User talk:OwenX/Archive 5

As an anonymous unregistered user, you called my Wikipedia contributions 'nonsence'. Please imply which article you are referring to, as I have never added nonsence to Wikipedia. I am a good boy, and have never vandalized anything in my life. It may have been a bad edit but I did not read the manual on my first article, Elliot's Short-tailed Shrew. It may have been bad, but I have never purposefully vandalized Wikipedia.--Young XenoNeon (converse) 15:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to put it back if you like. I just reverted everything the IP did, starting with the blanking of the talk page. Fuzheado | Talk 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The vandal 202.152.162.215 (talk) and 202.152.162.216 (talk) is mostly misguided, but it refuses to take direction. It's back adding non-existent useless categories. It continues to be tiresome to those of us who constantly have to revert its "edits". When asked before, you gave it a short three hour block, reasoning that it might be better than a long block, and that the user might get the message. Well, it is incorrigible. Short blocks and warnings aren't sufficient at this point. Please block it for a more substantial period like a week. Thanks. Hu 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was looking threw the Block Log of this user and I found something odd. Android79 blocked him indefinitely, then you unblocked him, and then re-blocked him indefinitely. Why would you unblock him to indefinitely block him again 1 minute later? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 05:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't move AFD nominations around unless you take the time to correct every link. In the case of Once Moore, you orphaned the original nomination and broke the link which had been in the renomination. I'll clean it up but frankly I'm curious why you bothered. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo (2nd nomination) format has always seemed to work fine in the past. Why mess with it? Rossami (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was not the one who moved the original AfD (check the history!). I was just as upset as you are about the way it was done, which is why I replaced the redir on the Talk page with a proper link. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. I should have checked more carefully. Rossami (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that was quick! Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :). Extraordinary Machine 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

for reverting vandalism to my talk page!--ViolinGirl^♪ 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

again!--ViolinGirl^♪ 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

sorry for the nonsense

Why am I blocked? There are things I've seen in my history section that I know absolutely nothing about. Somebody is trying to frame me for something I didn't do.--Bumpusmills1 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you aware that this address is a webcache belonging to one of the UK's largest ISPs? You already blocked this last night, and I can't edit at all via that ISP when this happens. I don't know the exact mechanism for cache<-->user allocation, so I can't always get round it.

Is it not possible to block anonymous edits from that address, whilst allowing logged-in users to continue editing? Users are easier to block without collateral damage, and new accounts can be similarly blocked as soon as they appear (if they are obviously conduits for vandalism).

Fourohfour 12:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any block on User:195.92.168.175. I blocked seven different IPs last night, but none of them look similar to the one you mention. What is the exact message you get when you're blocked?

I don't know; it's gone from the cache now. Sorry. It definitely mentioned 'MogLAWL' as the reason it had been blocked, and had your name as the person responsible (and for contact). Fourohfour 16:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding selective blocking—excellent idea. This has been requested over a year ago, and has an official feature request assigned to it, but curiously, nothing has been done about it. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Strikes me as one of the most obvious features. I'm surprised it's not already possible. Fourohfour 16:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

MogLAWL – OK, I think I understand what happened. Let me know if you get that message again. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

They have done it again after their block finished:Spam_(electronic) Fosnez 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

STOP EDITING MY PAGE 65.185.73.251 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I don't mind what it's called, and I thought about that name. You get to touch each of the user talk's though...(and you can speedy the cat, too, once you've copied my blurble over). -Splash^talk 16:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Incidentally, when you're just touching pages, it's 'enough' to do nothing at all other than press 'save'. MediaWiki is clever enough to not add anything to the history, but to update the relevant bits and pieces anyway. Easier than finding something to fiddle with in the page, usually. -Splash^talk 16:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You should probably add a note about this to WP:PP and a few other places. Good idea though. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see my responses to both yourself and Locke Cole. I admit my action was the wrong one at the time, however I really don't care for the suggestion that I was taking part in a silly and embarrassing edit war that I was actually trying to stop. -- Francs2000   20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for rescuing my user page! Cyberevil 04:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Me too! Jjjsixsix 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree. It is a long-standing policy that a user may do what they want with their own userspace (subject to using it for personal attacks/advertising), and ArbCom has confirmed this policy in a number of cases. Trying to force a message to stay in a user's userspace despite that user clearly demonstrating that they don't want it there is considered disruptive and abusive. This policy is so long-standing that it is inappropriate to seek to over-ride it via a discussion on one proposed template's talk page.

