User talk:Schneelocke/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Regarding Jpgordon

I felt it necessary to respond to this comment of yours:

Oppose, for two reasons: 1) the importance of unregistered users cannot be overstated. 2) the ArbCom does not shape policy; the community does.

You are absolutely right with your first point, anonymous users do help a great deal to edit the encyclopedia, and I also cannot say I would agree with banning anonymous users. You are absolutely right with your second point too; ArbCom does not shape policy. Thus, I ask, how are Jpgordon's views on anonymous users relevant to the arbitration committee? I personally think he would be a damn fine arbitrator, and since it isn't a policy-making body, his views on anonymous editing don't dissuade me in the least from supporting him. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The two points aren't actually related - sorry for the confusion. I was referring to his statement that "the rather loosely defined mandate for ArbCom results in ArbCom primarily shaping the social policy on Wikipedia" in response to User:Mailer diablo's question with the second one. I see that that's been cleared up, though. :)
Still, that leaves the issue of anonymous edits and whether they should be permitted or not. You're right, of course, that his own views on Wikipedia's policies won't matter when it comes to arbcom duties, but still - the idea that anonymous edits shouldn't be allowed anymore is so fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's principles that I cannot with a clear conscience support a candidate who seriously thinks this should be abolished, even when I think it will not necessarily interfere with the arbcom duties he'd have if elected.
Given that, until he changes his opinion here, I'll stand by my Oppose vote. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

