User talk:Fawcett5/Archive4

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll add my congratulations to that as well. smoddy 17:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problems – you fully deserve it. smoddy 19:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No worries, well done. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good job, congrats, and my support was only there because I think you'll make an excellent administrator. --Scimitar 22:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations as well... It's great working with you, I know you'll make a great admin. Thanks also for supporting my RfA, much appreciated. JYolkowski // talk 23:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congrats from me too - you'll be a good admin. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Le" & "le"

First, congrats on your election as administrator, I'm sure you will do a great job.

Second, I don't think we should get too hung up on the capitalisation of "le" and "la" and just use redirect pages where feasible. There is so much variability, and individuals have been known to use different versions of their own name. For example, "Leblanc" can also be rendered leBlanc, LeBlanc, le Blanc and Le Blanc (not to speak of the French from France Leblond, as French French has lost the distinction between "on" and "an" which Canadian French still retains). While I agree the DoCB is authoritative, I believe we need to keep the ultimate user in mind who might also use different capitalisations.

Third point is about the use of curly apostrophes (smart quotes in Microsoft-speak). I do share what you called "typography weeniesm", and use them all the time when I am writing stuff. However, they can cause havoc with different computer systems and browsers (You saw my botched attempt to redirect de Salaberry's son — Thank you for fixing it). I think it would be better to use plain vanilla ASCII straight "'" in article titles or use the HTML code "rsquo" (with the "&" and ";", of course). See Help:Special characters section on "Typeset-style Punctuation". Luigizanasi 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Congrats again on becoming a sysop. Thanks for offering to nominate me. As for my edit count, I seem to meet most voters standards for adminship. If you feel I would make a good admin, you probably do not have to wait for the nomination. I am quite sure that I wouldn't pass with as big of a margin as you, but I probably would stand a good chance of being promoted. And if I am not promoted, what's the harm? -- JamesTeterenko 03:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you want to wait to nominate me, that is fine. I do actually spend a fair amount of time on VfD when I can, particularly those noted on the Canadian wikipedians' notice board. I don't bother voting on items where consensus has been reached or if I don't have a strong opinion on deleting. So many of the VfD candidates are situations where they do little harm if kept but also add so little value that deleting does virtually no harm. Putting a vote of abstain adds no value to the other voters, so I don't bother. I also find it funny that anything I tag for speedy deletion is removed from my edit history. Being an admin on other wikis, I do understand its value and risk. However, I am not going to artificially inflate my edits to get this ability here. -- JamesTeterenko 20:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

User:Humanbot update 08 June 2005

Version two-two released today includes in that green box a nice count of how many articles are left. This more or less co-incides with the event of hitting only 1000 articles remaining. Also, I have re-arranged the User:Humanbot page to make it easier to get to the right stuff. Progress charts, wikicookies, wikilove and a more thorough spelling check is promised when this is completed. (and also when the exam pressure eases off a little on me) r3m0t ^talk 17:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) Note: If you think this message was too trivial for a mailing, tell me and I'll stick to more important announcements on the list.

British spelling

Just to point out that the correct British spelling of "honorific" is "honorific" (your edit. In some compounds like this, inserting the 'u' is a permissible variant, but here, according to the OED, it's unambiguously wrong.

Perhaps we should mention this in the style guide to discourage the hordes of overcourteous Americans (or nationalistic Brits who can't spell) changing such perfectly correct words as "honorific", "humorist", etc.? A priori it seems unreasonable to expect people to be able to spell reliably in versions of English other than their own. —Blotwell 04:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No worries!

Was happy to support your RfA and glad to see it was successful. Hope you are enjoying the new tools, rollback is exceptionally useful. Thanks for your vote, too, on my RfA a few weeks back, it was much appreciated. Thanks also for your edit to my page, adding Lord Dufferin to my list - your wording for the title encompassed him nicely! I hope he'll make the front page at some point, congrats on Louis Riel achieving that honour. All the best - Worldtraveller 16:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Privy Council

Actually, the material you removed *does* refer to the Canadian Privy Council. AndyL 00:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andy, In that case I stand corrected. Thanks. Fawcett5 15:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trodel

