I've made a couple of small changes already. But I have an outline of elder law that I wrote as part of my elder law practice in Massachusetts over the past few weeks. Posting it will work some bigger changes to the existing text.

Do you know if anybody has a real stake in keeping the text just as it is? or part of it? If you do, please let me know so I don't inadvertently irritate somebody with a major edit.

Please post on my talk page if you wish. You're obviously a lot more proficient in the Wiki world than I am, so I'd be interested in your comments.

Good luck in your studies (or the bar exam if you just graduated).

Jrgetsin 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your encouraging reply. I am looking forward to your comments and edits. This may take me a few days, because Monday 9/4 is a federal holiday, and my work ethic may flag a bit until 9/5. Maybe Tuesday, maybe Wednesday.

Jrgetsin 23:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the Re-word and mop up... it helped the article. I'm also taking the Bar Exam Wed and Thurs, maybe we shouldn't be on Wikipedia right now? CJC47 14:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hope you did well on MBE, Just Essay left. CJC47 01:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for the heads up. I placed my comments there. - Dozenist talk 19:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply

What's wrong with documenting that Frayser is the most dangerous part of Memphis? CRocka05

Thanks for joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. And thanks, more importantly, for writing articles about them, whether you're a member of a wikiproject or not. Cheers!-- Kchase02 T 17:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you please explain why you made this edit with the explanation "rvv"? MUSICAL 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the explanation. I removed the statement per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I'll note this in the edit summary. MUSICAL 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Copied from my post to The New Pornographers... Thanks for catching those speedy delete tags.

User:209.217.110.91 has been tagging a number of obviously notable music pages for speedy deletion, despite their notability being easily assessed with a copy of the WP:MUSIC guidelines and a web browser open to google. The New Pornographers, John Collins (Canadian musician), Nardwuar the Human Serviette have all been tagged as being vanity pages or otherwise not notable. The Evaporators, a band in which both John (of The New Pornographers) and Nardwuar (National TV and Radio personality) play has also been submitted for deletion, and not a single vote to delete has been recieved on that. This may have some connection to User:Arthur Ellis or someone connected to Warren_Kinsella vandalism. -- Xinit 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I just re-edited the page for Mayor Herenton trying to use my own words. The reason I did the edit is because the other page seemed to be very negative towards him, and since Memphis is getting enough bad publicity, I think that we could at least keep the page for the mayor somewhat optimistic. I am new to the Wikipedia thing so bare with me...I am trying to learn my way around! Thanks -Joel

Did you create the Elation webpage??? If not, do you know who did???

AmericanXplorer13 01:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC) reply

While I realize you may be a fan of Mr. Stevens, rapant fanboyism is inappropriate on Wikipedia. It is appropriate to list the criticisms of his work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.222.198 ( talk • contribs) .

I think you may be taking some law exams now but when you are not too busy I hope you will revisit the Brett Kavanaugh discussion page. Your advice in the past was helpful and perhaps you can help again. We are having a difficult time reaching an agreement on including a very short passage into the article. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thomist 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The comments on my user page are not about you, but about a consistent pattern I've witnessed and experienced at Wikipedia, particularly within disucussions of controversial topics. If you happen to see yourself in those comments.... These same concerns have been mentioned on the other's user pages. Aine63 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC) reply

With regards to your comments on Talk:Estate tax (United States): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. · -- Jbpo 01:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

If this is a bona fide accusation, please point to a specific statement I have made that you interpret as an attack. Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Jersyko, please site where Congressman Ford won. People may think that the knowledge is hearsay, and need a citation for backup. Thank you for your quick imput!-- Bearly541 03:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm watching the news in Memphis, and each station has said that the Associated Press has declared Ford the winner of the Democratic primary. I will add a citation tomorrow to the article, but I don't have an online source at the moment. Thanks for reminding me to cite, if you feel like the information shouldn't be in the article without a citation, feel free to remove it per WP:V. You're perfectly right to point out that I should provide a source; I won't take offense :) · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Here's a source, ( http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060803/NEWS0206/60803064) I will add to each of the pages, including Bryant, Corker, et. al. However, the 9th district Congressional race is a different story, and you may need to cover that because it looks like Cohen and Tinker may undergo a runoff.-- Bearly541 05:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Jersyko. I am currently undergoing hibernation (i.e. long break from Wikipedia). Could you please put new info regarding Steve Cohen, Bob Corker, and Van Hilleary? I have already updated Ed Bryant with updated results. Either Commerical Appeal or The Tennesseean can provide you with good information. Thanks again.-- Bearly541 06:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the great job on the Steve Cohen article! One comment – I don't think it was wrong for the article to mention that his primary occupation has been that of attorney. Sure, the article does note that he was a law school graduate, but there are literally thousands of U.S. law school graduates who, for various reasons, are not practicing attorneys.