I never said we are just a democracy, or that all we can do it vote. When I closed AfDs, reasons given, relavant policies, points left unaddressed, and what users just made an account a day ago and clearly are not yet familar with policies here, are all factors I take into account. If a new user happens to have relavant unaddressed point, then that matters. I never said that it should be some heirachy, where old users can always trump new ones. Of course, when you consider factors like reasons/points addressed, you are not so much "measuring consensus" as reading the opinions and doing what you think is best. Those are two separate things, and every admin and bureacrat seems to be doing things based on there method of closing discussions, which everyone calls "consensus". Redux closed Ram-Man's RfB b/c it didn't meet 90%, however Taxman promoted Carnildo's 60% support RfA, against the usual numbers, but by trying to do what seemed reasonable and best. That is not "measuring the consensus" on the page or "measuring the local consensus and considering any relevant outside ones" it is "doing what seems best/reasonable". Since everyone thinks their way is right, you have people complain about RfAs and a there was a lot of dissappointment over Carnildo's RfA. WP:Consensus is not clear which is right. ArbCom cannot decide if a policy was abused if people can't even agree on what WP:Consensus is. What I gave in that essay where my thoughts on what it is. You want me to "do what is best", which many strongly disagree with, they want admins/crats to measure what the community wants, not the admin/crat. No matter what I say people will oppose me over this ambigious policy. Voice-of-All 18:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I still very much disagree with the idea that some users' opinions/arguments/whatever should be given more consideration or weight because they contributed more/were around for longer/..., though. As I said, it's the message that counts, not the messenger; if one person's arguments are more convincing than another's, that person should be given more weight, no matter who's got more edits or who has been around for longer or anything like that (also see below). :P
I dislike the idea that there are different "classes" of users; for the same reason, I also think that adminship is something that should be given out freely. It's only a tool in my opinion, nothing more, and any editor who's proven that they're not a vandal should be given access to it - and this is true *precisely* because admins are *not* more important than "normal" users in any way.
Of course friction can't be avoided - there'll always be someone who'll be unhappy with something. But classifying users into "more important" and "less important" is absolutely the wrong way to deal with it; it's fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's open nature. Everyone's as important as everyone else here. Titles don't matter - arguments do. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just was replying to another user that IMO, if the new user has a good point that is unaddressed, then they have the upper hand, all things considered. And its a gradient, not a class/rank system, and has nothing to do with titles. See User_talk:JJay#.22Stronger.22. I don't believe in a hierarchy and I am starting to get bothered with people claiming that I do. I said in my Q&A that admins and non-admins are equally needed. The community consist of admins and non-admins. Consensus measures the WP community. Anyone that does work here is a member of the community, and I don't see the length of membership as a linear function. Its not like a user here for 4 years "counts as 8 users here for 6 months". I don't see it that way. Once a user has been here for a few days and done some editing, they are not only and editor, but a member of the community. Voice-of-All 19:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, but I'm not sure how to reconcile that with these statements:
How long a user has been part of the community, how much they have been involved, and how active he/she is the factors that decide this. These can be weighed for any user.
That said, what were measuring and approximating is the consensus of the whole community, were older, more active, members of the community are given more weight than very new users or minimaly active ones.
(from User:Voice of All/Consensus). What about that now? Either things like "how long a user has been part of the community, how much they have been involved, and how active he/she is" matter, or they don't, and if they don't, why does they appear on that page at all? I can only repeat yet again that we unless we have reason to believe that someone's an outright troll, all of this shouldn't matter - only the argument they make should. Or am I misunderstanding you? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see where some of this is coming from. I've reworded[1] part of that essay to better say what I mean. Voice-of-All 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It still says "Established members of the community are given more weight than very new users or minimaly active ones.", though. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The "minimally active" bit was removed[2] to agree with the rest. I wrote that essay as expority rather than a finalized, concrete, set of conclusions (hence the name "Some of my thoughts on determining consensus").Voice-of-All 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, now it says "established members of the community are given more weight than inexperienced very new users" instead - I should point out again that it's not the choice of words I disagree with but the very notion that some people should be given more weight than others.
So far, you still seem to be contradicting yourself. Do you think that the above (that some people should be given more or less weight than others) is true or not? If no, I don't know why you're keeping statements to that effect in your essay. :P -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
See my comment below. Any member of the community is treated effectively equal. The issue is that I feel that to be part of the community, you have to show some sort of minimal commitment to the project. Either way, if they make an edit, they are still an editor, and if they raise good points then they still count. Voice-of-All 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Why just "effectively equal" instead of outright equal? (On a side note, if anyone who makes even one edit is counted as an editor, then the whole thing becomes meaningless, anyway, since you cannot even make an argument without making an edit.) Anyhow, I'll also point to my comment below. Sorry. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Forgive me, I ran across your oppose vote on Voice of All's candidacy and left confused. You asserted the following: Wikipedia is not a democracy; we're about consensus, not voting, and the idea that anyone's vote or opinion is more important than someone else's because they contributed more / have been around for longer / ... runs counter to Wikipedia's principles. It seems to me that the first part of your statement is fundamentally opposed to the second part. Wikipedia is not a democracy because some people's opinions are privileged over others. Consensus politics do not make sense in an environment in which heads are counted. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this apparent dichotomy. Best, Mackensen (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not true. Wikipedia is not a democracy because we discuss things rather than vote (the best example are AfD pages, I think) and because good arguments matter. However, noone's more important than anyone else (with the possible exception of Jimbo); if an anonymous user who just made his first edit two hours ago makes a better argument than a long-time contributor who's also an admin, for example, then the former should be given more weight. Again, it's about the message, no the messenger. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I understand you--and agree with you. Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, cool. I'm glad I could clear that up. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally adhere to the view that relavant, unaddressed, arguments matter, no matter who makes them. There is no disagreement there.Voice-of-All 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, but then I don't understand why your essay says that "[e]stablished members of the community are given more weight than very new users or minimaly active ones" - that seems like a contradiction to what you said above to me. Either established members (even if they become "established" after being active for only a few days!) are given more weight simply because they are "established", or everyone's the same and it's only the argument that counts, not who's making it. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it is a matter of involvement and time. Just making an account and having 1 AfD edit over 3 days doesn't show any commitment or membership. On the other hand, I've seen some editors show this in a few days by adding heaps of content. Whether a user passed this point quickly or starts out with a few sparse edits, its not a hard point to pass, and requires no FAs or titles. Voice-of-All 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, one AfD edit over three days doesn't show commitment. But why does that matter? If somebody has a good point, it doesn't matter whether that's their first and only edit; and if somebody does not have a good point, it doesn't matter whether they have 10000 edits. I'll repeat it yet again: I think that we should be totally agnostic with regard to WHO is saying something and only look at WHAT is being said. This may be impossible in practice (nobody's perfect or free from bias, after all), but it doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY.
I hope this clears it up. :) We can agree to disagree on this, but I won't change my position on this. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
See my post above :). A good reason on an AfD is a good reason on an AfD, and still counts. I don't disagree with you there.Voice-of-All 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Then I don't understand why you're keeping the whole "some people should be given more weight" thing in that essay. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Becuase you measure consensus by looking at each these factors. "Rationality/truthfulness" is one of them, so for the case you mentioned (lets say a user here for a day with 3 small edits that made a good AfD point that was not addressed), it would still matter. Voice-of-All 20:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you can measure consensus in that sense at all, actually. You can only figure out consensus by reading the entire discussion and seeing whether there is any - or who has the better arguments. Assigning different "weights" to different people's opinions would make that easier, no doubt, but I think it's the wrong way to handle this; it would not just not help, but it would actually be harmful, because it would encourage people to place more weight on who's saying something and less on what is being said. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but who/what must both be considered. Otherwise the admin decides "what is reasonable" and trumps everyone else, isn't that kind of heirarchial? In a consensus based group, you need to except that what you want can't always be what gets done, as the community may want something else. Otherwise, then you are treating yourself and the users you agree with over the others. Remember that most community members think they are reasonable and are doing whats right, right? How often do people say "oppose. though I think I am doing the wrong thing"? Never. We always think were are reasonable, rational, and doing whats good. Yet disagreements still occur anyway. I think that to avoid a hierachy of submitting opinions and an admin deciding the outcome is that the admin needs to consider the general ideas held by those having the debate as well. I think that the matter of relavant, unaddressed points, whether by new users or IPs or whatnot is certainly a strong factor. A small local consensus on AfD against numerous similar, relavant, consensus decisions elsewhere, may be better not implimented. If someone gives attack opinions/votes like "oppose - this article is gay" or things like "user violated 5rr" when clearly no such event ever happened, they don't get much weight, like any other blatant irrationalisms/mistruths. Its just that, behind that, I cannot just trump what looks like a community decision, even if I strongly disagree with it. I am just one member. Voice-of-All 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In a way, yes, the situation where an admin closes an AfD discussion (for example) and makes a decision is somewhat hierarchical, yes. But that's something that I think can't be avoided - and also, it just means it's all the more important that the admin in question carefully considers the arguments made rather than who made them.
There is some inherent "hierarchy" in the system - it's not perfect, and it cannot be made perfect. But the solution is not to add more hierarchy. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Weighing the community's thoughts on a matter rather than just the admins does not create a new hierarchy, rather it makes less of one. If closing an AfD is simply the admin's decision and the opinions are just some arguments for the admin to maybe draw from if he/she wants, then it is no longer "consensus" but "what the admins wants", and more hierarchial, for better or for worse. The issue of weighing thoughts by community members a bit more than passer-bys is a seperate issue. Even as such, it is only a weighing factor, not a "older users totally trump new ones", which is what a hierarchy is. A good reason by a newbie can still swing an AfD in his/her favor.Voice-of-All 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's rubbish. As I said already (probably several times, too), you're only encouraging people to not look at the actual arguments this way. I understand where you're coming from - making it easier for a closing admin to justify following a certain opinion without having to evaluate the opinions *as such* and thus opening themselves to accusations of bias -, but you've still got it all wrong.
What's more, you're contradicting yourself again. If, as you said above, every user would get the same "weight" after having been signed up for a few days, the whole thing will be totally useless, since pretty much everyone will have the same "weight", anyway; and if this is not the case, then you *are* creating a definite hierarchy, no matter whether you intend to or not.
But let me reiterate the most important point again: you are (or would be) encouraging people to *stop looking at the opinions and arguments* presented by others. I'm sorry that being an admin who closes AfD requests is a job that actually requires 1) boldness, 2) unbiasedness, 3) the ability and willingness to think and determine the consensus and/or who had the better arguments in a debate, and 4) the ability and willingness to handle the flak that will no doubt ensue, but that's the way it is. Like it or not, Wikipedia is fundamentally centered around discussion, and you cannot and MUST NOT change that by declaring that certain people's opinions are more important simply because of WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE (as usual, not counting Jimbo, of course, who naturally is more important than everyone else).
And that's all I'm going to say here - I'm sorry, but I don't think this is leading anywhere or doing anything other than increasing my WikiStress again, and I really don't need that at the moment. >_> -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 23:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Most users will have the same weight as a community member. But I've said that rationalism/truthfulness are the other factors, so I obviously wouldn't encourage admins to "stop looking at the opinions and arguments". Admins have a good deal of discretion in that area, true, but they can't just override the whole discussion, hence it is not a hierarchy, and hence not a contradiction. I suppose I'll leave it at that as this has gone on for a while and I need to pack to move home since I finished my final exams. Cheers. Voice-of-All 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combinatorial_principles

