Thanks for your first hundred with so many on Kentucky and Indiana. Keep up the good work. You are well on your way to the next record Victuallers (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I award you this Barnstar for your solid, witty, creative, supportive, learned, timely, cheerful, eloquent, and/or otherwise generally great contributions on U. S. National Historic Landmarks' articles. Yippee o yay, we pretty much met our goal of a well-started article for each of 2,442 NHLs by today!
Thanks, and have a great Fourth of July! -- Doncram, 4 July 2008
Hey, i don't know if we busted, or not, but thanks for your work bringing many NHL articles to Start quality! The NHL cleanup drive yields, now, just about 2,442 NHL articles, with more than 1,750 of them illustrated by photos, by the way. Cheers, doncram (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bedford. I was recently expanding Willis Roberts and I nomintaed it under the July 5th section but I couldn't tell if I did a fivefold expandsion of it. Could you possibly check if I expanded it fivefold? Thanks in advance. -- RyRy (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ehehe, thanks. Although, the hook was pretty hard to choose. The first of the two hooks I nominated for the article I think was a POV. Could you check that? I'm not sure if such hooks would be approved. -- RyRy (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one to award the participants of 2008 spring Assessment Drive of Biography project. And you can't award yourself so I'm here to award you. :)
Hi, and thanks again for doing the Barnstars for the assessment drive. I was reading your user page and was pleased to see you also are from Indiana. I work mostly in the actors and film work groups and honestly am not all that great in starting articles, though I do some dandy clean up and referencing work. There is an article that I wish someone would start, and I have a bit of resource material for it, if someone would. It's on the Wilbur Wright Birthplace. I was involved with the original committee to preserve it after the state decided to close and sell it as a state memorial, although I am not involved now. The site was just a marker and house foundation for many, many years, and my uncle was almost the only person who bothered with it during the 50s and 60s. He mowed the grass, did the upkeep, went to the site to raise the flag on holidays, organized the small yearly memorial ceremonies and worked tirelessly to get the state to put money into it. That finally happened in the early 70s, when the state turned it into a state historic site, built a shelter house, had an Amish contractor build a reproduction of the house, and somehow persuaded the air force to donate a fighter plane for display. It continued that way, operated by the state, until the early 1990s, when the state began divesting itself of some property. They were planning to sell the land and move the house from the actual foundation of Wright's original home to the reservoir near Muncie. That's when our group stepped up. Eventually, we proved that the site could be operated (I think the original contract was for 3 years) and when we fulfilled our agreement, it was turned over to the local committee. It has been greatly expanded and is partially funded by a local food tax in Henry county. As you can see from the website, a great deal has been done with the funds. It operates independently as a tax deductible organization now. Anyway... if you are interested in it, please let me know. The website doesn't have all of the history of the site itself, which it used to have. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just stepped in to give the awards, using my admin status to replace any authority I had in WP:Bio (none). I have no idea about future drives, but seeing as the guy responsible for this one went AWOL, who knows if there is anymore. However, I have a constant drive of my own: get an Indiana article I started to GA, and I give an Indiana Barnstar; I'll give a Bluegrass Barnstar for those who do the same thing to one of my Kentucky articles.--BedfordPray23:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, about the DYK's I generally don't approve hooks, I simply find approved ones and then add them to the next update set, I won't use new approved hooks unless I absolutely have to because there are no other approved older hooks, also there are a few hooks that are older but have Image recommendations and I generally leave them so that I can place those in the header with there Images so because of that they might have to wait longer to be featured than plain text hooks but otherwise I always use the oldest approved hooks first and then work my way into the newer hooks as necessary :). Thanks and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to notice some recent interchanges at DYK involving yourself. I'd ask you to please try a bit harder to remain collegial, you seem to have gotten into a bit of a feud with other participants, which is somewhat unseemly. Someone with as many DYK contributions as yourself needs to set a good example for others, and that doesn't seem to be the case right now. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would be better served rebuking Doncram for it, instead of me, as he's the one creating the problem. As you didn't, but instead chose to rebuke m e, the protagonist to Doncram's antagonist, I can not respect this request.--BedfordPray16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into that but the advice (not a rebuke, merely advice) stands. "Be better than the other fellow "has always served me well. Whether you "respect" the advice or not is your affair. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this seems to be related to this, I'm commenting here. Yes, I approved two of your hooks from that date. I asked, and will repeat the request on his talkpage, that Don not review your hooks anymore (frankly, I think, to avoid COI issues no one from one project should be the main reviewer of DYK hooks and GAs from another user of that project. And things like what's happened here). But you don't have to rub him the wrong way either.
