Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:11, 30 June 2008

Archives

Old page. Archive 1. Archive 2.

• User talk:Noroton/Archive to June 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive June 2007 to August 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive August 2007 to November 2007
• User talk:Noroton/Archive December 2007 to early April 2008
• User talk:Noroton/Archive early April 2008 to early June 2008

Friendly reminder

It would serve you better to keep it cool. Shem 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing again

Thanks for the note Noroton. I trust the other comments, already archived, were sufficient to fix in your mind that "canvassing" of any kind should always be performed very intentionally and thoughtfully and that talk comments should be as neutral as possible toward the choices available. I'd only add that, as an example of neutrality, not all editors like to have the man's picture on their talk pages. Thanks again for your consideration! JJB 16:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Thanks for your comments and feedback regarding the situation at Barack Obama. I noticed your earlier attempt to channel Andyvphil toward a more productive method of addressing his concerns, and I appreciate your effort there. Like I said, I don't think that Andyvphil or Kossack4Truth are wrong across the board on content issues, but the behavior was just too counterproductive and intransigent to continue. Like I said, I see this as a starting point and I recognize that those two were not the sole issue at the page, nor were they operating in a vacuum. Anyhow, I hope your efforts to move the page back toward a constructive discussion of the real, underlying content issues is successful. MastCell  20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayers article

Regarding your edits to the Bill Ayers article, good work. You've significantly improved the article by dedicated, thoughtful, unglamorous editing. Although you and I have disagreed from time to time there and elsewhere on some matters of weight and balance, I can see you're a good editor doing a lot to help out. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Toxic combustion chamber of editors behaving badly

Just saw that. Well put. Shem 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama

I am taking a voluntary 30-day Wikibreak from this entire topic. I am confident that you will be able to argue the inclusionist side in a non-combative and constructive manner. Some sort of compromise has to be made. Please see my messages on other users' Talk pages, especially User:Bigtimepeace, where I have written in detail about where I'd like the article to go. You are one of the more level headed and respected, and I look forward to peeking at your work during the next 30 days. I'd like to continue the dialogue on this page if I may. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*laugh* That was hardly uncivil. Leave the civility patrolling to uninvolved admins. --Bobblehead 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand your intentions for removing the comment, but as an involved editor, you really need to leave the removal of such things to an uninvolved admin, or leave a note on the discussion page for the user that made the comment asking them to modify it. Outright removal of comments by involved editors is only called for on blatantly uncivil and offensive comments because the removal of marginal comments by involved editors have a tendency to erupt into edit wars over the comment and can increase the discord on the talk page as editors start to go into each other's comments and remove anything they find potentially offensive/uncivil. --Bobblehead 16:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing comments

I didn't. I highlighted it so that I could comment. See my reply, and don't leave BS messages on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it may have been more appropriate to create a new sort of section (like in the current version of the talk page) for such a long list of quotes so that they could be discussed separately - but that's been done now.

Beyond that, if he wanted to respond to your list of suggestions (content-wise), he should've responded either the normal way like he did the second time or he could've asked you to make it into a separate header so he could respond (or if he was bold and did it himself in an objective manner, then there probably would not have been any objections, and he could've responded in the usual manner). I've told him something to that effect on his talk page.

It's resolved for now (I think he'll get the message, but let me know if otherwise), so there may not be a need to dwell on it any longer. Hope that helps so more progress can probably be made on consensus-based discussions. Cheers for letting me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko at Talk:Barack Obama

Please transclude the following statements of support/opposition at Talk:Barack Obama for the three versions of the Rezko paragraph currently under discussion.

Version 1: Strongly Oppose. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 2: Support if a sentence is added that briefly describes the January 2006 sale of a portion of Rezko's land to Obama. Obama admits that this was done after he knew that Rezko was under investigation, so I believe it is significant. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Version 3: Strongly Support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we...yes?

I've caught back up with the recent discussion on the Rezko issue at the B. Obama talk page after a bit of an absence. One issue I think we need to think about over there is talk-page functionality. You have recently posted an enormous number of sentences on that page. A couple of days ago, my eyes glazed over when I started to read one of your comments which did, to be honest, put me off the discussion a bit longer than I otherwise would have been (and I'm hardly one to talk, I have a strong tendency to write overly lengthy comments myself). More than anyone else on the talk page right now you're bringing a lot of good links and citations to bear on the issue, but I think it might be helpful if you stuck a lot of that type of material in your userspace and just linked to it from the Obama talk page, thus allowing interested parties to look at your research without eating up too much talk page space (obviously talk page space is fairly limitless, but attention spans are not unfortunately).

Also it seems the conversation between you and Scjessey has grown particularly intense (you'll notice I left a note for that editor before you). I don't know the exact history between the two of you on this article and I don't necessarily care right now, but a bit of disengagement (in terms of direct back and forth) seems in order, even if only for a couple of days. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:StateDinnerProgramWhiteHouseKuwaitAmir1968.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StateDinnerProgramWhiteHouseKuwaitAmir1968.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

canvassing

I noted with interest that you have been warned regarding canvassing on[REDACTED] more than once in the past. I also noted with interest that you have been leaving messages on user talk pages regarding the niggardly article.

I consider this to be in direct violation of[REDACTED] guidelines, if you want to discuss the niggardly article, do so on the relevant talk page.

If your canvassing results in any votes/false consensus/reverts then I will be reporting you for canvassing, citing the previous cases and requesting a lengthy block from editing. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Best American Poetry series

hello....the basis of my rationale is that the title of the series is not Best American Poetry series, it is Best American Poetry. in most of the renderings i've seen thus far, the word 'series' is used as an adjective. even when searching the worldcat nothing comes up with 'series' appended. it follows that if 'series' is to be used in the naming of the article, the word should actually rendered as a 'qualifier' thus: Best American Poetry (series). however, since there's no other article with the same name, there's really no reason to add the qualifier....your thoughts? --emerson7 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

per wp:name#Books - literary works, the qualifier should be parenthetic. with regard the neutral point of view, well, it's not really a problem when it's just a name. it's a bit like 'holy roman empire', neither holy, roman nor an empire. cheers! --emerson7 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

as before, a qualifier is unnecessary unless another article exists with the same name. in which case, the subsequent article would require the disambiguation, e.g. 1st article: Best American Poetry, 2nd article: Best American Poetry (film), 3rd article: Best American Poetry (2008 film)....etc. a perfect example of this progression can be found here. cheers! --emerson7 04:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko

Hi - So as not to clutter the Obama talk page I thought I'd respond here. I've read enough of the references to come to the conclusion that this is primarily a campaign issue and that it's in the news because (perhaps only because) Obama is running for president. That's what I get out of the references. Suggesting no one else understands what's going on is not advancing your case. Greta Van Susteren works for Fox News which is about as neutral a source as Pravda (you're citing Fox News? seriously? what's next - quotes from Rush Limbaugh?). Judgment is clearly a campaign issue, advanced by the Obama crowd as a strength and being knocked (what about Rezko? what about Wright? what about Ayers?) at every opportunity by the Republicans and their sympathizers. Misplaced Pages can't be used by either camp to advance their cause. Your absolute insistence about this issue makes your neutrality questionable. Would anyone other than a McCain supporter argue this much for this long about this? How would your behavior be different if you were a paid McCain operative? I haven't spent a lot of time examining your edit history, but at a casual glance I don't have any particular reason to believe you're anything other than a passionate editor. Passion is fine. Tendentious editing is not.

Full disclosure - I'm an admin. I'm watching both McCain's and Obama's articles. My agenda is to make sure that neither one is hijacked for partisan purposes. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, I don't have a lot of time at this moment, but later today I want to come back to some of the more important things you say. For now, let me just address some of the smaller things:

• I've read enough of the references to come to the conclusion that this is primarily a campaign issue and that it's in the news because (perhaps only because) Obama is running for president. Do you really think the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times would not cover this very avidly if Obama were not running for president? I don't see how, given the very long tradition those papers have of holding politicians' feet to the fire. Obama is a U.S. Senator and a figure in Chicago politics for decades. That produces this kind of coverage. Other U.S. Senators also receive lots of coverage when questionable behavior comes to light. One of my senators, Chris Dodd, got a loan from Countrywide Mortgage as part of its VIP program. I think it's fair to say I could find plenty of coverage on it and give it several lines in the Dodd article, maybe even the six that I suggest for the Obama article (granted, no two situations are exactly alike, my point is very general). And Dodd isn't running for president, now. It certainly is a campaign issue now, but that only strengthens its importance. This dual role means that we could really put this information in either section. I personally favor keeping it out of the campaign section because there's a lot more information there and a lot less in the other section, but it's not that important to me.

No need to make it hypothetical. It is being covered. It deserves to be mentioned. I think it belongs in the campaign section. You want it in the "Family and personal life" section because there is a "lot less in the other section" (5 paragraphs vs. 7 paragraphs). I've mentioned on the Obama talk page that I think it might be easier to start with a less brief description (somewhere) and then decide how to abbreviate this on the Obama page. This suggestion seems to be being largely ignored on the talk page. I'll point it out again. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Suggesting no one else understands what's going on is not advancing your case. Well, (1) I'm seeing comment after comment indicating that people don't know some of the facts, even after they've been involved in this Rezko discussion for many days. Scjessey is still going on about whether the land purchase actually widened Obama's property when anyone who had read a good number of the articles, especially the long Sun-Times interview I've been nagging everyone to read, would understand that Obama was talking about buying "a 10-foot strip" of land that amounted to "1,500 square feet" and the property line is 150 feet long (for those last two, see the Chicago Tribune's timeline for the square feet -- "2006 Expanding Obama's Lot" section -- and follow the link to the map of the properties at the bottom of that web page). That's the type of thing I'm talking about. Given your post above, I now think it's worth my time to again go back to the sources, so I'm going to go over your statements again and show you the quotes that might change your mind on some points.

I was specifically referring to this response to me, which seems fairly typical of your recent comments to others as well. Your lecturing has become so verbose that I suspect at least some people aren't even reading everything you're writing. Almost always, briefer is better. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I take back what I said about trying to change your mind with evidence. You've shown your motivations loud and clear. I first looked at your message earlier this evening in a diff and didn't realize you had more than the top comment. Just now, I saw these other comments and I started answering them from the bottom up, so this is my final reply. Conversation's over. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Greta Van Susteren works for Fox News which is about as neutral a source as Pravda. Thank you for your opinion. My point in that post didn't depend one bit on whether or not she is fair. My point was that the issue of Obama's judgment is tied by many different, varying sources to his relations with other people -- Wright, Rezko and Ayers. The same point about judgment has been made repeatedly about his associations with all three. My long list of quotes on the Obama talk page shows news reports, news interviews, commentators (both sympathetic to Obama and not sympathetic) and the Republican National Committee and others making the same point. You can put Van Susterin in any category you want to (I don't happen to have an opinion on her; it's just that people I live with have the TV on when I'm typing at my computer in the same room and so I listen to Fox News many evenings). The overall point is and was that this continues to come up.

Continues to come up, but where and why matter. Fox News, in particular, exhibits a clear bias. Questioning Obama's judgment is a tactic that is being used and will be used in the campaign. We need to be very careful about maintaining an NPOV stance on this, doubly so since it is being used as a campaign issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comment just below. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Judgment is clearly a "campaign" issue, Your absolute insistence about this issue makes your neutrality questionable. Note the apparent inconsistency, which leads me to believe you just didn't write that clearly enough. We're arguing about how much detail to put into this. I've always argued (as I did when the discussion was about Ayers) that we don't want too much or too little, and the way I judge that ( as I said in the Ayers discussion before the one on Rezko started) that we put in just enough detail so that the reader understands why this matter is supposed to be important and what made it controversial. I think if that can be done in a very short space, then it is whitewashing to make it purposefully vague. All other details should be in other articles that the reader can link to. With Ayers, I thought it was important (because so many sources specifically said it was important) to note that he hadn't made statements publicly regretting that he helped set off bombs. With Rezko, well, you know what I think are the essential details that make the Rezko matter important. And I source it not just to the Republican National Committee (although that source needs to be considered in the mix), but primarily to neutral and even sympathetic observers. Does that sound like POV pushing to you?

Judgment is a campaign issue which you seem to be insisting be added to the section on Obama's family and personal life, with specific wording along the lines of The transaction later raised questions from many quarters about Obama's judgment. In this section, stated this way, it's equivalent to saying Obama has bad judgment. That's a controversial opinion, so can't be said directly but if it appears in the article in this way there's an implied and Misplaced Pages's editors agree. Insisting on this wording sounds exactly like POV pushing. It is POV pushing. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that WP:NPOV has something to say about reporting on the opinions of others? If you do, your comment doesn't reflect it. Now why would that be, Rick? As you know, because it's glaringly obvious, the Rezko matter is connected to both the campaign and to his life outside the campaign. And if putting it in one section is supposed to imply POV, then that applies just as much to putting it in the campaign section as the other section. So how would you not be POV pushing yourself? Rick, I started at the bottom and I've been going up, answering various comments as I go along, and I see increasingly that you're not really interested in anything other than vituperation. This is wasting my time, since nothing I say is going to change your piss-poor attitude, and you're just trying to goad me. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would anyone other than a McCain supporter argue this much for this long about this? How would your behavior be different if you were a paid McCain operative? I haven't spent a lot of time examining your edit history, but at a casual glance Damn right it's a casual glance. I tend to be "inclusionist" when it comes to putting negative information into articles about major public figures where there is a legitimate interest from readers who are also voters. Look at my two comments at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Merge proposal from John McCain lobbyist controversy. Note the dates on the timestamps. Go to Talk:John McCain/archive9#Equal treatment in candidate biography articles. Go to Bernardine Dohrn and look at the full history of what I added to the article, including the extensive part about her Charles Manson quote.

I still haven't spent any time looking at your edit history, but in the McCain lobbyist case weren't you arguing against merging the critical material into the campaign article (let along the main McCain article)? Here you're arguing for a condensed version (that several folks have suggested comes across as biased) to be included in the main Obama article before a full explanation exists elsewhere. In the McCain case the critical material is two articles away from the main article on McCain. In the Obama case you're arguing it needs to be in the main article. If this is not partisan behavior it's a pretty good imitation of it. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you're simply trying to misread the record. Material in independent articles coexists with summaries in broader articles. But you know that, and I don't have to explain that to you. You also know that nothing I said was an argument against including summary material in the broader article. So the purpose of your comment is just to try to annoy me. If this is not partisan behavior it's a pretty good imitation of it. That's pretty strained, Rick. You revealed a lot about yourself in that sentence. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• How would your behavior be different if you were a paid McCain operative? Well, if you've read the articles as I have, you wouldn't ask that question. You'd note the links I gave to the Chicago Tribune editorial, David Corn, Richard Cohen, some Chicago newspaper columnists who have supported Obama and have made some of the exact same points that I made. Are they paid McCain operatives? Is the Chicago media and national media that I've cited all McCain operatives? Passion is fine. Tendentious editing is not. Well one way of measuring that is comparing what I'm suggesting to what all those sources are doing. It's not an exact comparison, but it damn well insulates me from charges of POV pushing. Noroton (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This was a rhetorical question. I'm merely suggesting that you might want to think about how it looks to be insisting on including what several folks have said reads like a biased account. Your response has not been "oh, I don't mean it to sound biased, what sounds biased?" but to try to beat anyone with this opinion into submission. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's to beat? Where has there been an actual argument against it? People disagreed; I made my case; I'm still waiting for a case to be made or even a discernable response. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually suspect that what's really going on here is your writing doesn't come across the way you mean it to (this is just a guess). If you truly mean to be even handedly critical of all politicians and aren't simply POV pushing, please listen when folks say you're not coming across that way. I've suggested Scjessey read WP:COOL. Have you read this? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

your writing doesn't come across the way you mean it to Oh, I get it. You're just mad and you want to get back at me for saying something similar. I hadn't realized that before. That isn't helpful. Nobody keeps cool all the time, and you well know this has been a difficult discussion. You're not really commenting here as a way to reach agreement, are you? You're just blowing off steam. OK. I'm not going to waste my time when you're just trying to dial up the heat. Noroton (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rick makes an interesting comment here: Questioning Obama's judgment is a tactic that is being used and will be used in the campaign. We need to be very careful about maintaining an NPOV stance on this, doubly so since it is being used as a campaign issue. Actually, just because it's an issue in the campaign doesn't make it an unfair issue (just a "tactic"). People legitimately look at the character of every candidate for president. Rick is trying to equate "negative" with "unfair", denying that people who question something about a candidate can be sincere when they do so. Noroton (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Scjessey's false accusations, snide remarks and deliberate provocation of a renewed edit war have been reported here. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I created a new section for this in order to be able to easily refer to it later and to keep it separate from what I think may be a constructive discussion with Rick Block. Noroton (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors in the consensus discussion at Talk:Barack Obama. If we keep wasting time questioning the motives and actions of other editors, we will be right back were we were on the first round of discussion. In the interest of reaching consensus, please reread the proposed ground rules, and focus your comments on improving the content from the baseline version rather than on questioning the motives or actions of your fellow editors. As mediator, I'll worry about reminding editors to stay focused (as I have to Shem on his page, to WorkerBee74 on his page, and to you here). Thanks. --Clubjuggle /C 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• • That's a fair criticism, and I do appreciate the feedback. In my haste to keep the discussion from spiraling further out of control I was probably less precise in my language than I should have been, and for that I apologize. My goal, as you have correctly concluded, is to keep the discussion focused and avoid the meta-discussions that dominated the last attemot at consensus. --Clubjuggle /C 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Be civil

These edits displayed a complete lack of civility. We had a relatively constructive process going there for a second, and then you threw that out at me. Please stop adopting the WB74 tactics and focus on the article, not the editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, based on this comment, you really need to step away from the computer for a few hours and try to calm down. I understand that discussions on the Obama article can get heated, but your last few comments seem to indicate that a bit of non-Wiki-time may be in order. --Bobblehead 00:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a couple of other folks've already stopped by, but these talk page comments really cross the line, man. I've taken Wikivacations in the past to cool off, and reckon you might could use one now. Shem 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Related response

I am not at all sure how to respond to the comment you left on my talk page, and I even debated not saying anything at all. You have completely misread my intentions, and you have completely discounted all the personal research I have been doing to learn the facts about this relationship.

You say I have "carpeted" the talk page with comments, but I will put it to you that you have "carpet bombed" the talk page with your own. You clearly have a personal belief that the Obama/Rezko relationship is a big deal, so you have searched for evidence and sprayed it all over the talk page, yet you have utterly failed to take in the bigger picture of national and international coverage, of which there is almost nothing. You have countered this statement by saturating the page still further with more and more and more references, and 1000-word essays talking it all up as much as you possibly can. But still you refuse to see the bigger picture.

I put it to you that it is you who is wasting everyone's time. You are the one who has failed to calculate the true weight of the issue. When all those established editors came in and supported my proposed Rezko text and rejected yours, it should have been a warning sign to you that you had misjudged things. Instead, you pressed ahead with what is now your personal obsession. Take a step back and cool off. Listen to what others are saying. Relax. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Can you tell me who requested the arbitrary section break, and where they made the request? Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

I'll do you the courtesy of being upfront: I'm worried about the appearance of a filibuster, Noroton. Your fellow editors've made their cases at length several times already, and demanding further debate on additions which clearly don't have a semblance of consensus (while describing your fellow editors' cases as "inadequate") isn't doing anything to help your own case.

Should this new compromise (Rick Block's version) face objection much longer, especially with the entry of HailFire's new call for most of the material to be moved to a footnote, I fear the entire discussion's going to default to yet another "no consensus" resolution. I don't think that's what you want, nor have I seen any objection from you against the substance of Rick Block's wording. Regardless of how much more material you'd like added, I wish you'd simply state whether or not you're willing to compromise and accept Rick Block's proposal (which is closer to what you'd like than what's in the article currently). I'd rather not have this lengthy discussion end up all for naught, which can and does happen sometimes, but I fear that's the direction things're now heading barring a concession from either you or HailFire. Shem 03:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

HailFire's not a "new editor on the scene," Noroton, he's the editor who near-single-handedly maintained the article's FA status from 2006 onward. I'm sorry you feel people've been dismissive towards you, but I can only repeat what I said earlier (whether you perceive "attitude" or not): this very lengthy discussion is nearing its conclusion, and it's up to you whether or not you want to help steer it towards an accepted new version or a default to "no consensus."

By the way, no one's required to respond to every single new proposal you crank out at this point. In my case, my unqualified support clearly rests with the current Rick Block compromise (it best reflects the principles I've laid out previously with a splash of compromise), nor do I (and most of the article's editors) see due weight for additional material, for the reasons we've been stating for weeks now. I left my previous message because I thought it'd be worth extending a hand to avoid a "no consensus" default, but given your semi-hostile response, I'll leave your talk page in peace. Just don't let Talk:Barack Obama make you lose your cool towards other good-faith editors. Shem 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please transclude the following to Talk:Barack Obama: I support the use of the word "simultaneously." I support the use of the phrase "criticism from political rivals and the media." I support the use of the phrase "questions about his judgment" in addition to the preceding. WorkerBee74 has hit the nail on the head. They are trying to shove through a watered-down version of the Rezko matter and Wikidemo wants approval to be conditioned on and agreement that it will never be considered for more criticism again. They are attempting to present Andy and me with a fait accompli or "accomplished feat" when we return, which is unlikely to be reversed. It's completely unacceptable. Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)