User talk:Snowspinner
|
|
If you are interested in making personal attacks against me, I encourage you to visit my new subpage at /Personal attacks.
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7
I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me.
| Contents |
User:203.103.60.119
Hi Snowspinner, I noticed you blocked User:203.103.60.119 for vandalism. I realize he blanked User:Dr Zen's user page and talk page twice, but since he wasn't warned, would you mind if I unblocked him? I don't think he's performed any other vandalism. If he continues to blank Dr Zen's page, you or I can always block him again. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I unblocked him for now; I hope I am not acting inappropriately. If you or another administrator restore the block, I will not remove the block again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I see. I didn't consider the edit to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2 to be vandalism or meriting a block, but you have far more experience here than I. I'll keep an eye out on this user. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
templates
RE [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=12042505): You're wrong here again. I provided tons of links to Jamesday's comments, and even condensed them into the Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful article. I often provided links to his comments directly when asked and did my part to try and explain the issues as best I could, and Jamesday joined the discussion page infrequently, but provided some great details. What more could I be expected to do? Itai ignored Jamesday's counsel and continued to edit war with no valid reason (for example, start here and read down - look how many times Jamesday replied directly to Itai). I wish you'd direct your energy toward Itai as the instigator. As a non-admin, I did everything I could (reported him for 3RRs, asked if people would join an RFC, tried being extra nice to him and extra strong, tried asking other to talk with him), but just couldn't get anything to work. He kept using that damn meta-template without a solid counter-reason, and it was destructive. I'd not be melo-dramatic and call it vandalism, but the guy knew full well what the issues were and didn't care.
Please be fair to me. I think what you added was speculation, since I don't think you really saw all the efforts I made to get him to stop. I extended the hand, and he slapped it away. Don't punish me for that. -- Netoholic @ 17:05, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
- Well, if you are just referring to the TFD(s), there are two really easy explanations. Maybe this will clear it up.
- The first TfD vote ran from Jan 28 to about Feb 2/3. Jamesday didn't make his first really in-depth technical description and direct request not to use the templates until Feb 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ASisterproject&diff=9915267&oldid=9915029). Essentially, there was nothing I could have quoted.
- The second TfD vote started on Feb 21. This was after I created Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful, which I referenced in the reason for the vote, and Jamesday posted in that vote himself, so me providing links to quotes wasn't necessary.
- Does this help? I thought I made good decisions all through this. The only thing I didn't anticipate was that the technical descriptions were too unclear to the voters. I should have asked Jamesday just to act as a developer and "step in", perhaps. -- Netoholic @ 17:40, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
In the second vote, read what he says "However, in this case, so few pages are affected that it just doesn't matter - updating 1 or 10 pages is going to be invisible. If it was 1,000 or 10,000 that would be a different matter.".
He is basically mistaken as to how many pages are affected. On Wikipedia:Sister projects, there are like 25 templates which Itai had been inserting Template:Sisterproject into. Those 25 templates are used on a huge number of pages (pick a few on Wikipedia:Sister projects and click "Links"). I don't know the total, but well over his "1,000" threshold. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
That's hardly fair. I let the first vote die because I recognized that people needed that firm word from a developer. I went and got it for them (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamesday&diff=9913651&oldid=9913625). I spent three weeks getting the information and put it (verbatim) into Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. I tried to explain it to the non-technical people, but it didn't work. Jamesday posted himself, and it wasn't listened to. To say I didn't "respond to the requests" is a wrong statement. I went above and beyond. Please be fair. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Thanks. I already sent Mike an email last night. Hope it works. Danny 16:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
VFD: B...ut those people are deletionists! :) -SV|t|th (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&action=history) 03:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It is if its used to enforce DPOV. -SV|t|th (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&action=history) 04:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WP:RfAr Instantnood
Thank you for your offer of AMA assistance. At the moment, we need to get ArbCom to accept the case. The main problem is that Instantnood keeps on proposing more and more and more votes on very similar issues. He is aware of the community consensus.
