Talk archives 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

File:800px-PotbellySeahorse TNAquarium-cropped.jpg

Just wanted you to know I'm standing for bureaucrat again and you were one of the reasons. I noted your remark when I mentioned that your erstwhile bureaucrat was a moth. I thought it was very sweet and it reminded me how much I missed dealing with all the nice people in the community such as (obviously) your slim self. :) Cheers, Cecropia 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to hear the moth wants to be a butterfly again. Do you think I could pass? We moths are always thrown out of the best butterfly clubs. ;-) -- `Cecropia 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in on this discussion at WT:V? Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 15:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that my first foray on to the Holocaust page was rather minimalist. This was for several reasons:

• I am still engage in a struggle with French Telecoms to get an ADSL line into our village house in the Gard. Until then, I am hobbled with a dial-up connection when we are there.
• I wanted to start on the issue of uniqueness without waving a red cape, or getting involved in that sterile (and often demeaning) discussion about “ownership.” I do believe that it is very important to understand the uniqueness and in my experience it is one of the first questions that is asked by those new to the subject.

Thus I put in what seem to me to be the most important points with links to more detailed references. When efficiency and scale are the only reasons given, then the evil which was the foundation of the events risks being swept under the rug. After all for most efficiency and scale are not inherently evil.

I did want to add some other references, partularly one from Friedlander (the Years of Persecution, p. 149) about the decision to go to 3 of 4 grandparents, but the book was back in my office. To my delight, you referred to the long awaited second volume which I hadn’t realized was out. Did you buy it in the UK? Or do I have to order from the States. (I had the good luck to have him as a lecturer back in the Dark Ages of the 1960’s.) Joel Mc 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've called for a third party opinion. Please leave me alone until someone else adds their own input. I'm discussing this on the talk page as I always have. Marshall 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get a new computer and spend a couple of days away and all hell breaks loose! That is one long argument on the Factory Farming talk page!-Localzuk^(talk) 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may be interested in this article by Bernard Stiegler. Although brief, it requires some effort, but in my opinion this pays off. It places the debate you have been engaged in into a slightly different context. Anyhow, just a thought. When you get some time. FNMF 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own these pictures [1] [2] [3] [4]. I have them in my own private albums and I took them with my own camera. User:Hipocrite is attempting to provoke me by tagging them with "unfree image" tags. Help please. Jaber777 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for the help. Jaber777 11:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you had some problems with User:Sparkzilla over a BLP-issue. I thought it might interest you that he is thought to have an undeclared CoI (not related to the BLP-issue, however). [5] Heatedissuepuppet 12:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I had a legitimate question regarding the scope of sensitivity on a BLP. I still believe that there is scope for certain editors to abuse the policy, and would like to revisit this issue with you under less heated conditions. I sincerely hope that you did not take my discussion personally. Passionate certainly, but not disrespectful. Best regards. Sparkzilla 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that someone from this IP address (70.72.196.49) just deleted the entire discussionpage for George W. Bush, and replaced it with this: "Gorge [sic] is a dummy". I reverted that edit. Can you do something about that IP address? Thank you! Sdth 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the deletion of List of books and films about Martin Luther without a discussion or AfD? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I appreciate your interest in the subject and your editorial passion, but please do not undo my contributions without a discussion. That will be much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slim Virgin. I was not aware you were editing at the same time as me. The information you restored was contradictory, she was married for 3 weeks in 1968. I am in the process of trying to improve the article and presumed those with an interest would use the talk page. I hope we can improve the article. Regards. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 04:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that comment [6]. I'm sorry that you perceived it as kind of an attack, it was only meant to be ironic. I also replied there. All the best, —AldeBaer 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also rephrased my second question. It now reads "Do you really believe that it's best practice to oppose for what could be perceived as purely 'political' reasons? I'd still appreciate an answer to that question. If you believe that the question doesn't apply, why not just state it? —AldeBaer 10:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I responded to your question here. Thanks. FNMF 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am proposing that the Biographies of living persons policy should require material to be moved to the notable event in cases where the event is notable and person not except for the event. Perhaps you would like to create the actual edit to the policy. You excell at that sort of thing. WAS 4.250 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<"Expanded duplicate" of what I posted at Talk:Zionism appears below. Could I ask you to respond either there or here? Thx, Y> BYT 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (Brandon, AN WIlson is not a historian, or any kind of serious researcher in this area; for a contentious edit like this, you would need an academic source or otherwise recognized specialist.)

Clarifying: Slim, what kind of source, specifically, do you feel would qualify as an "academic source or otherwise recognized specialist"?