Combatting vandalism is important - but that does not mean we should take measures that interfere with the normal operation of Wikipedia to do so. If someone's vandalising - block them. Put a message on their talk page and leave a clear edit summary for all to see.

My take on this is the opposite. I have seen too many very inexperienced admins come in and over-react to situations - labelling people as vandals who are not, misunderstanding fundamental policies, and all sorts of other mistakes. I really don't see it as appropriate to give those admins so powerful a hand that they can insist that their musings remain evermore on a user's talkpage.

Also, many, many people remove warnings of various sorts from their talkpages on a daily basis. Insisting on keeping those warnings on talkpages, when it has happened, has only exacerbated and increased the dispute. It would be foolish to go down the route of suggesting that anyone who removes a warning from their userpage should be blocked. I oppose the idea wholeheartedly, jguk 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That guy's edits have been bugging me for days. --StuffOfInterest 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

this IP address seems to be obsessed with Igor Shleypak, whoever that is, and lately hunting down the word Palestine and changing it to Israel. It seems like vandalism to me, but I could be overreacting. I've done a little bit of reverting, but only when it is obvious. This case may be a bit to subtle for me. Thanks.--◀Puck^talk▶ 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Grab yourself a Reversion barnstar from me, I'm too busy to go to the page Sceptre ^(Talk) 22:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

...you've noticed as well [1]. Looks like the NC vandal is trying to do some non-vandalism ... wonder how long that will go on. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you help me with my monobook.js file? I want to add a tab to send the test-n messages(or my personal vandal messages), but I can't get it to work. Thanks,

Prodego ^talk 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I checked some of your attempts to add vandal-handling tools to your monobook scripts. If you are not fluent in Javascript, I think your best bet is to simply copy all of my scripts, and then carefully remove the parts you don't need, making sure it still works after each change. I think my system of a separate button for each type of warning is more efficient than the template you are trying to create. Give it a try, and if you need help tweeking it, give me a shout. Owen× ☎ 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I copied yours, but I am not sure what to remove(I really have no idea what I'm doing), and I want to put the nav-pop-ups back(that I can do), so If you could tell me what to remove(or better yet remove it for me) I would appreciate it. Prodego ^talk 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done re-adding popups, note that the pop-ups section is temporarily divided. Prodego ^talk 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good, it all works, but two more things(sorry) some admin only things are still there(3 hour block....) and if possible could you write out some of the abbriviated warn levels? Thanks, Prodego ^talk 00:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you even spelt out the warns for me thanks, but the contribs popup I don't need, and I don't need header either, I can probably remove header myself, but I am not sure about stoping the contribs popup. Prodego ^talk 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the best would be: The original(diff) page popped-up(im a non-admin, so no rollback), keep the header, sorry about repeatedly changing my mind.........Prodego ^talk 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (or vice versa, but I think that might be harder) but if not......Reply

Possibly before I'm an admin, did you read this?

You're the second person to tell me that today(first person offered to nominate me), this is a good day! I want to wait a little longer though. Prodego ^talk 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Quick question on the monobook, what do the show/hide buttons do on articles for deletion pages? Prodego ^talk 22:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• x

Sorry I forgot to sign in, rather have an "x" Thanks Scott fisher 01:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if we broke the formatting of the AfD for Remagne. Thanks for fixing it however!!Onthost 02:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

hi, this is Zarbon. I'm very annoyed at a member named Infinare. he keeps putting in wrongful and opinionated information. He keeps deleting all the real info i put in for zarbon in the dbz section. he constantly follows my edits and reverts them on purpose and vandalizes on a constant basis. he needs to be blocked permanently or i know for a fact he will continue to make moronic vandalisms. please reply OwenX.

12.30.22.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). You mind if I extend his block to a month? He has been blocked 6 times now and doesn't show any signs of stopping.