I originally registered Trodel before I realized Trödel (with the umlaut) could be registered. I am considering leaving Wikipedia, so I logged in yesterday and today as Trodel to monitor Introduction, Templates I have created, and templates for deletion since I feel that is a community service I shouldn't abandon. Trödel|talk 02:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Hello. What about categories: Mountains of South Korea and Mountains of North Korea? I think it should be deleted, cause of existing category:Mountains of Korea. I think that it's better to leave it here and do not make subcats, cause of terrain of Korean Peninsula. Practically every Korean mountain would be in both categories. What do you think? -- Darwinek 18:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it was mountain RANGES of Korea, then there might be an argument for this. But really if it is mountain peaks they should be in separate cats under Mountains by nationality or whatever it is, and ditch the Mountains of Korea cat. Fawcett5 18:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ON2

Where did you find the original content for On2? It wasn't in the history section. How fast can this be restored now? Brux 16:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brux, it was the original content of the temporary subpage that you subsequently contaminated with copyvio material and marked for speedy deletion. What is it exactly that you want to happen? Fawcett5 16:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Humanbot update 13 June 2005

The spelling2 project (to work on secondary namespaces) was opened and finished. Progress charts will be available soon.

Version six-three tracks who made the edits, and rankings are available. Much of the work was done while I was asleep, explaining my low place ;).

The next project, which may even be released today, will probably fix incorrectly capitalised headings, particularly "See Also" and "External Links".

The mailing list has grown to 24 people and while that is very nice for my ego, it is rather difficult to send out updates. This is why I did not send out a notice that the spelling2 project had opened. From now on, then, you must watch User:Humanbot/announce for updates. r3m0t ^talk 12:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Clément-Charles Sabrevois de Bleury

You beat me to it! ;) I've expanded him some more, but I was pleasantly surprised when I returned to the article to see someone had picked up where circumstances had forced me to leave off. Thank you. --Scimitar 13:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debt of Gratitude

Hello again. I've been going through checking my older articles, and have noticed many excellent changes in some of them- and I consistently trace these changes back to you. Thank you in particular for your addition of pictures, such as the one to Thomas Fremantle. --Scimitar 16:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ridings and Constituencies

Re: Minnedosa

It's my understanding (now) that the term "riding" is only officially used at the federal level, while the term "constituency" is used provincially. Most people use the terms interchangeably, but there is a technical distinction -- for this reason, I've decided to make the changes where appropriate. CJCurrie 17:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ontario, at least, calls them ridings [1]. My understanding is that the term is just one of our quaint Canadianisms, and is indeed fully interchangeable. Fawcett5 20:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Corvette Stamp.jpg

Hi Fawcett5

Just to let you know that I have lightened and set the levels of your Image:Corvette Stamp.jpg and added it to the Tribal class destroyer (1936) page. It is a Tribal and not a Corvette, as someone has rightly pointed-out on the description page. Nice image though. Regards, Ian Dunster 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bittrich.jpg

You uploaded this image under the tag {{PD-Germany}}. Unfortunately, the wording of this tag was inaccurate, and the image is not yet PD. However, it may still be usable under fair use. Could you consider changing the copyright tag to {{fairuse}}. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Physchim62 13:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Safi, Malta

The annon user that created the page provided evidence that it wasn't a copyvio. I thought I would let you know. Falphin 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Falphin, the licence that the anon user refers to is entirely unsuitable for use on wikipedia, since it says that it must be a true reproduction of the original. That means if other editors come along and change things (or even wikify), we have violated that licence. Sorry, but it's got to go. Fawcett5 13:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very belated thank you

Thanks for your comments, and especially for the assistance on Wikipedia articles. I actually wanted to thank you for the newcomer award you gave me; I thought I already had and just now realized I hadn't. It made me smile while one user was using sockpuppets and generally being difficult. It's occasionally good to be reminded that the majority of Wikipedians are like yourself- friendly, well-intentioned, and community-oriented. Thanks. --Scimitar 22:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MP lists

Just noticed that you typed up the alphabetical lists of MPs over the years...great job! I'm filing them in the Members of the Canadian House of Commons category now. The only suggestion I've got right now is to check the lists against the appropriate categories, because I've already found two redlinks where we already have an article under a different form of the person's name. No biggie, though -- either creating redirects or editing the linked names in the list will take care of that. Bearcat 01:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Bearcat, thanks, I knew it wouldn't take you long to notice the new lists. They were generated based on names from a database dump from the Library of Parliament website, and I could only get it into wikipedia format by using peoples formal full names... So yes, there will be a lot of redlinks that should be blue, and also a lot of blue links that are currently pointing to the wrong person and will need to be disambiguated. I'll need all the help I can get checking though, there are nearly 3,500 names on the lists!. Cheers, Fawcett5 03:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetization

Re: Jabez Bunting Snowball alphabetization-did it through sheer ignorance-could't get it to go in the right place otherwise

Polycarp

Category:Companies of Canada for Hudson's Bay Company

I'm puzzled why you would remove Category:Companies of Canada from the Hudson's Bay Company article (added by Themepark 09:50, June 29, 2005, removed 09:54, June 29, 2005). There are 166 other Canadian companies so categorized. Why not HBC? Am I missing something? -- Mwanner June 29, 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Never mind, I see-- it's redundant. An edit history comment would have helped, though :-) Mwanner June 29, 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra

Thanks for the support on the Bodega y Quadra-article in the past. If you need any creating/checking/writing/general help on any history related articles just give me hint. Best wishes, Feydey 2 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Template:Elec

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says:

Try to link accurately. While editing you can use preview to check a link, and follow it by opening the page in another window. If an article you want to link doesn't yet exist, do a quick search to find out if that is really the case; the article may have a different name than you expect. A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect.

So please don't change "Canadian federal election, YYYY" to "YYYY Canadian election". The latter links to a redirect, and not to the article. Thanks. Ground Zero 5 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

• Ground Zero, please keep your hands off my private template. As the content there is not stable, I probably won't even notice if you edit it, and the content there is subject to being reverted to a way earlier version at my whim. If you don't like the way that things are linked in the articles created from the template, then fine, fix them. Be aware that the link style in the template long predates the current format used for the names of Canadian elections. Also, redirects are cheap, so don't get bent in a knot. Fawcett5 5 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was your "private template" since it is not a branch from your user page. I encourage you, as does the Wikipedia Manual of Style to link correctly. I did not set that policy, I am only making you aware of it. I think it is there for a good reason. I am not clear what advantage is gained from linking incorrectly. Linking correctly, too, is cheap. :"so don't get bent in a knot" Ummm.... why are you being so hostile? Can I suggest that you review Wikipedia:Civility? Like you, I am just here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Personal attacks are not necessary. Ground Zero 5 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

I see that you have adjusted the template. Let's just leave it at that, then. Regards, Ground Zero 5 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

I have, as you asked, re-read my original message. It comes across to me as being factual and to the point, not brusque. I don't see why you were offended by it, but since it was not my intention to offend, I apologize for doing so. Ground Zero 5 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on 10,000 edits! Agriculture 20:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture, thanks for the note.. but I'm not sure if reaching that edit count is an event worthy of celebration, or just a sad commentary on my pitiful addiction. But I am trying to cut back.... Cheers, Fawcett5 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well look at it this way, unlike most addictions, this one adds to the sum total of human knowledge, makes the world a better face, and indulges very laudable intellectual pursuits. All Wikipedians are grateful for your efforts. Agriculture 23:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Despite our previous disagreement, I would also like to congratulate you on this milestone, and thank you for your hard work and your extensive contributions to this free repository of human knowledge. Please continue to feed your addiction. Ground Zero 13:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Tenses

I have replied on my talk page as is my custom. Regards, Ground Zero 18:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

John Black

Thanks for finding the right place for my move of John Black. All the best, and a belated congrats on reaching the 10K milestone. Meelar (talk) 21:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfA nom

Good day. Thank you for your support in my adminship. If it is successful, the extra features would come in handy. I hope I can live up to your admin expectations. -- JamesTeterenko 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• James, I have no worries whatever on that account.. and it seems like things are going smoothly. Cheers, Fawcett5 02:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Brasseur de Bourbourg

Hi there, Fawcett5. Firstly, thanks for verifying that I had correctly linked Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg with the right entry in the CDB. However, I plan to restore the reference to the Maya Hieroglyph handbook source in this latter article, since it contained some of the biog data for him which I had used to earlier update the entry. This source (and some others which I have not yet annotated) recounts his involvement in the general history of Mayan decipherment, and contains data which is not available in his Canadian Bio entry, which focuses naturally enough on his association with Quebec. In fact, most of my updates so far to this article have been based on sources other than his Canadian Biog db entry, which I had not been aware of until I came across the link to it a short while ago when doing a general search for other mentions of him in Wikipedia. The Canadian Biog. entry does contain some good data, and I plan to incorporate more of that info in future updates. Cheers. --cjllw | TALK 04:27, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

NPOV question

Hello.

I was wondering if you could help me with a problem. Many people have been trying to expand the article for Old Dominion University. However, any changes made to the article are immediately deleted by a user called Agriculture. The article's history suggests that he is very determined to disparage this university's reputation. I don't want to cause any trouble, but is there anything that can be done about this?