I think that you are doing a good job trying to keep Wikipedia NPOV with regard to Memphis. There's surely been a lot of negative-POV stuff in that are IMO. Rlquall 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Rlquall, thanks for your compliments on the Steve Cohen article. If I did remove Cohen's occupation from the article at some point, I can assure you it was accidental. Feel free to re-add it to the article. It does mention that he has a J.D. and practiced law for four years before turning to politics, but perhaps there's more to the story that I've missed. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

sorry my mistake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esmehwk ( talk • contribs) .

Thanks for reverting rjensen's "liberal" to "left-wing" as a description of Nader in the Democratic Party article. I chose the word "left-wing" as a compromise with rjensen. The original term was "far-left," which I still think is the better term. If you think so as well, perhaps you can change it to left wing.

I am having all kinds of trouble with rjensen. In the John F. Kennedy article, he wants to include a long section about Kennedy's association with Joseph McCarthy, which I think doesn't merit the two paragraphs it now has. Have a look at that too, if you would. Griot 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The editor who removed Reneec from has just told me on his talk page [1] that the issue needs to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead, because of the multiple IPs involved. Would you like to do the honors? ;) -- Vary | Talk 01:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Totally. I'm glad 'your' showing such restraint. -- Vary | Talk 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) reply

It's frustrating that the matter was referred to AN/I from PAIN on a technicality, isn't it? I don't know what it is that gets some topics so many responses at AN/I when others are completely ignored.

I'm interested to see if Reneec will file an RFC on the article. It seems like filing one myself would be silly when the consensus on the page is already so clearly against including Saks. A user conduct RFC might be an idea though. -- Vary | Talk 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow, way to get results. Hurrah for cooling-off periods. -- Vary | Talk 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

No, he didn't. Why? -- Vary | Talk 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's a legal threat. I was just working on a post to request a block for it. Can't decide whether it should go on PAIN or in a new heading on AN/I. I think probably the latter. -- Vary | Talk 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Ha, someone else took care of it while I was working on my response. Sorry I didn't act sooner; I'm mildly learning disabled so putting posts together sometimes takes me a while.

I see you've removed the personal info from your userpage. Do you want the old revisions deleted? -- Vary | Talk 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Done and done. -- Vary | Talk 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Totally understand. The whole situation was beyond nuts. -- Vary | Talk 16:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm certain you've seen this comment. I didn't realize it'd been going on since February.-- Scribner 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, fantastic. -- Vary | Talk 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

My changes to the George Allen article are listed on the discussion page are listed and are not vandalism. Some of the controversies listed do not belong in this article as they do not comform to the npov of Wikipedia. For example the enire section of "Other criticism," is obviously biased. If you keep reverting this article, I will submit to Wikipedia that the article be locked until it can be cleaned up. I will also ask for arbitration and that you, Stirling Newberry and webbforsenate be blocked from editing or submitting changes. Nnoppinger 02:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The proper course of conduct if you believe the article does not conform to neutral point of view is to discuss it on the article's talk page or edit the text such that it will conform, not blank the allegedly offending content entirely. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; I would appreciate it if you would not threaten to ban other editors or bring arbitration cases against them if doing so is not appropriate under this policy. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you've chosen a reasonable course of action in regard to the George Allen article. I disagree with you that the section is not neutral as a whole (though perhaps it should be tweaked a bit), but tagging the section as you did is far more conducive to discussion than blanking it. I trust we can discuss this further at the article's talk page. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I did remove "Other Criticisms' as I can not see that they would belong in an encyclopedia. I am refraining from making other changes for now as some of these may become newsworthy and worth inclusion. I am not in a position to dispute them without further research at this time. However, I would suggest that this entire article is need of cleanup. Nnoppinger 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey buddy,

Thanks for deleting my entire entry in dental caries.

Not sure why you figure a development written up in Nature is an advertisement.

FYI, I'm a former journalist with hundreds of publications in newspapers and magazines and a book out.

I have no interest in the subject other than sharing information.

I think you lopping off an entire section with information on three different developments in dental treatment is nuts. You want to make edits, or move URLS around, fine. But get serious. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madscribbler ( talk • contribs) .