Looking things over, it actually makes more sense as a separate AfD, I see. If it were an article on say, an individual like Ian Ricci with content that's mostly the same, I guess it would be alright to redirect and combine the AfDs. Since these are somewhat different entities, separate AfDs are appropriate. Next time, I'll put separate AfDs and reference the other in my nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is a hoot! The picture with the caption "A handfasting ceremony at Avebury in England, on Beltane, 2005." is priceless.--◀Puck^talk▶ 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS - I appreciated the grilling actually - I would be concerned of anyone who got through that process without a single question being asked!

Thank you for taking care of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

(cross-posting to User talk:Hall Monitor) Hello, OwenX. I noticed that you informed MaoJin that the IP address 169.244.143.115 (talk · contribs) was an open proxy. It's my understanding that that IP address is a public-use computer for Maine Department of Libraries - do you have any reason for indicating that as an open proxy IP address? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. I don't disagree with having the IP blocked, but if it isn't an open proxy, it shouldn't be tagged as such and blocked indefinitely. (My understanding is that it's only (a) public-access computer(s), but I may be missing technical evidence Hall Monitor has, of course.) In addition, the reason this came to my attention is because the IP address is used by some legitimate editors, such as Maoririder, whom I'm currently mentoring after an Arbitration case against him a month or two ago. While we wait for Hall Monitor to reply, though, I'm going to take the liberty to unblock and then re-block for a week while we figure out what to do in the meantime. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

user: MaoJin is User:Maoririder. And also User:Jingofetts. Grutness...wha? 06:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for reverting vandalism on my userpage. You are truely dedicated! --Lightdarkness 04:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes I am sure that this is a very contraversial debate, I mean with all of those keep voters ;).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, let's try to stick to policy and process on Wikipedia. I don't care about Pussy City Pimps, but you can't go around speedy deleting any article that doesn't meet your personal notability standards. That's what AfD is for. CSD is exactly for the cases described in it, not a free-for-all to save you the trouble of nominating for an AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

No they are not just "my personal" standards, why do you think the AfD and the 2nd deletion review was to delete. The review has no opposition. The article may say "THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT", but if nothing proofs that, and a quick search shows that many of the claims are innacurate or wrong, like "Louis Thomas Black" only gets a handful of Wiki mirrors on Google. Louis Black gets about 45+ related hits. If an article can't get the name right, and no notability is cited by anything, newspapers ect, and appears so be just a regular person, it can be speeded. Anyone can challenge at deletion review, and if someone wants to re-create the article even halfway correct per WP:NOR, WP:V, ect...they can do so. Deletion is not always final.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

--Replied on my talk--Voice of All^T|@|ESP 17:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Stop changing my pages that i create back to the hacked versions, i would appreciate it. i started the article and its being changed for now reason

Thanks for reverting my userpage and blocking my delightful correspondent. The style is definitely familiar, but I can't for the life of me remember how I got into this. Ah well. Chick Bowen 20:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

copied from my usertalk My bad about not signing. I just put in a move page request. Thanks for informing me about not copying and pasting - I was completely unaware. If you're an admin then I suppose you could do this. Thanks again for your help. Adam Mathias 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Adam Mathias 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure that User:Anubisuto is the same as User:666thebeast and User:Some guy 1234567 (the latter of which you blocked). The account may be worth blocking. Daniel Quinlan 03:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why do you believe this user is the same as User:666thebeast and User:Some guy 1234567? His single edit to The Used was very different from those of the other two, and neither of the other two were involved in Royce Rogers. Owen× ☎ 11:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Several factors:

• style of edit - it does seem to be the same to me
• Anubisuto appeared right after 69.254.244.1 vandalised The Used. An IP on the same block at Comcast 69.249.68.86 is definitely User:666thebeast and User:Some guy 1234567.
• Time proximity.
• edits by other users seem to imply that he was involved in the Royce Rogers stuff: User_talk:Anubisuto

Anyway, I could be wrong. Daniel Quinlan 20:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Owen. May I request that you don't revert people's edits to their user talk pages. If they remove it, that's their business. You say that it's rude to delete people's comments from your talk page. Perhaps it is, but reverting that change is just as rude, perhaps more so. Please don't do such things unless you have reason to believe that the comment was not read. [[Sam Korn]] 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was read, but these groups are just small company ads which don't have nor assert notablility. So not asserting notability is CSD, ads are WP:NOT. Everything somewhat can slap on Wikipedia is not notable [2]. I ONLY delete stupid, unnotable ads, if you notice, I have also saved any that I could by NPOVing or tagging [3]. Also, note that slavish adherence to rules is not everyting, per WP:IAR, see this [4].

