User talk:Moncrief/archive4

In Ontario, a city is a legal term defining how a municipalities government operates. Dryden is the smallest community in Ontario with the city designation, while Kenora is the only city other than Dryden to be located in NA Central Time Zone. Fort Frances, while almost equal in size to Dryden, is not a city. It is a town. Fort Frances' legal definition is a town and for all intents and purposes it is treated as a town, NOT a city.

In Ontario, a community usually have to have 10,000 people before it is considered a city. Cities in Northern Ontario are exceptions as smaller centres are more important due to the low population.

Cities differ from towns by having different responsibilities (Maintaining a police force, higher taxation powers, etc.). The town of Markham, Ontario has over 260,000 peoples. To avoid having to pay for further responsibilities through higher taxes, it has refused city status.

The statements in the Dryden article are factual and accurate.

vid 00:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

The article Alan Sues has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I noticed you blocked User:63.100.44.98 indefinitely. This seems exceptionally harsh for a shared IP. Based on history, I'd have maybe gone a week. I don't think a month would be unreasonable, but I do think indefinite is a harsh punishment for the actions of one person on a shared IP. Do you agree that the block duration should be pared down? —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the IP's talk page if you have a problem. It looks like somebody already did, and the admin responded with his or her reason for sustaining the block. To answer your question: no, I don't think it is at all unreasonably harsh, considering the repeated and sustained vandalism from that IP, and the repeated warnings posted and posted again to the IP's talk page. Whether the IP is shared or not isn't relevant for Wikipedia as long as vandalism continued to come from it. Temporary blocks obviously didn't work, as they'd been tried before. Moncrief 15:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using threats to other users. "A revert of this will take you directly to Wikipedia arbitration." What is this? Mr. Oh-you-better-follow-what-I-do-or-I-will-ban-your-ass?

Don't be a jerk.

Sky Divine (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Divine is such a blatant troll.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sven Sundgaard, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sven Sundgaard. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Havidol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Havidol, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the redirect page you created for Janet Huckabee to an article, in part because she was the only wife of a 2008 major party U.S. presidential candidate, lacking a Wikipedia article on her. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user has posted a question on Talk:Janet Huckabee, asking if she is also related to John McCain since her maiden is "McCain". I do not know the answer to this question, but I think it would be interesting to look into. If you have any thoughts on the question, please feel free to discus them on the article's talk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Smc.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag and added information I believe to be correct. Feel free to change anything I added.--Appraiser (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, please note that "ize" and "izing" are the standard endings in the Oxford English Dictionary in most cases. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of that article will not allow the category living people to be removed from the article under any circumstances. Don't waste your time no matter how right you are. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked three IPs that you had blocked indefinitely. I don't know if blocking IPs indefinitely was common practice back in the day but it isn't now (unless they violate the open proxy policy). 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking on Flickr for photos of the Calhoun Beach Club, since it's on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm working a list of properties on the National Register in Hennepin County. (It's currently at User:Elkman/sandbox, but eventually I'll move it.) I noticed this photo by a user named Moncrief Speaks, which I'm guessing is you.

Would you be willing to upload this picture to Wikipedia or to the Commons? I think it would illustrate an article nicely, and I'm looking for a relatively complete set of pictures for the list. Let me know if you'd be willing to upload it. Thanks! --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying in general. I noticed your recent edits and many of them you did not use edit summary. So I have issued you a notice about using edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will just request you to identify where I have not used edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated edit summary is counted as edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i thought i knew the MOS for that, but apparently not. you are correct re song titles not being in itals. Anastrophe (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before putting a "possible copyright infringement" tag on an article, I would read the TALK page of that article first. This issue has been discussed before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany

Incorporating text from PUBLIC DOMAIN articles is NOT a copyright violation! Check the reference section of each article before wasting the time of those who put much time and effort into creating and editing on WIKIPEDIA.

Nellov5 (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than permitting JOURNALIST to continue to exert his authority and harassment, why will you not delete the page as I requested. I am the page's author and the subject of the page and I do not wish it to be available, particularly as JOURNALIST has prevented me from making changes to my own biography out of petty spite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMOC (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio tag has been removed by an administrator. Next time, do your homework, Moncrief... before wasting other people's time again. It is customary to first leave a comment on the Talk Page before putting tags of any kind on Wikipedia articles.

