Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 19 July 2009

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007 (plus one comment by Ferrylodge on 27 September 2007).

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Archive 3: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.

Archive 4: 15 June 2007 to 11 September 2007.

Archive 5: 11 September 2007 to 13 November 2007.

Archive 6: 13 November 2007 to 30 November 2007.

Archive 7: 30 November 2007 to 31 December 2007.

Archive 8: 31 December 2007 to 19 February 2008.

Archive 9: 19 February 2008 to 15 June 2008.

Archive 10: 15 June 2008 to 27 June 2008.

Archive 11: 27 June 2008 to 1 September 2008.

Archive 12: 1 September 2008 to 1 January 2009.

Archive 13: 1 January 2009 to 4 March 2009.

Archive 14: 4 March 2009 to 23 April 2009.

Archive 15: 23 April 2009 to 4 July 2009.

Taking a break

Other stuff to do for a while. Cheerio.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi Ferrylodge. I hope you can delay your break atad. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Misplaced Pages. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm generally allergic to surveys. If you have any questions specifically for me, then maybe I can answer. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a misunderstanding of 3:RR

It is not a prohibition on multiple edits, just reverts. My recent edits to that page were not reverts, they were changes. Further, you're recent additions are just plain deceptive as you're trying to imply that the author of that blog post was taking the opposite position of what he was actually saying.

Also, when you say "Stop edit-warring and use the talk page" I would simply respond "Physician, heal thyself." You have yet to discuss this on the talk page, instead choosing to revert any changes made to your addition. But I'm going to leave it alone for now and leave it to other editors to dismantle some of your more egregious POV-pushing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Try reading WP:3RR. When one editor disagrees with content supported by two editors, it behooves the one editor to use the talk page instead of edit-warring. You know that.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're at three reverts yourself and you haven't made one single argument on the talk page for why you feel this information should be included. As you know, in a dispute it's up to the editor seeking to add new material to justify its inclusion. Instead of edit-warring, you should be discussing this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit summaries of both myself and the other involved editor amply explain ourselves. But feel free to start a talk page discussion, at which point I would be glad to elaborate further about why "wee Barry" refers to Obama and not McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR violation by LoonyMonkey has been reported. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

POV tags are not discrediting.

Responding to your comment on my talk page: I simply disagree that POV warning tags are discrediting. Where does this idea come from? POV warning tags serve to direct readers and editors to the talk page when there is an ongoing dispute. Hopefully so that these readers can participate in the discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

They are inappropriate where a broad consensus of editors believes the NPOV dispute has been adequately addressed. If you were really interested in directing readers and editors to discuss the matter, then you would have alerted them at the article talk page to the noticeboard discussions that you started.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing Other Editor's Comments

Hi Ferrylodge Please don't edit other users comments. If you disagree with them try talking to them about it. Spartaz 19:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of a personal attack is allowed when the attack is not against the person removing the comment. And using strikethrough instead of complete removal allowed people to still read what you wrote.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

proposal at talk:Roe v. Wade

Hi,
As background, about a week ago I made some changes to the lead in Roe v. Wade, one of which you reverted here and again here , the second time with the summary "Let's stick with the longstanding language re. viability."

Anyhow, I am wondering if you'd look at my (modified) proposals at Talk:Roe_v._Wade#Lead_--_two_proposed_changes and let me know if this language works for you. Agradman /_contribs 05:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

incremental edits?

May I suggest that when you and I collaboratively edit that it would be more productive if we agree to make incremental edits? It seems that quite often when you object to something that I add to an article that you simply make a 100% revert. That style of collaboration invites edit warring, which is counterproductive to collaboration. Additionally, when you make reverts it would be helpful if you could limit your comments to those based on sourcing, and try to avoid those based on personal preference, or those based on the character of other editors. Remember, that Misplaced Pages is a compendium of knowledge found elsewhere in reliable sources. It is not a place for personal opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On a controversial article like that one, it might be best to discuss substantial edits at the talk page before you make them in the article itself.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

changed my response

hi Ferrylodge,

I think that while you were responding to the original version of my comments, I went back and toned them down a bit (recognizing that "didn't have legal training," among other phrases, was a bit over the top). Just giving you a heads up now that I've seen you address that point.

I also redacted my accusation that your response wasn't constructive, because, actually, it was. I appreciate your patience and constructive responses.

You make an interesting point, regarding the fact that 99% of other Misplaced Pages articles don't have sections like this. Personally, I think that other articles should have them -- but I certainly won't argue that, until consensus forms behind implementing it, the place to experiment is not Roe v. Wade.

