Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 4 February 2008

Template:Busy2

This is a Misplaced Pages user page. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to has no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/User talk:BilCat.

NOTE: I will no longer be fighting one-man, long-term campaigns against vandalism, ignorance, stupidity, corporate interests, anti-corporrate interests, anti-government intersts, nationalistic pride, anti-Western bias, anti-American language bias, inaccuracy, falsehoods, and just plain contentious interpretations. I will remove/tag such garbage on the first sight, ask for help on the second occurance, and perhaps even ask for admin intervention after that. But without support - especially admin support - I will not try to fix Misplaced Pages's damaged reputation as being a haven for misinformation and vandals on my own - it's not worth the strees. I'm sorry it has come to this, but we all have to recognize our limits, and this is mine.

NOTE: If you're here because an IP user left a message somewhere attributed to me, or has been reverting my edits wholesale be aware that I have a Wiki-stalker/troll. And since I can't feed the trolls, I won't be responding to your messages about its activities. Sorry if the troll has caused you problems, but rules are rules!

NOTE: Most comments will be archived about once a month. Critical comments are welcome, but those containing highly-offensive or profane material will be deleted immediately, and the overall content ignored.

NO BOTS ALLOWED!! You'll have post here yourself!

Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me - I'm NOT a newbie . (Policies are different). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidleines can be ignored. If you do it anyway, and turn out to be wrong, an apology would be the considerate thing to make.

If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!

If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism!

If you initiated a conversation here, I will most likely respond to your comments here, rather than on your talk page (except for certain people from Alberta or Australia!) Also, if you are discussing an article, I would prefer to use that article's talk page, unless you'd prefer not to use that page for some reason, such as commenting on a particular user's edits in semi-privacy. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments.

Thanks.

AND PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS!!!! The annoying SineBot doesn't work here!

Title Case May Be Used in Headings on This Page

Me, myself, and I use serial commas.

Archives

Archive 1 - 2006 Archive 2 - January - March 2007 Archive 3 - April - May 2007 Archive 4 - June - July 2007 Archive 5 - August - September 2007 Archive 6 - October - November 2007 Archive 7 - December 2007

Comments

Congratulations!

I see that you are among the 5 most active editors to the Boeing 747 article (#3, actually). It has just been granted featured article status! The star isn't shown yet but it's listed among the promotions. Archtransit (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New word

Canidalism - the belief by some Canadians that the USA wants to eat their country. :) - BillCJ (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if they don't want to eat us up, they sure want our water to drink! LOL

Infobox missile

Hi Bill - it's easily done... but the immediate result would be that the caption (such as it is...) would disappear from every article using the infobox. Before doing that, it really ought to be discussed with whatever WikiProject oversees that template (MILHIST?) I can't imagine any objections, but it's better to avoid accidentally treading on toes if possible! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since the data is still right there adjoining the photo and since the "caption" doesn't actually add anything anyway (which is why you wanted to change it I guess!) I've gona ahead and made the change. If it causes a fuss, it's an easy revert. To make it work, an extra "caption" field has to be added to the data in the article - take a look at this example to see what needs to be done. Hope this is what you were after! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I just meant the pipe at the end of the line; when putting it at the start of the line is so much more elegant :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