I would appreciate any advice or help you have to offer. Thank you in advance.

I would appreciate help in this matter as well. Many times have I posted to the talk page of Old Dominion University with the reasons why false acclaim for ODU is baseless. I have no intention to "disparage" the reputation of the university, but having come from that area after many many years of life there, and a close connection to Universities in general, I feel honor bound to make sure the article is factual. All information in the article is a factual account, NPOV, and not in the least disparaging. I have reverted recent destructive edits, yes. Why? Because those who have made them have failed to address the consensus reached on the talk page after the evidence was presented. If there are individuals who wish to make a case for their point, then they should feel free to do so on the talk pages. But until that time comes, their continued vandalism of the page to promote the university unfairly is, I feel, against Wikipedia policy. Agriculture 07:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm a bit hesistant to wade back into this, but the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. For the time being I will refrain from editing the article myself and will suggest a compromise:

1. Agriculture is in general right, there is a lot of biased boosterism in university articles, and we must guard against this. He has also established that several of ODUs programmes are nowhere near "acclaimed". For instance, they train a lot of engineers, but not particularly well regarded ones. Most of that "acclamation" language was stripped out of the article a long time ago though, and it looks as though the current dispute boils down to one paragraph.
2. ODU does have pretty low academic standards. So it is fair to point this out, but should be done dispassionately. Agriculture, perhaps you should clarify right in the article that the tier 4 designation is from US News and world reports. I suggest saying it is a ODU is a tier 4 university by the US News criteria and leave it at that — that alone makes things pretty clear. I have no problem in principal with the USN&WR tier being reported in every US university article.
3. The Carnegie classification should be kept. This is incredibly widely used within academia (currently) as a method for describing institutional behaviour and classifying institutions. It should be included in every US university article. Note that it says NOTHING about institutional rankings, only really the scope of the universities activities — i.e. what flavour of school it is. ODU does offer PhD's in a a wide variety of fields, thus the research-extensive designation. Normally this designation is only achieved by fairly large schools with many programmes. It will be interesting to see what happens to ODU though when Carnegie updates their criteria this year.... The Carnegie classification system is also definitely worthy of its own article, which would go a long to clear up any mistaken notion that this is a ranking, rather than a classification..
4. The claim that the reason for ODU's failure to improve is due to the local crime must be substantiated with a reference to be keptl, otherwise it is just opinion.
5. As for attracting good students and faculty, that's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" business, isn't it? To my mind, it is perhaps the essentual determinant of a good school..Good schools do, bad schools don't....maybe someone can find an article about ODU's attempts to recruit better faculty or increase its admission standards?
6. In no way can the modern ODU be fairly characterized as a "community college". Commuter college does probably has more truth to it — maybe there is a statistic about the percentage of undergrads who live on-campus that would indicate if this is a fair characterisation?
7. Finally, I must caution Agriculture about his calling the placement of the NPOV tag on the article vandalism. It does seem there is a real dispute for the moment about the article's neutrality, and such tags should be left alone until some accomodation is reached. In general one must be very careful about allegations of vandalism in the context of a content dispute. Also my reading of the discussion page doesn't seem to indicate that a consensus was ever reached.

Cheers, Fawcett5 13:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll endeavor to make the edits you indicate. As far as calling the NPOV tag vandalism, here is my reasoning: This tag was added without editing the discussion page to add new information. This matter has not been brought up for months and now a single user comes back and slaps it on the article WITHOUT editing the discussion page to indicate why. This, as far as I can divine from Wikipedia policy pages, does constitute vandalism as it is an inappropriate use of the tag. Otherwise perhaps it would be fine for myself or someone else to log on fron anonymous accounts and place this tag on other pages without backing up our position? I am of the opinion that unless the party concerned with NPOV takes enough interest in the NPOV issue to detail it himself on the talk page, that the tag constitutes vandalism. I believe Wikipedia agrees with me.

As far as consensus goes, I have in the past done great research on this issue to back up the article. Whenever I have responded to NPOV accusations on the subject the result is the same, I post a lengthy result from such research and all the concerned parties evaporate abandoning the issue. If they don't care enough to respond with their own points or to argue the point further, in my mind at least, the matter has reached consensus. Agriculture 14:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Adminship?