Nellov5 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it did explode. We're not sure why yet. Ya know I happen to live in Wisconsin and I watch the news. Do you think I'm stupid?! Blue Laser (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is a wiki that I made. Can you please help me with this project?? thanks.Sternhe (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternhe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:GaryRadnich1987.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) --Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moncrief!
We thank you for uploading Image:Cbc.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As the originator of the Jeff Probst article, I'd like to invite you to share your opinion in the Talk:Jeff Probst#Born 1961 or 1962 discussion I have initiated. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco, California has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wulf Zendik, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BradV 19:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Who wrote this awful sentence? If it's 0C in Central Park, where is it -1.5? What IS the coldest month? How does this make it humid subtropical? So many unanswered questions.." -Moncrief -1.5C must of been recorded somewhere in NYC. It's an approximate figure. The coldest month is January, as I pout in the article. As for humid subtropical, just check what it means. Press olive, win oil (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this. It's only protected for a couple of days so unless there is something blatently needing to be adressed urgently it looks very bad if admins edit a protected page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Moncrief, I see here that you are an administrator on this Wikipedia. I am very happy that you are attempting to assist and add content however you must realize that you recently edited a fully protected article which is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. I am very curious to know why you edited this fully protected page when it very clearly was not an emergency. Might you please respond? Bstone (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake in editing Joe the Plumber when it was fully protected. Sorry about that. Admins make mistakes sometimes, too! :-) Thanks for your message. Moncrief (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you may be interested to see that Ashley Todd was speedily deleted using CSD:G10 as the justification: "exists primarily to disparage its subject." I happen to disagree with this decision as the article was neutral and nothing on the AfD page implied it as an "attack" page, and content that this is out of process. I encourage you to chime in if you have an opinion either way at User_talk:Orderinchaos#Out_of_order_deletion_of_Ashley_Todd. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort to eliminate POV issues with controversial issues such as this one. However, within the very source I cited, the publisher himself admits tbe news broke "hours before they went to press," so they deliberately did not write about it. To make that statement is not an argument, nor is it a claim that they did it for political reasons, it is a fact verified by the publisher. Essentially, the intentional omission of the story is the whole reason those protesters are upset. By toying with wording in a quest to sound more neutral, you may actually be giving the article a bias in favor of the publisher. You're correct that it reads almost the same. Ultimately, I get your point and I am keeping your edit to avoid conflicts over future wording, but it was perhaps inappropriate to imply that I was purposefully wording the article to create bias (as it was central to the conflict) and even more inappropriate to suggest that I did not provide sufficient proof for the claim. Rob Shepard (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have problem i know english language just a little. All my articles are full of grammar mistakes. someone must correct it. Could you? User:PostFactum (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has no connection to anything else. Sipple has not yet been introduced as a major figure in Milk's life, so his name in the subheading is random. And the quoted subheading adds an element of style to the article, which is why it's Featured. --Moni3 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article refereced in footnote 18 indicates that Burris has "repeatedly" said he is a senator. let me know if you have other concerns.--Ccson (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the reference and they have changed the article title and removed some of the content to reflect the actions of today, but it was there on date of access when I added the text and the reference.--Ccson (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't read the text as implying evolution between 1960-62, just that it was beginning to happen by 1962. For what it's worth, the New York chapter of the Mattachine Society was started in 1955... —EqualRights (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:CentralParkFromAboveCropped.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Chris Sligh, Chris Richardson. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sligh (4th nomination) for Chris Sligh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Richardson for Chris Richardson. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

File:MillbraeStationSignage.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:MillbraeStationSignage.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:MillbraeStationSignage.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MillbraeIntermodalSta.jpg is now available as Commons:File:MillbraeIntermodalSta.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wulf Zendik, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. The page had been excessively vandalized. Removed both notice and vandalism.

What on earth? Dear lord. Moncrief (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moncrief! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 414 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Judith Steinberg Dean - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Ralph Carter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Cyra McFadden - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of edits to this page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ventura Freeway, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rschen7754 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mike Jones (personal trainer). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Jones (personal trainer). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your 20:07, 27 August 2010 edit to Stop sign.

Actually, there are plenty of stop signs in Quebec (in Montreal, at least) that say only "STOP", and still quite a few old ones that say ARRÊT/STOP. You need only visit Montreal (virtually, using Google Street View) to find countless examples.

The part of Pointe Claire north of Boulevard Brunswick seems to be a particularly fertile source of ARRÊT/STOP signs. For instance, here is the corner of Hermitage and Glenforest.

The municipality of Dollard des Ormeaux in the suburbs of Montreal seems to have mostly "STOP" signs. For instance, here is the corner of Hyman and Angora.

A clear photo of an old dual ARRÊT/STOP sign in Québec can be found here. Too bad it's copyrighted.

As the Stop sign article mentions, the original ARRÊT/STOP signs were intended to be bilingual, but since "STOP" is also a valid French word, they were reinterpreted to be merely redundant. Newly installed stop signs use only ARRÊT or STOP, but there are still quite a few legacy dual-text signs still in existence.

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I thought it would be fascinating to see if any three-way intersections existed where each stop sign was of one of the three different kinds (ARRÊT, STOP, and ARRÊT STOP). Acting on a hunch for what would be a likely location, I found two examples with Google Street View. Check out Talk:Stop_sign if you're interested. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for the detailed info. You've definitely made your case. I withdraw my question/tag. Moncrief (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting
	Date: 31 October 2010
	Time: noon
	Place: Midtown Exchange Global Market, East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 44°56′57″N 93°15′40″W / 44.9493°N 93.2612°W / 44.9493; -93.2612

What the heck was that last sentence all about? That was uncalled for an more than a bit uncivil. You were already aware that the matter was being discussed at the NOR noticeboard (either that, or you hadn't read the discussion page posts); when a mater is already being discussed in one venue, taking it elsewhere is seen as forum-shopping. If you were unaware, then my apologies. Being a jerk isn't gong to help the discussion, which - to the best of my knowledge - hasn't gotten personal. Keep it civil. Please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally rolling up your sleeves and getting some citations. You might want to learn how not to make talk page discussions gladiatorial matches; so much more gets done when you avoid being uncivil. Realize that having 20k edits doesn't impart some magic perfume of leadership or authority - each interaction is a new thing; trust that my edits from my older, retired accounts far outnumber yours, and consider it some good, friendly advice, if not wiki-wisdom. Have a good day! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]