| Revision as of 14:14, 19 August 2008 view sourceCENSEI (talk | contribs)1,318 edits →Sorry← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:47, 9 August 2015 view source Doug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Oversighters, Administrators263,848 editsm Protected "User talk:CENSEI": restored deleted page, no reason for anyone to edit this now ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (316 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I am not disputing my block, I could quite frankly give a rats ass about Misplaced Pages and or editing it as I hve evidently run afoul of the queer mafia running this asylum. What I am a little more than pissed off about is Xenophrenic's that I am anyones sockpupet, as far`as I am concerned those are borderline fighting words and I wont stand for it. At any rate, please unblock me for the purpose of defneding myself or if any of the invovled want to email me to hear my side please do so: censei@yahoo.com and if not then go fuck yourselves. And if anything else comes of this, take the fucking sockpuppet tag of my user page. ] (]) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) |decline=As you are not requesting unblock, this is not the appropriate template. This template is for unblock requests. ]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| To Do: ] | |||
| Care to elaborate? ] (]) 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome == | |||
| :You used the unblock template. But you weren't requesting an unblock. So I disabled it. The other matter doesn't appear relevant; you have been blocked since April, so I cannot imagine how you even happened to notice that checkuser request. You don't appear to be asking for any specific action, and I doubt that anyone is interested enough to email you for 'your side,' since no one was even interested enough to actually run a checkuser. There's no need for you to 'defend yourself;' you're already indefinitely blocked, so nothing more can be done to you- there's nothing to defend yourself from. Your name is vaguely familiar to me, but I don't remember who you are or why you are blocked, and I don't care enough to look at your histories. I can't think of any action which could be taken here that would make the encyclopedia better, so there's no point in taking any action. I hope that is sufficient elaboration for you. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| :: A freind told me about the witchhunt .. I mean checkuser and I was livid when I found out. As for the rest I do feel the need to defend myself. Its a little something called honor, and it would seem that you are as unfmailiar with that concept as you are with me, but I suppose that after seeing your user page your animosity it better understood. ] (]) 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I suspect you know, you are not permitted to remove previous requests if you are still requesting unblock. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I am not disputing my block so that I may edit articles, I could quite frankly give a rats ass about Misplaced Pages and/or editing it as I hve evidently run afoul of the queer mafia running this asylum. What I am a little more than pissed off about is Xenophrenic's that I am anyones sockpupet, as far`as I am concerned those are borderline fighting words and I wont stand for it. At any rate, please unblock me for the purpose of defneding myself or if any of the invovled want to email me to hear my side please do so: censei@yahoo.com and if not then go fuck yourselves. And if anything else comes of this, take the fucking sockpuppet tag of my user page. ] (]) 19:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)|decline=Further offensive non-requests will result in this page being protected. This ''is'' where you defend yourself, although you may want to read ] before attempting to do so again, as you're on your last chance. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:Gary King|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> | |||
| <font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| How was my request "offensive"? Please be specific. | |||
| Thanks. ] (]) 19:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| How the hell do I defend myself via the talk page? The action is not here, its over at the RfCu page? This is, btw, and it was as much bullshit then as it is now and ''I am fucking sick of it''. ] (]) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == AFD == | |||
| :Read your request back carefully, and see if you can identify anything in it which might hurt the feelings of a reader. I'm confident that you'll find it. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please give a ''reason'' for your , per ]. -- ] (]) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : No. Now leave me alone. ] (]) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your edits to Glenn Greenwald. . . == | |||
| Hi CENSEI, I have placed a notice of your to the Glenn Greenwald biography at the biography of living persons noticeboard (). Please gain consensus before re-adding the same or like material, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, ] (]) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of referenced text from Hannity's book article== | |||
| I reverted the you made to the article. Please be aware that there has been a consensus building process in the discussion page. Please discuss specific issues in the talk page or request for an ] if you are not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion. Well, I happen to notice your previous talk about Glenn Greenwald. <FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="#FF0000">]</FONT><sup><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" SIZE="+1" Color="blue">]</FONT></sup> 10:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I did not reinsert the material because the BLP policy would seem to indicate that when there is a legitimate dispute over whether or not content is appropriate it is up to the editors who want to see it included to make the case before the material can go in the article. That’s why the process went forward on the Greenwald article with the material not included. ] (]) 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your removal of factual material from ] == | |||