I removed your edit becuase it reads like an advertisement, at least the portion on synthetic enamel. The caries vaccine is already linked in the aritcle, and has an article of its own.. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) reply

An advertisement for ... what? A chemical compound? A genetically-modified bacteria? This isn't something you can even get yet. And if/when you can, it will be available from any dentist.

Hey, what's your email or IM? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madscribbler ( talk • contribs) .

I don't know if this is the only way to communicate on this system. Cumbersome.

Anyway, I'm not interested in advertising anything. If I saw an advertisement, I'd edit it too. But I don't see how what I wrote is an advertisement. Possibly the link to the inventor's website, but I put that in there for people who want to get more information on the technique. If you prefer to see that moved to the bottom, that's cool. But the legitimacy of the story is solid. The development of the synthetic enamel was a huge news story when it broke last year, covered by all major newspapers, radio, TV, etc.

I see some of where you're coming from, by the way. It's not my intention to "push" anything -- especially as there's nothing to push. On the other hand, why not list the benefits of the synthetic enamel over traditional drilling? (Maybe the bullets are no good. I was actually in the process of cleaning it up when you deleted it. I have Firefox and the google toolbar, which kept cutting off the end, and I had to get the newest version because it kept getting cut off.)

I think we probably got off on the wrong foot. If you had been able to IM me and voice your thoughts, I would have taken it better :-) I am open to all ideas. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madscribbler ( talk • contribs) .

Thanks for posting on my talk page. I was a little irritated - I spent an hour or so editing what I took from the article, and then it was immediately reverted. Next time, you might consider posting an intent to remove on the talk page, first. (Actually, that page is so busy that I understand any reluctance to do so.)

I'm planning to go back and repost some of the text, but as info on the time that Allen spent between being Governor and U.S. Senator, rather than as "scandal". And I'm going to get more than one source. John Broughton 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Jersyko. Thanks for your comment. I had honestly hoped not to look into the general details of the issue, and just to deal with what I saw as the immediate problem. My authority to block someone who's trying to contribute, just for being agressive, is somewhat limited; if the reason for blocking requires a review of page history and interaction, then it's something that more administrators should discuss. Permablocks for threats are much more straightforward, although in many cases giving a second chance is the reasonable thing to do. Anyway, it's obvious that I need to look into all this in more detail if I even consider unblocking Reneec. I promise I'll do that. -- SCZenz 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

If you did write those articles Bona Fides 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hah, yes, I did write those articles, and though I don't believe I've ever been complimented in that way before, I appreciate it. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

If he is a god, then have him find the Ford-Carter 1976 debate and the Poland reference. You forgot Poland John wesley 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

• Sorry - I assumed good faith, though did wonder why the question was being asked. Then found he/she was probably a sock puppet.-- Arktos ^talk 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't presently find on the web an active link to the House Judiciary Committee's published legislative history for the act, though I could in the past. If you know of an active link, I think it would be a useful addition to the links for the 1976 Act's wiki page. Yellowdesk 05:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jersyko.

Although it might (or might not) have been an appropriate edit, your decision to delete the statement that Barack Obama's father was an atheist was not "minor," as defined at Help:Minor edit. Here is a quote: "[a minor edit] implies trivial changes only, such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content. By contrast, a major edit makes the article worth reviewing for anyone who watches it closely. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it involves one word."

Furthermore, you ask in your edit summary "how his father's religious beliefs are relevant to Obama." We are all products of our environment; one's parents are usually the largest environmental influence in his life. Although Barack's parents divorced when he was two (according to the article), I am not sure how much contact they had before Barack's father moved back to Kenya. Whatever the case, his father's atheism could be related to Barack through an indirect influence on Barack's mother, etc. In summary, there are many ways his father's atheism could be related to Barack.

I will not revert your edit, though, because I am not sure that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.'s atheism had a significant enough effect on Barack's life to warrant inclusion in the article. However, I will leave you with a request to be more careful about which edits you tag as "minor." If you accidentally tag an edit as minor, please make a dummy edit indicating that.