The objection is not to his originally raising the issue, but more that he will not give it up and move on. All I am looking for is for him to stop proposing name changes to articles/categories/templates, etc. that relate to Taiwan and China.
Where I am looking for help is in presenting the evidence in a way the ArbCom will accept (his user contributions show quite clearly what he's been up to - but they're not going to want to wade through all of those). Kind regards, jguk 16:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- They seem to be merging it to my case from two weeks ago, which they previously didn't want to see because it was "too much". So I don't know, at this point, what they want to review and what they don't. Please advise, and please let me know what help I should provide, etc, etc. SchmuckyTheCat 02:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wally and the other seem to be resting their defense on the naming conventions. I, personally, have never taken a strong position on the name of "Taiwan" and I have stayed away from getting involved with that name. What prompted the arbs to take notice; however, was the extra 25 polls to rename "People's Republic of China" to "mainland China". That should be, then, a slam dunk response. The naming conventions specifically say to use the term "People's Republic of China": As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China"... The naming convention does address "mainland China" as well, only as a term for comparison with Taiwan, and only in non-political contexts. It is also regularly used, real world used, when speaking about Red China, from the perspective of HK. To use it as a rename for the PRC, such as all of those renames propose, isn't justified by the naming conventions at all. Doing so is POV pushing. And this is where Instantnood goes off - when, less than three weeks ago, the proposal to rename those categories didn't go through, he made half of them anyways [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Laws_of_mainland_China&diff=11573286&oldid=11539043) and populated articles OUT OF the category he didn't get the votes to rename and into his parallel name, [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Secession_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=11409080&oldid=11405209), and reverted anyone who moved them back into the real category pertaining to the PRC. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Secession_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=11431160&oldid=11426047) [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Secession_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=11432498&oldid=11431975) [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Secession_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=11538773&oldid=11538758) [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Secession_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=11608324&oldid=11575272) [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Secession_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=11906141&oldid=11904764) Would you like some pie?
Dear Snowspinner, I come to bring my pesonal thoughts posted on the discussion page[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#RfAr:Instantnood) to your attention since the arbitration result potentially would impact on the result of votes initiated by Instantnood. I personaly would not have anything personal hold against Instantnood's enthusiasm in Wikipedia; however, I belive that Instantnood has failed to recognize the difference between the NPOV and the naming convention's POV and that he should stop targeting on Taiwan-related articles once he failed his votes. The fact that the Chinese naming convention rejected the widely accepted POV, where Taiwan could be used to refer to the polity/government in Taiwan, has already constitute a biased POV and thus no neutral at all. This failure to include the widely held position (Taiwan to be used to refer to ROC) is the very reason why the voting results always contradicts with the naming convention. Based on the NPOV policy, I would like to argue that the NPOV policy should trump over the naming convention policy.--Mababa 04:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- how best to navigate NPOV in a specific content dispute like this. Step back a moment and look at the diffs in my previous paragraph. That's behavior, not content. Since the naming conventions don't mandate either ROC or Taiwan, it's the creation of parallel categories without consensus, the constant polling and arguing, and vigorous attempts to present his polls as being the only valid interpretation of the policy that is in dispute. ArbCom hates content disputes, so the arbitration clearly needs to focus about behavior. SchmuckyTheCat 18:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Full heartedly agreed. Voting without any consensus support is indeed the troubling. Behavior is the key here.--Mababa 00:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
VfD block
Hi there! Thanks for your quick response. I have a question btw - does GRider's block mean that his votes should be ignored? This VfD was on my watchlist and I haven't checked his contribs, but he could have made a bunch of votes before being noticed. Yours, Radiant_* 18:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Abuse from John Gohde
As you know, John Gohde, previously known as Mr-Natural-Health and once banned for three months, brought a request for banning against you. As you also know, the arbitrators rejected this request, but agreed to consider your statement that Gohde had "returned to the behavior which got him in trouble twice before."
I suggest that you join Alterpise, and perhaps set up a new Request for Comments in regards to John Gohde. Sadly, he is again harassing any Wikipedia user who dares disagree with him. I am saddened to see that he is up to his old tricks, and has not changed one whit. RK 20:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'll stop criticizing you when you stop abusing people. Everyking 23:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What have I said that you think is a personal attack? The other day you accused someone of insanity. What have I said that's worse than that? Everyking 00:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Smirking Chimp
In case you have any interest in the fate of Smirking Chimp [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_10). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Abuse of power
Can you please unblock my account? I was in the midst of performing contributory edits and do not mean to be disruptive, as you put it. Yes I do openly support GRider's efforts to better school articles on Wikipedia but I hardly see how that is a reason to ban someone. School Inclusionist 02:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kappa
I meant to sign where I did, since I haven't been involved in trying to resolve the situation. If nobody else is going to support it, then I guess he'll get off scot free.
BTW, I've been meaning to let you know that I support your efforts at keeping this place working properly. RickK 19:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
RfC threshold question
Hi. I had a question about the issue of an RfC meeting the two-user threshold. How is that determined - does it have to be two certifying complainants, or can it be one complainant and one endorser? More importantly (since this pertains to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumbey, which I believe has made the threshold for promotion) - should the promotion be done by an uninvolved party, or can someone involved in the dispute (as am I, since I endorsed the summary) move the RfC? Thanks. Guettarda 19:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an idiot, but I will persevere, hopefuly
I wrote a comment on your usertalk page, Snowspinner, except, not on your user talk page but on your RfC (whose outside view I recently endorsed). But my question was answered anyway, with much additional idiocy ensuing. For your amusement(?), here is the pertinent diff. [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FSnowspinner&diff=0&oldid=12306785) El_C 17:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dr_Zen/keepschools
I withdrew this VfD but you have renominated it and kept my name on it, so now people are mad at me for VfD'ing it, which I didn't. I am really unhappy with that situation. Radiant_* 07:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Note that I didn't put it there to begin with - Thryduulf did, which I assume was in good faith, even if pointless. Netoholic suggested that I close and CSD it, so I did. Closing it for 'no consensus' at that point would have been appropriate - currently it only serves as a personal attack magnet. Why exactly do people want to continue this pointless debate? Radiant_* 12:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Your block of user Irate
You applied a 3-month block before the 24-hour block by User:Matt Crypto expired (and then he also applied a 3-month block before his 24-hour block expired). I'm not sure how the software works in the case of multiple overlapping or conflicting blocks, so I applied an 89-day block just now, which is presumably redundant. -- Curps 04:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding block conflicts, I brought this up recently at WP:AN#Block conflict question. Apparently, as soon as one block expires, all blocks are removed. If I were to now block Irate for 24 hours, tomorrow my block and all others would expire. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:SamuraiClinton RfA how-to
Yo, Snow! Raul654 referred me to you and I have Burgundavia looking into this ongoing problem with the aforementioned user. The RfC on this guy has done no good whatsoever. Neither has listing him on the vandalism page. Can we get an RfA? A 24-hour timeout? Something? Thanks for any help you can provide. - Lucky 6.9 19:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Benedict XVI
Same protection on this page as was imposed on John Paul II, no reference to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, --SqueakBox 22:42, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
Check out the history of Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes. John Gohde now seems to hate both of us. :-) Heh, I also like how both of us have asked John to stop making personal attacks.
I think you were the person that initially started that page to begin with. What do you think of the changes I've proposed? ("Advantages" -> "Abilities", "Disadvantages" -> "When not to use") - Pioneer-12 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee case opening
The Arbitration request now entitled Instantnood, et al. has been accepted. Please bring evidence for your client to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt [[European Union|]] 20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
Deletionists run riot
I saw your comment: For better or worse, deletionism is not a crime. That's so; nobody's position should in itself be actionable. But I'm fed up with the deletionists' actions. I am at heart an inclusionist, and I take about 3 steps toward the center when I come to work here; I don't think I have the right to demand that gramma's apple parer be part of the project. I don't think I serve the common good by fanatic adherance to an extreme position.
The deletionists are running riot in TfD; all my efforts to slow them down have failed. Some are not above sneaky tricks, subversion of process, and outright lies to further their agenda. Neither will any engage in honest debate on any issue -- I raise a point, which at least where I come from requires an answer; but it is simply ignored, the template in question thrown out. Any ideal of improving questionable items or working toward actual consensus has long ago been ground into dust. It is the tyranny of a purely local minority.
If the participants on TfD were a broad cross-section of the community, I would have to assume that community standards were being enforced -- but they are not. It is a small group that habits TfD, and if the larger community ignores it, it is because they are unaware of the machinations that go on here.
I have exhausted my store of approaches to a solution. Will you not help? — Xiong熊talk 22:50, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
Arbitration case closed
The arbitration committee has reached a decision in the matter of Wheeler →Raul654 01:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
AMA Meeting Proposal
Hi! I put together a proposal for another AMA meeting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Meeting_%28suggested_topics%29#New_Membership_Meeting_Call) that I'm hopeful you can chime in on. --Wgfinley 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
xiong
I unblocked him. In my judgement, nothing he did deserves blocking. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ArbCom case
Looks like he beat you to the punch, and opened a WP:RFAr himself and named me as an involved party. Feel free to take the lead, all the evidence is in his two RFC's, and I'll pretty much only address the unfounded accusation that I'm engaged in some sort of "vendetta" against him. -- Netoholic @ 00:49, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
- For the record, let me say that I'm willing to assume the best, that this vendetta is over. If you ever get near San Jose, I'll buy you a coffee. Now if only everyone else would do the same. — Xiong熊talk* 02:18, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
You have been named as an involved party in Xiong, Xiong vs Netoholic vs Snowspinner. — Xiong熊talk* 03:30, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Intervention request
Hi,
Could you please take a look at Talk:The_Matrix#MIM_review and see if you can offer any informal mediation? Thanks. AndyL 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
John Gohde arbitration case - final decision
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to John Gohde. He has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. Should he return after this time, other remedies will apply. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 16:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic arbitration case - final decision
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Netoholic. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Hilarious
You don't know me, but I just wanted to say this is the funniest comment I've seen on Wikipedia yet...
Except, well, you can't request arbitration against yourself. Believe me. I've tried. Snowspinner 06:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Gave me a good laugh.
Re:
I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Mediation. Sam Spade 18:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I have already told another volunteer that I am reluctant to enter into an informal mediation. On both pages editing moves forward. I have always relied on formal mechanisms in the past at Wikipedia, and found them useful. --Cberlet 20:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
iPod
Thanks for moving iPod back. Could you do the same for Talk:ˇPod please? Thanks again. AlistairMcMillan 20:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
disrupting wikipedia policy vote
You voted once for the policy at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 16:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Invitation
Yes, you can block accounts. Very mature. But it's not really very bright, is it? The purpose of this account is to enter into dialogue. I'm not a reincarnation of 'Entmoot', but then, you already knew that. If you're bent of repression of disent, then go ahead, you can shut off dialogue any time you like by technological violence. This account is simply an invitation to broaden your mind. Political Wing 03:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hit rollback by accident, I meant to click on contributions. El_C 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- Flagrant block evasion? It would be funny were it not pathetic. That's the problem, you can't really block anyone. You can thrash around impotently all you like, but all you're doing is closing off opportunities for dialogue. I have politely invited the collective you to a civil discussion, you have responded with violence and repression. As a gesture of good faith, I shall not evade your ineffective blocks again at this stage. Suffice to say, your motivation is clear, and your interest is not in creating the best encyclopedia possible, but in repressing people who disagree with you. Good day. Evasion 03:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Leo page
(cur) (last) 02:26, 18 May 2005 Snowspinner m (Reverted edits by Orz to last version by 150.135.58.145)
Provide a justification for the revert -- for I dont see any problem in my previous edit.
Template:Ambiguous
I'm not sure if I understand the need for this template... wouldn't it simply be Template:Proposed if something is ambiguous? Or Template:Twoversions or Template:Disputed. Radiant_* 07:53, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Good point, but 'ambiguous' sounds like something that is under discussion and should be resolved reasonably soon. Maybe 'what is a troll' is an essay, instead. I do think 'guideline' can be broad enough to cover all things we 'usually' do. Radiant_* 14:04, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Block
I am not a sock of this user you call "Hershel." Unblock my account and stop your campaign of censorship. Power of Reason 22:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Phil, please don't use rollback in content disputes. I also reverted the LaRouchite editor once, but I used a standard revert. Rollbacks should only be used against vandalism. Everyking 22:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then it was a standard revert that you deliberately marked as minor and wrote the rollback message in the edit summary box...? Everyking 00:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
cxvxcv
Mike Garcia
You haven't had to put up with the better part of his constant and entirely non-productive complaints about other users that he's managed to get under his radar. He is a troll who was let back simply because no one could effectively keep him away. He bitches rather than discussing, and people cater to him as though he's worthy of sympathy or support for some reason. He's not — he's disruptive, and I don't care to see the AMA forced to put up with his antics.
I might have been mildly more diplomatic, however. Wally 03:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Instantnood and the MTR
Hello, I found your name on the arbitration committee briefing on Instantnood. I found the evidence presented disturbing, as a very similar situation is developing over on the MTR page. Instantnood has taken it upon himself to change the formatting for all the article names without discussion, and to also change the bolded name in the articles to create redundancy. I am attempting to engage him in discussion, although after reading the evidenece presented on the ArbCom page, it may perhaps be futile. Discussion over this is taking place at here, and any support you could lend would be appreciated, as I cannot seem to find what the final verdict of the ArbCom was. Thank you! Páll 09:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Shoot first, ask questions later
- Leroy Grumman and others worked for the Loening Aircraft Engineering Corporation in the 1920s, but when it was bought by Keystone Aircraft Corporation and the operations moved from New York City to Pennsylvania, Grumman and his partners (Ed Poor, William Schwendler, Jake Swirbul, and Clint Towl) started their own company in an old Cox-Klemin Aircraft Co. factory in Baldwin on Long Island.
The link is easier to see as [[Edmund Ward Poor|Ed Poor]], but it's there. Just click on my grandfather's name. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
RickK
"Wikipedia would more or less stop running without RickK." Can you tell me how long until this anticipated collapse? I have my wikipedia replacement mirror ready to go, but I don't want to start paying for bandwidth until just before the actual collapse. Thanks --Gmaxwell 03:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Username
Can you tell me how I can change my username once it's created? Do I have to recreate an account? --Maxgideon 15:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fraxinus texensis speedy deletion
I reinstated Fraxinus texensis, and made it into a redirect to Texas Ash which I created in response to your speedy deletion. I was not the original author of Fraxinus texensis. I think your speedy deletion was just a bit quick; no opportunity for comment on the discussion page. There are multiple examples of latin names of plants redirecting to English names. --Gcashman 21:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: your message back to me...All I'm suggesting is a bit more patience before speedy deleting something. I saw that one, and a later one by you that I thought were speedy deleted a bit too quick. Some contributors start a micro-stub and continue editing shortly after starting the micro-stub. I don't personally do this; when I create a new article I usually add substantial content on the first posting so it does not run afoul of problems like this. But, not all users do things in this way. I'm not an inclusionist mind you; I'm just suggesting you give them a bit more time before swinging the axe. :) Thanks. --Gcashman 13:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Odonate
Hi
I think you may have deleted by accident an article on this subject which I created yesterday - article just plain gone (rather than redirected or merged or transwikified), no comments left on talk page, so seems like a logical conclusion. No probs, I can reinstate it, but just thought I'd check before I do in case it was in some way unwikipedian. Please let me know via my talk page, or here. - StevePreddy 18:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Odonate again
Thanks for the reply. Would you be happier if I added a section on names, covering the material I wrote about Odonate, to the Odonata page, and redirected Odonate to there? - StevePreddy 18:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello
Since you seem to have been the enemy of User:Lir, from the title of Snowspinner vs. Lir, I would ask if you have anything to do with User:WeKnowItsYou? ~~~~ 20:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)