I want to be sure I am hitting the mark for you, and it would be disappointing to both of us if I went out, purchased something in Hebrew, purchased something else that translated it, sat both of the volumes down, and carefully transcribed them for the benefit of discussion here, only to learn that some T had not been crossed or some I was missing a dot.

I know you will be fair about this. Please let me know clearly what I'm aiming for here. I have provided not one, but seven citations for this quote thus far.

(Addendum -- I am not at all sure why "Source the second" or "Source the third," below, would not satisfy your criteria here. BYT)

Source the first: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousands Negroes [kushim - in the original Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - (Protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech at Jewish Agency Executive, 20 May 1936. In Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)

Source the second: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).

Source the third: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [7] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [8] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).

Source the fourth: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.

Source the fifth: "Chaim Weizman, Israel's first president, once noted that, "there are a few hundred thousand negroes [in Palestine], but that is a matter of no significance." Israel's 'apartheid' should not be allowed, Jeremy Tully, Johns-Hopkins Newsletter, November 15, 2002.

Source the sixth: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.

Source the seventh: "Chaim Weizmann, a future president of Israel, noted in 1917 that the British had told him that there was a population in Palestine of 'a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Mark Zepezauer: 'Boomerang'. Common Courage Press, 2003. BYT 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Brandon, and my apologies. I've reverted myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The balance and objectivity you bring to this joint are so predictable now as to run the risk of being taken for granted by the regulars. Rest assured that I do not take them for granted. I'd put quite a lot of work into tracking those sources down. Thanks for looking them over. BYT 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, I appreciate that. :-) Your commitment to fairness, good writing, and the use of reliable sources is also not taken for granted, believe me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Slim Virgin, first of all just a quick thanks for all your valuable, tireless edits. They are most appreciated. I am kindly noticing that my recent punctuation fixes to The Holocaust were reverted twice on your part without any explanation. The changes from hyphens to en or em dashes (where I made such changes) seem unquestionably correct to me, and the use of four full stops/periods for ellipses at the end of sentences matches what I've always seen prescribed in writing style guides. Perhaps you didn't catch the specifics of my edits, as busy as you are :) I'm going to revert shortly your edits (relating to my punctuation fixes) one more time with this polite, good-faith assumption made. Again, thanks for your valuable work here at Wikipedia, and let me know of lingering questions/concerns if any still exist. —Respectfully, Catdude 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very kindly for the reply posted to my Talk page; I posted a brief courtesy reply there (quick synopsis: everything's amicable here — not an earth-shattering issue :) ) —Best regards, Catdude 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add Dr. Flores to the UTEP wiki and it gets cut out. He is a respected prof at the university. Any reason why?

Hi Slim,

I got involved with a long running and stupid dispute over at Panorama Tools between 2 competing projects who seem to have a rift outside of the site and have brought it with them to this site. One of the users User:John Spikowski is insisting on changing the 2 pages PanoTools and Panotools to a disambiguation page made up of external links and a link to the original article they were redirecting to. I have tried to explain that we are not a link farm but he refuses to listen as he now thinks I am in some way involved with the other party (both sides have accused me of this now, it is highly amusing). Could you pop over there and provide some sanity to this silly incident. I am getting close to proposing RFC's on the lot of them, as they seem to be unable to see past their own biases and are obsessed with warring and being disruptive. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to be pressing Gracenotes for an explanation on question 5; perhaps I can help. I'd point a new user to Help:Reverting for an explanation of what "we reverted it" means, but I imagine you've already read that. We were both bored and thought we'd redirect our userpages to each other and see what happened. They were only like that for a few hours and no lasting confusion ensued. Rest assured that we are not sockpuppets (a fact that is surely backed up by our contribution histories); indeed we live on different continents and have never met. Thanks – Gurch 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just another quick note, regarding your comments on question 7: surely "artificial inflation of edit count" is only a problem if one actually gives any weight to a user's edit count once it's more than a few thousand. Even on adminship requests, that doesn't seem to happen as often as it used to – Gurch 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because if a person has made 5,700 edits to articles, and thousands of these were bot edits (or bot-like) which can be racked up in a matter of hours, and there are only 343 edits to article talk, it suggests limited understanding of the encyclopedia, limited interaction with other users over content issues, and therefore a limited ability to deal with these as an admin. It's also worrying that the candidate himself didn't point these things out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Only" 343? I must be out of touch, how many talk space edits are we demanding these days? – Gurch 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much point in arguing about it here. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, but the relationship. If someone has made 5,000 edits to articles, I want to see more than 300 edits to article talk. Otherwise, we're talking about someone who just hits save thousands of times in a row, without interacting. This isn't a useless thing to do if the person is reverting vandalism, for example (though thousands of GN's bot edits were not reverting vandalism), but there's no need for adminship, and no preparation for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a name for "mindlessly hitting save thousands of times in a row" – it's called maintenance. We do it so that people like you can write content without everything falling apart at the seams. Adminship is a maintenance role not a content one. I have to say I'm surprised you never opposed my RfA if this is really such a problem – the figures were skewed a lot further in my case. (They're skewed so far now it's laughable, >90,000 edits and I've added content to pages about 50 times) – Gurch 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you've since been desysopped, I believe, though I don't know why, and perhaps it was your choice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my choice, yes... and it certainly wasn't because of a skewed edit count :) – Gurch 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, adminship is not limited just to a maintnance role; it also, crucially, involves communication skills. El_C 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if the candidate had these communication skills, he would have been able to put my mind at rest with his first response. Instead, every response of his has deepened my concerns and given rise to others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed during your little banter on oppose #29 that it actually makes no sense whatsoever in the context? I'm certain he's talking about Grace Note, not Gracenotes... if such a vote is considered acceptable, I find that very troubling – Gurch 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why adding a tag to Night (book) seems inapprorpaite? --Fez2005 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the quotes, a lot of the article has nothing to do with the book itself and is too long (it even says so if you look on the edit page). Even if it's not a quotes tag, it needs some sort of a tag.