Hi, please have a look at my suggestion in Combinatorial principles (talk). Thanks! --Aleph4 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 72.177.68.38 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Hello Schneelocke. I have received a few emails from a person who claims to be using this IP address. It has been blocked indefinitely and perhaps rightly so. However, the girl seems to be pleading not to block the IP indefinitely as she uses Wikipedia for school-projects and other assignments. In case you agree, can we unblock the IP for a temporary period, giving her time to register a username and then blocking it with an anon-access block preventing further account creation? That way, she can edit using the account, while her sister (who she claims has been trolling) cannot. Can we work this out, please? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to leave a message about this myself. I'm not sure if you're aware, but we never block IP's indefinitely especially if they're dynamic, unless in exceptional circumstances. Thanks, — FireFox (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2006
I do not think that this IP is dynamic. See the block log. However, the edits of Titanicprincess were not disruptive. In case the administrator agrees, I can create an account for her and then send her the password. The IP can be blocked indefinitely with an anon-access block w/ preventing account creation. HTH — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
ongoing discussion on ANI. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 15:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I'm certainly not opposed to giving her another chance. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that IP addresses are not blocked indefinitely, even if the person is banned, because the IP will eventually transfer to a new owner. —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also in Foaring Fourties

Good point - as both the phenomena need articles - but arent see also items meant not to be red links? bit like the old disambig problem... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatuSuro (talk • contribs).

Not sure — I think the question ultimately boils down to whether red links are good things or not. I personally think they are, though, since they make it clear to people that articles on certain topics don't exist yet and invite them to contribute. :) Also, even for those that don't end up contributing, the links still convey the information that other topics exist; someone who reads the Roaring Fourties article might well be unaware of the concepts of the Furious Fifties and Screaming Sixties, so even when those articles don't exist yet, they will at least learn that there are such things as the "furious fifties" etc. :) So I'm in favour of keeping or adding links even if they're red, myself. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey - that's fine - (I seem to keep unsigning tonight - must be the silly season or something) - the point you make is enough to look into them - maybe I'll stub them at least... thanks for that - enjoy the season! (I have a relative who did a sea trip to those two zones a year or two back - havent seen his photos yet though) cheers SatuSuro 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No worries about the Unsigned part. :) It happens to me, too, and I just added the template message so that people looking at this page later on (including me) wouldn't have to resort to consulting the page history to find out who said what. :) As for the red links - yes, stubs would be great! :)
Blessed solstice and happy holidays to you, too! ^^ -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And to you again - I hope we might meet in the screaming sixties at least next year... SatuSuro 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
*smiles* Thanks. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kiel.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Kiel.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smarandache-Wellin number

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Smarandache-Wellin number, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. —David Eppstein 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gasket14.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gasket14.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Qxz 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! -- Schneelocke 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half-month is going on Afd

Hi, I'm nominating half-month, which you wrote, for Afd because I think it's original research. Nothing in the articles on month or time convinces me that anyone uses this term for the sense you intend. You of course have an opportunity to defend the article by providing a source - that's why I'm writing this message. Best regards. YechielMan 02:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

*shrugs* Mmm, seems like this is not actually relevant anymore. Next time, do consider checking Google or so before requesting deletion; and FWIW, it's also always good to actually include a link to the relevant AfD discussion if you're notifying someone. There's probably a template for that, even. Still, thanks for the notice. -- Schneelocke 22:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germany-law-stub

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. It is far from clear that your new stub type woyuld have the 60 stubs usually required for a separate stub type, and it is, in any case, already covered by euro-law-stub, a stub type not yet in need of splitting. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 06:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, Wikipedia is *really* drowning in policies and regulations, and I quite frankly refuse to take part in that nonsense - I'm here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not to ask for permission every time I want to add or change something. Cf. WP:BB and WP:IAR. In any case, there's a US-law stub, a Canada-law-stub, a UK-law-stub an Australia-law-stub, and even a Scotland-law-stub, so I don't see why there shouldn't be ones for other countries as well. We're supposed to reduce systemic bias, not increase it. -- Schneelocke 10:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people cite WP:BB, but it seems that very few actually read it. Read, in particular, the title - Be bold in editing articles - and the section which says that being bold while creating and editing templates and categories is actively discouraged.

Overall, what you say is fine and dandy as regards categories for readers, and I'm all in favour of separate categories there. Stub types are for editors, though, and need different guidelines accordingly. For that reason, stub types are split according to the numbers of stubs that currently exist. this isn't a case of encouraging systematic bias - quite the opposite. if an editor wants a specific stub type for a specific country, then they have to provide the stubs to show that one is useful. I know from my work with geography stubs hat a lot of countries have had their geographical article numbers specifically because of this rule (we have people proposing stub types with comments like "I've managed to get Burkina Faso up to 60 geo-stubs, so it's not got enough for its own template"). The countries you mentioned each have their own law-stub templates simply because there are sufficient stubs for each one, and in some cases, editors deliberately created more stubs to ensure this.

As for the reasons for the threshold, take a hypothetical example. Say someone is an expert in Greek law and wants to expand some stubs. At the momentall he has to do is look in Cat:European law stubs, and it's an easy job to find the Greek articles in amongs the 150 or so Eupro-law-stubs. If there were separate law stub types for each country, then fine, they'd have a {{cl|Greek law stubs to look in, but it would save them very little work. Meanwhile, another editor is an expert on European law as a whole. At the moment, all she has to do is look in Cat:European law stubs and find 150 some articles to expand, and she might be able to improve one tenth of them. If those articles were plit by individual country, she would have to look through Cat:French law stubs, Cat:German law stubs, Cat:Italian law stubs, Cat:Swedish law stubs, Cat:Swiss law stubs, Cat:Norwegian law stubs, Cat:Danish law stubs, Cat:Dutch law stubs, Cat:Belgian law stubs, Cat:San Marinese law stubs, Cat:Monegasque law stubs, Cat:Spanish law stubs, Cat:Andorran law stubs, Cat:Luxembourgisch law stubs, Cat:Portuguese law stubs, Cat:Finnish law stubs, Cat:Polish law stubs, Cat:Austrian law stubs, Cat:Hungarian law stubs etc etc etc... with no guarantee that any one of them would have any articles she could expand. This is very disheartening for editors.

There's no need for a threshold for permanent categories, since readers know exactly what they are looking for or are guided to a category from an article. Editors, however, need to be able to pick and choose among a variety of articles. The stub thresholds achieve this, and that is why they have been used ever since the current stub-sorting methods were introduced a couple of years ago. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck, to be honest. -- Schneelocke 10:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, that's quite obvious. A pity really, since Wikipedia is supposed to be a community. Acting without regard for how other feel or for any form of civility may beperfectly acceptable to you, but it sure isn't if Wikipedia is to succeed. Grutness...wha? 04:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Trimagic square 12x12.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Trimagic square 12x12.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)