XF5U

If it's not in the right series, why don't you put it where it belongs, rather than just deleting it? Lou Sander (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because until now, the page hasn't listed Navy aircraft, and I'm not sure they ought to be there. The page is a mess right now,and has expanded far beyond its original intent, which was to list the X-series planes only. I don't have time to rework it right now, but that's no reason to intentionally make it worse. - BillCJ (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of WP:OWN has crept into this article. Other editors can't divine its original intent, or know that Navy aircraft haven't been listed. It's hard to see how adding an experimental aircraft can "make worse" an article listing experimental aircraft, especially when the added one seems to be in perfect synch with the information in the lead. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You can be bold and make a category for US Naval planes if you like, and add your entry to it. If I tried to work on it myself right now, others might think I owned the article. I intend in the next few days to bring the page up at WT:AIR to get input on how to revamp the article, as there are several ways to go with it, and I usually don't try to make those decisions by myself, esp since I'm not sure which is is the best way. However, I don't expect you to have divined all that on your own, but neither did I think I had to inform you of my every intention in improving the page. - BillCJ (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You may get a kick out of this. I don't have any intrinsic interest in the XF5U, and I never even heard of it before today. But today I was listening to an old time radio show that mentioned it (a Hop Harrigan episode from 1947 -- I listened to Hop when I was a kid). Just out of curiosity, I looked for the XF5U on Misplaced Pages. It didn't show up, probably because I was putting dashes in the name. I finally found it, but that was after I ran across the article with the list of experimental planes. Since the XF5U was an experimental plane that wasn't on that list, and since it seemed to fit the qualifications in the lead, I felt the need to go back and add it, so I did. Lou Sander (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:U-571

Um, were you planning to reply on Talk:U-571 (film), or just pretend not to notice that I've asked you very nicely to justify your mud-slinging? It'd be even better if you could justify your edit (other than with "I'm unhappy"-stuff). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Option 3: I missed your response totally. I was busy making more mud :) Of course, as an American, option 3 doesn't count when a non-Amercian has already made up his mind otherwise. Do what you want on the page, as I'm done fighting bruised British egos. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for some input, as I was (and am) just trying to make the article clearer. But if you're fed up, don't worry about it. By the way, I too have just had a message from 70.4.227.155 on my user page, under the heading Talk:U-571. Don't know if it was from you, but doesn't seem to relate to me at all. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have wikistalkers. Sorry they got to you, but I assure you I do all my ranting :) under this account. They're cowards who have to use sockpuppets and dynamic IPs to harrass others becuase their original accounts were blocked. They're not that bright, and they think acting like this will get them reinstated! They're just a nusiance, like ants at a picnic, but I am sorry you were bothered by them. - BillCJ (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry you're having to put up with them. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

-200 747s

Bill, please have a look at my Talk for your 747 reply - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MC-130 Addition

BillCJ, I hope your health is better. I know Misplaced Pages encourages updated work, but my novice addition probably looks amature. I am well versed in MC-130 operations (eleven years); as a MC-130 weapons officer, a peer approached me about some inaccuracies with C-130 and MC-130 information. I see you have already improved my MC-130P addition in the form of better format. I am offically in training in my Misplaced Pages abilities, therefore, when I understand the code better, I will add a picture to go along with the MC-130P. BTW, I don't have the official number of aircraft, but for the Combat Spear, MC-130W, there were two aircraft as of November 2007 vice the one that is listed on the site. The 73 SOS, now stationed at Cannon AFB, operate those aircraft. --jb 08:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 —  03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the canvassing accusations. Anyway, I shot my wad over that one, and perhaps any future admin chances of my own. I was amused by someone's commnet on your "inability to think for yourself". That's something I expect to hear from people with misconceptions of the military, and I think that's all that comment was about. If anything, you've demonstrated an ability to think for yourself "too much", not too little! Oh well, I can't say that in an RFA either though. I don't think this has much of a chance of going through, especially with the canvassing accusations. Without any consideration of how you worded it or who you contacted, some good editors seemed put off by the accusation alone. That says more about them than about you, in my opinion. If you need any support regarding fallout from this, let me know. - BillCJ (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• BQZip01's RfA got closed earlier today. Sorry. :( Try again later. Try not to give too much extra info in your answers in the future. People used that against you it seemed. I didn't get the canvassing thing either. We wouldn't know about it otherwise unless we stumbled across it. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Provincial constitutions?