Cheers, Dave Runger ^(t)⁄ _(c) 00:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have to say, I didn't expect a multi-paragraph comment on my talk page simply because I marked this as a minor edit instead of leaving the checkmark blank. Most importantly, please note that Help:Minor edit states explicitly that "it is often a matter of personal judgment" whether to mark an edit as minor. I marked the edit as minor for multiple reasons, mainly becuase I removed only one word that was not describing Obama, but his father, and also because the article provided no context or reference for the descriptive word used (in fact, until today, the article had been inaccurately describing his father as a Muslim at Obama's birth). My assessment was that I was not "changing the meaning of the article" and was thus making a minor edit because I was altering one word that was not describing Obama and was unsourced. I welcome other users to review and discuss my edit if need be. However, marking the edit as minor does not preclude such discussion, though, given that the article has provided inaccurate information about his father for months, I highly doubt that the discussion will occur (though I would welcome such a discussion, of course). I agree that we should all, myself included, be more careful as to which edits we mark as "minor". In this case, however, there were legitimate reasons for me to mark it as such. I would suggest considering whether other editors could have legitimate explanations for their actions before posting scolding comments on their talk pages. I don't mean to start a flame war here, and I'm sure you didn't either with your comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your well-thought and thorough response. It certainly sounds like you are a reasonable editor. I just wanted to do my best to make sure everything is on the up-and-up. I also have a tendency to be a little excessive with my talk page criticisms (and some other Wikipedia matters); I suppose that I want to present my case as clearly and thoroughly as possible. While I still disagree with you about your marking the edit as minor, I realize it's not too serious of an issue. It might be a matter of subjective interpretation, but there are some guidelines. I think your edit falls outside of what most would consider minor (typos, formatting, moving text around, etc.). Your edit might seem minor to you because you believe that it was the right thing to do for the article -- but some editors might disagree. Here is a neat quote: "You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral." ( Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers) I guess this message is getting a little bit excessive, too. I am happy to agree to disagree over this small matter. Dave Runger ^(t)⁄ _(c) 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

"You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral." - then why would I say that I welcome discussion on the subject if other editors consider it appropriate? Recall that you messaged me initially on this matter in an effort to explain my actions to me, not vise versa. Again, Help:Minor edit says "it is often a matter of personal judgment" whether to mark an edit as minor. I'll take my leave by pointing out that, aside from explicitly leaving the decision up to the reasonable judgment of the individual editor, Help:Minor edit it is neither a Wikipedia policy or guideline. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

What I did was not blanking, merely summarizing and removing information that can be found on the detail pages. The page was getting really long! -- Rob 13:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Forgive me for characterizing your edits as blanking; I see you had a resonable explanation. I would suggest, however, that we disucuss the changes on the talk page. It is a major edit to the article, to be sure, and I believe other editors would like to comment. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1 07:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC). If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a follower of Wikipedia, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable. By the way, I'm from tennessee, memphis...- Kmaguir1 07:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)

Bottom line: welcome to bell hooks, be aware of the RfC, and feel free to join it. Cheers,-- Anthony Krupp 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have been meaning to create Uniform Holidays Bill and never got around to it. Snopes.com had some good stuff on it, and there are already 3 incoming redlinks to it (obviously more could be added soon). Just figured I'd mention it since you have a few law-related articles out there, and this one is fairly pedestrian (that, and I'm shocked it wasn't there). Additionally, there are 1 each for Uniform Monday Holiday Bill and Uniform Monday Holiday Act and I assume both meant this. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I suggest you follow the rules you cited, skippy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fix Bayonets! ( talk • contribs) .

Thank you for that great map you added to my article regarding Household income in the United States. I really do appreciate it. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Jersyko, I've left a comment on Talk:George Felix Allen spelling out my case (and I think yours) just in case there's any ambiguity when an administrator happens to see look at this case. I've also added sockpuppet tags. I suspect that this user is a very experienced Wikipedian, because he/she cites a few policies in the edit summaries, knows the abbreviations (i.e., rvv), and because he/she makes 2-3 edits with a username before moving on to another. I think the next step, if this continues, is to request semi-protection. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Allegations of sock puppetry have been made against some of the accounts that have edited the Center for Science in the Public Interest page. I have instigated the wiki process for handling such allegations. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin. As someone who has contributed to the CSPI page, please add your views to the Comments section. You have up to 10 days to make comments on the allegation. Nunquam Dormio 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am personally requesting your assistance in helping the various editors-in-question reach an equitable and reasonable consensus regarding the proper treatment of the "S.O.C.V." Wikipedia article (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Confederate_Veterans>). Clearly, the current viewpoints of the various editors are polarized. Your help and comments are most welcomed and appreciated. I would prefer that we exchange private communications in this matter via e-mail, though I will defer to your wishes. Respectfully, -- Black Flag 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Pursuant (and in response) to your last comment on the subject-matter "discussion" page [jersyko talk · 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)], and in the spirit of good faith and compromise, I shall await your first draft, and refrain from exercising the right to make editorial changes for the time being.