I'll work on some other articles for a while. If you can suggest another, less notable Supreme Court opinion that you think I might demo this "synopsis" technique at, I'd be glad to give it a try (this, alas, is how I spend my Friday nights).

cheers,

Agradman /_contribs 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you've found Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Law. Those are good places to make suggestions and proposals. Generally speaking, there's been an effort to keep the Misplaced Pages articles on court cases somewhat similar to each other in format, but there's always room for improvement and change.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on July 18 2009 to Clarence Thomas

Incidentally, this edit comment looks very deceptive to me.

Anythingyouwant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If I can show you that the edit comment was not the least bit deceptive, would that affect your block? I made four reverts in more than 24 hours, when an editor inserted disparaging material into a BLP without consensus. The edit comment that you find deceptive said: "More concise, per talk page." And what had I written at the talk page? "The best solution would probably be to just remove the sentence 'Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court.' It's kind of redundant anyway to what follows it." Do you have any opinion about whether it was redundant? The very next sentence in the article says: "He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia." I explained all this at the talk page, to which I referred in the edit summary. What the heck was deceptive? I also had said at the talk page to Mastcell that he should refrain from "repeated editorial insertion of more extreme and partisan terms." Those were his words to describe terms like "far left" and "far right". I repeat: how on Earth was my edit summary deceptive? I was trying to keep crap out of a BLP, which would have been perfectly okay even if I had done 4 reverts within 24 hours (which I did not). Everything was carefully explained at the talk page, to which I specifically referred in my edit summary. Mastcell has long disliked me, as he himself has repeatedly explained. I have not been blocked in over a year and a half, and yet Mastcell's block request requested this block today given "my history." I have no desire to participate in a project where I am permanently blacklisted, punished for abiding by BLP rules, and for not violating 3RR.

Decline reason:

Per William M. Connolley below: 4 reverts in 24:01. The edits and are not exempt from 3RR per BLP, because no matter who Donald Wilkes is, the text at issue merely reports his opinion as published in Flagpole Magazine, whose reliability you did not call into question. His may be a fringe opinion not worthy of reporting per WP:UNDUE, but that does not make its addition a BLP violation that can be freely reverted.  Sandstein  21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As I said: your block is for 3RR. Having read what you wrote, the edit comment still looks deceptive to me, but it wasn't the reason for your block William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it correct for me to say that you are blocking me for 3RR even though I did not revert more than 3 times during a 24-hour period? And even though two of the reverts were completely unrelated edits in which I removed a piece by the author of "Rodent in Robes" which is about as clear a BLP violation as can be imagined? Please see here: "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." I did not even violate 3RR if it did apply; i.e. MastCell acknowledges that the edits he complains of did not occur in a 24-hour period.

Regarding the edit comment that you still call "deceptive", all I can add is that it was not meant to be deceptive. The material I removed was redundant to the material I did not remove, and I referred in the edit summary to the talk page where I had explained in great detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you for 4R in 24:01. If you're basing your unblock on that being more than 24h, you're wasting your time and ours. Can we drop discussion of that point and move on? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am primarily basing my unblock request on the fact that two of the reverts removed an unreliable source from a BLP. I explicitly said so in the edit summaries. And, I also explicitly said so at my talk page, before William M. Connolley's terse response at 21:36, and before Sandstein denied the unblock request at 21:58. See BLP policy here: "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." Sandstein is BLATANTLY 100% WRONG to say that I did not call into question the reliability of Flagpole Magazine. In this edit (upon which admins are relying to block me), my edit summary was as follows: "This is my last revert of the day, and it's also a 3RR warning for Rafael Garcia. This is not a reliable source per WP:RS. The author and publisher or 'Rodent in Robes' are not reliable." How could any source be less reliable regarding a Supreme Court justice then a piece by the author and publisher of "Rodent in Robes"? Does anyone seriously contend that calling a Supreme Court justice a "rodent in robes" indicates anything other than unreliability? And, yes, I also stand by my secondary argument that 24:01 is more than 24:00. The three revert rule is a "BRIGHT LINE RULE" according to WP:3RR. Either I'm over the line, or I'm not over the line. Admins have no right to move bright lines for some people and not others. Additionally, if another editor inserts some material, and I in good faith remove only a part of it, because that part is redundant to what immediately follows it, then I don't think that necessarily qualifies as a revert (especially if the remaining part expresses the same thought without terms that everyone acknowledges are extreme and partisan). After all, a revert normally restores an article to a version that existed previously. See WP:Reverting. Likewise, this alleged revert resulted in the article saying "some far left justices," which the article had not previously said. I flatly refuse to say "OK I'll stop edit warring at that article and in the future," because that would be an admission that I was doing so. See What is not edit warring: "Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant." You may think that referring to Justice Thomas as a "rodent" is the mark of a reliable author and publication. I disagree.