| What are you saying ? That someone who uses a reporter to disseminate false information ''is'' a news source? — ] ] 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : It is immaterial what you or I think, its Greenwald's opinion, and is not terribly notable in an article about Brian Ross. ] (]) 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Um, no, if the "source" is not a source of facts, but of fiction, that is absolutely central to whether the "source" should be ptotected. — ] ] 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: And when a reliable enough source, or better yet several of them come to that conclusion, then it might be noteworthy. Right now all we have is one opinion from one marginally noteworthy person. ] (]) 18:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::''Right now all we have is one opinion from one marginally noteworthy person. '' | |||
| ::::Yeah, versus...you. — ] ] 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Sorry guy, but its clear that you have to source it, the source has to be notable on that topic, and it has to be a significant enough event to include it in the article. These are the rules, as I am quickly coming to understand them, and I will enforce them where I encounter them being broken. ] (]) 18:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editing== | |||
| CENSEI wrote: "I have been going through a lot of the articles you have contributed to and I just have to say ..... not cool." Please CENSEI refrain from ]. Seriously, your edits are sloppy, you are confrontational, your edit summaries are often misleading and you are focusing on removing left-leaning criticism while boost up right-leaning criticism. This isn't NPOV editing, it is merely partisan editing, not an effort to improve Misplaced Pages. Bring up your concerns with Goethean on the ] talk page and get others involved otherwise you are violating ] and creating a disturbance. Misplaced Pages should not be a contest of wills, no matter how strongly you feel about things. --] (]) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :<blockquote>Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles</blockquote>, so I certainly dispute the stalking accusation. My edits may be sloppy for now, but I am a quick learner. Please point to an example where I removed left leaning criticism and boosted right leaning criticism? All I have done so far is to decreas all criticism, especialy when it violates policy. ] (]) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll repeat myself: bring in others and aim for consensus. Misplaced Pages isn't a contest of wills and if you just go around reverting Goethean's edits in a sloppy fashion while treathening and berating him, you are just creating an unpleasant atmosphere that isn't going to conclusively solve things. I think your removal of Goethean's unsourced addition to the Brian Ross article earlier was a good one since it wasn't at all sourced. But arguing about WP:WEIGHT is not a clear-cut battle and saying that TPM and Glenn Greenwald aren't valid sources is I think going too far. I think you are editing too fast in the case of Milbank as there were good sources that supported that material, including Politico, but you were just removing it wholesale while being confrontational with Goethean. You aren't aiming for consensus, you are trying to dominate via a contest of wills, just what I was saying that Goethean shouldn't try to do earlier. --] (]) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I removed nothing from the Milbank article, I just trimmed it down to an approproate length, as pwe ]. Consensus does not trump policy. ] (]) 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Are you sure? This is what I am referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dana_Milbank&diff=230028885&oldid=230026286 --] (]) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| To answer your earlier question, here is an edit that I felt boosted up a right-leaning take on things. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mark_Halperin&diff=next&oldid=230050033 | |||
| Notice how you emphasized the "reinforce long standing beliefs of ]" based on a reference for which the text isn't even available online. That struck me as strange. You are doing some research for some positions. You just said yourself that you come from Conservapedia. You are also removing TPM and Gleen Greenwald links, which are left leaning sources (and I've seen you remove DailyKos links, but that is more understandable and it is an open blogging site.) You are also ridiculing MMFA. This is unfortunately partisan talk. --] (]) 01:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : The whole sentence I added, not just the section above will provides it with the needed context '''Halperin was criticized by conservatives who used the memo to ''reinforce long standing beliefs of ]''.'''. I thought I was being clear that is was conservatives, cited fro Ponnuru and the Washington Times that were linking this to thier own perceptions of bias. ] (]) 15:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "BLP board" == | |||
| Can you please provide a link to the specific section so I can participate in that discussion? Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 00:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:Nedra Pickler| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:] (]) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)|] (]) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| ==Unblock== | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Yeago follows me around my edits undoing them and I get blocked? He remvoes a tag on an article when he clearly knows there is an issue with iy and I get blocked? No one sees anything wrong with that? ] (]) 13:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)|decline=Yeago has been blocked as well. In any event, you clearly violated 3RR. And if posting unblock requests in the future, remember to ]. — ] (]) 13:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| == ANI-notice == | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. — ] ] 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :At this time, I've blocked your account from editing for 48 hours; the editor you were revert warring with has been blocked for 24 hours. Please note that further edit warring in the near future may result in further blocks of escalating length; I'd instead encourage you to make appropriate use of ] and Misplaced Pages's ] process to better develop ] regarding the most appropriate article versions. I appreciate that you're approaching this issue with the best of intentions, and should emphasize that this block is not a punishment -- should you convincingly commit to stop reverting and instead discuss issues (note: "instead" rather than "also"), I'd be happy to consider an unblock request on that condition. Obviously you're welcome to appeal this, as I see you've done with your other recent block. Take care. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unblock== | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I was blocked for edit warring on and article and vandalism. ] would suggest that I have the right to remove a personal attack against me, as Goethean made over at ANI, and the IP editor who called me “a racist, sexist right wing nut job”. I would be more than happy to explain all my edits on talk, as I have done before, and if I am not unblocked for editing, I would like to be unblocked so that I can defend myself over at ANI. Thank you. ] (]) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC) |decline=Please address ''your'' actions not the actions of other, also it may help to take a peak at ] — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I did replace the {{tl|vandal}} template with {{tl|userlinks}} (they're functionally identical, but most people are more familiar with the former -- I'm not sure if they meant anything by it; they may have just thought it would be a useful template). I can't do anything about an edit summary, unfortunately, but if anything you judge to be an attack remains on a talk page, please point it out. You're welcome to respond on this talk page, in the meantime. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Its not about removing the edit summary, I feel as if I was treated unfairly and that no one will take a personal attacks, or even policy issues seriously around here. After complaing about edit warring Goethian's first edit is a revision on the article. . ] (]) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, in all fairness, the user who called you a "racist, sexist right wing nut job" ''is'' blocked (by me), and you're free to let admins know if that sort of verbal abuse continues. More than anything, the behavior we're hoping for here is discussion (hopefully the civil, consensus-building variety). – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, in all fairness, three editors are enaged in edit warring: one is blocked for 2 days, one is blocked for one day (and has made peronal attacks), and the other is not blocked at all? How the hell is that fair? ] (]) 18:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Has the aforementioned third user violated the ]? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: According to the block log, you blocked me for edit warring, and not for 3RR. If I was guilty of edit warring (which in retrospect, I agree that I was) were not all users who were engaged in reverting without talking also guilty of edit warring, it was the same behavior for all users involve din that article for the past several days, including an administrator. And if it was only because I crossed the 3RR boundary, why was I not warned of this instead of going right to the block? All I want is consistency. ] (]) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Edit warring describes a general behavior, while 3RR describes both a specific violation and what is commonly referred to as an "electric fence". You've been linked to both policies, over the past few days, and are presumably aware of them. As far as consistency, if police see three cars speeding, two of which are going nearly double the limit and one of which is slightly over, which car(s) do you think are most likely to be pulled over? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Edit warring does describe a certain behavior, a behavior that 4 editors were behaving in, and only 2 of them were punished. Your analogy doesn’t really work because you don’t have to deliberate whom you apply the rules to, you pick and choose who to apply the rules to. So lets try another, more apt analogy. A policeman mans a DUI checkpoint, and is supposed to check the sobriety of every driver that passes him. The first person he sees driving up is his friend, and he waves him through. The second guy he sees, he pulls to the side and smelling alcohol on his breath asks how much he has had to drink, but lets him go through without a breathalyzer. The third guy is pulled to the side given a breathalyzer and blows over the limit and is belligerent to boot, he goes to jail for a day. The last guy is pulled over, and he too blows over the limit, and goes to jail for 2 days. All the analogies do not get around the fact that this was handled selectively and disproportionately. Consistency ….. pass it on. ] (]) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Not a very good analogy for you, either, I'm afraid. In this case, ''all'' of the "drivers" were checked, and all of those above the "legal limit" were blocked. What's unfair about that? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. ] (]) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It was my racing that led us both past this legal limit. I apologize for this. But fair is fair; 3RR is 3RR. The other editors of the article are doing no such racing--they are innocuous contributers who deserve the benefit of the doubt.] (]) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == McMaster-Carr == | |||
| I am fully aware that McMaster-Carr is not the cheapest place in the world, but it is extremely convenient because one of their warehouses is in chicago and I can get same day delivery for the price of UPS ground. Note only that, but they usually carry just about anything I need in stock (although I do wish they had a fuller metric hardware selection...but you can't have everything). For all of our production requirements we definitely use distributors to help with the cost, supply, and management. McMaster is also great for getting onesies and twosies for prototypes =) --] (]) 01:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Elmhurst actually :) I sent one of my engineers out there, and he passed it 5 times trying to find it ... how someone missed a 3 million squarefoot solid brick building is beyond me. McMaster Carr has saved my ass before as well. Where else can I order a hasteloy gearpump and be 100% confident that I can pick it up 40 minutes after I call them. ] (]) 02:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Article probation notice == | |||
| ] Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, ], is on ]. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at ]. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-probation1 --> - ] (]) 04:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2008 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:The Obama Nation|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] 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 ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''In addition, please be reminded that Obama-related articles (broadly construed) are under ]. Please discuss changes on the talk page '''instead of''', not in addition to, continually reverting article content'' --] <sup><small>]</small></sup>/] 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry == | |||
| Although we are evidently coming from different political perspectives, I want to apologize for accusing you of a POV rv on the TON article. It was a true lapse on my part, but a good faith mistake. Aloha, ] (]) 02:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem, but whats the TON article? ] (]) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:47, 9 August 2015
CENSEI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not disputing my block, I could quite frankly give a rats ass about Misplaced Pages and or editing it as I hve evidently run afoul of the queer mafia running this asylum. What I am a little more than pissed off about is Xenophrenic's bullshit allegations that I am anyones sockpupet, as far`as I am concerned those are borderline fighting words and I wont stand for it. At any rate, please unblock me for the purpose of defneding myself or if any of the invovled want to email me to hear my side please do so: censei@yahoo.com and if not then go fuck yourselves. And if anything else comes of this, take the fucking sockpuppet tag of my user page. CENSEI (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you are not requesting unblock, this is not the appropriate template. This template is for unblock requests. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:35, 3 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.
Care to elaborate? CENSEI (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- You used the unblock template. But you weren't requesting an unblock. So I disabled it. The other matter doesn't appear relevant; you have been blocked since April, so I cannot imagine how you even happened to notice that checkuser request. You don't appear to be asking for any specific action, and I doubt that anyone is interested enough to email you for 'your side,' since no one was even interested enough to actually run a checkuser. There's no need for you to 'defend yourself;' you're already indefinitely blocked, so nothing more can be done to you- there's nothing to defend yourself from. Your name is vaguely familiar to me, but I don't remember who you are or why you are blocked, and I don't care enough to look at your histories. I can't think of any action which could be taken here that would make the encyclopedia better, so there's no point in taking any action. I hope that is sufficient elaboration for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- A freind told me about the witchhunt .. I mean checkuser and I was livid when I found out. As for the rest I do feel the need to defend myself. Its a little something called honor, and it would seem that you are as unfmailiar with that concept as you are with me, but I suppose that after seeing your user page your animosity it better understood. CENSEI (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- As I suspect you know, you are not permitted to remove previous requests if you are still requesting unblock. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- A freind told me about the witchhunt .. I mean checkuser and I was livid when I found out. As for the rest I do feel the need to defend myself. Its a little something called honor, and it would seem that you are as unfmailiar with that concept as you are with me, but I suppose that after seeing your user page your animosity it better understood. CENSEI (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
CENSEI (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not disputing my block so that I may edit articles, I could quite frankly give a rats ass about Misplaced Pages and/or editing it as I hve evidently run afoul of the queer mafia running this asylum. What I am a little more than pissed off about is Xenophrenic's bullshit allegations that I am anyones sockpupet, as far`as I am concerned those are borderline fighting words and I wont stand for it. At any rate, please unblock me for the purpose of defneding myself or if any of the invovled want to email me to hear my side please do so: censei@yahoo.com and if not then go fuck yourselves. And if anything else comes of this, take the fucking sockpuppet tag of my user page. CENSEI (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Further offensive non-requests will result in this page being protected. This is where you defend yourself, although you may want to read this guide before attempting to do so again, as you're on your last chance. Hersfold 19:35, 3 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.
How was my request "offensive"? Please be specific.
How the hell do I defend myself via the talk page? The action is not here, its over at the RfCu page? This is, btw, not the first time I have been accused of sockpuppetry and it was as much bullshit then as it is now and I am fucking sick of it. CENSEI (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Read your request back carefully, and see if you can identify anything in it which might hurt the feelings of a reader. I'm confident that you'll find it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)