Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 16 November 2005

To whom it may concern

At the beginning of September, the college year has begun anew. Since I'm not entirely up to speed in my studies, I had thought to take a short wikibreak to see what the upcoming semester is like. However, after reviewing my schedule for the next couple of months, it seems that my studies will take up a lot of time if I am to graduate this year. As we all know, it's rather difficult to spend a little time on the Wiki, as it's too inviting to keep spending a little more. Hence, I have decided to refrain from editing entirely, for an as of yet indefinite period. It is unfortunate that I am leaving some unfinished business in my wake, but then, Misplaced Pages is almost by definition unfinished business of its entirety. So I wish you all best of luck in editing, and I hope that somebody will keep the AMW warm in my absence.

Keep on wiking! Radiant_>|< 17:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion reform

Hi Radiant, Hope the studies are going well! I noticed your deletion reform idea on the Snowspinner RfA. I've been working around with a pretty similar idea myself (inventing a wheel most likely). I understand if you don't have the time right now, but I thought you might like to take a look. You will find it here. Happy studies. --Doc (?) 11:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Meta user account

Hey, I just seen that your userpage was deleted on Meta. Deletion summary stated you didn't have a user account. Just wanted to let you know, just in case you forgot to register on Meta. ∞Who?¿? 00:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: afd

I've come to the conclusion that AfD doesn't scale. At time of writing we have 782,221 articles, and 2,492,328 pages in total; 515,960 registered users, of which 648 are administrators; and yet it only takes 6 keep/delete votes in a row to get something kept/deleted, because after that nobody else bothers to vote. 6 people out of over half a million registered users - that's something like one hundreth of one percent. Who knows how many readers we have, but if it only takes one hundreth of one percent of the editors to get a crappy article kept, or a half-decent article deleted... well, we're in trouble.

Hence my statement on my (now withdrawn) RfA that I wouldn't close anything with less than ten votes. Maybe I should have made the reasoning clear. Maybe I never should have brought up AfD and the RfC at all (yes, I invented questions 4-6). Maybe I should never have accepted and stuck to my intention of waiting for 1000 article edits. I've done some incredibly stupid things because of AfD. I almost left over the (only very slightly) issue of image deletion, which was actually about incorrect copyright status claims.

Anyway, I don't know what can be done about AfD. There seem to be several mindsets floating around:

• If I don't vote keep, it'll be automatically deleted, because the page is called "Articles for Deletion". Misplaced Pages is not paper, right? That means we should have articles on everything!
• If I don't vote delete, it'll be kept, because the rules say that you need a (insert percentage here) majority. Better get as many people as possible to vote "delete" as quickly as possible. I'm a postmodernist; you don't need a reason to do anything, you can just do whatever you want whenever you feel like it. That includes voting.'
• Well, I know it's called "Articles for deletion" now, but it's basically still VfD, right? Better exercise my demoratic right to vote because I was too lazy/stupid to do it in the real world. However, I'm still too lazy/stupid to give a reason.
• You deletionist trolls! If we have articles about every Pokemon, why can't we have articles about every road/school/club that every existed? They actually exist, and we can't have articles on them, but we're allowed to have articles on stupid kid's cartoons? Better get as many people as possible to vote "keep" and jump up and down about the injustice of it all.

And so on and so forth. So you see, AfD will be a cesspool so long as:

• People don't need to give reasons when voting
• There is no minimum number of opinions needed; consensus (whatever that is) is enough
• People continue to vote based on the subject area of the article rather than the content of the article.

Thankyou very much for asking. Alphax  10:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your efforts on AFD and on Misplaced Pages policy pages, as well as elsewhere, I award you this Barnstar. I applaud in particular your efforts to improve our standards of Notability. Thank you for your contributions!

Johntex\ 02:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Yes, I laughed, but, since we are both mergists, I think it's obvious that you are my sockpuppet! Trollderella 18:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Monarchy?

This history page speaks for itself, especially the August 13 edit summeries: .

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A request for comment sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure what it should consist of. Propose changes to the template and see what people think I guess. I still think that those two users and possibly more are trying to monopolize that template, which should be against Misplaced Pages policy. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)

LOL on your comment on your close! That is the first time I've seen a merge template slapped on to an AFD discussion. For some reason the "length of AFD debate:length of article ratio" is a lot higher when somebody nominates a substub on a school for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for speaking up on the behalf of a user you did not even know. I appreciate your efforts for justice. Should you have any lingering concerns, I encourage you to come to my talk page and join the dialog there on what has occured. Discussion is the best way to calm stormy waters. TheChief (PowWow) 17:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Radiant!