I feel we all get along great at NRHP, and am sad that you have chosen for the time being to delist yourself from it. However, this is purely from the DYK side of things. I really do like your hooks, and will probably add NRHP infoboxes to the articles I reviewed later. So I would like to see more efforts to get along (and, frankly, don shouldn't be reviewing your hooks). Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do thank you. I agree on those in same WPs not approving; its why I haven't approved the Bank of Indiana or placed it on the next update, even through there are space for two US hooks on there right not. As for removing myself, I will still work on those in Indiana and Kentucky, but due to ill will with Doncram, who runs the WP, I must remain separate for it unless her goes on a ling wikibreak.--BedfordPray03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is in charge of WP:NRHP? That's news to me. I was under the impression that we were all just creating articles and engaging in various areas of historical geekery. Aren't we all on the same team? --Elkman(Elkspeak)05:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is your choice to take a principled? stand against better referencing and to resign from wp:NRHP in a huff, or whatever, because you take offense, rather than responding reasonably, to my request that you do better in your referencing. I am not in charge of wp:NRHP and have not ever pretended to be, I am just a wikipedian trying mostly to develop articles and lists on NRHPs. I am rather amazed at your commitment to do poorer referencing, simply because i suggested you do better, and to otherwise sabotage the quality of your own articles. And amazed at your taunting and insults. I would have hoped that you and I would have had some better quality of relationship than that, so that you would have elected to respond to some constructive criticism more positively. I believe that i handed you a number of DYK topics of interest to you as a Civil War buff, and that i handed you a great reference resource for numerous of your DYK articles on Civil War memorials. But, whatever! doncram (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to let you know not to take my comments on the discussion page personally. I posted Mary Turner's comments for the record because I felt it was approperiate. She really doesn't care who put what where. She sees grandpa with rose-colored glasses and how dare anyone say anything negative about him. *shrug* Lonadar (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't; I've received far worse rebukes. It's understandable she feels strongly for her granddad; I wonder how old y'all were when he died.--BedfordPray22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mary was, I believe, in her early 20's at the time. I, unfortunately, came into the world a month later and never met Vic Sr. --Lonadar (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that I didn't screw anything up too badly. Ah, I can see that there is some extra space on the Main Page. I took the entries that had been listed at Template:Did you know/Next update, assuming that that was the approriate number/size. Looking at the history, though, I see that more than six entries do get added. On the offchance that again there aren't enough the next time the update comes around, can some just be grabbed from Template talk:Did you know that have been overall approved? Thanks for your help. -- Natalya02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usually up in that area of town but I'll see if I can get over there and take a few pics. Speaking of NHL Barnes and Thornburg Building was recently created and it's a NHL. The page is very bare and doesn't even have a NHL Infobox. Since you're the expert on NHL I thought I'd let you know. HoosierStateTalk06:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 Home Run Derby took place yesterday. Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton in the final round, 5 home runs to 3, although Hamilton broke a record with 28 home runs hit in the first round.
From the Editors
Baseball has a history unlike any other sport. It has been played in countless countries throughout the decades, and it will undoubtedly continue play for many more. On this eve, some the finest players the sport has to offer will take the field at the Yankee Stadium. Four popes spoke there, Pelé scored goals there, "The Greatest [football] Game Ever Played" was battled out there, John Philip Sousa lead a band there, George Costanza worked there; but what do all these events have in common? They fail to reach the level of greatness that the baseball that was played there did.
In 1923, a man named Babe Ruth decided to build a new house, and over the years, that house was a home to some of the greatest baseball ever played. If I were to list out all of these great moments, it would be longer than the bill for the New Yankee Stadium. So I'll sum it up by saying that we can remember these great moments by adding them to this place we've gathered at for future generations to read about, to learn about, to dream about; but more importantly we can watch tonight and we can remember how baseball is unlike anything else that we will encounter in our lives. — Blackngold29
Thanks, I noticed he missed the credits, you've saved me the trouble of going back through the suggestions page to try and figure it out myself :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm around, I will. However, I have no idea when I will have lunch, so I'll have to work around that. I will, however, go ahead and get it ready.--BedfordPray16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Inferno match was between MVP and Kane, which I went with MVP. Let's see how good a pic we have of Kane, if MVP's not good enough.--BedfordPray17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Cerkov Rizpolozhenia (Kreml).JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your recent comment and restore of the neutral tag. If you would add the information you believe is missing, that would help resolve this. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the A-class review but the folks at MHR tend to be a bit shy when it comes to opposing - usually if someone asks for improvements, many people will just stay away until it gets fixed. NVm, I've started fixing some of them. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've had a bum foot all week, which sapped a lot of will to get improvements done that. Someday, I'll make it a FA. Plus, my biggest problem was needing some kind of infobox that could be used for all "STATE in the American Civil War" articles, and I was at a blank.--BedfordPray05:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For more specific things that fiery incidents, you can use WP:ANI but for more longer term type things, WP:RFC/U is the place to go. Obviously if the DYK regulars-and I have been enjoying some downtime lately on that front-ignore this person's complaints, then that only leaves the issue of getting under your skin. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bedford. You are over 3RR on this article. I recommend that you self-revert. I'm leaving a note at WP:AN3 that I left you this message and I'm going to bed. If you don't revert it's possible that another 3RR closer might block you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford, for an admin, you don't seem very knowledgable about 3RR. Please revert COMPLETELY if you are accepting my offer. If not, it's the next guy's decision on whether to block you. EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I allowed myself to be officially raped, and now Doncram has been awarded for making a nuisance of myself. I did not become an admin for #RR; I became it to help on DYK. I reverted, although it is a sin against me that I had to.--BedfordPray06:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the 3RR report because it was made in bad faith. However, please remember that only simple, obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR enforcement. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mike Ayers, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'll come over to your talk page now for this! Thanks a bunch for the help with DYK - I'm only a rookie with it and it's hard to know exactly what to do. It's been much appreciated! Ryan Postlethwaite03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beford -- I see you've put the wrestling hook in the next update. Consider swapping the current dark photo for a better photo of the other wrestler -- . I think it will look much better in small size. Cbl62 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but I've removed from the Main Page this DYK that you approved after someone brought it to my attention. This really isn't the kind of material we should be showcasing on there. :/ krimpet✽
I thought Wikipedia was uncensored? Also, several people commented on ti, and not had any problems with it. It shopuld have been replace with another from the queue; not an old one. How ridiculous.--BedfordPray08:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm highly disappointed that you've chosen to simply revert me on a protected page and adopt a combatative tone, instead of attempting to address those concerns. Wikipedia is not censored, but it's not needlessly gratuitous either, and the Main Page is a highly visible position on our project. I'm sure many other women on this project would agree with me that this doesn't belong there. I urge you to please revert yourself. krimpet✽08:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that there were no complaints on the Main Page Errors secion, nor did anyone contact you about it, so you did it solely on your own volition. Five people had no problems with, and apparantly two admins have proven no diculties with it, as opposed to the one of you. You can't be overruling so many just by your own say so. That avoids Good Faith.--BedfordPray08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my article, it was my suggestion. Others agreed it was the best one to use. Instead, we have a bunch of feminists decide to censor Wikipedia, as they'd rather do that than actually do something fruitful for Wikipedia. Sad. Oh so sad. Pathetic, too.--BedfordPray10:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter - you should refrain from promoting your own hook. You can ramble on to yourself now - talking to you is clearly not worth my time. Seraphim♥Whipp10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you know you were wrong to do it, but didn't care as you do not bother with consensus, just your own regards. Thanks for confirming I'm better than you.--BedfordPray10:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Yawn*. Hmm let's see, I wasn't the one who removed it. 4 separate admins agreed on its removal and funnily enough the removal hasn't been reverted... That seems like consensus to me. What does that tell you? You know you were wrong to promote your own hook and then edit war over it's removal. Just wanted to set things straight :). Now I guess I should go back to ignoring your ramblings... Seraphim♥Whipp11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reasons is due to 3RR and the fact it was scheduled to be updated anyhow. It was three admins, all of whom were women. Seems to me COI on your part to censor Wikipedia. I feel sorry for you, to be so pathetic.--BedfordPray11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford, this was totally out of line and has nothing to do with censorship. The *article* itself is fine, if you people over at EN feel that this is encyclopedic enough. Don't know that it would survive in Germany. Anyway, the point was having it under DYK on the front page - that was entirely out of line and if you promoted this yourself, you are violating the rules. We are not a guy's mag, we are an encyclopedia. Grow up. --WiseWoman (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to. It was one sentence, and the image was solely the face of a Latina that many would see as pretty. There were other images that could have been used that would have shown more skin on one of the three women on question, but this pic was chosen for being better quality. Nothing skanky; just trying to get hooks with good number of page views. Then again, those who can't pick good hook are the most likely to critique; it's the way of the world.--BedfordPray18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it highly inappropriate that you've now referred to me and others as 'feminazis.' Personally attacking others with insulting epithets like this is not tolerated on this project, full stop. Cease this behavior at once. krimpet✽21:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just take a moment and assess the situation logically so I don't have to correct you again? It was 4 admins: Krimpet, SlimVirgin, Sarah and myself.
Now you're screaming like a banshee that it's vandalism? You should have more respect for the 4 admins who felt this was inappropriate and more respect for the project. Go on, reply, have the last word :), you know you want to...
Hello, Bedford. Can you please review some hooks at T:TDYK? There are no hooks without an image for the next update. All the hooks that are currently approved and been verified are hooks with images, and absolutely none of them are hooks without one. -- RyRy (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, two of the three oldest hooks that are valid are my own, nd I do not feel right about doing image reviews at this time, especially after the crap I dealt with concerning images and whatnot this morning. Not your fault, but I'm a little burnt out at the moment.--BedfordPray12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, I suppose I could ask User:Daniel Case since he does do mass reviewing on occasions. Then again, he hasn't edited since yesterday. I'll try though. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you're in a disagreement, please don't hint that other editors may be feminazis or extremists, or that not seeing things the way you see them is censorship. This kind of talk may be taken as a personal attack by some editors. No worries about suggesting dumb/meaningless topics for DYK or whatever, this is only a friendly warning about how you handled the disagreement. All the best! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based primarily on your myspace blog posting, but additionally based on your onsite behavior (and either would have been sufficient cause) I have removed your sysop bit. Such attitudes and behavior are absolutely unacceptable for a Wikipedia administrator. You can reapply either through me or the ArbCom. If coming through me, I can tell you that I will require a complete and total retraction of the comments you made, as well as a disavowal of the attitudes behind those, and even then I will not re-instate you directly but rather merely allow you to stand for re-election. The ArbCom may view things differently, and be more lenient. If so, I will not stand in their way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought thing posted elsewhere were not be used against others on Wikipedia? Also, isn't this all in the heat of the moment. I would ask you to reonsider, based on my three year record. Plus, I need the sysop for DYK updating, which needs more updaters.--BedfordPray17:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be surprised when individuals, individuals with special authority, or the community follow WP:IAR, there is a reason why this is called "Rule Number One." Usually off-site actions won't be held against you, but there are exceptions. Bedford, you screwed up, and took way too much for granted. I've argued that you should not be blocked, on AN/I, not based on old, off-wiki comments, but do be aware that if you don't acknowledge those as a mistake, you could be blocked anyway, see below. It's a human community, and get enough people upset enough, it will spit you out, as will any human community. --Abd (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were perfectly right to do what you did, and the outlaw Jimbo Wales had no legitimate authority to desysop you. I demand that it be reinstated. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 20:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, smell the coffee! Jimbo merely anticipated the community's response. So we should undo it because he supposedly didn't have the right to do it? (He does have the right, nay, the responsibility. Don't agree? Start process to remove that bit from him. Good luck. Or not, actually. Waste of time, waste of resources.) We *could* undo it, but the mechanisms by which we could undo it mostly are rejected by you. I think you've painted yourself into a corner, actually. Very, very simple, Kurt: we could stop editing Wikipedia. Let the vandals run amok for a few days or more. Indeed, we have the power. But would we use it? No, I think not. We would not use it for two reasons: (1) we aren't coherently organized, and that's what it would take. (2) if we were coherently organized, we would not use that organizational power destructively, which is what that would be to call a strike. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This post seems to be a threat to physically stalk someone. This is one of the most unsettling things a Wikipedia editor can post and is grounds for a community ban. Unless you can either tell the community how this has been misunderstood as a stalking threat, or take it back altogether (through an explicit retraction and hopefully, an apology of some kind), you will very likely be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here then. The girl in question, we'll call her "Prairie" (not her actual name or username on website in question, which is not Wikipedia). She loves to be nasty and have a bad attitude, and not just against conservatives, but against some leftwingers as well. She's an equal-opportunity shrew. (How she hasn't been banned yet is beyond me). She kept bringing up all the false accusations against me, and eventually I had to vent. It would be foolish to do so on that website, so I did it on Myspace. She lives in Texas, and I would love to visit Texas again as soon as possible, not ofor her but because I love the state. I want to revisit the San Antonio Riverwalk. I want to visit the cowtowns. I want to tour Dallas. However, it should be noted that she doesn't appear to live in any part of Texas that I would particularly visit. I was just tired of her crap. Would you like to have a bunch of vicious libel constantly spread about you?--BedfordPray21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When it rains it pours. An old blog post you made is under discussion with a proposal to siteban you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly_too_dramatic.2C_but_IMHO_necessary.2C_escalation_by_Barneca I encourage you withdraw that old post with an appropriately brief retraction (that it was misplaced humor, heat of the moment, or something like that). So far I haven't made up my mind, and you may know my record in that area (I cannot discuss it onsite but will discuss offsite if needed). I'd like to suppose the best and extend the benefit of the doubt; please provide the basis for doing so so that I may support you and reduce the drama. With respect, DurovaCharge!18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are already doing this, which is good, but if not, I strongly suggest, particularly if you are feeling angry or pissed off about anything that has happened, that you consider leaving wikipedia for a few days and if possible, try to put this incident out of your mind. Do not post messages in any other site about the incident. In a few days (whatever you feel is best) when you no longer have such strong feelings about what went on, take the time to revisit the situation. Re-read whatever messages you think are necessary and compose any responses/actions as necessary, but do not post them. Instead, wait at least one more day and come back to your response/s and edit as you feel appropriate. All this will give you time to compose your feelings and hopefully respond in a more calm and rational way rather then in a heat of the moment way which I fear may be what you are currently doing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your blog: as a godless atheist liberal (well, not really atheist), I'm dismayed you got the wrong idea about the left-wingers. Those weren't left-wingers you were dealing with; those were assholes, who transcend politics. I feel bad that you had to deal with them -- assholes of all kinds give groups of people a bad name. --harej22:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, correcting the record, I realized it was actually October 1994 when the bomb threat occurred. As for getting the wrong idea about liberals, I have a Google Alert established for Rush Limbaugh, and in many of them I see the posters on left-leaning sites keep saying he's a druggie just for taking too many pain pills, and that because he visited the Dominican Republic he must have sex with underaged females, as that's available down there. As someone who has severe foot pain every so often that I feel like throwing up, I can understand someone continuing to take pain pills in order to remove the pain. As someone who's been falsely accused of pedophilia, I can also relate to that. Those blogs and comments further establish my world view on leftwingers, as did how I was persecuted in the past 48 hours, as it was political correctness gone amuck.--BedfordPray23:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The odd thing is that left-wing philosophy (which I freely subscribe to myself at its more centrist end) generally has as a fairly major plank social liberalism. Essentially that boils down to, do what thou will if it harms none. Maybe it's different here in Australia to the US, but most left wing people here would support heroin injecting rooms, regulation rather than criminalisation of marijuana, and have campaigned for better access to medication for a whole range of things. So I think the people you're dealing with are probably more likely idiots than lefties. :) Unfortunately you get a lot of those on any public forum, in general they like the sound of their own voice in an echo chamber and get hopelessly carried away. (I've often wondered if the fact that the US is one of the few places in the world where the centre left is not in the majority of the population makes the left there more shrill/pushy as they have something to prove, unlike here, Canada or in Europe where it's the right wing who look ridiculous.) I do have sympathy for your position as outlined on the blog today.