You had mentioned at WT:NPA that no one has offered a reason why an "attack site" might need to be linked to. I wanted to address that here, in a little larger context than the already-to-busy talk page warrants. My apologies for its length. The core of my problem with the blanket ban in written policy is two-fold.

First, it generates a demarcation problem. What is an attack site? ED, sure. But that is banned by the Mediawiki spam filter, so no problem there. WR/WR? Probably; I don't see anything they offer that would contribute (at least at this time). But are those all? Someone recently pulled a link to Kelly Martin's blog as an attack site. Another editor I know from off-Wiki wonders why we would ever link to Stormfront. Others have suggested Free Republic or Little Green Footballs for inclusion; attacks there have certainly been made against posters at other sites; is that enough? What if a Democratic Underground poster outed at LGF is also a Wikipedian? Would we then need to blacklist those other sites (with opposing political views) in order to prevent undue bias?

Second, if we do ban attack sites, how do we express it? A simple wording ("Do not link or reference attack sites." or the like) leaves open the demarcation problem. An explicit list ("Do not link or reference foo or bar.") violates WP:BEANS, and more importantly, advertises for the sites we want to disavow. An implicit, hidden list seems unwise. Newer editors won't and can't know about it, and they are the most likely to make the error in good faith. Existing editors might debate about inclusion of certain sites, returning us to the BEANS problem. And there will be accusations of cabalism against the secret list's keepers, perhaps rightly, that will fuel the problems we're trying to combat. And in any case, what if a site changes focus/management/policy? Certainly ED wasn't always the way it is now. Pendulums can swing both ways. How could a review process occur? It is possible to imagine someplace like WR taking a hard stance against the outing and attacks and being a useful forum for Criticism of Wikipedia, one that might eventually even earn mention here.

I don't want you to think that any of this means I am supporting linking to ED/WR/WW, at least not in their current forms. I know what they have done to people. I know that is is not, cannot, be acceptable. Links to those places should probably be removed. I just don't think we can say that, because we're trapped between two bad outcomes: saying what must not be said on one hand, setting a dangerously unclear policy on the other. No matter what NPA says, people will misinterpret it. That is the nature of the beast, and is why we have a dispute process, frankly. But that is why I'm supporting a wording that allows for editors to consider links to viable attack sites to be removed, while avoiding actually saying so.

I don't know if you had a chance to look at the most recent draft I've tried to present. It does not discuss attack sites per se (nor pages, for that matter). About external links, it says: "Links that serve as personal attacks against Wikipedia contributors, whether due to the content linked or to the context in which the link is referenced, are not acceptable." Is that a wording that satisfies your concerns? If a dispute over this policy came to, say, an RFC, I'd certainly agree that places like ED are indististinguishable from attacks, in context if not in specific content. But at the same time, this satisfies editors who are concerned about the "attack sites" phrasing for the reasons I've listed, and prevents any need for an explicit list. It offers editorial discretion to dealing with gray areas like Stormfront and Free Republic ... and to places like WW/WR, if they change enough in the future to allow them to be viewed in a different light.