I may archive it, since no one gives a wooden nickle about user archives anyway.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can only find 2 that where undeleted, and those where already delt with on WP:AN/I. If they where "clearly not accepted by the community", then all of my ad deletions would be right back up there by several admins by now. The "everyone else is wrong" thing is an exegeration. I can tell be this repeated drama and exegerations, that even Radiant notices, you are not interested in changing anyones ideas, just scolding themand exerting false piety over someone; at least is seems that way. Go find a troll to do that on, because I really don't need it. As I said RfC is a waste of time, and I rarely have commented on them, even when my friends where in tied up to get stonned by everyone else, thats what RfC is. You might as well talk to me in person, as I will just ignore an RfC.

I believe that this all started with the word "BS". If you want more info, see this[5] and this[6]. The deletion process is erroding my resolve to dangerously thin level. I have spend to much time dealing with crap like List of sexual slurs, Body parts slang, List of sexual slang, ect...Being bold and deleting the list worked there (except for List of sexual slang), and admins like Friday and Splash helped me do it.

Look, I am tired of us hating eachother, and having been suicidally depressed 2 months ago, this stuff bothers me. Some of my ideas of WP:CFD do seem to disagree with policy, so I have read up again. I also remember your oppose vote on my RfA, which I though to have an unfair comment, and you ignored my reply. This issue boils down to this: Follow deletion policy or do what seems right (WP:BOLD)(WP:IAR)(and end up being wrong a fraction of the time)?

I am taking an AfD/SD break. BTW, your comments are archived, not deleted.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where do you usually draw the line when it comes to WP:IAR and WP:BOLD? I see a lot stuff get through under those grounds.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The way I read WP:IAR is this: In those cases where following the rules makes no sense and defeats our main purpose here, use your head. This is not the same as "Ignore Consensus"; it relates to unique situations that haven't been brought up before or where no clear consensus was reached. WP:BOLD, on the other hand, only relates to editing articles, and has nothing to do with following policy, although people often misunderstand it. I believe Jimbo came up with WP:IAR to avoid scaring off inexperienced editors who are overwhelmed by all the rules. As admins, we don't have that excuse; we're supposed to be familiar and comfortable with policy and guidelines. That's part of our job here! And if a rule doesn't make sense, get it changed; after all, this is a wiki!

Yes, I also see people use WP:IAR very liberally, and in most cases cause more harm and aggravation than good. You must have heard about Ed Poor, one of the first and most respected Wikipedians. He was recently desysoped after a chain of "bold" actions and ignoring rules and consensus (I'm simplifying a bit). What kind of things do you see done under WP:IAR? If this involves deleting articles without consensus and that do not specifically meet CSD, you should ask the deleting admin for an explanation. We like to think that any deletion can be undone, but this isn't entirely true: a new editor who sees his article get deleted without an explanation will probably leave. The article may be crap, but that editor could have learned what meets our standards, and become a valuable contributor. I'd rather see 100 crap articles kept than see one good article get deleted or one good editor leave. Crap articles eventually are improved, and if they aren't, they can always be deleted later. Good editors who are chased away rarely come back.

