User talk:Jpgordon

Cleared 00:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) -- check [1] for history.

HA!

Of course, you're right -- I'm using Lupin's wonderful vandalfighting tool and unfortunately there's no way to customize the bv warning it throws up. I was blasting through lists of recent IP edits and slapped that one up there for good measure. Ironically, the person vandalized again immediately and so I just blocked it. I think they get the message at this point ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Isar

Thanks for your help with the work on the article on the Isar river, Josh. The German article is huge and marked as a very good one and I hope we can reach the same standard for the English article. I already translated some sections but there's more to come. The Isar is my favorite river and I want the article to be perfect! I first want to finish the text and then I think it'll be appropriate to add some images. I believe it might take me another week, maybe more, to translate all the stuff from the German article. And last but not least: Ich würde mal gerne wissen, wie gut Dein Deutsch ist, denn Du hast ja lang in München gelebt. Ich denke, mein Englisch ist überdurchschnittlich gut für einen Deutschen. Ich merke aber immer noch, wie viel mir noch fehlt, wenn ich so einen schwierigen Artikel ins Englische übersetze. ;) --Maxl 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oy. I can read German well, and I can make myself understood (though sometimes it's more Bayrisch than Hochdeutsch), but I've lost almost all my grammar. Gosh, I just realized it's been close to 40 years! I'll be happy to continue helping out -- as long as I don't have to pretend to write auf Deutsch! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect complaints

Josh, your "good eye" has failed you: I edited a reference to Noam Chomsky in the new antisemitism article by adding to the article's reference to him a Jewish (an attempt to provide him additional legitimacy) as of Jewish origins, since he is not a professing Jew and in fact is considered a holocust denier by many. His "Jewishness" is irrelvent to his positions, and if the prior editor want to label him as "Jewish" to try and establish credibility to his anti Jewish positions, I certainly can provide a npov improvement by indicating that his "jewishness" is is the least meaningful kind. And since you state you are related to Dianne Arbus, who was Jewish, I assume you have at least some Judaism in your soul, you should therefor not be aiding anti semites by reversing my edit. Incorrect 18:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Josh, you did it again: may I suggest that you may be an administrator, but you are doing destructive work to wikipedia that might better be spent improving articles instead of blindly reversing edits without looking at the articles themselves. Incorrect 18:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Mm-hm. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. (And I did not say I was related to Diane Arbus; reading comprehension is very important if one is to edit Wikipedia. Thank you.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought when you mentioned you were related to the "Jewish Giant" you were ironically referring to Dianne Arbus herself, since it is to the JG himself you are related to my point still holds, as someone of at least partial Jewish ancestry why are you aiding the anti semites of the world?

As to my edit, you totally fail to answer the substance of my point: what is the point of identifying Noam Chomsky as "jewish" other than to lend legitimacy to his anti Jewish stance? And if that description stands, why is it a pov reference to indicate that while he may be of Jewish ancestry, he does not identify "jewishly" in any way. Look forward to your non ironical answer. Incorrect 02:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• You say above, I certainly can provide a npov improvement by indicating that his "jewishness" is is the least meaningful kind. But that's exactly a POV. It's your POV, and not a neutral one, that embues his Jewishness with "meaningfulness" of one kind or another. Your opinion of Chomsky (and my opinion of Chomsky) is irrelevant. Also, please desist from suggestions that I am "aiding the anti semites of the world"; those are fighting words and they are unwelcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gunpowder

Please refrain from vandalizing the gunpowder page repeatedly. In addition, kindly take your own advice, and cease and desist from reverting other people's edits. Otherwise, under the 3-revert rule as you mentioned you may be banned. Thank you for complying. 69.194.137.183 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you have abused your admin powers and violated 3RR laws I have referred you to Arbitration. 69.194.137.183 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Enjoy yourself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

You are a disgrace for deleting my edits to the Anti-Defamation League article. There could have been no valid reason for deleting the valid sourced information I put in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honesttoyou (talk • contribs) 20:12, April 4, 2006 (UTC)

• You've made no edits to Anti-Defamation League. However, if you are 83.70.228.122 (talk · contribs), you need to familiarize yourself with our neutral point of view and no original research policies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Could use some help on the Reagan page...