Thanks for reading, and for whatever response you can provide. I know no solution will make everyone perfectly happy, but as an incorrigible optimist, I have to try... Serpent's Choice 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following your good work on On the Jews and their Lies from afar. You are extremely patient and calm-headed. In response to your (as of now) latest comment, though, I wanted to say that there's no question that a new translation of an old work, even one which has been translated innumerable times, is still sufficiently creative so as to generate a new copyright. (Among the examples I can think of are Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu, translated in in 1922 as Remembrance of Things Past and in 1995 as In Search of Lost Time (the volumes being released as the copyrights on the original French release go out of date), or the many translations of Dante (Longfellow, Mandelbaum, Ciardi, Musa), each with their own new copyright. So FWIW I don't think that's a fruitful argument. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was speaking of relative calm: you are always calmer than I would be :). People making new translations tend to be rather careful in working only from the original language - at least on the first draft through, for exactly the reasons you'd imagine: they want to have a valid copyright, and not to infringe on any copyrights for previous translations. So in real-world situations, there's almost never a question. In a situation where only a few changes are made from a pre-existing translation, a new translation isn't really being made, rather the "new" work is clearly a derivative of the old translation. All of which is stuff which would keep a lawyer fed for years, but is probably not the issue here :) - Nunh-huh 21:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

during World War II or yes? - Jackanapes 23:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer is yes, I think that the article about the Holocaust must inform about this significant side of these historical processes. I'm afraid the lack of space isn't convincing excuse for such an "omission" - this excuse means structural incompleteness and inadequacy while there are vast and detailed sections about many other problems. This situation leads to the question why exactly the rescuers and collaborators are... neglected? - Jackanapes 23:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SlimVirgin, I'm afraid I heard exactly what I expected. The Holocaust is treated predominantly emotively as "the beast" in your understanding. Please, try to get my point of view. This process was more than horrific in most of its sides, it is beyond any dispute. But there are basic principles of historical science also, which contain requirements for completeness, impartiality, neutrality, lack of emotivity. This is true even about the most atrocious facts in human nature. This article is called "The Holocaust", not "The Beast in the Holocaust", whih means that it has to inform about all sides of this process, not exclusively for historical bestiality in it. Any link to other different and more narrow article can't create adequate idea for entireness of the epoch of Holocaust - at least it is generally accepted to give a short note when there is separate article about some concrete question, but not only dumb link. Why rescuers and rescued are important and integral part of this concrete historical narrative - excuse me, but I think that there is something obscenely in such a question. On the first place, this was part of the history of Holocaust, and on the second place, the resistance shows the very nature of the "beast" by revealing the possible opportunity to stop or diminish mass extermination if... there were humanity and will to oppose. - Jackanapes 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P. s. By the way, take a look at the addition of user Robvhoorn in the same section. Obviously there is interest about these problems. Best wishes, Jackanapes 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JackSarfatti1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 23:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SarfattiGeller.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you and Localzuk have been working together on a number of animal rights-related articles including Animal testing and Factory farming, among others. In these two cases you became embroiled in protracted and vitriolic discussions, and appeared not to value the contributions of all users. This concerns me not only because I happen to disagree with many of your positions, but because I fear that good contributors might be driven away from the project, and the result will be biased articles of poor quality. Do you think that there is any way you could change your behavior to cause less conflict? Haber 00:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems disrespectful to me. Please keep in mind that children might be reading these pages. Haber 00:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored for minors; in any case that comment was hardly bad language. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even see what might be bad for children. The word "hell"? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every Sunday, in the Apostles' Creed, the vast majority of the world's Christians confess that Christ "decended into hell, and on the third day rose again." It is a very large stretch, at least in our Judeo-Christian western culture, to call the word hell profanity. Pastordavid 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem determined to have three articles, and to hell with compromise." Most people in polite company replace the word "hell" with "heck", or avoid its use altogether. Directed at another person, your statement is incivil. Haber 01:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to "completely ridiculous". Hi Slim! Keep up the great work! Hamster Sandwich 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hamster, good to see you on my page again; where the heck have you been? :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in Leave it to Beaver, but the real world is rarely like that. *Dan T.* 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin , Have a wonderful summer, and thanks for being a friend Dakota

My apologies

I must apologize for the COI notice. While I am not in general happy with your approach to editing, after discussion with others I must agree with them that the message in question could well have been a Joe job. Mangoe 17:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]