User talk:Mbecker

You seem to have マイカル in your signature... I thought the common spelling of this name was マイケル. (After all, most people I know called "Michael" pronounce it more like "Mycle" than like "My Cal"; that is, the second syllable does not have a noticeable 'a' sound.) -- pne 13:20, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You may not be aware that for some users (MS IE 6.0.28 in my case) all five of the chars specified numerically above appear as square boxes; presumably you don't need to be told that this makes your sig confusing and annoying. (But the talk-page pipe-char of yr current sig would be amusing and pleasant, if not for the user-page pipe.) --Jerzy (t) 02:11, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered you; every now and then i'm overtaken by these insane fits of expecting a civil response in spite of the manifest evidence. --Jerzy (t) 03:01, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Your sig is クールー :-) —MikeX (talk) 11:09, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted it because it was not a "mainstream press" story. I instead put it in the "other" category with the alternative press. Please do not revert it back. Thanks. ;) --Neutrality 20:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I just saw you made a couple of edits :-) Glad you are around :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 21:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing :).

eh ! Even more surprising because I am hardly on en now. Not enough time.

Congrats on being part of the Board of Trustees, I would consider that a huge honor (I assume you were voted on?)!

yeah, voted. Angela is the other one. Two women !

What do you do as part of the board?

my...hmmm, setting up membership, setting up the new wikimediafoundation website, helping a bit setting local chapter, working on a mandrake distribution (DVD), helping a very tiny bit on grants and budget issues, doing interviews and presentation of Wikipedia :-), trying to negociate content exchange with another website, helping setting up miroring servers in France (bit stuck on that), trying to determine whether and how and how much paying developers, listening to request about chinese wikipedia being blocked, editors threats, copyright violation with jurist, setting up some committees and official representants, complaints, many complaints :-) .... Yo ! There is certainly much for many more people :-)

Is it exciting, stressful, time consuming?

yes, yes and yes. Seriously, that is even a growing problem for me.

I've been mia for the past few months, as I was back in class and didn't really have the time or patience to work on the wiki. It feels strange to be back, and we'll see if I stick around for a while. I'll be starting classes again soon, so I somehow doubt it

I hope you stay a bit. I would be interested in your feedback of a second newbie :-)

SweetLittleFluffyThing 23:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. As I told JamesMLane, the arbitration committee is a painfully slow, legalistic bureaucracy; they're still working on cases from months ago. My idea is a quickpoll. Although they've fallen out of favor in recent weeks, this is a situation that calls for quick action and the behavior of a single party is particularly egregious. My guess is that there's likely enough support for temporarily blocking the user names/IPs of Rex and his/her sockpuppets. 172 04:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

welcome back

Good to see you involved again. You may remember me as User:Kat. I left, and have returned with a new Wiki-Outlook. UninvitedCompany 15:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SBVT move

Sorry, I had written my note to Talk:Kerry announcing the move, but forgot to push send before I actually did it (had multiple windows open). When I discovered the unsent announcement a minute later, I had an edit conflict with _your_ announcement. Feel free to modify the move I made; I was just trying to make a first cut.Wolfman 19:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

News of the realm

I believe you and I were once both advocating the deletion of Daniel C. Boyer, which is now gone, and which is oft cited as a case study. The Wiki-winds blow, and the place has become more discerning when deciding whether to keep articles, and much junk has been deleted in your absence. Related pages, particularly surrealism, remain stuck in eternal edit wars.

Also, User:EntmootsOfTrolls has been banned, returned under several different names, and been re-banned. And been banned from a couple other wikis. Ho hum, just another day in WikiLand. I once thought him interesting but have now concluded that, in actual fact, he is tiresome and has little to say.

Certain Wiki-Elder-Statesmen, particularly User:MyRedDice and User:Fred Bauder are now centrally involved in the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and have scaled back their involvement in other matters, to the projects' detriment in many cases; a tradeoff of dubious merit given the effectiveness of the arbitration process thus far. Others, most notably Koyannis Quatsi, have left. And some, like User:Tuf-Kat, yet remain.