Copyedit form my talk page: "Bill, I asked this at Talk:Provinces and territories of Canada, and I thought i'd run it by you also. Do Canadian provinces have their own constitutions? This is not covered in the Provinces and territories of Canada article, and it seems to me it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"

As a matter of fact, provinces and the federal government are governed by the British North America Act of 1867 and all the various incarnations that came about since confederation or our birth as a nation. So the answer is no, provinces do not have their own charters or constitutions. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

Re: Template:RAN amphibious warfare ships

Hi Bill, I was going to drop you a line to explain why I made those changes. The landing craft would be out of place on templates for larger navies, but given that the RAN has always been pretty small I think that they're OK. List of Royal Australian Navy ships might be a better link given that most of the ships on the template are now out of service, but there's probably material for a very good article on Amphibious warfare ships of Australia or similar which I might create in the longer run. I think that I've missed three LSTs by the way, and am trying to find their names. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just created Amphibious warfare ships of Australia as a stub. The Navy book has a very useful chapter which will make excellent source material. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

UserBox Addition

Thanks - it was not me! most unusual to add to other peoples user page but we must WP:AGF. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)

Unless you are seeing a different article, there was no lengthy discussion on its talk page about the name. The ONLY section on the article name is 1 person explaining why they moved it from "Bionic Woman" to "Bionic Woman (2007 TV series)" and another user saying they agree. I won't move it back myself, but I will start a move reuquest since I know I am right. TJ Spyke 09:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you make this odd comment on my talkpage: ? Or was that just an IP pretending to be you? I never edited your userpage or nominate some list of airlines for deletion (both of what that IP say I did). TJ Spyke 11:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The joy of Jimbo's open editing and trolls. I only comment on this username. - BillCJ (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a peer review of Boeing 737

Hello! Based on your areas of interest, we believe that you may be interested in participating in the peer review of Boeing 737. Comments from reviewers are needed over the next few weeks to assist editors in improving the article; we would be very grateful if you could spare some of your time to help out! If you would prefer not to receive such invitations in the future, please leave a message on this page, and we won't trouble you again. If you have any questions about the review process, you can ask them here. Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Now what? Well, now when you look at the history of an article, you should see a new link beside each version marked "Rollback" (next to the link that says "Undo"). In one click, "Rollback" reverts the article back to the state it was in when the last different previous editor changed it. In other words, it doesn't matter whether a vandal has made 1 edit or 20 - Rollback will blast the article back to the state when the last editor who wasn't the current editor worked on it. Hope that makes sense!?! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I just tried it out, and LOVE it. - BillCJ (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

Thanks Bill! I think that one of the nice side-effects of this unhappy process is that we're going to get a lot better intra-project navigation out of it; and the collapsibility of the navboxes means that we should be able to include more sequences than ever before. Apart from the RCAF/CF: Sweden, the RAAF/RAN, and Brazil all have neat numerical sequences that are well-documented. I've got to take a break for a few hours at least, so good luck! --Rlandmann (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Navboxes are super RL. Thanks to you and anybody that helped/ing with making them. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake in the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation template Bill; that was the first template I have done, I'll try not to muck it up again :-) YSSYguy (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. My secret is to usually find one that works, and "borrow" the coding! - BillCJ (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang in there.

You don't have to worry, because the system actually helps to fight vandals, even if they get a momentary kick out of it. It's easy to revert, and there is a large group of editors watching pages to catch the vandals. It may be tiring to combat it, but in the end, their effort is ultimately wasted because it brings no lasting change to the Wiki. --Born2flie (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not as important as the fight others do in the deserts of the real world tho. Those guys make the world free for me to make Wikipeida free! And we won't forget that they and their families make the real sacrifics.

PS. You might get a kick out of this diff. Can we say "Amero-phobia"? - BillCJ (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Ah, I see now, extremely sorry. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been a litte contentious already, so I can see how it might look like me :) But I promise I only use this screen name on Misplaced Pages. Forgive me for the cleanup above, since it's not applicable now. - BillCJ (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel starvation

Why are my edits being reverted? Surely, there's nothing wrong!!!