Alright, I'm being told that counting the number of people who were convicted of crimes is "original research" and therefore not allowed. I'm also being told that since the Reagan administration isn't known for it's corruption, that the facts of his administration's corruption cannot be in the opening paragraph. However, Nixon stepping down is in his opening bio, Clinton being impeached is in his and both Harding and Grant, the other two administrations afflicted with severe corruption, have it noted in their opening bios as well.

There are two standards at work here, and I need some help. The Reagan administration by objective standards was staggeringly corrupt. 138 people were indicted, the subject of official investigation or conviced - no other administration comes even close to that record, and I documented that. They've now pulled it out of the opening bio and put it farther down the page. That's editorializing.

I don't know how to go about getting other administrators involved but Reagan's biography is so out of sync with empirical reality, that obviously he has some devotees hard at work.

I'm in the process of writing an article that fleshes out the corruption in his administration, but as corruption was one of the remarkable features of his administration - as I have demonstrated with TWO Pulitzer Prize winning authors - it deserves to mentioned upfront.

Thanks for whatever you can give me.

• You need to cut back on the "Gosh wow!" language. You're clearly attempting to prove a point, which I happen to agree with, but my opinion and your opinion are utterly irrelevant. Make it cold and factual; any inferences, conclusions, or comparisons should be dryly sourced. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Gunpowder

Jeez, who woulda thought that Gunpowder would be such an explosive issue? (hyuck, hyuck) Thanks for sticking up for me at the 3RR page and for reverting the article back to something sane. KarlBunker 19:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gunpowder User:69.194.137.183

Needs to take note that User:69.194.137.183 had got nothing to do with me, so please do check the IP address, before making such an assumption. Regards Eiorgiomugini

If you noticed

If you noticed, I retracted my statments to the anon. My apologies, I was wrong.Travb 04:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ebay article

I am asking your talk page because close to all my comments on the talk page were ignored. This is a new idea, do you think it should go: You worked for ebay. Well, I was thinking that the article should add that about their livechat that they have surveys to fill out for them. The surveys are really really really long. It is also hard to find because closing out the chat window does not bring them up (if they popup, which I doubt, most browsers block that now). Some reps give a link. I even asked the rep about it and he agreed that people who fill them out are very very happy or very very angry. Of course with the difficulty on getting to the form, likely most would be the angry kind. Is a sentence about this noteworthy or not? DyslexicEditor 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• What sentence do you have in mind? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing particular DyslexicEditor 20:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not really sure what your point is, then. "eBay has some surveys that don't work well?" "eBay has found another trivial way to annoy customers?" What's the importance of this, other than yet another thing you don't like about eBay? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not something I have any problems with about ebay. I thought it would be something employees would not like and you worked there so I thought you would care. I also don't dislike ebay on whole, just certain aspects. DyslexicEditor 06:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well let's see, I can add: This relates to how surveys don't popup with firefox's popup blocker but also other features. (first three words "ebay says that" optional) "Ebay says that certain parts of its system do not work with firefox." Next... There is maybe something like, "Surveys for ebay's livechat are lengthy so only people very interested would fill them out." -- I think it needs shortening to be included first to comply with a length to notability ratio. DyslexicEditor 06:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Help needed!

Hello Jpgordon -- I am writing to you because you have kindly helped when other problems have arisen vis-a-vis the Che Guevara article. When I first visited the page today, I noticed that an unregistered user 68.209.197.233 had been on and had first deleted the complete article and saved it as empty, then put in some text which may or may not be the same as what he had erased, and saved it. I therefore decided to revert the article to the latest version by DakotaKahn via the usual method for non-admins (History, etc.). However, my revert did not take. I tried it several more times, then re-read all of the instructions to see if I was doing something wrong, but everything seemed to be in order, so I tried again -- and again my revert did not take. Then I tried to compare my latest version of the article to the one that 68.209.197.233 had saved, but when I do this only the version that 68.209.197.233 saved comes up, my version doesn't appear so I can't compare them. (This same problem had also occurred when I attempted to compare the last version by DakotaKahn to what 68.209.197.233 had saved.) In other words, I cannot compare the version saved by 68.209.197.233 to any previous version of the article to see whether he has introduced changes into the text, and I cannot revert it to an earlier version: Therefore, I am requesting your urgent assistance to figure out what is going on with this article and to get it back to the latest version by DakotaKahn. -- Many thanks in advance!! Polaris999 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

