User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 3

Ack

Thanks for your judicious edits of Alberto Fujimori and your well-reasoned arguments on the Talk page. -- Viajero 15:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfC against me.

May I know what are your motives to endorse the RfC agains my person? I believe I have not offend you in any possible way. Most of the ongoing discussion is between USer:Viajero an me. Please explain me the main reasons. Thanks. Messhermit 18:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

Thanks for your explinations. I believe that I have explain the issue about the IP user with a normal explanation (the fact that the page was being erased by other IP Users) and I assume it was another Attack.

I can accept that at the beggining of the article I may have over react, but I must also said that if my opinions are the opposite, It means that there must be a center and clearly Viajero is not there too. I accept that some of my declarations can be controvertial, but also Viajero have some of them. In total, I believe that we have different opinions, but that does not give another user to disregard my ideas. As a matter of fact, I will not revert your article becouse I will not break the rule of 3 rv.

I'm willing to a compromise. But I must say that Viajero Atitude towards any of my modifications was hotile all the time. The compromise that I have write a couple of minutes ago is my idea to solve this discussion. If I have offend you in some sort of way, please accept my apologises. Messhermit 18:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

also

Also, attacks of Viajero regarding my opinions and my english have made me lost control sometimes, I admit that. But I must say that those are not the appropiate way to achieve a NPOV. As you can see on the talk page, I accept and congratulate on most of your modifications of GRamatics to the article. thanks Messhermit 18:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have not endorse the xenofobic arguments.

On my previous talks I have stated that Peruvians have a important opinion regarding its own politics, but at any moment I have suggest that Foreigners are excluded from debate. I'm my most controvertial opinion I must have ask to gave more NPOV articles. I completely deny any involvement in HappyApple opinions. I only ask if the compromise is good enought to be suggested. Please, if you want, gave your opinion about mu compromise and gave me more suggestion to end this discussion once and for all. Messhermit 19:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New users adding controversy

There are two new users on the Alberto Fujimori web Page. I totally dissagree with their oppinions due to the fact that, As I already stated, Peruvians have also a strong base to be heard related to Peruvian topics. Please, I would like you to help me to clariffy this matter. I already stated that I retract any offensive argument. Also, Viajero's Quote that I use to counterbalande those statements should also be disscuss with him. I believe that It was a wrong way to debate by him. thanks. Messhermit 04:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vanavsos

I have contributed much to the article--please check it out and I humbly ask for a change in your vote. Thanks. WHEELER 20:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

recent speedy

While I think that this policy is stupid, put the text back. Don't want to offend any administrators.  :) →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 22:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does. →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 22:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hence why its called "speedy" →mathx314^{(talk)(email)} 22:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Lady of Shallot

No problems, your edit was much better than mine. I just stumbled into the the page, and did the minimum to correct the error-strewn original. I'm not surprised we put in the same quotation, it's such a memorable piece of verse. Thanks. jimfbleak 06:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diggers

As MPLX/MH has decided to link the page move of Levellers and Diggers, please have a look at Talk:Diggers (Levellers)#A Declaration by the Diggers of Wellingborough - 1650 as I am trying to show him that The diggers used the term "Diggers" to describe themselves as early as 1650 which rather blows his argument out of the water. I have not put the argument very well because he does not seem to understand what I have written! Perhaps if someone else was to try he might understand. Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have a time it you might like to read Talk:John Lilburne. As you will see MPLX/MH an expert on the subject. He has even crossed swords with Roy Hattersley! However I do not think he knows that, far from being forgotten in England, the Levellers and Diggers a part of the school history A level curriculum on the English Civil War. I am surprised that given his broad depth he is not aware that Winstanley used the term "Diggers" to describe the communities who dug up three commons. Philip Baird Shearer 10:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Your message, though well-intentioned, served only to delete the text that I was simultaneously working on concerning Roy Face.

I don't want to re-type the damn thing, but for your edification, the highlights included his being a baseball player for the Pittsburgh Pirates, and working mainly as a reliver.

why delete Androutsou street?

About Androutsou street nomination for speedy deletion. Why speedy delete a street? We already have a list of streets! If you dont like streets please speedy delete all of them, not only mine!