Decline reason:

User has apparently retired (see below). If they would like to come back and request an unblock (if the block has not already expired), they are more than welcome to do so. TNXMan 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I saw . I don't agree it satisfies the BLP exemption. WP:3RR says: If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible separate section of the talk page claiming, explaining and justifying the use of this exemption. When in doubt, do not revert; remember that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Instead, engage in dispute resolution (in particular, consider asking for help at a relevant noticeboard) or ask for administrative assistance. I will leave it up to another admin to review your block William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Doesn't that diff point straight to a talk page section? And why do you respect the 24-hour limitation of 3RR for other users but not me?Ferrylodge (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The rules were different in 2006. Or rather, the rules were fairly similar but the way they were interpreted has shifted. Really, you shouldn't get so hung up on this 24h thing William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The rule "states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any material) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24 hour period for a first incident." I carefully obeyed the rule, but you say I didn't because it's not 2006 anymore? William, I sincerely promise that, because I now understand 3RR is currently interpreted completely differently from what the rule actually says, and completely differently from how it used to be interpreted a couple years ago, I will in the future very carefully comply with how the rule is currently interpreted.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that means you have read and understood and intend to comly with 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR., I will unblock you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. I also deny that I violated 3RR. My block log now has an entry in it saying that I did so. It's BS.Ferrylodge (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=] says that this would not be considered because I was retired, so I am unretired now. My block log says I violated 3RR. I deny it. Two of the edits removed contentious BLP violations, the two others did not revert to a previous version, and the four were not within 24 hours. I am primarily basing my unblock request on the fact that two of the reverts removed an unreliable source from a BLP. I explicitly said so in the edit summaries. And, I also explicitly said so at my talk page, before William M. Connolley's terse response at 21:36, and before Sandstein denied the unblock request at 21:58. See : "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." Sandstein is '''''BLATANTLY 100% WRONG''''' to say that I did not call into question the reliability of Flagpole Magazine. In (upon which admins are relying to block me), my edit summary was as follows: "This is my last revert of the day, and it's also a 3RR warning for Rafael Garcia. This is not a reliable source per ]. The author and '''''publisher''''' or 'Rodent in Robes' are not reliable." How could any source be less reliable regarding a Supreme Court justice then a piece by the author '''''and''''' publisher of ""? Does anyone seriously contend that calling a Supreme Court justice a "rodent in robes" indicates anything other than unreliability? And, yes, I also stand by my secondary argument that 24:01 is more than 24:00. The three revert rule is a '''''"]"''''' according to . Either I'm over the line, or I'm not over the line. Admins have no right to move bright lines for some people and not others. Additionally, if another editor inserts some material, and I in good faith , because that part is redundant to what immediately follows it, then I don't think that necessarily qualifies as a revert (especially if the remaining part expresses the same thought without terms that everyone acknowledges are extreme and partisan). After all, a revert normally restores an article to a version that existed previously. See ]. Likewise, resulted in the article saying "some far left justices," which the article had not previously said. I flatly refuse to say '''''"OK I'll stop edit warring at that article and in the future,"''''' because that would be an admission that I was doing so. See : "Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant." You may think that referring to Justice Thomas as a "rodent" is the mark of a reliable author and publication. I disagree. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=] says that this would not be considered because I was retired, so I am unretired now. My block log says I violated 3RR. I deny it. Two of the edits removed contentious BLP violations, the two others did not revert to a previous version, and the four were not within 24 hours. I am primarily basing my unblock request on the fact that two of the reverts removed an unreliable source from a BLP. I explicitly said so in the edit summaries. And, I also explicitly said so at my talk page, before William M. Connolley's terse response at 21:36, and before Sandstein denied the unblock request at 21:58. See : "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." Sandstein is '''''BLATANTLY 100% WRONG''''' to say that I did not call into question the reliability of Flagpole Magazine. In (upon which admins are relying to block me), my edit summary was as follows: "This is my last revert of the day, and it's also a 3RR warning for Rafael Garcia. This is not a reliable source per ]. The author and '''''publisher''''' or 'Rodent in Robes' are not reliable." How could any source be less reliable regarding a Supreme Court justice then a piece by the author '''''and''''' publisher of ""? Does anyone seriously contend that calling a Supreme Court justice a "rodent in robes" indicates anything other than unreliability? And, yes, I also stand by my secondary argument that 24:01 is more than 24:00. The three revert rule is a '''''"]"''''' according to . Either I'm over the line, or I'm not over the line. Admins have no right to move bright lines for some people and not others. Additionally, if another editor inserts some material, and I in good faith , because that part is redundant to what immediately follows it, then I don't think that necessarily qualifies as a revert (especially if the remaining part expresses the same thought without terms that everyone acknowledges are extreme and partisan). After all, a revert normally restores an article to a version that existed previously. See ]. Likewise, resulted in the article saying "some far left justices," which the article had not previously said. I flatly refuse to say '''''"OK I'll stop edit warring at that article and in the future,"''''' because that would be an admission that I was doing so. See : "Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant." You may think that referring to Justice Thomas as a "rodent" is the mark of a reliable author and publication. I disagree. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=] says that this would not be considered because I was retired, so I am unretired now. My block log says I violated 3RR. I deny it. Two of the edits removed contentious BLP violations, the two others did not revert to a previous version, and the four were not within 24 hours. I am primarily basing my unblock request on the fact that two of the reverts removed an unreliable source from a BLP. I explicitly said so in the edit summaries. And, I also explicitly said so at my talk page, before William M. Connolley's terse response at 21:36, and before Sandstein denied the unblock request at 21:58. See : "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." Sandstein is '''''BLATANTLY 100% WRONG''''' to say that I did not call into question the reliability of Flagpole Magazine. In (upon which admins are relying to block me), my edit summary was as follows: "This is my last revert of the day, and it's also a 3RR warning for Rafael Garcia. This is not a reliable source per ]. The author and '''''publisher''''' or 'Rodent in Robes' are not reliable." How could any source be less reliable regarding a Supreme Court justice then a piece by the author '''''and''''' publisher of ""? Does anyone seriously contend that calling a Supreme Court justice a "rodent in robes" indicates anything other than unreliability? And, yes, I also stand by my secondary argument that 24:01 is more than 24:00. The three revert rule is a '''''"]"''''' according to . Either I'm over the line, or I'm not over the line. Admins have no right to move bright lines for some people and not others. Additionally, if another editor inserts some material, and I in good faith , because that part is redundant to what immediately follows it, then I don't think that necessarily qualifies as a revert (especially if the remaining part expresses the same thought without terms that everyone acknowledges are extreme and partisan). After all, a revert normally restores an article to a version that existed previously. See ]. Likewise, resulted in the article saying "some far left justices," which the article had not previously said. I flatly refuse to say '''''"OK I'll stop edit warring at that article and in the future,"''''' because that would be an admission that I was doing so. See : "Enforcing certain overriding policies. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal (possibly backed by administrative action) is the norm until it is fixed and policy-compliant." You may think that referring to Justice Thomas as a "rodent" is the mark of a reliable author and publication. I disagree. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Lovely weather