UninvitedCompany 03:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't oppose your attempts to remove copyrighted images. I just think that some more discretion can be used when it comes to this image. This is one of the more memorable images of the war, it is reproduced everywhere, and it is safely in the fair use category. 172 16:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image talk:TrangBang.jpg

See: Image talk:TrangBang.jpg -Joseph 17:03, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

There's no need to overreact. This picture is one of hundreds posted on Wikipedia of similar fair use status. (Keep in mind that the quality of the series of articles in which this image is posted is also a salient issue.) BTW, I left a note about this on the talk page of User:Eloquence, the author of many of Wiki's policy statements on fair use images. We can at least wait for his input. 172 18:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This seems to be an example of the Instruction_creep (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Instruction_creep) increasingly endemic on Wiki in recent months. I wouldn't take it as a rule that's too strictly followed. If nothing else, there's always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Again, we can at least wait for the input of Eloquence, the author of many of the pages you're citing.172 18:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand. There does need to be a clear consensus regarding the use of images. But whether or not we wait for input regarding this single, particular image isn't going to have a real, practical effect making Wikipedia more secure. This image is just one out of hundreds (perhaps thousands). 172 18:52, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The image had already been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright Problems for a month. It's a straightforward case of fair use. The Wikimedia Foundation is protected by the CDA and OCILLA. It's likely to be free - we have plenty of legal friends who are likely to be happy to assist in a nice high profile case of fair use. en image use policy accepts fair use images and has done for longer than I've been around. Not sure why you weren't aware of that. Jamesday 04:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You left around the time I joined. You may want to look at the image tagging project. It's quite simple currently for a developer to get lists of images with specific tags. That'll make it fairly easy to generate subsets with any desired set of license properties. That in turn makes it quite easy for the project to meet the desires of those who want a comprehensive encyclopedia and those who want subsets which are acceptable for their particular jurisdiction or legal risk desires. That means there's no need to encourage other projects to meet those desires, which is a significant reason why I favor tag and filter on demand as an approach. Still things to do, like giving clear indication in an article caption that an image isn't as free as we'd like. Jamesday 22:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Declining, with thanks

Although I'm very flattered that you'd consider me a possible candidate for adminship, for right now I'll decline. Neutrality made the same suggestion a few weeks ago. I declined because, for RL (meatspace) reasons, I needed to reduce my time spent on Wikipedia, so I didn't want to take on any new burdens. The best-laid plans, as they say -- the firestorm over John Kerry has made things worse, not better. I expect, though, that at some point I'll crave the promotion, and when that happens I'll come back to you and solicit your support.

Incidentally, speaking of the John Kerry firestorm: In the Request for Arbitration concerning Rex071404, I?ve added a request that the Arbitration Committee issue an immediate temporary injunction. An arbitration proceeding can take months. The injunction would allow other Wikipedians to work together on the John Kerry article in a normal fashion. If you?d like to add your position on this request, along with any additional evidence you consider appropriate, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Request for immediate temporary injunction. JamesMLane 19:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User

Hey, I rolled back your change to User talk:Mbecker/Archive 1. The link as it was has historical signifigance. It's an archive of my talk page, and as such, if you change the link, it not longer has any meaning. Please be a little more careful when redirecting links in the future. Thanks! — マイケル ₪ 21:53, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

The redirects from article space to user space are being deleted and the "User:" is being added so that the existing links don't break. If you roll back my changes the links will break when the redirects are removed. - Tεx τ urε 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. Broken links never hurt anyone. The discussion refers specifically to the non-user page. At the time, I was trying to get rid of them...So, I'd rather it stay the way it was. It doesn't matter if the link is broken. — マイケル ₪ 14:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I'll try to avoid that. Thanks for the notice. - Tεx τ urε 17:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good job

I just had the misfortune to read most of Talk:John Kerry, and I just wanted to compliment you on your diligent focus on policy, amazing civility under pressure, and always a foundation of NPOV and intellectual honesty. I therefore bestow upon you this Purple heart:

Missing image
Purple_heart.jpg

For impressive grace under fire on Talk:John Kerry during the 2004 election.

Do with it what you will (I'd put it on my user page, but that?s just me. Maybe your like John Kerry and you'll just throw it out ;) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 07:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geek Code...

Hey...I got my own (it's on my user page) now I should decipher yours :) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

?

As long as use my same user name, what will happen? Only a few are angry at me, and some of them are in the process of getting over it. Rex071404 21:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry

I know your experiences on John Kerry have been exceptionally bad. However, it is not too late for you to turn things around. You appear to have a great interest in the article, and it would be sad for you to give up on it. I too had given up on it, and came back after a couple of days of cooling down. I realize that Rex's past behavior have been way out of line, and you are probably upset with him, which is justified. However, as responsible wikipedians, it is our responsibility not to persecute him, but to try and work out our differences, in the interest of a superior article. To this ends, I would hope that you continue to contribute to the article, and I hope that you and Rex can avoid any confrontation in the future. If you do decide to give up on the article, I understand and respect your choice. However, I hope that you decide instead to help make this article as good as it can be. I hope you also know that I am not trying to treat either you, or Rex unfairly. I came along fairly late in this dispute, so I clearly don't have the same POV as you or him about the situation. However, at the moment, it appears that Rex is willing to act properly, and all I ask is that if you do take part in editing this article, you do the same. His actions, have been, and never are a justification for the poor actions you took. I realize that you felt you were doing the right thing, and I don't blame you. We all make mistakes sometimes. Anyways, I thing that you clearly have something to offer to the article, and I'd be deeply disappointed if you stop contributing to it. Thank you for your time. ? マイケル ₪ 21:44, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't really want to edit John Kerry anymore, and deal with Rex. I simply don't. I'm tired of the abuse, the mendacity, the bias, the sanctimony, and most of all the constant, 24-hour war waged on John Kerry by Rex. But more than that, I'm tired of the mindset that judges all edit disputes as bad, and makes equalizes POV pushers and trolls with members of the community that actually care about the encyclopedia as a whole. I appreciate you kind words, and I don't intend to leave the Kerry article forever. But until Rex leaves, I just don?t see it happening. He is intent on using - abusing, rather - Wikipedia in order to make a political point. Neutrality 21:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok

Rex071404 03:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Correcting the pro-Kerry bias on John Kerry was my primary interest

Frankly, the thing which most shocks me is how much Neutrality is allowed to get away with. Where is the egalitarian application of Wiki discipline there?

Rex071404 18:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris image tweaking

Hi, saw the work you did on Image:ClitorisNewLoc2.jpg. I find the version you have provided inferior to the original because of the high JPEG compression you have used and the unneeded zoom box, also for some reason you have flipped it horizontally. Could you please fix it. --Dittaeva 19:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV re John Kerry

I was glad to see, from your note to Rex, that you were willing to remain involved in the John Kerry article and help ensure that it's even-handed. Rex will never believe it, but I'm actually not trying to turn the article into a Kerry puff-piece. JamesMLane 20:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First impressions are often unfair impressions. If you've only crossed paths with Neutrality once, it's a little unfair to vote against his Rfa. I suggest that you change your vote to neutral. 172 04:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush

Please go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Bush.27s_purchase_of_Texas_Rangers), ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey There

I followed the Factbook link and then did a little hunting on my own about the majors. The College of Arts and Sciences has a wonderfully detailed website, including the exact degrees that are given for their specific majors. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the other colleges (or, to say the least...they are muddled). The main purpose of my updating Drexel's wiki website is because I knew there were new majors announced this year and I wanted to add them. I think it would also be nice to include the kind of degrees given to a particular major, though I'm not sure how to go about organizing that within the major list. If you have any suggestions, let me know :-) Work is good :-)

Yes, I saw that! I've been going and looking at requests for copyediting and I just created a stub for an award given to the first female pilots because it was linked in an article (and of course, it showed up red). I figure even if I just create a stub, it's better than having nothing at all...at least Coupe Femina now has some kind of definition... — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]]

Haha...oh yes, Baroness de LaRoche...I saw she had a German website, but I couldn't link it because it wanted to link it in the English version of Wikipedia in which no Laroche website exists! I'm glad you knew how to link it. Good job! — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]]

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite

Hello,

I'm asking you because you've created the article: Do you know more about the names of the GOES satellites? On the wiki page they are called GOES-A, GOES-B etc., but several other sources say they're called GOES-1, GOES-2 etc. Please look at Talk:Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite.

"Devil's advocate"

The devil doesn't need an advocate - he can caue quite enough trouble without anyone's help
The article you cite is not well sourced and simply hashes over the same 1/2 true acusations that they Kerry camp does. It's out of context and intentionally misleading.
For example, are you suggesting that O'Neill by merely virtue of having been recruited by Colson way back hwen, is then by definition a fraud who must be ingored? What kind of logic is that?
MBecker, read this link (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4803). It's better sourced and much more valid at proving it's point. Do you support the inclusion of this, too?

What about this [1] (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27161.htm)?

Also, see "sponsorhip of legislation" below.

John Kerry "sponsorship of legislation"

The original numbers from the Kerry web site are accurate. I double-checked them prior to my originally inserting that table some time ago. The currently displayed lower numbers are not accurate. I counted the numbers up myself by reading the links on Kerry's web site. Here is how I had the table, and it's much more accurate in bill count than the current version:

Sponsorship of Legislation

Senator Kerry, in the last 10 years, as shown on his Senate web site [2] (http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/legislation.html), has sponsored these bills:

Session	Years	Bills Sponsored	Signed into law
104th	1995-96	32	none
105th	1997-98	19	none
106th	1999-00	33	S.791 [3] (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:S.791:)
107th	2001-02	81	none
108th	2003-04	30	none

Question- How'd you get Wikipedia to say things such as (wow, that link sucks ass) next to your post...I checked your code and nothing says that...you're sneaky.... :-) (see my talk page) — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]] 17:59, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a summary line :-(

I have a Subject/Headline and I have this "body" box. That is all. I guess I can't be as cool as you. — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]]

Commenting within a page...

Hey! So, I dabbled my hand in the page for Dorothea Lange. I learned in my History of Photograph class about the "Migrant Mother" image and was told she had the two childen in the background turn their heads during the last frame because they were laughing. I wanted to insert within the actual edit a hidden comment about how I was currently looking for a source that confirmed this fact to be true, but apparently doing //doesn't work in Wikipedia. Haha! Is it possible to comment something in Wikipedia or should I just mention this on the discussion page for the Dorothea Lange article? — Aurora (Say hi!)[[]] 20:22, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

The moving of TV related pages

Please see User talk:Netoholic Mintguy (T) 08:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've made a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) and asked that we restart the poll using more formal procedures and make it more publicised. Perhaps you would like to comment. I've asked Sean Curtain if he would like to administer the poll. I don't feel up to it myself due the my recent direct confrontations with Netoholic which has left me somewhat drained. Perhaps you might like to be involved in this also. Much appreciated. 09:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your quote

You said: "While it is ok to have your own POV, it is not alright to ignore other peoples POV, simply because it goes against your own POV. This is especially inappropriate when it comes to wikipedia."

If this rule had also been enforced against Neutrality, Wolfman and JamesMLane on the John Kerry page (not just me), that article would be more encyclopedic than it is now. Rex071404 14:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RfC on Axis of evil / Asses of evil filed

See RfC here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes) regarding this:

Axis of evil Should "AssesOfEvil.png" (see image on this page) be included in the article under guise of "parody"?

Missing image
AssesOfEvil.png

Your comments are appreciated.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ] 05:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:USAMRIID.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:USAMRIID.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 15:53, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Image Tag

Thanks for uploading Image:Village pump clear.png, Image:Drexel.png, and Image:Dxl-logo.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? Evil Monkey → Talk 05:24, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Greetings Michael. Thanks for fixing my mess of an attempt to archive the Clitoris:Talk page. Much appreciated. - Robert the Bruce 05:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC

There is a, ahem, request for comment for you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. You might want to respond. When you do, I'll be sure to endorse your response, because I think you were in the right... ugen64 03:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem

RfCs aren't really things to lose sleep over...especially in your case, considering the type of users who brought this bogus charge. Neutrality^talk 04:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

User:Chmod007

Hi, Mbecker, I noticed your request on David's page, User talk:Chmod007 and thought I should tell you that David blanked his pages and took off on December 2. (Very sad, a great contributor! :-() I doubt he'll break his silence, but if his support is important to you, you might try e-mailing him. (I too think you needn't lose sleep over this RfC, though.) Best wishes,--Bishonen | Talk 08:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Shit list"

Please reconsider User:Mbecker/Shit list, it only increases tension between editors. If you want to keep a list, keep it on your machine locally and out of the public eye. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. and all that. --fvw * 19:33, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but seeing as I use mulitple computers to access the pedia, it's a little more useful for me to have it on wikipedia itself. I'll leave it there for now, it's really just there to remind me of who has been uncivil to me, because I'd just forget otherwise. — マイケル ₪ 19:42, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Which is why you posted it to the RFC page? Use a free webspace provider, a gmail account, or if you must have it on wikipedia put it somewhere that you haven't just linked on a page everyone you're angry with is bound to read. --fvw * 19:45, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Thanks! --fvw * 20:20, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Deleting the RFC

I wouldn't worry about it. The people complaining are just (further) destroying their own credibility with this ludicrous and pathetic RFC. If I were you, I'd keep the darned thing around. Noel (talk) 03:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello green ???? I wish you a happy new year. I saw the clitoris picture improved ;-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

MBot

User:MBot have now the bot status. -- Looxix 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion and undeletion of RfC/Mbecker

I have undeleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+comment%2FMbecker). I have read a comment by Tony Sidaway on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mbecker—I removed it from the candidate list because it failed cert. I think the custom now is to delete pages that fail cert, but mbecker will have to do that himself or get another admin to do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)—but I haven’t seen any of your comments asking for the deletion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mbecker or User talk:David Gerard, so I have undeleted it in case you would like to keep it for future reference. Please let me know if that was a mistake, so I will unundelete it. Rafał Pocztarski 23:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I was confused and corrected by Netoholic. Your RFC has been deleted again [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+comment%2FMbecker). Rafał Pocztarski 01:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About your RfC: I would have supported you, but I was on vacation. It appears you had planty of people on your side anyway. Cool Hand Luke 17:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Haha, I was on vacation too; you would have had my full support. Timbo ( t a l k ) 07:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen

I could be seriously misreading Dr Zen's motives, but it seems to me that his current spate of edit warring on Clitoris may be a deliberate attempt to force a protection of the page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clitoris picture

Regarding your Clitoris-Vivero-Becker picture, would you consider the following modifications?

The circle that's now labeled "Clitoris" should really be labeled "Glans of clitoris"
The circle that's now labeled "Vaginal opening" should be bigger and a bit higher.

See .

BTW, something seems to be screwed up with your Talk page here, with everything centered and the table at the bottom. Cheers, AxelBoldt 21:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been a table that contained paragraphs (<P>). I tried fixing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you please upload a version of the Clitoris-Vivero-Becker picture on commons with the text replaced by numbers (1-4), to be used by other languages? Thanks. Den fjättrade ankan 21:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image tag

Would you like to add the copyright tag and source on the Image:Eagle closeup.jpg? thank you. --Fanghong 08:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category for MBot...

Please add [[Category:Wikipedia bots|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your bot's User page. I don't want to accidently screw up your code by adding anything to the bot's user page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Mbecker"