See here:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#.5B.5BDavid_Duke.5D.5D. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Self-relations

I still think, for the record, that your concern is overblown. The page was on cleanup, which signals that it is a big mess. The name change was in line with policy, selectiong nothing less than the first two words of the first sentence, rather than a pair of words which did not appear in the article at all. Those, like your "(unless it's for reasons of Wikipedia naming conventions, as I did a little while ago)" appear to be exactly the conditions in which you would Move without discussion, rather than wait for the views of the coalition of people who had got the article into a state in which it needed cleaned up in the first place. Perhaps you would now take the time to explain to me why it is okay for you to move pages for reasons of Wikipedia naming conventions, but not for others to do the same for the same reasons; or else withdraw your nannying concern for wikiquette? --Tagishsimon (talk)

There's a naming convention that the title of the article should relate to its content; and a second convention of articles on cleanup, for which an explicit permission to get on with cleaning them up without discussion is given. There are, in short, situations in which a page move without discussion could be argued to be legitimate. I argue that this is one of them and reject your assertion that it is in breach of wikiquette. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Now you appear to me to be disingenuous. I don't see that changing the article's title is part of cleaning up the content of the article. It is not. It is part of cleaning the article up. there was no sign that the clean-up tag was placed because of the naming issue. There was no sign, one way or another, of the faults that led to the cleanup notice. relying on its present content to decide on the title was surely risky. Merely your assumption. I leant more on google than the article. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Concept page

Hi. Sorry 'bout the message on your page (blush). It was meant for the fellow who posted that little article in question. Once I realized the mistake and set out to fix it, I couldn't get a response from the Wikipedia servers. Thanks for being so nice about my boo-boo. Best, Lucky 6.9 21:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• LOL! Cool beans. In fact, I wasn't sure you'd even get the message! The servers were acting up again. They seem OK now. - Lucky 6.9 22:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup!

I posted the first draft of Bethlehem, Galilee and was intending to revise it later, equiped with a pointy spell checker but it seems you've beat me to it :)

Thanks for the rephrasing! English is not my mother tounge and I certainly need to practice writing serious texts a bit more, may as well do it on the `pedia and help people while at it.

Dashes

Mel, here is a note I would have added to our long chat at Talk:Philosophy_of_religion, but then I realised that it was no longer about that article:

The point I make is quite simple. I'll make it again. First, distinguish dashes that are used at the level of the sentence (in pairs, "parenthetically"; or single, like a colon; etc.) from all other uses (quasi-hyphen uses; number-range uses; etc.). Now, let's talk about sentence dashes only – those that stand instead of some plainly sentence-level punctuation element. There are three accepted ways of representing such a dash in published work: as an em dash without spaces; as an em dash with spaces; and as an en dash with spaces. I say (along with Penguin, and a few other respectable publishers) use only the last option. The case for this is made here, along with the case for use of the em dash. (I think when you looked there you thought it was part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. But it is not.) Is all that clear now?

Note, as an aside, that SOED calls them en dashes and em dashes (no hyphens), or en rule and em rule. I adopt that usage.

No one (certainly not I) will dispute the use of the en dash in the non-sentence uses you mention. I simply make two points: first, one should be consistent in one's use of the sentence dash (and not, for example, prefer one sort for dashes functioning parenthetically and another for dashes standing instead of a colon); and second, I prefer the spaced en dash exclusively, for all sentence dashes. The way you presented your views earlier, I couldn't work out whether we disagreed. Do we disagree? --Noetica 10:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So am I to take it from your silence that you now consider this discussion concluded, Mel? --Noetica 21:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that I've been extremely busy (the last week of term, reports to be written, arrangements to be made for next term the backlog of essay marking to be tackled, etc.). I don't understand why you'd make it a principle to use the same size dash for different purposes; why is that more sensible than, for example, deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both? Modern publishers (especially, though not only, non-academic publishers like Penguin) have ditched many of the standard rules, largely because they no longer employ proof-readers or copy-editors, and they want to make life easy for their typesetters. That doesn't apply here on Wikipedia, of course.

The only book I have to hand (that I could find in the piles that are at the moment teetering on my study floor) is Herbert Rees' Rules of Printed English. After distinguihsing between the en rule, the em rule, and the 2-em rule, he says (§§59ff):

The en rule should be used:

1. “to mark off a parenthesis which makes a notable break in the flow of the sentence” (or to avoid parentheses within parentheses);
2. to join numerals, etc., names of joint authors, etc.;
3. for various other minor functions (indicating drawling or stuttering in reported speech, etc.).

The em rule should be used for all other functions (he mentions a number, giving examples, such as: “...the pursuit of the arts, the rule of law, love of country, reverence for the gods — all this makes up civilization”).