Respectfully yours,

-- Black Flag 16:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

P.S. and thanks.

Firstly, thanks for your comments regarding my input on the above (SCV). However, what I would like your input on now is the Memphis article, in which you have an obvious interest (and overwhelmingly favorable impact, I would add). I shouldn't be an admin, probably, because I pretty much refuse to follow WP:BB. I think that unnecessary and unwarranted "boldness" is a major contributor to many edit wars, most of which are tedious and boring, particularly to non-participants. I have a problem with the first para of the Memphis article stating "Memphis has never served as a state capital, probably because of its location in the western part of the state." I don't think that there has been any serious movement to make Memphis the state capital, ever, unlike several locations in Middle Tennesssee, where numerous locals avow "this place almost became the state Capitol" or "this place came within one vote of being the state Capitol". The last time I looked, the Los Angeles article doesn't begin by stating that it never became state capital because of its southern location, or the Chicago one stating that it never became a state capital because of its northern location. So it seems wrong to me to start the article with what is essentially a non-issue, but I wanted your input as a responsible, valuable editor before doing anything to change it. I also don't like the reference to the "Big Four" cities as this seems to me to be a provincial term little-known, used, or heard outside of Tennessee. Regards, Rlquall 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Um, is there evidence of the creator being Andrew Lin? Sorry, if I sound lost. Yank sox 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Dear Jersyko. I assume you are aware of the decision by the FDA Review panel regarding the FDA statement on amalgam safety. A step in the right direction, in my humble opinion. It brings the US government closer to the position of many countries. Regards. Dr. Imbeau 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for some of the edits and pointing out where i needed references.

  
GoBolts 
22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)BoltsFan
reply

Hiya neighbor! I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed your toolbox the other day. It was the darndest thing, the screwdriver and wrench broke already. Maybe I should just keep it . . . What was that? No, I don't have your rake. Your lawnmower either. Welp, catch ya later! · j e r s y k o talk · 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Aw shucks! I was a fixin to ask ya about that thar rake. Well, yar most welcum to thuh tools.. I was gonna get me another one as it was. -- Zantastik talk 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

But this sortof concerns you (I have no idea who added it). 68.39.174.238 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I'm fine with it if you know about it. 68.39.174.238 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Seems we have a user with a bit of a volcanic temper, eh?  :) Thanks for the heads-up. I just don't want to deal with another user that screams for my head despite my attempts to apologize. I appreciate the help. Best, Lucky 6.9 03:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I was just noticing how the only keep votes were from those from whom the author solicited help. Any thoughts about how we can manage this? Postdlf 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The Wikimedia software has some sort of a bug with regard to properly noticing "edit conflicts" on talk pages. Occasionally, someone's just-inserted comments get silently over-written by another user's just-inserted comments.

Atlant 16:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC) reply

ya, im currently in Purdue University right now. I'm only in Cordova in Christmas and Summer breaks now. Barcode 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC) reply

i was looking at your edits etc, and you seemed much more experienced than me at editing, so I was wondering if you could help me out on my article One Beale. my main question was creating a references section at the bottom of the article. Some articles ive looked at have a specific way of referencing, similer to that of MLA format for works cited pages in research papers. I am an engineering major so writing papers is something im not a fan of, but i know i hate works cited pages. despite this i wanted the article to look better and more formalized. Thanks Barcode 23:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

thanks, that was awesome, i'll take a look at how you did it. Barcode 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you. :) Yeah you hit it on the head. PAIN isn't monitored by many admins because honestly, it's sort of painful work. There's very little glory in it and it usually brings alot of grief, which you can see from my talk page. :) -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 10:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

If you can't find independent, third-party, Reliable Sources, then I don't think there's the basis for a valid article, under standard Wikipedia rules. To be frank, just because some fringe person declared a candidacy, or even got on the ballot, doesn't make them inherently notable. While it sounds like a noble goal to document all candidates, no matter how insignificant, Wikipedia is not the League of Women Voters candidate guide. Fan-1967 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Obviously, you and I don't always agree on everything (laugh). Nevertheless, I think you try to listen to both sides. There is another article somewhat related to the one you've been working on, which I think needs the eye of a neutral party. If you are willing, please take a look at Neo-confederate. I have listed some of my objections to this article on the Talk page of the article. If this is something you don't care to help with, is there someone else you would recommend? Thanks.-- Fix Bayonets! 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply