User talk:Lan Di/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lan Di, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your messsage. The links above should satisfy your first needs. See also WP:HD and don't hesitate to ask questions or request assistance. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see if my attempt works for you and feel free to undo. Note that it is right-aligned. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To revert a page to an earlier version

Hi, did you see WP:REVERT? If not, please do. If yes, please explain. Watch out for Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert rule). Good luck. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know these templates and I am a bit overwhelmed right now. May I suggest you take a look at similar userpages. When you see one that you like, click edit and learn how did they do it. You may leave a thank you note but you don't have to. And the next time I will know whom to ask. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bar

Hey, just wondering if have a picture of model Bar Refaeli to be uploaded? I made some edits to the article and it would look much better with a picture. Hope you can help me. Thanks. Cariis1989 04:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any free pictures of her, nor have I ever uploaded a picture at wikipedia.Lan Di 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cariis1989

I had no clue that you responded to my question since you didn't post anything on my discussion page. Well, I'm sorry for the mistake, the article history had you listed as a person who had uploaded a picture. Maybe I made a mistake? Once again, sorry for your time. Take care. Cariis1989 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

24 Characters Merger

I pulled Lucy-marie's tags for Mike Novick and Martha Logan. The mergers were proposed 3 months ago, and Lucy-marie got no support for either. Angelriver (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank youLan Di (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Lucy has been whining to a different admin about you. --MiB-24 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found it, she is being rediculous about Philip Bauer. It would be nice to have other people help me out in this case.--Lan Di (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love how she goes around constantly spouting about certain “rules” and “guidelines” while at the same time she openly violates others. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Lucy for you. She wants the rules to apply to everyone else except for her. --MiB-24 (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What pages has Lucy nuked this time? I've tried to keep an eye on them all..... Angelriver (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

24 Characters Talk Page Restoration

Thanks for restoring the talk pages from the merge fiasco. TunaSushi (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cabal

Lucy has decided to drag this debate into the realm of mediation and named you in her dispute. See the link.Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-13_24_character_merging_of_minor_characters. --MiB-24 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not voting

Wikipedia is not voting just because you count more people on one side than the other does not mean discussions have finished or one point of veiw has been decided upon. See WP:DEMOCRACY which clearly spells out that wikipedia is not voting.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop with your childish antics then. See WP:POINT and also we are using the doctrine of WP:IAR. That is how we are doing things. You also need to stop trying to make the rules twist to your advantage. Remember how you talked about a "cabal", see WP:CABAL.--Lan Di (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
IAR is not aplicable in this case as the general maintinance or improvment is not being undertaken. It is beig used to further an argument and continue with the same point of view. IAR is not for use during discusion, it is exclusivly for the iprovement or maintinance of Wikipedia, neither is even remotely being attempted here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It IS applicable, Lucy, since a lot of the articles ARE undergoing improvement. Isn't that what getting suitable references is all about? Angelriver (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Remember, in Lucy's mind it is only valid if she thinks it is. She loves to toss out Wikirules but if someone dares use one to oppose her, she always claims it is simply not valid. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not the only user saying it is an incredibly weak argumentLucy-marie (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucy thinks that Wikipedia is her own personal dictatorship. She's now trying to get people to join in the cabal discussion so she can claim "consensus," people who are not involved with it. --208.180.22.12 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
If lucy really wants to do something, she should fix my user page, as I can't figure out why the userboxes aren't aligned to the right, so maybe she can be constructive and fix it.--Lan Di (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Lucy's latest round of incivility? She is calling you a "petty, ignorant, obsessed fan". Amazing. She throws the rules in everyones' faces while constantly violating them herself. Angelriver (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to find out where I can report her.--Lan Di (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I shall archive my user talk page when I see appropriate. Comments made referring to the continual removal of the tag have been continued on the mediation page and are not necessary to be discussed on multiple pages. Also if you have comments regarding me please refer them to me and not other users as the issues, cannot be resolved if the is no engaging between users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I had comments regarding me, but when you archive the discussions before I can respond, I have to go elsewhere, especially when you go too far. And for the record, Humus Sapiens is the friend that I was talking about, he has helped me on numerous occasions. In fact, you have been reprimanded for archiving in less than 24 hours as evidenced by your own archives.--Lan Di (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The real world

I don't mean in this instance to sound rude and callous, but I don't particularly care weather you have a PhD or awards or even a driving licence or anything in the real world, I simply don't care. In this virtual encyclopedia world, I stand by the comments I have made. I also see that common sense comments have been made regarding differing interpretation of the rules and that people can actually interpret them differently.--Lucy-marie (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't talking to you. And for the record, I don't have a driver's license, nor do I want one. When you made those insults that I was stupid or uneducated or anything, I decided to strike back by proving those allegations false.--Lan Di (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Weather you were talking to me or not is irrelevant. Any comments made on wikipedia can be responded to by any user on wikipedia. I also don't particularly care if you were striking back or not. I am simply stating my opinion to you in a civilised manner, rather than completely refusing to engage.--Lucy-marie (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I know that, essentially what I was saying is to try mind your own business, with respect of course. I agree you are talking civilized, but on other pages you are harsh and uncivilized. Now I totally understand that you could lose your cool, everyone does, but this site requires patience beyond human limitations. Also, I never refuse to engage, although you have claimed that I don't, but I don't want to bring up the past. The only reason why I don't post on your discussion page is because you archive too quickly, it would look foolish to respond and keep making new responses when they are immediately archived. Abstractly speaking, I haven't archived my pages yet, or since I first arrived, to me that is protocol. To you, probably not, with respect. I agreed with the idea of having the bot archive pages, as it is a good idea, and once I figure out how to write the coding, I probably will do it. In order to head off any complaint that you may come up with, note that I have been saying to you, with respect. I am trying to de-escalate this crisis, so that we might be able to work together, or not at all.--Lan Di (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you try and get some other user to come down off the pedestal as-well and act in a responsible civilised manner such as you are now doing. WIth regards to the award nomination, I think it is more to do with the actress, than the character. The reference alone does not give notability, but together with numerous other independent sources, notability could be established.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mergers

Please refrain form blanket un-doing of the mergers performed by Judge they were done in good faith, the majority of the discussions had gone stagnant and no notability had been asessed. The characters are mainly non-controversial in their merging and if notability can be established they can just as easily be de-merged. Thank you Lucy-marie (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, I can't. They are under arbitration and therefore, should not be touched until the results of arbitration are forthcoming.--Lan Di (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree on that point, just because they aren't under arbitration dosen't prevent them from being merged. Each character has to be individually assessed. The only characters which were listed in the arbitration were the contentios mergers, with opposition of a volumous nature. The characters mered by Judge were basically the remanants of the non-notable characters, that I didn't want to merge as any mergers I performed would have caused controversy. If you have an issue with the edits of Judge please talk directly to the user and try and get the user to explain their action rather than spenidng alot of unecesary time undoing edits at the risk of another edit war with another user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, he should have contacted me if he didn't like what I was doing. Yet, you re-merged them while under arbitration. That is not good faith. I thought we had come to an understanding, but it looks like you may have blown it.--Lan Di (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that I was wrong to undo the Victor Drazen character as I over looked the fact that the character was in arbitration. The other characters which are outside must be individualy assessed and my comments on them stand. To my knowledge there have been no dealings or direct contact with Judge and I. If you were to contact Judge, the user may be able to provide a valid reason as to why the user carried out the mergers when they did. Persuing this course of action may prevent a long and drawn out edit war with a completly diffrent editor.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't unmerge any characters such as Erin Driscoll, Lynn Kresage, Evelyn Martin, or any other character not under discussion. I believe you about you and judge, and I will contact him about his mergings of characters under arbitration. I feel better that you said the drazen remerge was a mistake, and I forgive you for that. However, if this user keeps doing what he's doing, there may well be an edit war again, which will start this whole process all over again.--Lan Di (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way I have found to prevent an edit war is not to edit and request protection of the pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Problem is, I've never done that. I don't know why they weren't protected while under arbitration, although I wouldn't be capable of adding sources if that happened. So it's a catch-22 if I do that. Also, I noticed that most protection is used for hot-button issues such as recently deceased, politicians, and current events. Although abortion is also included which is more of a technical article.--Lan Di (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
To have a page protcted se WP:RPP the talk page would not be protected, unless specifically requested, so any notability sources found could be added there.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologize if I was harsh about insinuating that you and judge were working together. I hope we can continue to work together as we have been for the past few days.--Lan Di (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So, other than the ones under arbitration, can we merge the articles that the talk page discussion has formed a consensus for merging? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I will not stop you.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, depends on which pages you are talking about. I saw your list, and if you try to merge all those pages, you will be stopped cold in your track. Also, many pages have no consensus either way such as Tom Lennox, which is in progress and needs to just be cleaned up when we get a chance. You should also not pull any stunts on the pages such as tagging for merger for a few hours and AfDing it immediately when no one is looking. I've been around long enough to have seen that happen. It may be appropriate that you go on Wikiproject 24 to discuss what you are doing before merging any other pages. As for the pages mentioned on the 24 character page, Philip Bauer is under arbitration, other than that, merge away, but don't only merge, improve that page, as it is a mess.--Lan Di (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The list is simply to see the topic as a whole and see what the article issues are, not to merge, delete, or do any one-idea to every article. I do have a thought I might bring to the 24 wikiproject, which is that the Minor characters and minor CTU agents articles should, at some point, be merged into the List of 24 characters, as the list is supposed to have the kind of detail that the first two articles have. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, merging those two pages would likely end up a disaster. The minor character page is already a disaster, and merging them would only make it longer and more unreadable than it already is. Most of us agree that the minor page needs to be split badly, as it is too long, and too problematic as it is.--Lan Di (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If the problem is notability, which it is, splitting will only make it worse, as a more specific grouping, like "Villians of 24", will be even less likely to be sourcable and may be taken to deletion. Why not combine the two, streamline it, and reference it? The title is already problematic, as what constitutes a "minor" character could be considered POV. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Minor character is not POV, as there is mostly an understanding on who is minor. Although some characters may be split off, making a huge list with references will just be too long. There is agreement among most of us as to how large an article should be, I don't remember the number myself, but it is pretty large, and an article of that size would just be too large and unwieldy to read.--Lan Di (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lan Di. Those pages, as they currently stand, are already a navigational nightmare. Angelriver (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You, your edits and colaboration

I have no problem with continuing to work with you in a way which was developiong. I have no ill-will towards you. I just have problems with the mediators suggestions as it falls outside of the bounds of what was being discussed. The mediation was not about indivdual users and the suggestions go absolutly nowhere to resolving the issue of merging.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion was that you have a mentor. The mediation on the article was to keep the articles as is for now, and that you take a break from editing 24 articles, as you seem to be a lightning rod regarding those articles.--Lan Di (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not the only editor who has put forward arguments for merging. I am all for taking a break as long as it done by all editor who have been involved and not just singeling out one editor. Also the mediator has made suggestions which are out side the original remit of what was bought. The original remit was to sort out the articles and not discuss indivudual users.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I know you weren't, asyndeton and lquilter were others who did, but you were the one who went on a bonanza tagging every article excepts for chloe and jack. The reason why you were singled out is that for many pages with mergers, you stood alone against everyone else, it would make sense, regardless of it being outside the original remit of what was brought. I also see that the mediator said for the status quo to stay for the time being, which makes sense, since consensus mostly agrees on that point.--Lan Di (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Shenyang J-XX

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shenyang J-XX, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenyang J-XX. Thank you. Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Case on Hold

As a case is currently occurring at the Arbitration Commitee, i have placed the current MedCabal case on hold to prevent conflict occurring between any consensus that occurs at MedCab and any decisions that are made at ArbCom. I recommend you watch the outcomes and discussions that occur at ArbCom as you could be affected by them.

If you do do not want me as a mediator and wish for someone else to mediate after the ArbCom case is over then feel free to place a request on the MedCab talk page and then notify me so that i can see if your points are valid enough for me to recuse myself. I hope that this case will be dealt with soon. Seddon69 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Several things

  • I'll get straight to the point. Can I discuss something with you on my talk page? Its an RFC. Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'll put something on your talk page now.--Lan Di (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see where you put new messages for me to look at. Also, your talk page is a little hard to read with the tiny font.--Lan Di (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Welcome back! Well, a lot has changed since I spoke to you last. I now have rollback, and quite a few edits under my belt. So, where were we? Oh, and Lucy is editing again, even though she is on a "long wikibreak" Steve Crossin (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I never left. I'm not surprised with lucy, and I know what you have. But other than that, not much has changed from the looks of things.--Lan Di (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • True, not a lot has changed, yet. Recently I've been too busy fighting vandalism to really improve many of the 24 articles. But, I have 3 of them on my task list. Chloe O'Brian, Karen Hayes, and Charles Logan. All three of these need the plot summaries removed or cut down. I believe that we can improve these articles, but I can't do it alone. Would you help me? Steve Crossin (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course I can help. One thing I am really good at is researching the characters. You should also put Tom Lennox on your task list, as he is at risk of being destroyed.--Lan Di (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I also added some tags to the Tom Lennox article. I think, that these character articles, should probably be rewritten in the style that the Nadia Yassir article is now written. What say you? And, I'll add him to my task list, if you wish to add an article to my list, you can find my task list here Steve Crossin (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • They should, but not be so short as to end up merged. Also, a little plot doesn't hurt in cases where the character development is told through the plot.--Lan Di (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hyoscine-pentothal

  • See Talk:24 (TV_series)#Hyoscine-pentothal: "If it appeared in season 4, then what was the drug in season 3 when Tony had Richards inject some type of drug into her neck, and she tries to commit suicide on the needle by puncturing her artery. If I remember correctly, Tony asks how much more she wants to take, she says this is about it, so I infer, what she is taking is refering to pain. It appeared to have a similiar effect to Behrooz as Nina, which says that it is hyoscine-pentothal." Please who is Richards? Is Richards the "her"? In somewhat more detail, what happened? I have never seen the 24 series: I live in England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • England gets 24, Richards is the interrogator for day 3 of 24. The her is Nina Myers.--Lan Di (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Heya. i was wondering whether you could be interested in continuing to participate in the 24 characters medcab case. I believe that this dispute can be resolved given a little time and more patience from the parties involved. Seddon69 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Mind if I have a word with you about the case? Just my views on it, thats all, I will also be engaging in this discussion. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, great. How would you prefer? IRC? An IM client? Or just through talk pages? And, for what It's worth, I really do hope this can be resolved peacefully. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter to me, if it is something private, I would go through an IM client. But if it is not, talk pages are fine.--Lan Di (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer IM clients. Not really the privacy issue. Just easier for me, and quicker. MSN suits you? Steve Crossin (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • MSN is fine, I just need a few minutes to create a VPN pathway to my remote node to use it.--Lan Di (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ready.--Lan Di (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

  • Uh, yeah, add them to my desk. However, it may be best to try doing it yourself, I'm kinda up to my neck with stuff at the moment, such as MedCab cases. Just add one to my desk for now. Steve Crossin (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing my user talk page. I guess you will be leaving me a post of some sort :) Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, not really, I was just checking it out because my filter said it had new changes. I was looking to see if any were related to 24 articles when I saw the edit mistake, so I fixed it for you since you are so busy.--Lan Di (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ahh, I see. Well, thanks for that. I see Lucy hasn't responded to my call for peace. But, what can I do about it :/ Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's the first reward I have ever received, and don't worry about lucy, she doesn't scare me. Oh, I saw your wife's page, pretty hot if I may say so myself.--Lan Di (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Hehe, well thanks :D. You put Edgar Stiles on my desk? I've done some cleanup. And also, I have a new user page. What do you think? xD
  • Also, you should probably give your statement for the case soon. I should as well :P Steve Crossin (talk to me) 13:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Mate, just a note, I gave my statement, what do you think of it? Also, I don't completely discount DBD's actions, and I see the need for her behaviour to be handled. I don't want you to see my comments as an endorsment of her actions, because its not. I just dont want this to divide us editors. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 19:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

That’s not really the point anymore. What it’s about now is how someone can ramrod through their edits (using IMDB and sites that cite it as a source) while torpedoing every edit I try to make. There are at least 3 inaccuracies on the Reiko Aylesworth page that MJBurrage added, and despite sources, legitimate sources, he just reverts my edits and goes back to citing IMDB.

  • “The American Embassy” credits are wrong. Previews and Opening Credits don’t count for an episode appearance.
  • “Shooting Vegetarians” was filmed in 1999/2000 and premiered at film festivals in late 2000 until early 2002. I found a dozen articles stating this, but MJBurrage changed it to 2005 and refuses to correct it, even when I changed it with sources to back it up. He just reverted my edits. Again, his source is IMDB. That “note” he put isn’t good enough.
  • Place of birth, but of course IMDB is right and USA Today and the Chicago Tribune are wrong.

This is why I’m so freaking sick of this place. People like him are able to just do whatever the heck they please and get away with it. --MiB-24 (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know how it feels, we both experienced it. I don't know about point 1 or 2, but point 3 is arguable. The place she was born is in an area that is either a suburb or area of chicago, imdb isn't the only source, TV Guide is also. The area debated over is about a small piece of land. TV Guide is more accurate than USA Today or Chicago Tribune. The suburb is often considered part of Chicago, so actually both are true.--Lan Di (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Heya

Heya Lan di. I know that your not happy with the way that iv started this case and i do apologise if i have made you unhappy with how the case is going. I don't want you to feel like you cant come and complain to me about it. Feel free to, i like to know if i have made a mistake. You can email or message me on my talk page, add me on msn, come on the medcab IRC channel or even just here. II havnt throw away the mediation that DBD oversaw. I have spent many hours reading it several times in my spare so i havnt just disregarded it. The reason why i moved it from the case page was because there was too much user bashing coming from both sides of the dispute and i wanted to put that in the past and try to start from scratch. I realise that there may be conduct issues but i wanted to sort of the content first and foremost. I hope we can all work together on this this and that you dont feel like im taking Lucy's side or your side. I am neutral in this and i will ensure that this dispute is solved. Seddon69 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Medcab Reply

I don't mean to sound rude or anything else here, but your response is exactly what Seddon was trying to avoid. Seddon clearly states "i don't want "per User:X" answers"or wording to that effect, I am also assuming that quoting policy was covered by that as well.. I am not here to start a row I am mealy pointing out that your answer has not fulfilled the criteria which has been asked for, could you please answer the question in the way which has been asked. --Lucy-marie (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave the answer to the question as short and sweet, if he has a problem with it, he can talk to me. It is also pointless to regurgitate a response someone gave, so I was just saying what was needed to be said as to shorten up the response.--Lan Di (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Lucy is kinda right here, but if you feel I said what you thought, theres no point adding it. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)