The 2-em rule doesn't really concern us in the sort of writing found in an encyclopædia.

I have in the past checked Rees against other books for typesetters, and have found only differences in detail.

Theses are the rules that I've always followed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mel. Yes, I thought from your style here and there that this might be your approach. You don't actually answer my repeated question about colon-like uses of the dash, unless the last example you cite (the "recapitulating" one) counts as one such use, which is debatable. Never mind! I now understand the situation well enough. Myself, I favour the clean style that Penguin has developed. And I would point out that, since the em dash was pretty well universally used in earlier work for sentence-level punctation (that is, excluding cases in which the dash functions much like a hyphen), there is really no long-settled precedent for modern practice. This amply justifies Penguin doing what it does. In fact, it could be argued that the precedents are all for uniformity, so any distinction such as you favour, following Rees, is out of step with a broad and long-established principle in the use of dashes.

As for your question earlier on ("I don't understand why you'd make it a principle to use the same size dash for different purposes; why is that more sensible than, for example, deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both?"), there is an easy answer. There is plenty of precedent for using the same punctuation marks for different purposes. Consider commas, which we use in numbers like 1,000,000 and also in sentences. Consider full stops and their various uses (like marking the shortening of a word), or colons for that matter. And then consider your own use of the en dash for joint authors, page ranges, etc., and your use the same en dash parenthetically in sentences! Penguin (and I) are more consistent; and I could ask rhetorically in reply "Why do you use two different styles for sentence-level dashes?" The difference between commas and semicolons is quite a different matter, since both have long-established (though mutable: see the comma in Locke and Hume, for example, compared to modern usage) distinct roles.

But my point didn't concern using one mark for different purposes, it concerned using one mark exclusively (“deciding to use only commas or semi-colons, but not both”). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)

Finally, I venture the suggestion the Rees way is demonstrably a minority way. In most published texts the parenthetic and colon-like dashes are the same, whether that same be em dash or en dash.

Anyway, as I say, I have my answer. We'd better not spend too much more time on this. Thanks!--Noetica 10:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking at a range of books, the older ones tend to use both en and em rules, the newer (mainly computer-produced) ones use only one. I still contend that, when we have two rules and a variety of purposes, it makes it easier for the reader if different rules are used for different puroposes. Thus if I meet: ‘ – ’ I'm prepared for a parenthesis, while if I meet: ‘ — ’ I know that something else is intended. Simplicity's fine if it makes things easier for the reader; I don't see that sticking to either en or em rules does that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your practice and the reasons you offer for it. I still wonder how you would accurately and objectively individuate distinct "purposes"! There are many more purposes than there are available marks, so we cannot "carve at the joints" with them. Nor must we strain to do so, since context in written language plays its helping role. I too would want things made easier for the reader; and we simply disagree about the means. That may in the end be an empirical matter, and neither of us has done the required empirical investigation.

In the end, I would not want the practice you advocate dismissed lightly, as if it had nothing going for it. But I would claim the same indulgence for the Penguin practice, which I favour, after what I think you will allow me amounts to a pretty searching examinination. Appeals to precedent in this domain are particularly suspect, as I have pointed out. As for Wikipedia, I think we agree that the case is different from others that you or I may find ourselves involved with. Now I propose that we move on. --Noetica 21:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

David Duke

Lest my comments on the talk page be misunderstood, I am not supporting Duke's views or anything else related to him. When I say that the label "white supremacist" isn't inherently demeaning, I mean that there are individuals who would take it as a compliment. Gazpacho 11:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Psych

Not offended at all. I just plain don't know enough about psychology (or whatever that was!) to know if it was a real article or original research. Miss Pippa 23:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article to be wikified... it has been wikified

I saw your message about "wikifying" my Article "Pedir Posada".

I think I did that once I realized there was something wrong. Please tell me if it's properly wikified.

Mc.Kappa

Broken nowiki tags

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that the three tildes in your welcome page don't work as expected when the page is trans/included (used as a template). I've found that <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> and others cause funny things to happen. The solution is to use Character entities: &#126; happens to be tilde. This table is a good reference. Thanks, User:Alphax/sig 00:12, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it's a database issue, starting before the big server outage of February. User:Alphax/sig 09:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Mel, hope you are doing well (that sort of rhimes!). I wish to thank you again for your comment on my advocate's talk page and for all your support. Much appreciated. Best regards, El_C 20:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Doing a good job

I like the article on Family and state. It is looking good. Thanks.WHEELER 17:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classics link

There is a page classicists can link up on and it is here at: Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest_A-E#Classics. I invite you to place your name so that Classicists can find each other and corroborate on things together. Thank you for your time.WHEELER 18:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

about Santana Lopes

Mr Etitis, I've been going trough your profile and have come to the conclusion that you are not only a very dedicated editor of Wikipedia but also a sensible and intelectually honest person. You are a trully valuable person to Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you to please address the issues I've raised in Santana Lopes' page, as you seem to have given up on that one page. If this happened because of my rather graphic language, I apologise. Please note that I actually wasn't insulting you, I was just giving my opinion on the tone you were using to that other editor and how you sounded when doing it in that particular manner. Anyway, I ask you to not give up on that page. Keep up the good work. Serodio.

• Don't leave the page man, you're needed. I disagree with most of what you've defended in that page but leaving it is giving up. I expect you to visit that page from time to time, just don't quit. A possible reason for all the reverts going on is that people simply aren't justifying their edits in the talk page, a little civility from all sides could help. Sincerely Serodio.

What are you a profesor of again?

Because it certainly isn't logic. Advising you to review the NPOV policy which your statement contridicted is no ad hominem. I didn't make things personal, I didn't dispute your worth as a wikipedian, nor did I accuse you of being "petty", all of which you did in your (obviously ad hominem) reply. I understand that you feel self-righteous in your partisanship against me, but at least maintain the minimum policy accordance. NPOV is non-negotiable, and my worth as a wikipedian, as a person, or otherwise is not for you to judge here. See:

• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Stick to the issues, don't make it about the person. Logic and intellectual rigour do matter here, and as soon as you prove me wrong on that, I'll be gone. I love books of reference such as encyclopedias because of the neutral presentation which they strive for. Yes, I have my opinions, as do we all, but my goal here is not to inflict them on articles, but rather to struggle for the neutral truth, diversity of cited expert opinion. Frankly I have a very mixed opinion about Fujimori, one far more complex and subtle than the current state of his article allows for. If you want to focus on me personally, positively or negatively, be my guest, use my talk page, or Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, but keep it out of the article talk pages. Thank you. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Of course it isn't ad hominem; it's what you've elsewhere referred to as ad hominem.
2. You started by making sneering and sarcastic comments aimed at me, rather than addressing the point. Frankly, any neutral or even non-neutral observer who read your comment would notice your tone, so there's little point acting the injured innocent, nor referring me to guidelines which you yourself have (here and elsewhere) violated.
3. As for the notion that neutrality means falsifying the facts in order to achieve an inaccurate account of a person or topic, I reject it utterly. With regard to your claim about the nature of the NPoV policy, and your reference to Hitler, I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

In other words, if someone is bad, the article can bring out the fact that he is; when someone is demonstrably guilty, it's not PoV for an article to represent that fact, so long as it does so within the guidelines. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, glad to see your reviewing policy. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

African philosophy

Dear, Mel, I hope that today you are doing well! I was glancing at African philosophy earlier, then noticed your following addition which reads:

Nationalist–ideological philosophy might be seen as a special case of philosophic sagacity, in which not sages but ideologues are the subjects. Alternatively, we might see it as a case of profes­sional political philosophy. In either case, the same sort of problem arises: we have to retain a distinction between ideology and philosophy, between sets of ideas and a special way of reasoning. (italics are my emphasis)

Are ideologies not a 'special way of reasoning,' too? Perhaps the aforementioned excerpt can be reworded in a more sagacious fasion (?).

Cordially and collegially yours,

El_C 12:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear professor,

I seem to be failing articulating myself, likely if I had your skills with languages I would not be having such a difficult time. Being the interdesciplinary that I am, I'm still bothered by the formal catgorization in the last sentence, especially 'a special way of reasoning.' Is sociological theory, political theory, anthropological theory, etc., not a special way of reasoning, too? Can all these et ceteras, and the philosophical, through certain vantage points, not be considered ideological, and vice versa?

Cordially and collegially yours,

El_C 02:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE: Welcome!

Bless you. Pope on a Rope 19:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" in titles

Hello. I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) to change the title of some articles and categories. Would you be interested to join the discussion and say something? — Instantnood 20:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Lady of Shalott in use edit

Don't worry, I quite respect the recent work done to both articles. I merged The Lady of Shallott to The Lady of Shalott, and included all the information from both articles, including links. I'm done with it, feel free to put a nice polish on anything that the merge has besmirched. Pedant 23:39, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

DickWitham/DickNWitham/TruthCrusader

You (and anyone else with authority here) are cordially invited to read the FAQ regarding Alexander Cain, the individual causing trouble with the rec.sport.pro-wrestling entry by clicking here: http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/dink/index3x.html

Mr. Cain is a legend on alt.usenet.kooks, and has a decade-long history of trolling or disrupting every service, forum, or discussion forum he has ever joined. - Chadbryant 07:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

It's great that people can find each other with relative ease. I would like to thank you for your support. Do you know where I might submit a 7 or 8 page article about a trip to NYC that I took? It was a great trip and a bit overwhelming for someone from WNY to actually visit and have a successful visit. I thought it might be of interest to a book or readers club or something...When I went looking for the reference librarian there was noone listed...Hmm? This technology has to be really new.

Noisecontrol 10:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)Noisecontrol

Revisionist Zionism

Could you please take a look at the dispute at Revisionist Zionism? User:Guy Montag is trying to censor material critical of Revisionist Zionism, particularly documented evidence of fascist sympathies among various Revisionists in the early 1930s. AndyL 23:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DickWitham

So long as his sock puppets aren't vandals, they can pretty well hang around. RickK 23:29, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nice Bio!

I've studied the basics in Philosophy 101 and Ethics 201 at Niagara County Community College and University at Buffalo.

I definitely plan to read some of your articles.

PS - I've done some page editing and streamlining - Could I get your opinion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Noisecontrol ?

--Noisecontrol 06:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

welcome template

sorry i blanked it, 'twas an accident

welcome message

I don't know how how it works and i guess i meant to delete it on my page?

Perry Como changes and additions

Sorry, I believe our recent editing of this page overlapped.

George Townsend webmaster@kokomo.ca

Errors

Again Mel - I apologize for getting mixed up. The posts if they were from "Chris" were me. My name is Christopher J. Bradley. I do recall removing one or two posts that I put up in error, but I do not remember removing anyone else's text. I apologize. I've been flashing around here a bit to quick perhaps. I really need to concentrate on the boot camp. I will get to it this evening.

--Noisecontrol 22:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents?

I like your table of contents - How can I add a nice one to my page? --Noisecontrol 22:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent work

I've recently begun editing one of my old poetic works titled Medford Village Currents. Right now its going to take into tomorrow to finish up with just the basics, due to its length, but I thought I might get your opinion on it.

It's resting on my homepage - And I have a backup.

--Noisecontrol 02:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moral rights

Thanks for your reply. Don't feel you have to answer this, as you seem to be busy. In brief, I agree with most of what you said, and I'm very familiar with McDowell in particular, but don't agree about the lack of other-directedness of rights-based theories, for if I have rights, so do others; and further, that we ought to be other-directed has to be argued for, not taken as a given, and it's remarkably hard to argue for. If you're interested in moral philosophy, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Objective morality, which people are voting to merge with Moral absolutism, though I see someone has recently rewritten the former so it's more or less identical with the latter. Anyway, both are somewhat inaccurate and could use a lot of work, which I personally don't have time to do, thankfully. ;-) SlimVirgin 12:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

African philosophy revisited

Nice, I have fond memories of Cambridge, all the best to you with your lecture (topic?). Moving myself ahead (sorry, Slim), I thank you for your substantive reply, it was a textbook response (I mean that in a goodway) and very lucidly illustrative. That said, I realize the distinct focus behind sociological, anthropological, etc., theories, as well as that of the (more boradly epistemic, in terms of truth, etc.) philosophical. But what I'm hinting at is that each discpline can be seen as holistic in its own way (we historians have to account for a lot, you know), and as I commented earlier, these are branches of knowledge which Ideology influences and is influenced by (dynamically). And it is, in this sense, that a special way of reasoning seems oddly anachronistic to me, though very familliar and, arguably, parochial to the academic discipline of philosophy; while the distinction seems somewhat static. Not that I intend to press on this point, just some food for thought, I suppose. El_C 13:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please leave my page alone

I dont know who you are or why you continue to put some sort of sock puppet image on my page, but I'm asking you kindly to please stop this behavior.

Thank you.

TruthCrusader 16:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)Truthcrusader

I am NOT the person you mention. I also do NOT want him/her/it posting on my page. I seriously doubt my IP is the same as the other person in question.

I again ask you kindly to please stop posting unwanted images on my page.

Thank you.

TruthCrusader 16:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)Truthcrusader