Hi Fawcett5,

No problem with the Canadian senators category work. This was long overdue and I am happy to help. As for the admin, I am content at being one of the "grunts" for now and staying out of the spotlight. All the best, --YUL89YYZ 17:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

your revert

Any particular reason you decided to rv my addition of a stub cat to Illinois Central Gulf Railroad? Tomer ^TALK 19:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the stub as you had it was broken and did not correspond to any actual template, making the edit indistinguishable from vandalism. Please review your edits to make sure that you've gotten things right. I haven't seen Wisconsin stub before, but perhaps you meant Wisconsin-stub (with a hyphen)? In any case, I strongly discourage you from adding innapropriately geographically restricted stubs to something like an interstate railway. The article is already appropriately stubbed. Fawcett5 20:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to argue with you or fight about it, but the fact of the matter is that some editors look for articles based upon their stub cat, in order to improve them. What you have done, effectively, is to ensure that only railroad buffs will see that the article is in need of expansion. If that's your hope, then more power to you, but my POV is that you've disserviced the article by removing a potential interest group from considering the article "in need of expansion". That said, there is nothing about Wisconsin-stub that is remotely interpretable as "geographically restricted". In that light, since that's the only rational excuse you've given (a misspelled stub should have been corrected, not removed), I will continue to regard your removal as inappropriate. Tomer ^TALK 05:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be more open to "cool[ing] it" were it not obvious that you knew by the time you responded to my inquiry that the "problem" was that I had neglected to hyphenate the stub tag. That was clearly not, at least from your response to my inquiry above, your core rationale for removing the stub tag. Tomer ^TALK 05:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, I don't want to fight about it. Pax? Tomer ^TALK 06:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, by means of clarification, I was bumbling through every single article within Wisconsin-related categories looking for stubs, and adding Wisconsin-stub to all the stubs in such cats, including the one that popped up on your watchlist. I went through about 1500 articles in about 3 hours, and moved a LOT of stubs to the bottom of articles (which is where I feel they belong, i.e., below any other templates etc.) and the article that you happened to revert was one of but about 20 RR-related stubs that seemed to be a source of conflict, and then only because I'd added the Wisconsin-stub to it. Understand--Wisconsin-stub is not a "restrictive geo stub" as you've characterized it--it is a stub cat that encompasses any article that can be related to Wisconsin in any way, including if a part of a certain railway's lines traverse the state. Nothing about the stub tag is meant to characterize articles in which it appears as exclusively "Wisconsin" domain, rather it is meant as a way to alert editors with Wisconsin-related expertise as to which Wisconsin-related articles are in need of attention or expansion. For what I hope is now a more understandable rationale, I still maintain that your removal of the tag is a detriment to the article, but as I said, I'm not going to fight with you, at least not on the article level, about it. Kindest regards. -Tomer ^TALK 08:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your revert

Each of those battles occurred in Canada and belongs on the List of conflicts in Canada and applicable Category this is one of a grouping of Lists, SEE: List of wars

Reverse your reverts or I will post a vandalism claim.

Cordially,

LaLa 03:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting...I'm not the only one who finds your reverts mysterious and possibly unjustified... Tomer ^TALK 05:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to throw my support behind User:Fawcett5 here. 13 categories is downright ridiculous. User:Fawcett5's categorization is much more appropriate. The point isn't to exhaustively categorize in every possible way but to make articles useful for readers. 13 categories is not useful, it obscures it. Agriculture 07:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My point is that communicating a brief rationale, even in an edsum, is better than what have the look of blind reverts. Tomer ^TALK 18:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify—I'm not "siding" with LaLa in his dispute here, I'm only saying that clear edit summaries including rationales, are useful for avoiding conflict (and perceived slights) with other editors. Tomer ^TALK 19:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:LaLa

I've commented on his Talk: page, listed the problem at WP:AN/I, protected the pages in question, and listed them on WP:PP. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could thank Snowspinner on his Talk: page, and suggest that a shorter block might be more appropriate, giving the reasons you gave on my Talk: page? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, will do... Thanks again. Fawcett5 20:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Bringing this to your attention

I thought this should be brought to your attention. Agriculture 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just trying to do my part for the good cause. Agriculture 04:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Topic of Concern

It might be worthwhile to keep an eye on a newly forming group. They could be legit, but I am a bit worried this is an attempt to insert POV into articles through amassing a group of like minded editors, ensuring editwars and the like are won. I am most concerned by the inclusion of a certain member, given his POV track record and some of his recent handiwork. I'm not suggesting any action other than monitoring, but thought it might be a good idea. Agriculture 05:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)