--202.95.200.17 (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The answer is all over your talk page. Stop editing long enough to read what's there, and pay attention to what is said. - BillCJ (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bill - I'm monitoring the situation. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

You deserve one of these in recognition of your impressive work on maintaining aviation articles and correcting vandalism. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User 63.215.26.148

Hi Bill, I remember you as someone who knows a lot about airplanes. Would you mind taking a look at the activities of Special:Contributions/63.215.26.148 ? I can't really figure out what he's up to, but it doesn't look all that productive. I first noticed him on this article: Controlled flight into terrain, and then when I looked at some of his other contributions I discovered that he had taken a perfectly good redirect page and turned it into something completely different: Hansajet. I've reverted both of those articles, but I don't have either the time nor expertise to understand what he's doing or do anything about it. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm busy at the momet with another project. You might post this at WT:AIR - there should be someone there that can look into this. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Luftwaffe as a generic term

BillCJ, I saw that you were involved in a discussion whether or not the word Luftwaffe is used in a generic way in German. I added some new and compelling (so I think) arguments to the discussion, you might be interested in. I would like to invite you to share your point of view and to facilitate the decision making. -> link. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I'd rather stay out of it. This guy seems like a troll (at least his actions are trollish) out to make a point that registered editors don't AGF with IP editors. However, my problem with him is with his words and actionsm, includ the use of profanity on my talk page. Hence my desire to bow out of this one, as I doubt he'd be willing to listen to me now, seeing he didn't listen earlier. - BillCJ (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Australian Carrier Hornets

Following the failure of the Invincible sale,

"The Minister made a statement in the House in the course of a budget debate saying 'The needs that led to the Government's decision to buy HMS Invincible remain. In particular, there is the necessity to ensure an adequate anti-submarine capability given the long maritime sea routes between Australia and her principal trading partners'. He then outlined the scope of the re-examination of options. These included; a new ship of the Invincible class, one of the Iwo Jima class, one of the Garibaldi class, possibly a SCS, a conventional carrier of 35,000 to 40,000 tons able to carry the FA18, British and United States proposals to build a simple carrier to merchant ship standards, and smaller carriers, including the conversion of existing container and other merchant ships." - Page 173 of Anthony Wright's Australian Carrier Decisions...the bibliographic data is in the Melbourne rewrite's bibliography if you want it.

Bits in single square brackets are inserted by me for clarification, and do not replace any of the original text. The underlining highlights the point I believe you were interested in.

Hope its useful! -- saberwyn 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Montego Bay

Excuse me, but I think you are sorely mistaken. Montego Bay's mention in a Beach Boys song is notable, but it's mention in an Aerosmith song is not?? That's all I simply intended to revert-your removal of the Aerosmith mention. And how is that linkspam? I thought linkspam was external links meant to advertise a product. Abog (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. - BillCJ (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur site link? What are you talking about? I've never posted any external links or spam in the article or talk page for Montego Bay. So please quit spinning lies. Your so-called warning needs to be removed, since no external links or spam ever took place. All I did was add a few internal wiki-links. Excuse me for tyring to contribute something to the article. Abog (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. I now see how my undoing of your one edit could be confused with the undoing of another one of your edit's. I considered the edit vandalism as it was a removal of content, with no justification why in the edit summary. I felt the mention to be on equal footing with Kokomo's mention, as they are both songs about tropical places that featured "Montego Bay". Sorry if I over-reacted. As I've been a Wikipedian for two years who contributes a lot, I don't take too kindly to warnings and ultimatums. But I now see it was all a misunderstanding. Abog (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

Bill I sent an email to you. --Colputt (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

B2 Toilet

Sorry for the tone of my posts and comments if I seemed uncivil. It really annoys me that people who've never seen a B2 make assertations one way or the other. As for the disagreement, you do not remove content just because it's uncited, you strive to cite it. --Asams10 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My reason for doubting it was the fact that it remained for 4 months after first being questioned, which is why I stated I removed it. I probably would not have removed it had it not been there unsourced that long. Also, as I stated, the style of writing is reminicent of sneaky vandalism, my other reason for doubting it. Rather than continue to revert with tags, you should have waited those three minute till after you found the source. I'm glad you were able to find one, but please remeber that to impetus to source is one those adding or keeping the item, not those questioning or removing it. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A101