I was thinking about this idea to solve the eternal school debate. We start off by allowing articles on all schools. Every time students or pupils are caught at that school, the school is given one Misplaced Pages demerit. After three demerits the school article on the offending school is deleted. For each featured article the school can produce, one demerit is subtracted.

Rationale:

• There will be peer pressure not to behave in such a manner that their Misplaced Pages article goes.
• A school which spews out all this vandalism is clearly not a school, but a kindergarten, and it has been established at AFD that kindergartens and preschools are not notable and should be deleted.

What do you think? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It was just me venting a bit after blocking Tiffin Boys' School and some other school IPs again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"On entry, the pupils’ and Sixth Form students’ attainment is very high compared with the national average" and "Selective Grammar School". Oh dear, if that is a top notch school... Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Subst

OK thanks, the bot is ready to rock n' roll, as I am just going to use the replace.py technique I already use for re-categorisation and other stuff. Unfortunately I am already doing so much bot work that if I do much more I'll probably DoS wikipedia!, but hopefully i'll get around to doing it soon. regards Martin 17:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review

Hey Radiant. I noticed you've been closing a few discussions at the old VfU page, so I thought you might be a good person to address here. Now it seems there is no "results" posting or anything when such discussions are closed. In order to find out if an article was undeleted or not, one must go through the edit history, or check todays AFD page for relisting, or do someother manual search. Shouldn't there be a section at the bottom of the page for recently closed discussions and their results? I think if people just started doing it it would help the system quite a bit, and would likely catch on without a new policy, or even any real discussion. I don't think we need to use the archived blueboxes like at AfD, but a list section at the bottom with a series of links: "College of Wooster Greeks - result: relisted on AfD...History of Cuban espionage - result: keep deleted...etc". What do you think? -R. fiend 22:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Inclusion

Hi Radiant,

If anyone but you had done the closure, I'd be quite miffed about it. Two MfD's in one week and an out-of-process speedy just smack too much of the dedicated IAR crowd. Since I know you hold such unilateralism in disdain also, I won't bother arguing, but I do think the course of affairs there stunk generally. Best, Xoloz 01:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I tried to undo you move and then messed things up even more. Please see Talk:Criticisms of communism/Archive 1. 172 | Talk 07:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

RfB

Re: On the talk page, Kelly classifies all oppose votes that aren't about "we don't need more bureaucrats" or "arbs shouldn't be crats" simply as "people who don't like her".
Which talk page are you referring to? Or am I just being dense?
brenneman 11:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

SubstBot

At this point, that account doesn't do anything. I had the idea for the account, but I don't really know how to use bots, and I have no idea where to start. --Ryan Delaney 14:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Philwelch's RfA

I just wanted to say thanks for supporting me on my RfA, and I'll see you around Misplaced Pages. 03:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

my sig

I believe your sig is broken

Hi radiant! ok ive fixed it but it shouldnt matter becuase it changes straight from red to grey. thanks tho. BL kiss the lizard 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Backlog?

I don't think I would characterize Misplaced Pages:Templates with red links as having a backlog - it's just one of those projects that will never be "caught up" because new redlinked templates will always be created before we can clear out the old ones. Still, if it will help bring people to the project, I suppose I can't object to the template... BDAbramson T 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reasonable - I can live with it! :-D BDAbramson T 23:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I unlisted it—and, I note, did not delete it—because both parties struck their signatures. I don't find it proper to act as though it were still certified by leaving it listed; in any event I think the purpose of the request for comment has been fulfilled. I'm not going to speculate on the motives of those involved nor will I get involved further, in case the matter proceeeds to arbcom, but I don't think it is ultimately to either party's benefit to leave it there; however, I won't interfere with any further actions. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:LPMCOTW/current

I saw the template for deletion and though I should mention that most of the COTws use the one line template, to keep the Community Portal clean. See my commetns here, Falphin 19:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Listings at Cfd

I've now fixed two of your listings over at Cfd ( Category:Related projects and Category:Wikipedia_in_the_media ). The links from the category pages to the deletion entries were dead as you listed them (i.e. this page's entry It would be great if you could use the correct template when adding categories for renaming, in this case: {{subst:cfr2|old category|new category| text= Your reason(s) for the proposed change.}}. Thanks! ∴ here…♠ 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It turns out the CFR/CFM templates were modified since I last used them. They're fixed now to match the style of headings actually used on CFD, to the best of my knowledge. Yours, Radiant_>|< 23:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Wait, let me rephrase that. I see people are using different headings on CFD as well, but sometimes they're not. I believe this is the point of having {{cfr}} and {{cfr2}}, isn't it? Sometimes it is unclear what to rename it to, for instance, so a CFR template cannot always list a target name. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

All else aside, it is important that the links from nominated Categories arrive at the correct sections. In the two mentioned cases, {{cfr2}} was the correct partner to your nomination technique. I would venture that a {{cfr}} nomination should offer a suggestion, and use {{cfr2}} I suppose I am missing something from old templates, but the current setup seems fine to me. ∴ here…♠ 00:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk page

Kelly refused to compromise in the negotiations that we had. It is obvious from her words to me both here and in those negotiations in e-mail, that nothing less than my Wiki-head will satisfy her. Therefore, it is best that it goes to RfAr. It is in her best interest to do so; I have already stated to her that I will not defend myself in the RfAr. In this manner, she can regain her supposedly lost reputation and move forward as the fine, upstanding, faulteless Wikipedian she knows herself to be. Since no compromise is possible, it is best if one of us is destroyed and the other one is held up to be faultless. So, my olive branch and my coffin is offered to her. I do indeed hope that she accepts it, as at least somebody will gain some satisfaction from this. Also, a habit of Misplaced Pages is to absolutely pile upon any person who is down and destroy them if they can. I submit myself to that process. It may make them feel better. At least, I hope it does. I do so hope that the insults against me continue in every imaginable forum. Since there is no way in which I can effectively change that culture, it is better if it works to its utmost best; just like with holding Kelly up as a fine, upstanding, faultless wikipedian. At least there will be some tangential benefit to the process. If all we did as a consequence of this action was to tear everything down, no good would come from it. I've spoken my mind and my piece to Kelly in private and very hate-filled diatribe against her after the negotiations failed. I have no need of speaking it here. Apparently, Kelly does and would find it cathartic to do so. So, I do hope that she proceeds. It will be a pleasant outcome for me if she does. I've suggested an equitable solution to the RfAr is a one month block against me. Though, in all honesty I expect she'll go for an outright ban of me. I am bemused that Kelly blocked somebody for making a legal threat but that nobody will take action to have her blocked for her continued, unretracted legal threat against me. I used the word "slanderous" in reference to her action against me. I have removed the word and replaced it with "wrong". This was on the RFA talk page (you can see it in the edit histories...too tired to produce the cite now). Kelly still refuses to recant her statements, only assurances that she won't sue. WP:NLT makes it clear this is wrong. Yet, Kelly won't be blocked. No, I don't want you or anyone to pursue this action against her. I would rather it stand out as marked contrast to how some people are treated with contempt here and others are held in different regard and Misplaced Pages policies do not apply to them. Maybe in my wiki-death there will be some good of this. I wish there were a Wiki hall of fame of disputes. This wouldn't be a record, but it might get in :) I don't claim to have no fault in these proceedings; but I despite attempts at compromise including on the RfC, I have been rebuffed at every opportunity. Speak well of me. Few do now, or indeed are likely ever to. --Durin 23:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Radiant, I attempted to offer a compromise in negotiations that would result in us leaving each other be. This included not voting on any RfBs of any other election that any of us were party to, and not speaking in any negative terms regarding any of the parties to the dispute in any forum. Kelly treated this with disdain, and re-laid heavy unreasonable demands upon me. So, it's obvious that she will refuse to let me be and will still seek to insult me whenever it suits her to do so, whether it be here, IRC, or any other forum. How am I supposed to proceed when a person who is an admin, a member of ArbCom hand picked by Jimbo no less and by her own testament a "prominent wikipedian" refuses to not make negative comments about me while I make none about her? You might not think there is a pig pile, but I assure you there is. Kelly refuses to not stay out of my way when I offered to stay out of her way. She treated such a suggestion as bunk, with disdain, and contempt. So, I can then expect she will continue to hound me. Better that I am destroyed and her held up than such a situation continue. As responded to above to Ann, I go home now to hug my family. That is far more important than Misplaced Pages. Again as noted, I lost that perspective. To Kelly, she doesn't have the perspective that anything Misplaced Pages is unimportant; it's very personal to her. That's fine; we all have our priorities. But, putting my reputation up against hers is not a worthwhile comparison; I care orders of magnitude less about mine than she does about hers. I remind you her use of the word "slander" in the RfC 7 times that has still not been retracted and a bunch more times on the talk page (and the use of "libel"). She still refuses to retract these things. Her wikipedia reputation is central to her, it is very important. That really is fine. I don't want to see her destroyed. Since the death of my wikireputation might help that, and since it's happening anyways, why not put it to good purpose in the hopes that Kelly will feel vindicated and triumphant? Obviously it's of far more important to her than to me.
• This whole event has destroyed my faith that Misplaced Pages is a self healing system. The dispute resolutions processes are badly managed. The RfC was very obviously brought in bad faith, yet it was allowed to be presented and maintained. Why no oversight? When I made the incredibly bad error of stepping into WP:TINMC, I was immediately assaulted for it by two members of that seld described cabal. Why no oversight? There also is no oversight over ArbCom. I begged, pleaded, tried desperately to get ArbCom to reverse a horribly wrong decision with regards to an RfA that ArbCom forced upon the community. It took massive efforts on my part and that of others to get ArbCom's cumbersome wheels to even begin considering that there might have been an error. That travesty went on for days while ArbCom stood by and did nothing. Furthermore, the majority of ArbCom is appointed by Jimbo not elected. We can also not call special elections to replace an ArbCom member who is acting badly out of line. Nothing can happen to that person; they have wiki-immunity. There's no oversight in these processes to control them from getting way out of hand. My RfC alone is absolute testament to that.
• I sincerely appreciate everyone's supportive and neutral comments on my RfC. I really do. But, the fact is, it doesn't matter. Kelly sought to destroy me and she did just that; the RfC was just a sword used by her against me and used very effectively at that. She insulted me, made demands of me, removed my comments from the RfC in a blatant attempt at managing the process against me...and NOTHING happened to stop it. If I had personally stepped in to undo it she would have cried like a stuck pig. I chose not to to help buttress my case that she was out of line; but nobody came to the rescue and said "Yes, this is wrong". Instead, Kelly got off scott free and nothing came of it. Nothing. Still, to this moment days later...NOTHING has happened to Kelly. The system is badly broken. I can't fix it, and no single person can. It is far better that I wiki-die as a victim of it and Kelly is held up to be faultless and good so that some good comes of it. I can make no other good come from it. So, I accept my wiki-punishment and let the chips fall where they may. I just don't care enough. Kelly does. --Durin 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, If you think there is no cabal (that term is imprecise...more like a group of people who hold themselves above Misplaced Pages policy and actions against them in contempt), just try to take actions against Kelly. Watch what happens. But, if you value your Wiki-reputation this is not advised. It will be destroyed. --Durin 00:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:SIGN