American, Interrupted

Hi Jpgordon. The American, Interrupted listing may seem to be spamming, but it is in fact a reputable book and site. I have read the book and the links on other pages are simply because the website is so media-heavy. The multimedia site has so much non-traditional information on it, it is better if researchers browse on the american-interrupted.com website. For example, the video showing actual European war materials in Iraq. Although it has been written about, there is little photographic proof of it. Thompson's site provides video of it. When reading Thompson's blog, it becomes clear that he was present at many critical moments in the Iraq conflict. His journalistic style is impressive and the book/blog is an absolute resource for those researching Iraq. I would reconsider the assertion that the American, Interrupted listing is purely spam. I believe this book has great potential to be one of the best resources for historical information about Operation Iraqi Freedom. I also believe the website is a great resource for unique information about life in Iraq. There is one page on the website offering to sell the book, but there are many more other prominent links offering free video and information. We should support grass roots books like this, or risk falling on the wrong side of judgement when it finally goes mainstream. This is my personal belief, as someone affiliated with 1AD at a professional level. JD Baumholder

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:134.233.132.6" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.233.132.6 (talk • contribs) 15:25, April 7, 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Deletion

So ADL's politics is a new idea, and my addition was original research? That is ridiculous. My additions were representing an often cited question-mark over the Anti-Defamation League's political interference. This happens to be quite a mainstream opinion too, and deserves mention in an article.

I don't understand how you can use the neutrality of Wikipedia as a part of your argument for deleting just criticism of the organisation. I think that argument goes in my favour anyway.

Since when does neutrality equate to censoring anybody who dare criticise?

I believe you have acted in a very disappointing manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.164.81 (talk • contribs) 23:16, April 7, 2006 (UTC)

• If you cite reliable sources rather than just expressing a personal opinion, then your contributions will remain. For example:

However, it rarely if ever makes a similar qualification for Palestinians or others who are peacefully opposed to Israel's existence as a political entity. This may result in the impression that all Palestinians are terrorists, or that it is impossible to be against Israel's existence without being a terrorist or anti-semitic.

According to whom? As entered, it's just your personal opinion. If you wish this material in, it needs to be in a form like "According to (insert reliable source here), the ADL rarely if ever makes a similar qualifications. (Another reliable source) says this results in so-and-so impression about Israel's existance" and so on. My opinion about the ADL (and you probably have no idea whatsoever what that is) is irrelevant, as is your opinion about the ADL. If, indeed, your additions are an often-cited question-mark, you'll be able to phrase it that way. Considering that there is an a rather long section of criticisms of the ADL, it's obviously incorrect that "just criticism" is being deleted; back it up with reliable sources and appropriate cites, and it will likely stay in. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Object

I strongly object to your indefinite ban of User:Robert Lindsay. To ban a user for views expressed on a user page is not appropriate for any individual admin, in my opinion. First off, he should be allowed to rant about the Zionists on his user page if he wants—if not out of the principle of it, then out of the pragmatic reason that this will just appear to him and others like him to be confirmation of the tyranny of the Zionists. Secondly, even if the user page was worthy of some punitive measure, an indef block is far too extreme—in this case the appropriate measure would be to remove the offending material and only block for relatively short times if he tried to restore the text. So I request that you moderate your action in some respect. Everyking 10:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Your opinion is noted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• The discussion at AN/I seemed to suggest that the primary reason for the block was the user's making POV edits to sundry articles and otherwise engaging in bad-faith vandalism. Were that the reason for the indef block, one might find the block appropriate; JPG, though, explained on RL's talk page that the block was in view of RL's inflammatory userpage. Perhaps such explanation was tendered in order to emphasize the community's general desire to discourage one's espousing political or religious views, inasmuch as such espousal proves deleterious vis-à-vis the construction of an encyclopedia (with which view I'm not in accord but which view I readily recognize is quickly gaining in popularity), or simply to tweak the user one last time, and either would, I suppose, be alright; I certainly agree, though, with Everyking that, if the reason for the ban was exclusively or even primarily the content of the user page, the indef block was inappropriate and exorbitant. Certainly it is correct to consider the sum of a user's actions in blocking; where a user has made, say, 15,000 constructive edits, he/she is to be given more latitude in his/her conduct, but I don't know that this user's history was altogether bad or sufficiently destructive as to merit an indef block. Joe 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• There are 700+ active administrators. Any one of them can override my action. I'm sure someone can make a good argument for restoring the editing privileges of a virulent anti-Semitic hate monger. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You know how preposterous this is. Come on, why do you think I complained to you instead of unblocking him myself? What would you do if I unblocked him? Everyking 03:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd just record it on AN/I, as I did the block, and let the chips fall where they may. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And my unblock would be reversed. Why? Because in our present system, the boldest admins always prevail, and the boldest ones are also the ones most disposed to harshness. Everyking 04:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
        • So find one of the other 700+ administrators to do it. I certainly wouldn't reverse it if someone else unblocked the bigot; I don't get into wheel wars under any circumstances. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