Hi Bill, what a pleasure ! Yes, the photo is loadable under Italian and U.S. rules, but its PD status is controversial on commons which does not allow these loadings (an old story). In fact, I loaded the Image:A101.jpg on en.wiki, complete with its appropriate copyright status and I promptly filled Agusta A.101 helicopter template. One day or another I will continue with my "cousins" Agusta vintage helicopters. I promise it ! Thanks for your suggestion. See you around ! --EH101 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Should the "count" be capitalized, since it is a title? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right ! I fixed count in Count. Just for your curiosity, I did the mistake due to different rules on capitalization between Italian and English. In Italian conte must be written without any capitals (maybe it depends from our republican status and subsequent change in orthographic rules) --EH101 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Humm. All the titles I can think are capitalized in English. But then I live in the US where there's not real royalty. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

F-16 main image

C'mon dude that was a gorgeous shot of the F-16's elegant silhouette, very representative of the type, unlike the current image. There's no policy that imposes limits on picture height and with the page length, I thought it was very suitable. I ask you to reconsider. Koalorka (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It can go anywhere on the page, and should, but not necessarily the Lead. Yes, there is no policy against it, but the infobox is there for the info as much as the pic. Readers shouldn't have to scroll down to see the first lines of the infobox. I'm not going to war ocver this tho, so if you want to re-add it to the Infobox, it's your choice, tho someone else may remove it. Alternatively, you can ask on the article's talk page, and see if anyone else cares either way (or even do both). - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

sure , a helping hand is always welcome..

Certainly,

If you could Wikify and eliminate my typos(not using my primary browser and there might be prettymuch of typos) and in general help to NEAT it would be greatly appreciated.. Absolutely, the only difference btw Ka-29RLD and Ka-31 is the avionics suite and the GPS/GLONASS upgrades..this sure can be worked. but i need to dig up some more sources..esp for the latest upgrades (Elbit seemed to have upgraded a command control relay system, but i see it in only one news reease, will keep u posted) & again...

thanks
Swraj (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Mediation Cabal

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-31 Indian Navy; on whether the claims of the Rg Veda on Varuna have any real function in IIndian Navy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for Infobox fix

Hi BillCJ, I myself had changed old climate box to infobox, but saved it (unsigned) before realizing that it broke ref section somehow. I discovered the goof with ref and did not know how to fix it quickly, so reverted it. Thanks for the infobox fix. Chirag (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! You had changed the Infobox as an IP, and then reverted it as a Registered user without saying you were the same person, so I didn't catch the connection. What I did was to check Template:Infobox Weather. When I saw there was a date field outside of the ref tag, I just added it - simple fix. Checking the template page often, though not always, helps in finding and fixing such problems. That's the good think abour Wikipeida - we can all double-check each others' work, and help fix problems and errors. I still make pleny of error, and others fix tmine on a daily basis. - BillCJ (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing thumb sizes on Japanese military pictures

Hi there. Please note that I may restore some in an attempt to ensure the pictures line up properly with text, rather than have one or two lines creep in underneath. I won't do it for the moment, but when I do I hope you won't revert me - or will at least raise a discussion on the talk page. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it makes a difference what resolutions you are using, and that the pics may not line up at other settings. It's probably best to move the pics to othr sections, to a gallery on the page, or to remove them. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

My comments weren't directed at you, but only as clarification to the previous comment. You and I disagree here and there, but we both yield to consensus and remain civil. I think many others are quickly becoming uncivil in this discussion. — BQZip01 —  03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have two boys under the age of three...I have a few he can use...

Strictly for feedback, User:TomPhan weighed in on my AfD, but he has almost no edits outside my AfD. His edits are similar to CC's (misquoting me/misrepresenting what I said in order earn "points" with reviewers). Something strikes me as sockpuppety about this. Do you think I should bring it up at WP:SSP? Should I simply request a checkuser to verify? — BQZip01 —  03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)