How beautiful is it outside today in New England? Incredible. Not a good day to be typing away at the computer.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe more time outdoors would be a good idea.

Ferrylodge (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye cruel Misplaced Pages

Leave this template here, please, I don't want it at the top of the page.Ferrylodge (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This retirement is on hold, because User:Tnxman307 said I need to come back in order to have the unblock request considered on the merits. MastCell complained of four edits; two removed contentious BLP violations, and the other two did not revert to a previous version of the article, so none of them should count toward 3RR. And even if they did, they were not during a 24-hour span. The block is bogus, it's still in my block-log, and will undoubtedly be used in the future to prove how disruptive I am (i.e. history will repeat yet again). MastCell often says what a wikilawyer I am, but he knows full well that his repeated unsuccessful attempts to get me sanctioned have been frivolous, and this time is no different.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, User:Collect/actual summaries shows the attirudes of one of the holier-than-thous variety <g>. Collect (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He'll be back

Is my prediction. He asked me to comment on all this. I think on the legalisms, he was mistaken: it's long been the case that 3RR can be interpreted by admins in the spirit rather than the letter of the law, and I agree with the admin that the edit in question wasn't a BLP violation per se. I think on the substance of the last disputes, he was mostly right: nothing by the "Rodent of the Robes" guy or from Flagpole Magazine is worth including, and "far right" is a useless pejorative term in most of American politics and shouldn't be used even if it does appear in a supposedly RS (his addition of a "far left" in response was just plain silly though). I think his choice of article to work on was questionable, given his past record of running into trouble on contentious topics. I think his editing style often counterproductive in several senses. And I think I won't say more, in respect of WP:NODRAMA. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Four reverts in 24:01, eh?

I hardly know what to say.

So long, Ferrylodge; good luck in whatever you do.

If you should ever return, then good luck here, too. -GTBacchus 15:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock