Misplaced Pages

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

Vrba

I've read it through. It looks great; clearly superior to the current version. Do you mind if I make some minor fixes, then pop it in in place of the current article? Jayjg 06:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of it is quite good. There are a few errors that need fixing, including one or two in critical places. --Zero 07:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Khaybar&oldid=45493088

and what took place since. This revision above seems like the last "complete" version although it is totaly antisemitic and seems fictional at best. best, Zeq 07:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You just deleted important paragraph

Why have you deleted? I need some good references and sources.

The Romanians, (Romanian: români), or the Romanian people, are a nation in the meaning an ethnos (in romanian: popor), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Romanian culture and having a Romanian mother tongue, than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country.

The concept of who is a Romanian has varied. Until the 19th century, it denoted the speakers of Romanian, and was a much more distinct concept than that of Romania, the land of the Romanians. In the last two centuries, Romanian and Romania have more and more come to be connected with a succession of Romanian states -- but the borders of those states have fluctuated so widely during that time that the language-based definition of Romanianess remains perhaps the most useful. While there are approximately 40 million native Romanian speakers in the world, only about 35 million considers themselves to be Romanian.

Ethnic Romanians

The term Ethnic Romanians may be used in several ways. It may serve to distinguish Romanian citizens of "foreign" immigrant heritage, or it may indicate members of the Romanian culture living as minorities in other nations. In English usage, but less often in Romanian, Ethnic Romanians may be used for assimilated descendents of Romanian emmigrants. A today more controversial usage of the term Ethnic Romanians refer to people with Romanian mother tongue and culture but citizens of other countries than the Romania, as for instance Moldova.

Ethnic Romanianss form an important minority group in several countries in central and eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania) as well as in Spain and in southern Brazil....

For different reasons, some groups may be noted as "Ethnic Romanians" despite no longer having Romanian mothertongue or a distinct Romanian culture. Until the 1990s two million Ethnic Romanians lived throughout the former Soviet Union, especially in Russia and Kazakhstan. In the United States 1990 census, 3 million people are fully or partly of Romanian ancestry, forming one of the largest single ethnic group in the country. Most Americans of Romanian descent live in the Mid-Atlantic states (especially Pennsylvania) and the northern Midwest (especially in Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern Missouri.)

"I assure you will pay for what you and the stupid Jayig did on the article about Romanains. I will contact all the Romanain users and you will be "charged" because you supported that user for his lies and because you blocked me for nothing. You we'll see what we're to do, and if you hate so much the Romanians, your account will have to suffer. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Aha, now you're accusing me of threating 'cause I'm telling you the truth, and you say that you will block me. Listen, I can easily create in few day an another username, you cannot stop an entire community, and you're abusing of you administratorship. If you will tell me that I'll be block block, I will contact for sure Mr. Adrian Pingstone.

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Ok if you find this funny, it's your problem, but I dont' accept that "somebody" blocks because I'm sayng the truth. Tell me what you want anymore? We gave you the sources of the figures, and that's all. You want as Mr. G.W. Bush does a special declaration to you because you cannot understand?

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Is that I did now, but why you blocked me then???????

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Aha, now you're like you don't remember when you blocked blocked me 'cause I dared to modify what Jayig wrote. I wrote all that on the Romanians discuss page.

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Ok, here I agree with you, I will calm down. Actually, My objections to you is just because you blocked for almost nothing. I mean about the personal attacks, a wrote the word stupud, stupidities and lies. You also blocked for reverting Jayig lies, and you see now where we arrived. That f***** of user:Jmabel is again there, and I don't know if you saw what he did there, actually, on the all articles about Romania or Romanians. Jayig put there the lowest and impossible figures, I mean 23-24 mil. He deleted the sources we had for the figures there, and I cannot find them again. And yeah, I have a guestion: you know when we wqant to specify the reliable source of our information to the figure, for example at Usa, how we proceding?

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Yes, my question was how do we cite the sources on the figures table , if you understand what I mean. It's because I think I'm able to find the websites that Jayig removed, and I want to write the previous estimations there, but of course I need the citation, so is for that I'm needing this. If I was not very clear, reply me. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Yes, but about that sources everybody agreed them when we all decided that in the month of January. It's just Jayig that doesn't "like" them because they are confirming the truth.

Can you give an example how I have to do, please? I saw there it's something like
. That's it? By the way I emailed to Pingstone and explained the situation. Let's see what he can do with this. NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

Our disagreements

Thank you for your comment on the Israeli settlement talk page. I don't feel happy replying, at the moment anyway, but I will think about it. Palmiro | Talk 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

HK

Herschel has posted what seems like a reasonable response to his situation on his talk page. Have you read it? I suggest that, since HK has served out almost all of his 3 days now, that as a conciliatory gesture this shouldn't reset his one-year ban on LaRouche related articles. You must acknowledge that the circumstances are difficult for him. If you are wrong about anything in your treatment towards him, what recourse does he have? Everyking 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the above. Very well stated. See my talk page for a proposal to resolve these types of situations. I am assuming Slimvirgin feels she is acting in good faith and I accept that. But the very Arbcom rulings need to be reconsidered in their finality to conclude by not targeting any individual group or persons (per Jimbo) but to do as I propose on my talk page. I am asking Everyking and Slimvirgin to look into this and work out a solution to keep propaganda out of wikipedia without targeting single groups or persons based on political affiliation. --Northmeister 01:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Like all users, HK can appeal to the ArbCom and to Jimbo Wales. HK's circumstances are of his own making, as is their difficulty. His response has been just to make incorrect accusations. I think that under the circumstances SV acting with restraint. -Will Beback 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, SV is simply enacting the ArbCom mandated ban- No one but Jimbo or the ArbCom, should they accept an appeal, has the authority to "reset" HK's ban on LaRouche related articles, that's just the way it is.--Sean Black 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is rather poor logic. Not everyone agrees that SV's action was legit; HK makes some arguments, as I pointed out, which would need to be addressed. Therefore the idea that SV is enacting an ArbCom mandated ban is a highly questionable assertion. If we could agree that HK was indeed in violation, then you would have an argument, but as it stands we are just trying to reach a pragmatic arrangement with someone who has taken the power of interpretation into her own hands. Everyking 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading over what I assume is the response mentioned by Everyking as a otherwise (AFAIK) uninvolved party, I do not consider the response "reasonable" nor do I consider there to be justified dispute over the facts of the case. HK makes no credible answer to the claim of sockpupetry except to say "it didn't happen", and the rest of his "response" is unrelated to the matter at hand. I find SlimVirgin's actions quite justifiable. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that until some evidence of sockpuppetry is presented, there is not much to which I may respond. --HK 14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What evidence has been provided to indicate HK is using sock-puppets? I would like to see it listed. HK, is being accused and an accused person has the right to be presented with the evidence against him, if any. He then has the right of rebuttal presenting his defense against accusations. He by all standards of English and American judicial procedure ought to have the right to be Innocent until proven guilty. That is only right in any situation. I have not seen the evidence of his guilt, unless the above user is privy to material I am not. --Northmeister 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. The purpose here is to write an encyclopedia; everything else is secondary, including people's "rights" in "judicial procedures". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is convienant. You are right, this is an encyclopedia. Tell that to this administrator, and to Arbcom then, not me. They have made it a Court of Inquisition. --Northmeister 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So by that logic HK's restrictions should be removed so he can improve articles? Come on. Everyking 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, ascribing a position to somebody else and then criticizing it! Can you say straw man? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to point out the flaw in you logic. Whenever people say "we're here to write an encyclopedia", they are implying that their opponent does not think writing an encyclopedia is primary. But of course I think it's primary. The thing is, writing the encyclopedia goes hand in hand with having fair processes and treating volunteers properly. To make the division between the two is unrealistic—if the division is made, then what you get is actually an outcome harmful to the encyclopedia. What you're trying to say, I suppose, is that writing the encyclopedia and letting SV have her way with this or that admin issue or ArbCom interpretation are the same thing (straw man again? as far as I know this is truly what you think). But of course I don't agree with that.

Here's reality: SV made this decision based on her interpretation of the ruling and of HK's actions. HK has no practical alternative but to accept her decision; if she is wrong, he just has to deal with it. The same goes for the rest of us: if someone, like me, disagrees with SV about this, there is basically nothing we can do. If she chooses to ignore us, as she is doing now, that's it. All she has to do is not respond and she automatically gets her way. The only way she could not get her way is if we somehow managed to convince her to reverse herself. But this is impossible; SV's feelings on this issue are hardline and aren't going to change. I boldly suggest that this situation I'm describing is bad. Everyking 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Monkey5.jpg

Hi.

I'm not at all disputing that it's non-reproducable. I disagree, however, with it being a "unique photograph" of a "historic event". Animals are shipped in crates all the time, there's nothing particularly special with this specific image per se. The tag is intended for images like Image:Tianasquare.jpg and Image:Nguyen.jpg. —Gabbe 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any discussion on the {{HistoricPhotoRationale}} tag. I think there should be one though. The template needs some sort of elucidation as it currently stands. I have realised now that Quadell not only created the template in the first place, but has included it in several images by the BUAV and others. Since I'm not a lawyer, I have no way of determining by myself whether the images would qualify as "unique" and "historic" with regards to the Fair Use doctrine in United States copyright jurisprudence. In the case of animals in cages, I don't think there could possibly be a problem though, as "in order to have a copyright violation you need an upset copyright holder" - and the people who took these photos most likely want the whole world to see them. But I remain cautious and vigilant to frivolous use of fairuse-templates in general. —Gabbe 08:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Optimal Talk thread organization

Slim, I meant no disrespect or purpose of obstruction when I grouped your comments together in Talk:Israeli settlement in order to restore the contiguity of my posts. Quite the reverse. I have had experience before where breaking up someone's posts into points/paragrasphs he did not himself formulate and replying to them one by one causes untold confusion in the organization of a discussion. I would then have to reply to those points and you in turn reply to those and soon we'll have a dickens of a time keeping track of the thread while at the same time continuing with other new paragraphs. If you did not like how I grouped your responses (which were all signed at the same time) under mine as I restored my original unified paragraph formatting, then by all means organize them as you wish, as long as you do not disrupt my own style and formatting. I hope this is fair?--AladdinSE 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are continuing to revert blindly, and in the process removed new posts about the example you wanted me to consider, in addition to the sub-header I created regarding thread-response style. You seem to be highly agitated. Please calm down, and try to understand that in order for me to carry on a rational discussion with you, I cannot have my posts cut into in this manner. Experience has taught me that it is unmanageable. This may be a failing on my part, and if you consider it so, please help me out by obliging me. Thank you.--AladdinSE 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

transference

I just wanted to tell you I thought your comment was really on the mark and funny. And your dogs are adorable! elizmr 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: (smaller!) elizmr 23:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sundry matters

Hi SV. We're hoping you will explain yourself here

I have also posted some comments at Arniep's talk page re: animal activism. Please feel free to continue that discussion on Arniep's page.

Thank you. --Cyberboomer 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Okay I confirmed my email, you could send the message now if you want.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi SlimVirgin. Just a quick note to thank you for voting on my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I want to let you know that I will do my best to address all concerns that were raised during the RfA. I will also do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 04:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

history

maybe this historical prespective is of interst to you: . Zeq 05:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RFCU

The evidence you have provided, and other evidence, indicates that it is very likely that BJB is MSK. Jayjg 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages review

I think they are notable enough, if not credible enough, to have on Criticisms of Misplaced Pages. Why don't you feel they are notable enough? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing refs

Hey, I noticed your fixes to the references on Hamas, but I still had to go through and further fix some things. Proper Cite.php doesn't use {{ref label}} or {{note label}} at all. Also, there's an automated way to do this conversion now that's a lot neater; you might want to check out User:Cyde/Ref converter. --Cyde Weys 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting my talk page

Thanks for looking after my talk page, but I don't really consider the edit you reverted vandalism. I'm sure you had some reason for reverting it, but as I do not find the comment unacceptable or in violation of Misplaced Pages policies, I've decided to let it stay. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for a trusted editor/friend

Hello Slim! Long time no see, I guess! I was wondering if you might take a minute or two to read this post and perhaps make any suggestions you think might be applicable, either here or on my own talk page. Thanks in advance, SlimVirgin! Hamster Sandwich 17:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Another question

Is this too close to this --Dakota ~ ° 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC) So do we block it as too close ? I just reverted a removed speedy by it.--Dakota ~ ° 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did it for the username and vandalism.--Dakota ~ ° 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are still online

Who is this one. . I think it's this one.. Too knowledgeable it is to be just a newbie vandal. It wants to be unblocked or have the block shortened but I think a week is reasonable in this particular case.--Dakota ~ ° 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not too familiar with that one only seen a little of it's work. Would an indefinite be out of order? --Dakota ~ ° 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A week is good enough then. Thanks and I have to get some sleep. Tommorrow (evening) is a long work day. Take care good person.--Dakota ~ ° 09:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Promising threads of discussion

I urge you once again to rejoin the discussion regarding Israeli settlement. There are 2 distinct threads of discussion which you have abandoned which were very promising for the prospects of resolution. One was a set of bullet points to you, where the last one was a pivotal answer to a very pertinent question of yours, and I'm still waiting for a response there. The other was where you asked me a question about Chomsky, but then refused to carry on despite my enthusiastic engagement in your own thread. The material (from April 3rd) I refer to can be found here. If anyone had told me that SlimVirgin would continue to revert without participation in Talk, refusing even to carry on with her own threads, I would never have believed it, not of you. Please reconsider. My very faith in Misplaced Pages is at stake.--AladdinSE 10:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another original research discussion

I've become embroiled in yet another original research discussion. Would you mind taking a look at it here? Thanks, Jayjg 20:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:V, blogs in general and The Panda's Thumb.

Hey, there have been some issues recently about the use of blogs as sources which are generally considered unreliable. A discussion has occured on Talk:Eric Pianka about when they are acceptable. In particulr, editors there seem to have arrived at a consensus that at least in the current case The Panda's Thumb is an acceptable source. In this case, the blog is a collection of various biology and bio-related writers, some professors at major universities. The author relevant in this case is Nick Matzke who is a higher up in the NCSE and presumably reliable while PT was named one of the top 25 Science and Technology websites by Scientific American last year. However, Guettarda thought that we should discuss this with you, especially using PT as a source in general, since you seem like a reasonable independent party and also because you rewrote WP:V. JoshuaZ 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

What exactly are you doing screwing around on my Talk pages????? -- Gnetwerker 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That information was gathered legitimately from the web, and if you didn't notice, covered more than one person. How in the world are you authorized to delete information from my personal pages without even asking me first!!!!???? -- Gnetwerker 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please direct me to the policy to which you refer. The items you deleted did not include any user's name, address, or other identifiable information. It did contain the IP address of a previously suspected vandal (an IP address easily recovered by a look through the user in question's edit history). I am also unaware of any claim of harrassment by the user in question. I would think that in the absence of actual harassment, a notification to me would have been in order. -- Gnetwerker 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add to this that the user who requested this action has threatened to post personally-identifiable information about me, and has posted information about my identity. I am flabbergasted that you have targeted me for his offense. -- Gnetwerker 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You said "If there are other details elsewhere you feel should be removed, by all means let me know, and I'll delete them too". I will take you at your word. There are numerous references to my affiliation with Reed College on the (now archived) page: Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute, and these charges were repeated in the ArbCom case: here (in his opening statement) and elsewhere in the evidence, etc. This information (because of the small size of the Reed community) goes much farther toward identifying me than an IP address buried on a personal notes page. I requested that ArbCom rule on this harassment, but they did not address it. I look forward to your removal of this information from these pages. -- Gnetwerker 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the edits in which IronDuke threatens to disclose personal information about me or refers to such: (See "Fourth assertion") -- Gnetwerker 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So you refuse to delete these because "they were from January" (actually, also February), but the page of mine you deleted was also from the same time, and also contained no personal information. Why the double-standard? Because IronDuke asked first? -- Gnetwerker 02:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The first one I listed is the most direct . I have also posted a request on WP:ANI. I have happily edited WP on an off since it was first created, and this one miscreant picks a ridiculous fight with me, and tries to make me leave Misplaced Pages. He loses his ArbCom case, but in the process revealed that much of the rest of WP has the same teenage level of maturity as he, and there are no real checks on admin power (hence the periodic "wheel wars", I suppose). I am still stunned that you would take such an action without the courtesy of a note to me first, and threaten to block me for complaining about it. No policy, no procedures, a single admin is DA, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, but when equal treatment is requested, there are "technical reasons, which I'm not prepared to go into". Yeesh. -- Gnetwerker 02:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Authorized Reverting of Martin Kramer Link Spam

(copied from User:70.48.241.41)

Please don't delete any more links to scholarly articles. I have restored the ones I've seen so far. SlimVirgin 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi SM, can you please read Talk:Martin_Kramer#Is_Martin_Kramer_link_spamming_Wikipedia.3F. I brought up the matter with the vandalism unit and it was agree that it was link spam and that I can go ahead and remove it. Martin Kramer has since admitted that he was behind the mass additions. If you disagree that is a different matter. Thx. --70.48.241.41 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we need to take this to mediation. I strongly feel that his mass additions were both significant POV and it drives traffic to his personal website. This doesn't seem right and it would encourage other scholars of all sorts to do the same thing. --70.48.241.41 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn my statement calling the links spam, and it was on this advice that the IP was working- so please do not be too hard on them for that. Whilst you and another editor have said the links are ok, they certainly set off the 'spam radar' (see Misplaced Pages:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer) by following the pattern of spammers. Thanks for you input. Petros471 10:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, need more help

I'm not sure what this is about, but could you make it stop? ] Also, as far as the arbcom case goes, I think it would be tricky to remove what G wants removed without making the case very difficult to follow. Also, arbcom seemed to have no problem with my making the connection, they just didn't think it was worth sanctioning someone over. But if it does get removed, I guess I wouldn't put up too much of a fuss. IronDuke 01:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have this: ]. I honestly don't know what to make of it, but I believe it must be one of two things; it is 1) an attempt to replace the deleted information with the same information, except in some sort of code or 2) deliberate gibberish (but with an internet address implied) meant to bait you into deleting it so he can cry "Aha! So now I'm not even allowed to post gibberish on my user page????!!!!!" Then he can formally accuse you of outrageous administrative overreach. Ultimately, I feel I'm so close to this subject that I don't even want to make a suggestion as to what the best move is here, but I'd be highly inclined to go with whatever you think is right. IronDuke 23:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Death in Gaza

Being Scottish, I really should know better. There is indeed no such thing as UK Law. Ooops.

As for my source, it was the BBC News article that I linked to in my edit. The jury was directed to pass a verdict of unlawful killing, and had to decide whether this was murder or manslaughter.

The article as it stands is now more accurate, so I don't see any need to edit it further for now.

I hope I have answered your question Lurker 09:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, again

I would like your opinion of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ultramarine. This is the same editor who tries to make R. J. Rummel into panegyric. Here he is attempting to remove mention of the others who formed the democratic peace theory, and suppress mention of the large number of researchers who support the democratic peace but oppose Rummel's theory. Thanks. Septentrionalis 15:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated

I appreciate your keeping my personal entry clear, and your action to keep intact links to my scholarly work. Martin Kramer

AIPAC

Hi. I noticed after a volley of vandalism and counter-vandalism that you reverted to a version without some of my edits. Would you care to explain why you feel the following uncited passage, which reads like promotional material, is NPOV?

AIPAC was early to recognize the dangers that extremist groups and rhetoric in the Middle East pose to American citizens and interests. AIPAC has played a key role in educating members of Congress about the issues that face today's Middle East.

Are there problems with my version:

AIPAC advises members of Congress about the issues that face today's Middle East, including the perceived dangers of extremism and terrorism.

Also, I appreciate that you did eventually restore the AIPAC espionage scandal wikilink after your initial reverts. Regards, Deuterium 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and I have no problem with removing the "perceived" part. Deuterium 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

good day

I'd like your opinion on something. I've sent you an e-mail explaining it. — Apr. 9, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Admin nom

Calton, are you interested in becoming an admin? It would be my pleasure to nominate you.

Considering how rude I've been to you in the past, I have to say I'm astonished -- pleasantly, I hasten to add.

Let me think about it: practically speaking, I'm likely to run into opposition from some editors due to my, er, straight-forwardness, but also, I'd have to consider the implications of taking on the responsibility. Yes, it's supposed to be only a form of digital janitorship, but I consider it much more, believe me. This is not something I'd take on lightly if it were available.

Give me a day or two to think about, and to review and think about the nomination questions before you act. But thank you for the vote of confidence, regardess of my decision. --Calton | Talk 05:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics

Hi Slim,

Australia at the Winter Olympics is now a featured article! Andjam 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Primo Levi

I have added a comment to the Talk/discussion page of this article, Please read.

Thanks

--Paw42 09:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)