Regarding advertising, I hate it at least as much as you do. I fought several serious battles here against companies that were trying to use Wikipedia for advertising. In the end, making them go through the AfD process was the best thing to do, since it made them realize that it's not just about one stubborn admin who doesn't want them here. It's that the whole community doesn't tolerate this kind of material here. This is also why I took part in writing WP:CORP, the notability standard for companies and organizations. Again, these are AfD criteria, not CSD... :)

I used to make mistakes too as a new admin. For example, I thought that an article that was previously speedied and then recreated can be speedied again under CSD:G4. It was pointed out to me that this is not the case; while the rule isn't clear, most of the community believes CSD:G4 only applies to pages deleted via an AfD. This makes sense; otherwise, if one admin improperly deletes an article, anyone after him can delete it again under G4, which wasn't the intention. I did some mistakes in other areas too; in all cases, another admin was kind enough to explain my mistake to me. I listened, learned, and today I'm a better admin. Owen× ☎ 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will consider these things when deleting in the future, but I won't be doing much of that for a while. I have learned much about policy and copy right since I was sysoped. WP:CSD is the area I was weak on, partly due to the fact that I started assuming what it was and thinking that more bold deletions of unnotable business ads helped make Wikipedia and the internet "not suck". I began to get the "attitude" [[7]]. The next time I go on ad patrol I am just going to tag the articles with {{POV-check}} or fix it, which I do sometimes. Just to be sure, if something is this unremarkable, I still have to list it for AfD? I suppose it does not technically meet WP:CSD, if companies don't count as groups.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 03:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

You said that you where an "Engineering Manager in the Aerospace industry". What exactly do you do there? I would like to get a major in Aerospace Engineering, but I still have never gotten a clear view of what they do. There seem to materials, propulsion, electrical, computer, general design and management feilds within it. I have no idea which one I would prefer, as I don't know enough about them.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

While I like computers, and programing is interesting, I could not imagine doing it full-time, as everything is a binary--c++/python/java/acces abstraction, and I would lose interest. I also have no programming experience yet. I would not mind learning some so as to create auto-calculation programs to help me test attributtes. Likely, though, testing and program developing are two separate feilds, correct? Is it possible to do some of both. If not, what is the second best choice? And what exactly is an "Aerospace Engineer"?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't you think it's about time you un-SEMI your page? Also, your Wikiholic Dictionary is very, very funny. Did you come up with that, or did you compile it from places? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I unblocked Extc, a user that you indefinitely blocked. While I agree with the block, a few of us talked to him on IRC and he agreed to discontinue the behaviour that he was blocked for. Additionally, you should avoid using that "you have been permanenetly blocked" boilerplate, unless they were blocked for vandalism. These users come on IRC complaining that they were blocked for vandalism, when the "accusation" was just someone using a template that said something other than they intended. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

His last few edits: [8], [9], and [10]. I don't think there was a single useful edit since you unblocked him. Anyway, it's in your hands now... Owen× ☎ 01:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've got a few more questions about Hebrew if you don't mind.

Please let me know if these statements are correct. If not, can you clarify them for me?

1. If the basic form of a Hebrew word is prefixed by bet it means at,with,in, etc., sort of a generic preposition, such as the Spanish en.

2. If it is prefixed with he it is the definite article

שיח - tree

השיח - the tree

3. If a word is prefixed with vau it means and.

4. If it is prefixed by lamed it is the verbial, or infinitive form.

5. The sufix yod mem is the plural form of a word.

I have notice some words end with yod or yod tau. What is the significance of that? It appears to be the adjective and adverbial form, but I am not certain because sometimes it also seem like its plural.

I found a pretty useful peice of software called Babylon. It does a pretty good job of translating single words from English to Hebrew and vice versa. You can download various language modules. I currently have Hebrew and German. I running a 30 day evaluation copy. So far it seems to be worth the $50 they want for registration. I'm making a stab at translating the Sefer Yetzirah. I can see why it drives some men mad :) --◀Puck^talk▶ 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Owen, let me know what you think about this as a possible "Edit of the Day" for your user page? [11] KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 19:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

HI OwenX, can I suggest a semi-protection of User talk:71.225.90.225 considering he is blocked and he continues to blank his talk page causing a disturbance. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 00:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear OwenX,
Thanks for leaving me the note about moving it.
Later,
Febird 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't you think the €2 commemorative coins article should be semi-protected? It has been getting quite a bit of vandalism. joturner 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've added an other edit of the day :-D Have you seen this. Banes, Rune.welsh and myself created it! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply