind.

Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked a little deeper and noticed that you had created an article for mydbaccess, which was later deleted. You may want to take this to deletion review (WP:DRV). I don't see any evidence that it was actually tagged as a possible speedy delete before someone removed it. This goes against regular practice as it leaves the deletion up to a prosecutor and jury of one. Based on that, deletion review may decide to restore the content and put it through a regular articles for deletion (WP:AfD) process. There is no guarantee that it will survive but you'll have more of an opportunity to make your case and/or improve the article. Again, good luck. --StuffOfInterest 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes/references

I've reverted two of your edits to references section, they're references - not "notes". As WP:FOOT states, "Place the <references/> tag in a 'Notes' or 'References' section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here" - See also WP:FOOT#Converting_citation_styles. Matthew 11:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You did a conversion on the Naturism page Footnotes - Switch to template. I am curious as to why. Reading the WP:FOOT page - I am more confused- they use <references/>. Can you drop me a note ClemRutter 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The template uses a smaller font for notes, which looks a bit cleaner, and even has an option for putting the notes into two columns for FireFox browser users. Take a look at {{reflist}} for information. The final code still uses <references/>, it just puts some style around it. --StuffOfInterest 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WMATA Images

Image copyright problem with Image:WMATA Rendering Wiehle Avenue.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:WMATA Rendering Wiehle Avenue.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ccwaters 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_Central_123.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_Central_123.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_Central_7.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_Central_7.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_East.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_East.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_West.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:WMATA_Rendering_Tysons_West.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Result

Switched all images to the {{Non-free fair use in}} tag. Hopefully that will be satisfactory as they are being used in a topic related article and no other known drawings are available at this time. --StuffOfInterest 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to include a fair use rationale at each explaining that the images illustrate future structures, therefore they can't be replaced by free images. So they actually doing it? I moved away from the area over 2 years ago: that line would have been extremely convenient for me. ccwaters 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. Yea, I was actually trying to think up some text to paste in there. Wow, you must be watching them close. There has also been some (very) brief discussion over at WP:WMATA regarding the images. Regarding the project itself, it is moving along but there is a lot of controvery over whether to build a tunnel or elevated track through Tysons Corner. If the issue doesn't get settled soon, the whole project could get scuttled. Even if it does move ahead, we are still five years away from seeing the line run through Tysons. Thanks for the guidance. --StuffOfInterest 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The three things I miss about DC: the metro, Fort Reno, and chipotle grill. SEPTA is horrible, smelly and antiquated (still has conductors collecting fare and punching tickets on the train). ccwaters 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Can you give some sort of explanation for denying me access to my user talk page? I prefer to keep my messages archived in the history. I am willing to keep a direct link to the messages right on the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.193.53 (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Others have already explained the situation to you much better than I could. Just read your own talk page, please. --StuffOfInterest 11:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit

Hey, stuffofnightmares You folks are deliberately falsifying, lying, distorting… the facts. Why don't you give me a single valid argument on talk page? Vandals! What sort of irrationality is this? Lunacy, mockery, indecency? Pick one… or just lock me for another week… and say I've asked for it… Lovelight 11:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You know I've once spend a whole month on that talk page over there, all for itsy bitsy contribution to that "War on Crap" section, that edit was more than valid, and to spend a whole month on chitchat while we have clear references and undisputable facts is pure waste, entropy for sure. There was a long discussion about that particular sentence, I've repeatedly stated that "you" folks can fix it in any way you wish, as long as it is in peace with the cited source, what to heck are you expecting? What is this project all about? That said, apologies for such "rapid fire reply", but it's not cool when you just parachute in, like you did there, out of the blue… so to say. Regards. Lovelight 11:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you consider it acceptable to remove other's comments on your talk page and then go and leave comments such as this. Looking at your edit history and your block log, I think you really need to turn the mirror inwards and examine your place within the project. I'm actually rather amazed that noone has become frustrated enough to go ahead an launch a RfC on the way to arbitration. I actually keep a pretty close eye on September 11, 2001 attacks, I just don't choose to edit unless I see a problem. --StuffOfInterest 11:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you say for yourself that you function as an oversight? And you've called me a problem? Pleased to meet you. Lovelight 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

yeah, it was a bit of a run-on sentence. :) --Golbez 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech myspace name redirects

I looked through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Kazinkilu and looked at your reason for tagging for speedy deletion.

I do not see the redirects as implausible, since the subjects in question used the names for online journals written. Articles could be created at the said online names. It is better to redirect while not mentioning the online names in the articles themselves. That prevents article creation and re-creation.

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects states: "# Redirects as a result of an implausible typo that were recently created. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages."

Therefore, instead of tagging for a speedy, you should have used "Redirects for discussion"

WhisperToMe 02:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hamas Rv

You reverted my edit and left this summary: "Roll back some major POV spin. Please try talk page before adding such a major change of tone".
The edit was detailed in Talk and no one posted in opposition. The Talk page was archived last week which is why it is not on the current page. I point out that the edit is entirely factual and I used references by nuetral sources (an Israeli newspaper and an Australian national newspaper). I will replace the edit although i expect it will be reverted again as anything remotely in Hamas' favour is always seen as POV by some. Cheers Wayne 06:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the edits where you were discussing your change? I don't see any edits by you to the Talk:Hamas page within the last two weeks. --StuffOfInterest 10:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You will find it here in the section titled "Recent changes" and dated July 2. The quote I posted in support was from the Yedioth Ahronoth but as that is a Hebrew language newspaper I found another two sources and added those to the page. You have to admit that Israel's largest daily newspaper has to carry some weight. The UN envoy to the Middle East gave the same opinion on the conflict as you can find by doing a search. I would prefer it to not be in the lead at all but until there is a section for the elections and aftermath it is best to stay there. Cheers Wayne 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Spam

Dear Stuff of Interest, Why are you deleting all my links? All the links are relevant and a lot of the articles there is no one to "discuss" it with. Could you please revert it back? Or at least explain how exactly I am supposed to discuss additions when there is no one else even editing the page? Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jngk2007 (talk • contribs).

The scale of your edits looks like spam. I don't see where you have added any content, just lots of links to a single website. I'm sorry, but this is not the way the encylopedia is improved. If you add a reference, it needs to be for a specific fact in an article. --StuffOfInterest 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced messages

I'm sorry I caused your confusion at User talk:Kuban kazak. I'll try to indent my messages better in the future. Digwuren 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For me, it was just one of those nights. Hopefully you will all be able to work out your disputes on that article some day. Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 10:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)