In general, where you fell over on this occasion was "attack the posts, not the poster". We have a raft of policies which say, in a more verbose fashion, "just don't do that". Attacking someone on the basis of their gender, race, alleged philosophical views, or any other thing such as religion or sexuality, actually doesn't achieve very much, especially if you don't know the editors' real offline personae, and further risks taking the debate into irrelevancies, and does not aid in avoiding drama. Attacking edits on the basis of their non compliance with policy makes a lot more sense. In this case I'd argue it was actually your edits (subsequent to your first) in this situation which failed the litmus test (putting any proposition is OK once, but when it's rebuffed, that's when you take it to the talk page, not try and war it in), and you should have backed down. The hook was never going to survive, and it wasn't just some militant feminist category that thought so - to allege so merely created drama and escalated the problem well beyond its original scope. I used to work for a government department dealing with internal customers, and that experience was useful to draw on when I got here and became an admin. If it was unacceptable there, it probably would be here, and that's the basis on which I've always proceeded. Orderinchaos02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is too politically charged of a reason for not liking the hook. My gripe with it is that it's not terribly encyclopedic in my opinion. (Your opinion may differ). --harej03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much of the stuff on here, including DYK, would actually be in an encyclopedia? Would GA-class articles on Simpsons episodes? I look at the current DYK articles, and only 1-2 at best would be in an actual basic encyclopedia. I like Wikipedia, but let's face it; most basic article subjects have long been written. People might think I am dissing, but let's tell it the way it is. My goal was to generate interest in the new articles on Wikipedia, and I have been persecuted for doing so as I am not politically correct. The only thing I would have done different knowing what I know now is I would not have responded to the trolls. After the hook would have left the main page anyhow, I'd give the censors the lack of attention they so desperately crave.--BedfordPray03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I could use some good news now. Would you mind resetting the protect level of my user page so I can edit it; I set it for admins only as I was an admin and wanted to keep the page from being vandalized. But now I can't even reset my DYK count on my own page.--BedfordPray20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going for the image of an older man. I would not know someone from Tajikistani from an Armenian from an Indonesian. It was to depict being an old single guy, and no malice was intended. You read too much into this.--BedfordPray01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know geography better than 99% of my fellow Americans (granted, not that big of an accomplishment), but I did not recognize him to be a Muslim. Perhaps I can find some stereotypical geek to use instead?--BedfordPray01:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional hat, beard, and clothing identifies him as a Tajikistani Muslim, and it may even indicate his marital status, although I am guessing on that point. What exactly would a photograph of a "bachelor" look like, in your opinion? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. Good choice. However, the article on Carey says he proposed to Nicole Jaracz on October 9, 2007, so you might not be using it for long. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I saw an older Tajiki man with a beard and one who was clean shaven of the same age I would assume the bearded man, if either, was the bachelor. As for the Tajik's status, his clothing and beard might indicate he's older, he lives in a rural area, or he is an imam. Urban Tajiks are mostly westernized, and they're mostly Persians, so looking "Tajikistani Muslim," simply means he looks like a white guy wearing clothing that indicates he comes from a once mostly Muslim country in Central Asia.
Bedford, there was nothing wrong with your picking this image as a generic bachelor for a silly user box. Drew Carey's show had some running theme about him being a bachelor so he's probably just as safe as the Tajik. Check out my edit history some time, Viriditas, to see if you think I qualify as someone who supports bigotry or sexism or racism on Wikipedia.
I looked through your edit history, Bedford, the inflammatory DYK, which was apparently edited out, and this talk page to find the commotion. I haven't visited your blog (and don't give a shit about it), but have to say the flames and smoke about you seem rather lame.
I'm tempted to ask you to, next time you're accused of so much and desysopped for it, at least try to provide something tantalizing for the shameless snoops among us.
"Me too" has never been a valid argument and ignorance is not a sound defense. According to a 1989 census, 7.5 percent of men over age forty had never been married in Tajikistan. It is unlikely that the man in the photo was a "bachelor" as most men of his age are or have been married. But please, don't let the facts get in your way. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for folks to help convert Respect Threads to wiki formatting on Project Fanboy: WikiFans. Respect Threads, showcase scans of feats performed by comic book characters and have gained an audience on several comic book message boards. A few other wiki editors and myself are trying to convert them from the unprofessional look of a bunch of posts on a message board to the formatting common with WikiMedia wiki's. To view an example of what we're doing, here is a link to Respect Silver Surfer.
I was wondering if you might have time to contribute your comic book knowledge and/or scans of comic book characters performing feats, and help us out with our Respect Articles project?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I am feeling burnout, so I am just not up to helping out now. However, in the future, I may. Thanks for inviting me, however.--BedfordPray02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse someone of censorship when they didn't even remove the hook. And please, put away the spade. You're five miles deep in the lithosphere anyway. Sceptre(talk)08:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your own, uninformed, opinion. Your actions have been a disgrace, and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I'm so above you, I'm in the Andromeda Galaxy.--BedfordPray13:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any administrator or well-known veteran that gravitates towards drama behaves like a child. I wouldn't go as far as considering Sceptre to be an embarrasment to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia itself has become an embarassment. Sceptre is a product of what this broken system and its owner gleefully allows and encourages. SashaNein (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're stressed out about the desysop, and I know that everything on this matter has been happening very fast. I mean, of course I've seen your contribs, I certainly have never seen you snap like this. I mean, it's common sense that going around saying you're better than everyone, etc. is not exactly helping what's left of your reputation. Just calm down, take a few days off of here, and just let everything subside so that this can take care of itself. If it comes to it I'll be the one to block you if the incivility continues, which I'd rather not do. Just take a deep breath and not worry so much about here, you're only going to alienate more and more people otherwise. Wizardman17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say everyone else; just that I was better than those who reveled in me getting desysopped without due process. I am taking a minor wikibreak of sorts, as my persecution has left a bad taste in my mouth. There are couple of articles I was intending to write or super expand, but not right now. I can not and will not let this slide; this miscarriage of justice is not settled.--BedfordPray17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You sure as fuck are better than me, aren't you? And now I'm part of the blatant miscarriage of justice because I couldn't shut the fuck up at User talk:Kmweber. Thanks again for letting me know I'm the 13th-worst editor on Wikipedia. --Elkman(Elkspeak)17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, why don't you just come out right now and say it: Nothing I've ever done here at Wikipedia has ever been productive or constructive, has it? Nothing I've done here at Wikipedia has ever been good enough for YOU or for anyone else. --Elkman(Elkspeak)17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, I'd say that "X is a multi-million dollar business" is not exactly the best way to start a Wikipedia article. Overall, the first paragraph reads not so much as "this is a notable company" as "this is a company in expansion which makes a lot of money", with undercurrents of "investment opportunity!!". in a short article like this, splitting an intro was probably not that necessary. Circeus (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by wikifying the page is to make it have sections and have an infobox. You need to format it a standard format, much like Nvidia. – Jerryteps04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother seeing what those terms directed to. It just seemed more beneficial to Wikipedia that it go to the main ACW article than to the naming article because its makes a lot more sense.--BedfordPray15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the American Civil War article contains no mention of those alternate names at all other than War Between the States, it can be slightly confusing to those users (such as myself) who aren't familiar with the war. When I first came across the term, I wanted to find out the reason the alternate name was used, you know? Like, what it means. And the Naming article explains the reasons behind each of the alternate names. I think if we were to redirect War of Northern Aggression (and all the other ones) to the main article, it would open the way to those loaded terms being used in articles, and then we'd have different POV terms being used in different articles. Currently, if someone types in "War of Northern Aggression", or "War of the Rebellion" or whatever into the search bar, then they are taken to the Naming article, and there is a link to the actual article right there in the first sentence.
Of course, I'm far from an expert on the subject, and it is just my personal opinion that those redirects should be handled in this way. It's probably worth bringing up a discussion on WP:ACW to see what consensus would arise either way. Dreaded Walrustc15:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't someone who wanted to know more about the war rather read the article about the war, instyead of about its naming? That's all I'm saying.--BedfordPray15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main article about the war is linked in the first sentence of the Naming article, so there isn't much of a hassle to whoever would type that in. Meanwhile, "American Civil War" is by far the more common name. A quick count of the Whatlinkshere for American Civil War has close to 10,000 links, whereas the four redirects mentioned above have a total of <5. With the redirects pointing the way they are now, it opens the way for, say, an article on a person that contains a historical quote of said person using, say, "War of Northern Aggression" in a sentence, and we can wikilink that, and any reader can click that, and they would find out the context that that name is often used in, the reasons people often use that name, and they will then know a little bit more about the name, you know?
Of course, you're right in saying that it would be quicker for the user to just have a redirect to the main article for those users who type it into their search bar or whatever, but I feel it is of more interest to the user to have it as a redirect to the Naming article. :) Dreaded Walrustc16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree is that its a discussion for the ACW task force sometime. Right now, I'm knee deep in other things, but after that, we can have a discussion.--BedfordPray16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's no deadline or anything of course, and I can appreciate you've got a lot on your hands at the moment. I won't take part in the future ACW discussion (I'm neither American, nor knowledgeable in the war, nor a member of the task force :P), so it's really just a case of seeing what those people who know more than me feel on the matter. Have a nice day. :) Dreaded Walrustc16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked two of the ArbCom members about who should I file against. One basically said the actual defendants were vague, and the other said it wasn't necessary.--BedfordPray15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Court records are public records-- look them up before pontificating! If you are a mason concerned about this you should call the GL of CT and demand to know why they are doing this. Now, stop unfairly reverting me!—Preceding unsigned comment added by P-nice (talk • contribs)
Something like this would be in the news, which it wasn't after doing an extensive Google search. Cite the court case, if you can. Otherwise, leave it off.--BedfordPray16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have at least one person's support :) Thank you for all the work that you've done and remaining staunch in the face of breathtakingly stupid criticism. naerii17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your not alone Bedford! That was awful quick and rash what they did. My head is still spinning just from watching. I am amazed how a couple name callers can spin up such a PC frenzy, completely ignore the evidence of who was right and who was wrong in the initial case, and then attack you for old posts on an off-wiki site. Appalling. Charles Edward18:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does sort of seem like AN/I and Jimmy ran off the edge on this one. Sometimes the AN/I echo chamber leads to bad decisions before much thought has gone into the consequences. If what I've seen is as much as there is to see (the on-wiki stuff is the most relevant, the off-wiki less so even tho its ill-advised) then hopefully the error will be corrected with time and attention. Avruch T 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm that familiar with your edits, but when this situation caught my eye I thought I would leave you a note as well. I'm not sure if you were right or wrong in all this, but I feel that you were basically desysoped for what amounts to a content dispute, rather than your usage of the tools. While it's technically a use of admin access to edit the template, it's really not the same thing as "wheel warring", at least not in spirit.
A slap on the wrist may be in order, and I don't completely fault Jimbo for his conclusions here, but it seems too harsh to just remove your bit because of this one incident. -- Ned Scott03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Senning's Park, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If the article was about the flag itself, I wouldn't have a problem. But it's just about something that happened in that particular country. We could do the same when we were short of pics for any country, but I think it would look pretty silly if, for example, we put the flag of Britain up there for an article which happened to be about Britain. Gatoclass (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I decided not to use my own pic anyhow because, apart from the apparent COI, on reflection I thought it was a tad small anyhow. Thanks for the quick response tho. Gatoclass (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot support you before the Arbitrary Committee. While I agree that you did nothing wrong and should never have been desysopped, I view the Arbitrary Committee as illegitimate. To defend you before it would itself be an implicit acceptance of its legitimacy, and I am unwilling to give it my sanction in such a manner. I don't expect you to share my views on this matter; I just want you to know why I'm not doing anything lest you think I've "caved" somehow. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So even if the "Arbitrary Committee" can act as a check on Jimbo's actions, you still can't support them? Even if the "Arbitrary Committee" has the chance to right something that you consider wrong, you're still going to be upset. I figured, Kurt, that this case would cause some cognitive dissonance for you, but at least now I know the outcome. By the way, you'll notice that I didn't, in fact, block you for saying "Arbitrary Committee", because I realize that the community has given you a free pass to say such things. --Elkman(Elkspeak)17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (13th worst editor on Wikipedia)[reply]
Did I say anything about you? And no, there's no cognitive dissonance; they are two separate issues, and so they remain. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 21:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ottava Rima has apparently case a vote for you and one for me at AN/I.[1] She apparently has not notified you. Although you are otherwise busy with possibly more pressing issues, I generally like to know when someone acts as my voice, so I'm letting you know what's going on. --Blechnic (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
could you review my DYK nom entry for BEL Weapon Locating Radar, expanded on 25th July and let me know if there are any changes reqd, or if it is ready for DYK.... I'm getting anxious coz the review period is expiring. Thanks a ton. Cheers. Sniperz11@CS17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will, as soon as I figure out why Firefox has made my Wikipedia pages look so horrendous, like the characters were shrunk to almost unreadability.--BedfordPray18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stream Cliff Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The content is good, but I think you're displaying far too much content per section, which makes it hard to navigate. Might I suggest just the intros to the articles you feature be on the page, sort of like the main page? MSJapan (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was doing it in the style of my three featured portals, but the content may be too much. The amount of content I have always judge by what filled the text box when I type, so its fuzzy guesstimates at best. My main concerns are the DYKs being too Ameri-centric. BTW, have you check Grand Lodge of Indiana yet?--BedfordPray21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a case at ArbCom, where people are making a big deal out of a hook I suggested (but not create or nominated the article) being placed by me on the DYK Next Update. I wanted to show that there was precedence for this, but it would be like finding a needle in a haystack to show this. I don't want you in trouble; far from it. I just wanted to show what I did was not without precedent.--BedfordPray15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If you want to search, I know there was an article about some Polish or Czech table tennis player a few months back whose suggested hook focused on his war career. Yet in the article there was a bit about his participation in something known in the sport's lore as "The Long Point" ... a championship match in the 1930s where he played purely defensively in an ultimately successful attempt to break the other guy's game. As a result it took 70 minutes to record the first point; the ref had to be replaced and the fans all got bored and left before then. The journalist in me immediately saw the buried lede and made it the hook, which we used. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. I'm not sure I'm the one who placed it on DYK/N ... I get so busy with hooks I almost rarely put that together, and as a rule I try to avoid placing any articles I created, nominated or expanded, or anything like that where I was the one to suggest a new hook. So it may not have been me who placed it on the update. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just letting you know someone changed their vote from Accept to Reject, and I believe your case now does not have 4 net accept votes, so it will not be heard. Sorry if I'm totally confused about the process, but that's how I understand it. Anyway, I put a plea of sorts onto that user's talk page to try to get him to reconsider. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a bit odd. If there is a need for four more accept votes than decline votes, I was already screwed. If just four accept votes are needed, I'm still good. The thing is, my integrity keeps getting slandered. If someone just used another hook proposed for The Great American Bash (2005), I would not have any problem. If there was an actual discussion prior to removing it, I would have no problems. I was accused of WP:POINT but I tried to avoid Point by not reverting the third time. I never promote my own articles and nominations. If something is already pictured, I don't move one of my own articles to the pictured slot even if its already on the next update.--BedfordPray16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another member changed their vote, and I also added a plea to their page. I'm not saying anything about your actions. I'm just trying to get ArbCom to hear the case, so they ultimately are the ones who decide your fate, not just one person. 207.34.229.126 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is still eight days for a final tally of four more than decline. Hopefully, the heat of the matter will let calmer heads prevail. This is a case that might affect Wikipedia for years, and it needs discussion at ArbCom, regardless of the final conflict. Anyone who wants to prove that Wikipedia censors could go back to this case.--BedfordPray18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write a personal appeal to him, stating why this case should be heard, and that I should be given the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for your help.--BedfordPray18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as if this is the first time you've been called out for breaking policy. Let us never forget your revisionist editing that so agitated IvoShandor that he had to take a wikibreak. To be honest, you are the reason I don't edit much anymore and I find it disconcerting that you were ever made an Admin, muchless in such an overwhelming fashion.
Let us not forget how you champion the use of the term "war of northern aggression" as a valid substitute for "american civil war" and how terrible you were to me when I called you on it, even though I have not ever said one cross word to you. You called me a vandal, and a stalker, and all sorts of unsavory things that certainly fly in the face of numerous wp policies.
And let no one forget how my attempts to bring this to the attention of someone who could do something was largely ignored. I tried MedCab, I tried Wikiquette Alerts, I tried getting advice on IRC for ways to notify anyone who would actually care about your flippant rule breaking, to no avail.
Well, I hate to be as unsavory as this, but apparently not enough to prevent me from saying: HEY EVERYBODY: I TOLD YOU SO.
If I were still active, I'd provide all the diffs, etc. Most of it can be found from the closed medcab case [3], from the wikiquette alerts archive [4] and from the archives of this very talk page.[5][6][7]
I am very glad to see you finally did something flagrant enough to get the attention of people who would do something about it--apparently, I simply couldn't scream loud enough. Broooooooce (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IvoShandor had a history of tantrums, one of the reasons his RfA was rejected, and it was more of the same. You were simply being a friend of Ivo's, and were disingenuous with the MedCab (which I have completely forgotten about). The MedCab was thrown out as being without serious merit; it was due to PC that it was done in the first place, much as this latest fiasco has been due to PC.--BedfordPray17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I waited for a valid retort to my reasoned arguments against your actions which certainly stand on their own merit regardless of who I happen to be friends with on here. I only received personal attacks as a response. I still await your justification of your actions and an apology for your insults. Broooooooce (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your RFAR is now very much unlikely to be accepted, and that it generates a great deal of negative exposure for you, I wanted to offer you the opportunity to have me remove it early? You're under no obligation to do so, but given the acrimony that could be generated by leaving the request up for the whole ten days, you might want to consider it. Just give me the word and I can remove it.
Leave it on there. After the heat from the weekend dies down, people might be more reasonable. If I am not given fair treatment, then let there be acrimony. I'm willing to be a martyr. Besides, coordinators have kept changing their minds; 24 hours ago, I was assured to get fair treatment at ArbCom.--BedfordPray22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey; I'm sorry for any mixup that may have happened, I did not see anything salvageable but it was also 0200 local time for me last night when I did it.. sorry! --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log)15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know which one you are talking about but you've caught me at an inconvenient time as I am just about to hit the hay. Let me know which triple you are referring to and I'll take a look at it tomorrow if it hasn't been promoted by then. Gatoclass (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I didn't say it needed better citing though, only that the references needed better formatting. I didn't actually try verifying the hook at the time, and I'm too tired to do it right now, but I'll do it first thing tomorrow if it hasn't already been done by someone else. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're currently online, could you point me to the relevant cites to confirm the hook? I don't even know which article to look in. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've looked at the articles, and the hook appears to check out, but I don't believe you have formatted the refs sufficiently. Just substituting bare urls with "Schofield House" tells users scarcely more than the url itself. You need to add the identity of the website as well. Gatoclass (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better, but some of the refs still provide very little information. Since it's late and I can't be bothered detailing my concerns however, I think I'll just pass the articles as they are this time, but next time I'd like to see the identity of all the websites properly stated, not just some of them. Gatoclass (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bedford. I see the discussion on Cheonhado. I think it is impending to be discarded because of the creation date and a lack of source for expansion. Due to several Romanizations being applied to Korean subjects, you could not find English sources with "Cheonhado" but you could see "Ch'onhado" or "Ch'ŏnhado has fair amounts of English sources. However my writing speed is very slow, so could you expand the content with these if you have a time? [8][9][10][11][12]
Thanks. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 31 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Schofield House, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
. I think it will look much better in small size. Cbl62 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