Thanks for the tip, though I had already noticed it. It'll be mentioned. Thanks again! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 00:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Your last comment on Durin's talk page

I wanted to thank you for your most recent comment on Durin's talk page. I don't entirely agree with you about the whole situation in general, but I really think that comment was good. I have no idea if it will improve anything but it needed to be said. --Gmaxwell 00:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Durin RFC

I have reprotected it since Durin has attempted to edit it after it has been closed and delisted, I agree that I shouldn't have protected it originally since even though I knew this would happen it still is abnormal but now I think that protection is needed. Jtkiefer ----- 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The entire conversation on the RFC's talk page was for closing, everyone on the RFC's talk page agreed it should be closed however the argument was to archive or delete, it was delisted by another person since it no longer have the requirement for certification, since almost everyone wanted it kept for various reasosn I archived and protected it (I shouldn't have protected probably), since this is a closed and delisted RFC it's main page should not be edited anymore thus the reverts, and due to people not knowing which tag to use it is now also back at the default closed IRC tag. I also left a note on Durin's talk page regarding this. Jtkiefer ----- 10:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Do what you will I won't revert it nor will I get into a big conflict over it, it has become apparent that the community no longer trusts me to make any decisions anyway so maybe I should just stop editing outside my userspace to save everyone else the hassle. Just remember to note on the talk page whatever actions you have taken just so people who don't normally scrounge the history know what's up. Jtkiefer ----- 10:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Psy guy's RfA

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It recently closed with final tally of 51/1/2. I sincerely appreciate it and I hope I can live up to your expectations. I will try my best to be a good administrator. If you ever need anything, just let me know. Thanks! -- Psy guy 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

Thank for trying to clean the Misplaced Pages namespace by nominating some pages in WP:MFD, but why didn't you follow the normal procedures by putting a template on the nominated page, and create a subpage of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion for each one? CG 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe I did, at least that was the intent, but maybe I missed one? Which one(s) are you referring to? Radiant_>|< 18:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the problem wasn't coming form you. It was caused by a revert war on Template:mfd about using either Miscellany or Miscellaneous as name for the subpages (silly war). Again, sorry for bothering you. CG 18:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:SIGN

That I am; thanks for the link. I'll check it out. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Need a hand

Hey, Radiant, I need a hand with something and it seems you're online now. I need to edit the top of List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics, and my browser can't handle pages that long, which means I have to edit using the small section edits. Of course, before the first subsection there is no section edit option, so I can't get to it without deleting the bottom of the page. Could you add a heading to the top? Any heading, just temporarily so the small edit link appears. I'll remove it when I'm done. Thanks. -R. fiend 16:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I forget why I have Radiant's user page on my watchlist, but I'll get that while I'm around. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2005 October 29 Winter Soldier Investigation

• • It looks like the talk page discussion in question has already been speedied. It also looks like this is a fairly active and controversial article, so I'm having some difficulty sorting through the Talk page archives to make sense of it. Can you possibly cite which section it was and where in the Talk discussion that came up? Thanks. Ëvilphoenix 02:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"<big>" tag"_tag-2005-11-14T23:40:00.000Z">

Sorry, I had half the page in little after an editor's use of the tag in his sig and I thought it was a syntax error on his part, but in fact it appears to have been because firefox was ****ing up. I realized that later but you come to my page before I had a chance to go and correct it (thank you for that). Jules LT 23:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)"_tag"> "_tag">

sig

Yeah I'm not sure what happened there. I think I fixed it though, it's rendering right to me, does it look right to you? Ëvilphoenix 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Hello, could you please help me move a page. Could you please move Pontic-language to Pontic language. I'm afraid I messed up the redirects there, I was trying something. Rexhep Bojaxhiu 23:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's been seen to, never mind. Rex 00:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your signature

...is broken. See User talk:Encephalon#Signature (at the bottom, with Sjakkalle) for a possible solution to the problem (namely, using a raw sig). HTH. --Blackcap | talk 10:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Checkuser board?

Now that there are a group of new Checkusers, do you think it'd be useful to create a central page (e.g. WP:AN/CU) where others could go to request a check on an alleged sockpuppet, and to hear the result (or, of course, hear "request denied" if inappropriate)? Or would that be overdoing it? Radiant_>|< 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'm satisfied for people to make requests on WP:AN/I. If we do set something like this up, please let me know so I know to watchlist it. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

Misplaced Pages:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards makes the Encyclopedic Merit project look like a pile of crap. I think the idea to merge is a good one, but I don't know if anything (aside from Lulu's well developed application of the Miller test) would in any way enhance the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards page. I really don't know if anything else from the Merit project would "help" the Standards forum...any suggestions from you would be welcome.--MONGO 02:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Standardizations for citable references is pretty well covered in the Forum page already, but have to look at it again. I should have just voted to delete that Merit thing, it was dead. I'll inform a few users in the Forum about the merger proposal when I have time. Thanks for the feedback.--MONGO 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Marsden is back

User:Marsden is back, using his IP address, 69.138.215.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and apparently spending most of his time reverting those he doesn't like, or who he has been asked to revert. I'm considering a 48 hour block for disruption; comments? Jayjg 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Now he's just being disruptive; in order to avoid going over the 3RR, he's added a link to a bogus hate site instead. As I'm involved, I'd feel more comfortable if you did the blocking, but if this disruption continues I might have to block myself. Jayjg 17:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It continues; now he's posting text to a bunch of talk pages about "nigger lovers". Jayjg 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

I know I won't make you change your mind and I won't ever try. However, please note that my explanations at the RfA page are not aimed at aggravating disputes, but rather at... explaining what I did in the past and why did I do it. As to the black book thingie, it is well-explained now and please read the explanation as you are mistaken. I was not the author of that page and it was not me to move it there. However, if that is an evidence of bad behaviour - could you possibly be so kind as to tell me what should I do? Not replying to questions at the RfA voting seems like a bad idea to me. Halibutt 18:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Polish book is not a personal attack page, it was not started by Halibutt, and it is all explained on the RfA page now (Halibutt has even stated that if it is offensive, he won't mind it being deleted, and I state here that I can indeed delete it from his userspace if it is what it would take to resolve your objection). I also don't see which of Halibutt's statement are aimed at 'aggravating disputes' - I think he is doing a good job adressing the objections as they are raised. You are of course entitle not to change your mind, but I'd ask you to reconsider your position based on Halibutt replies. Thanks for your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)