infinity

Hello, I know you have been paying some attention to what's been going on with infinity and me. He just complained again to the Noticeboard to try to get me banned. I'd appreciate your input there. Also, I'm writing to you because infinity has been stalking my edits --he's going around to article's he doesn't deal with and deleting my edits simply because they are mine (just like I pointed out earlier --which is why it's difficult to avoid him). He's even admitted to it. [2] Unfortunately, as you know, I'm not even allowed to complain about this on the Noticeboard. How can I complain about this and get some action taken against him? Thanks. RJII 20:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII, your editing has been very aggressive as well as your talk page comments. Do you honestly have nothing to amend or apologise for? -- infinity0 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very aggressive in fixing NPOV and factual error issues, yes, and all while following Wikipedia guidelines. I'm not apologizing. I have nothing to apologize for, especially to you. I'm stand proud for what I'm doing. RJII 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to be more self critical and reflective. Don't think you're right all the time. You're way too aggressive, and you ignore other people's comments related both to you as a person and to your edits. And, stop denying things - especially when people criticise you. A lot of people have critised your POV yet you just ignore them, and even say that you're NPOV. You need to improve this sort of behaviour, because it's not healthy for wikipedia as a whole. -- infinity0 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to listen to your own advice. Don't try to twist it around on me. RJII 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I would have thought it was the other way round. This is exactly what I'm talking about. -- infinity0 20:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. You're the disruptive one with POV problems. RJII 20:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Would you two please get a room? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Four great inventions

See crossbow where he's been active as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-write of Terrorism

Someone is attempting a massive POV re-write of Terrorism; would you mind taking a look? Much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was looking at it when I got this message. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the edit looks quite familiar. I've sprotected it now, as banned editors are not allowed to edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you an anti-semite?

Would you be willing to provide proof that you are not an anti-semite?

AO Charles 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)AO Charles

• I've been asked a lot of stupid questions in my time; you've trumped pretty much all of them. Go away. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes to vandal warning toolbox

I hope you're finding the warning toolbox useful. I've made a few minor changes to it that you might want to be aware of. --Kbh3^rdtalk 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR

I responded on Slimvirgins talk page, but she has twice archived my responses.

Here is my response on NOR...I am not presently engaged at the NOR page even though smear has been spread by the above user..because I made a promise to another editor two wait it out two weeks. I keep my word, so I am doing nothing there at the moment. Below is again my response after another editors and the genesis of the problem...Now this user wishes to change the rules so that her edits in the future can't be challenged. How nice.

"If consensus forming was followed in the first place on April 10th by this user Slimvirigin, there wouldn't have been a problem. The point is really moot. Limiting this to admins is interesting but also wrong. Policy is not set in stone; it changes with Wikipedia and consensus. However it should not change on the whim of the few and changes should not occur without proper procedure. Procedure was not followed, people objected, they were called names and mistreated rather than have their objections treated in good faith. My proposal, for Arbcom to decide disputes or for a special committee to be electd by the community to decide them when they arise was removed by Slimvirgin to her archives. I think that is far better than allow any admin to edit policy changing it at their whim to suit their needs as this user here has be charged as doing by other editors. --Northmeister 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive28" --Northmeister 23:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

unsigned template

Hi JPG, I see you are the inventor of the unsigned template (for which, congrats). Someome (I suspect a Stark sockpuppet, actually) left an unsigned comment on my talk page - can I use the template to find out who it was, and if so how? Thanks, ElectricRay 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - had a feeling that might be the case but no harm in asking. ElectricRay 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for making me laugh! I have not read something quite so funny in ages! Here's a WikiThanks for you. :-) --HappyCamper 02:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

IMSAI 8080

I got that date of the current IMSAI website (imsai.net) in their history section, it is in the footnote on the article.

I am planning to add pictures and a history section, the article has a lot of potential.

— Wackymacs 15:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the 1986 date is a bit weird I admit, maybe you should change it to 1978 if you're positive. Wow, you used to work at IMSAI? That's pretty cool stuff - Have you got any free use images of the IMSAI 8080 that could be added to the article? Also, do you have your own original IMSAI 8080? — Wackymacs 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I will kill you in a short time! You are on my list! Tell your last prayer! Dacodava

Block

Did you mean for this to be indefinite? --JW1805 (Talk) 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• oops. Fixated. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Debra Wilson Skelton

Hi, Josh. I don't know of any links regarding her marriage. My source is the TV Guide Channel show she co-hosts, The Water Cooler. At the end of Friday's edition (I think it was Friday) she announced that she had married over the previous weekend; her name was listed as "Debra Wilson Skelton" throughout the show. -- Gerkinstock 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Death near to you !

You are fucked man! You will die in a big pain! Iron Guard Reloaded! Dacodava

Thank you for restoring Babi Yar

I have erroneously removed the line. Xx236 08:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shock Sites Protection

Hello, it seems you have protected list of shock sites. I realise that the protection is not an endorsement of the current version, but as the article is currently undergoing an AFD vote, is it not more appropriate that the current version of the article represent something similar to when it was nominated? During the edit war, a certain user, whether good faith or not, erased more than 80% of the page and I am not sure that this reflects the article that is being voted on. - Abscissa 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• I paid no attention to what was being protected. I looked, I saw an edit war, I protected the page. That's what we're supposed to do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln trivia

How interesting...I'd never heard of that one before. Thanks for the update. PJM 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

clinton

I know, it's too much. I think some of the changes were ok, but he doesn't know where to stop. For an established user, I would revert without question. For a newbie, it can be very frustrating to get reverted wholesale. Didn't mean to sound critical of you, I'm just feeling gentle with the newbies tonight. Or at least with ones I'd like to see learn the way. I'm trying to clean it up. Derex 06:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. I think it's better than before now. But, I won't object if you revert. Really just trying to demonstrate to him how to make changes without introducing spin. Derex 06:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

how do i get through to you

i'm trying to inform people on the dangers of food processing. how do you suggest i inform them if the independent studies are all i have? all i need is permission to use the weston a price articles? i'm mailin em now! you want a permission slip if i get in contact?

thanks

Why Have You Removed Two News Links on the Ra'anana Page?

Two independent news sources point out gender bias discrimination in Ra'anana, Israel, but yet you delete these sources of published fact. Why? IsraelBeach 21:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Arnold School

Mr Gordon,

with respect to the ongoing Arnold School feud I would like to suggest that myself and my 'classmate' are not simply doing our best to disrupt the credibility of your website. On the contrary eerything added to the Wikipedia entry for Arnold School is entirely accurate and is not as you call it 'vandalism'. As associates of Arnold School we would advise that our knowledge of the School is probably with respect superior to yours. We are not simply wasting your time but purely trying to increase awareness of the Schools history and achievements. We understand that if you have any doubts on what we have added they should be raised, but that is not to say that any additions should be revoked without full confirmation. Thankyou

• Conversation continued on Talk:Arnold School --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Mine's Talk:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau, but User:JzG seems to have taken it on. Jkelly 23:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies

I have done, which is why I am no longer pushing the primary colours article, assuming that that is what you refer to (although I still believe that these things should be on a web based encyclopedia, I have to bow to community consensus). Legendary Steve 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

I listed him in my white criminals category, actually... Legendary Steve 23:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap, sorry, that was a mistake (as the edit summary suggests) - I'll sort it out now

On the Jews and their Lies

Dear JP:

Would you drop by the On the Jews and Their Lies page and take a look at my actions there? I'm in a conflict with SlimVirgin and want to see whether my dealings are fair in neutral eyes. Thanks! Bob

White criminals

I was going to flag this for deletion, but you got there ahead of me. I wish I had the admin tools. - Richardcavell 23:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stopping Editing

I'm going to stop editing for at least 12 hours (except to participate in conversation) while I ponder my next move Legendary Steve 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)