User talk:El Sandifer

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me.

Threat of Banning

I was simply making a suggestion to Turrican, not threatning him. As from personal experience I realize my own personal conduct has crossed the line, and I was just providing some fair warning to Turrican about the consequences of such actions. TDC 17:51, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with TDC. Admins do not have the power to ban either, only to block, but it seems anyone can warn someone about the consequences of certain behavior. VeryVerily 06:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fix

Would you have a look at Wikipedia:People_by_year/Reports/Multiple_cats/SQL and tell me what you think of it. -- User:Docu

LaRouche, Adam and the mailing list

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed to see your comment "With all due respect, if that is how he approaches Wikipedia, it is better that he not edit" about Adam Carr. Adam is terse, yes, and there are some minor POV issues with his version of that article. But, as you would know if you had actually read the arbitration case and the talk pages over the last several months, the problem with the LaRouchists is not so much bias - but issues of fact. LaRouche makes up stuff. The ArbCom has ruled as much. If you read back through the talk pages, you'll notice numerous times where the LaRouchists have made a claim, been asked for evidence to back it up, and have only been able to produce LaRouchist sources.

Then you've jumped into this fire (without being asked), and tried to merge the two versions, in the process putting in a great deal of unsourced LaRouchist material in. I'm all for neutrality, but with all due respect, if that is how you go about mediating, then it is better you not mediate. I've clashed with Adam numerous times, and he's left me almost in tears at times - but I can entirely understand his frustration on this one. Ambi 10:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not that LaRouche's views don't need to be addressed. That's what the article is for. But there's so much misinformation about that a lot of his claims about himself are simply untrue. That's what the problem is with merging the articles - you're merging LaRouchist claims into the main article, with no evidence that they're actually true. And remember that Adam has been trying to work this out for months, with no success, so you can hardly blame him for being frustrated now. If you look back through the talk page archives, you'll see countless claims from the LaRouchists that they then cannot produce outside evidence for. Furthermore, LaRouchist sources are hardly acceptable, as even the ArbCom has agreed that LaRouche has a propensity for making stuff up, and his sites reflect that. Ambi 00:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi, Snowspinner. Would you mind voting in my adminship nomination [1]? Netoholic & Co. are trying to knock it down. Thanks and regards, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:14, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• I have a "& Co." associated with me now? I'm flattered that you think I have so much influence. -- Netoholic @ 17:26, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

North American Man-Boy Love Association

Would you please sanction user:Corax who abuses Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association to fill it with propaganda about the harmlessness of child abuse, accuses me of sexual hysteria, and asks me to see a therapist. Get-back-world-respect 13:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

:Category:critical theory

I propose the following one-liner for the Category:critical theory

Critical theory looks at, and comments upon, the mechanics of the process of privilege and marginalization of a group of people in the larger society.

Ancheta Wis 06:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfM

Everyone hates Netoholic - heck, he even managed to put zocky and orthogonal against him, which is no mean feat. I'm sure he'll eventually succeed in doing the same into just about anyone else he comes into contact with here all by himself. But I don't see the point of ranting on that page about him - it just makes you look bitter. Ambi 07:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Snowspinner. I wanted to explain my deletion of your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation - something I would not normally do on a talk page of course. In this case I felt that a negative comment from someone outside of that mediation might be damaging - "presume good will" is even more important in mediation than it is elsewhere on Wikipedia. I realise you meant well with your warning, but felt it best to remove it in this case. Regards -- sannse (talk) 10:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I have created a preliminary version of Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Your comments would be much appreciated. - SimonP 17:20, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

About a month ago...

During our particular interaction about a month ago, you once said (both here and IRC) that if I were to avoid "fracases ... for a month", you would see it as a show of good faith on my part, and perhaps even change your views. Although I would never ask you to apologize, I would ask whether you are fairly judging my contributions since that time. -- Netoholic @ 15:34, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

I don't think you're being very fair, nor trying to bridge any divide we may have between us by continuing to levy that charge. It's inflammatory and only servers to poison the well. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Myth

Thank you! Hyacinth 20:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template: Crime

Then I request, with all due respect, that the decision to delete the template be reconsidered post-changes. Also, for what reason was it deleted in the first place? I think the reasoning behind deletion should be listed for templates awaiting deletion. --L33tminion 20:41, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

TFD archiving

I noticed you cleared out TFD... can you please archive the discussions to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log? -- Netoholic @ 00:10, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but since you cleared the listings and know what you decided for each, can you do the archiving this time? The reason that archived discussions is a good mechanism for deletion pages is so that if someone is curious where an article, template, category, etc. went to, they can visit the non-existent page and click "What links here". An archive discussion page will be shown, but a vote relegated to page history will not. Like I said, if you could do the archiving in this case, I, or others, will do it in the future. -- Netoholic @ 15:52, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Template: IWD

Just wanted to thank you for taking the action to get rid of Template:Influential Western Philosophers. I didn't have the time to spend on the pedia, but the fact that it was marring the page of every major philosopher kept knawing at me. I appreciate it. — Adam Conover † 06:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Snowspinner. I just saw your username and I think it's really cute (I hope you don't mind the POV ;)--[[User:Marie Rowley|Marie | Talk]] 07:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic arbcom case

I'm not sure if you were informed, but the arbcom has taken Netoholic's case. As the person who brought the request, you will be expected to provide evidence on the evidence page. →Raul654 20:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

OK, to let you know: I've added quite a bit of evidence to the page. Netoholic has been causing quite a bit of grief lately. Heck, I know he annoyed Ambi and in fact she told me on IRC that he even tracked down personal information about her! I'm pretty unimpressed with the whole deal. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New Barnstar!

Dear Snowspinner,

New Barnstar!

I award you this nice barnstar for your help during my past RfA's, and all your other acts of kindness to me. I really appreciate your kindness. --Lst27 (talk) 00:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 08:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration matter of Avala is closed

1) The above findings of fact show that Avala has often worked against consensus and majority opinion. We therefore rule that Avala must follow the majority opinion of the users involved concerning any controversial edits that Avala makes. One specific consequence is that violations of the three revert rule are not permitted. This probation period will last for one month.

2) For a period of 3 months, should a serious dispute arise between Avala and other users with respect to editing of an article Avala is required to cite substantial authority supporting the position he is taking and either enter the dispute resolution process regarding the matter or drop the matter. A serious dispute is defined as one in which any party to the dispute has reverted the other 3 times or more. After Avala makes his third revert he shall cease editing the article with respect to the disputed matter until completion of the dispute resolution process. Resolution of the dispute in his favor shall require verification that the authority cited adequately supports the information he advocates including in the article. With respect to matters of taste such as size of templates he is required to defer to majority opinion.

3) Given the fact that Avala is now editing at a low rate, we reserve the right to revisit the conduct issue of this user once/if Avala starts to edit at an increased rate again and other users complain about Avala's conduct. This probation would last one year.

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala#Final decision. --mav 21:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please stop your creepy demands on Hilary Duff

Don't pose as if you have some kind of particular authority. What will you do if User:Hilary Duff can't verify her identity to your satisfaction? The user seems to be under the impression that you can delete her account, but thankfully you can't do that. Everyking 23:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I was a young, attractive, female celebrity, I sure wouldn't give out my e-mail address to a male stranger who wants to privately correspond with me. This "verifying your identity" ploy on the part of Snowspinner is a clever piece of social engineering to obtain an e-mail address for a celebrity. The IT department at my day job constantly warns us about these types of ploys.

Hilary is doing a good job of diplomatically ignoring your demand, Snowspinner. And rightly so, because you have no special authority here on Wikipedia.

Hilary should continue to enjoy contributing here on Wikipedia without harassment or stalking from other users.

Snowspinner, as an Admin, you should be more than aware of the Wikipedia policy to assume good faith on the part of other contributors. Please take your creepy demands elsewhere.

If you persist in making your unsupported demands upon this young woman, it will qualify as stalking, and evidence will be compiled into a report and submitted to the arbitrators.

(Posted anonymously to avoid retaliation - Snowspinner is an Admin.)

This is nonsense. Snowspinner (and I) made it perfectly clear that it didn't need to be Hilary that confirmed her identity - just an admin from the Hilaryduff.com domain. It will be interesting to look at the IP addresses involved in this affair and see if it isn't just one idiot wasting everyone's time. I am becoming increasingly skeptical. -- FirstPrinciples 07:03, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

And yes, I do think it is important to confirm the identity of a user who explicitly claims to be a celebrity. It's simple, not necessarily invasive, and filters out impersonators. -- FirstPrinciples 07:09, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the stated objection to verification doesn't hold water. I'm not sure, though, that there is a policy about celebrity names as user names. There doesn't seem to be anything on Wikipedia:Username. (It proscribes impersonation of other users but not impersonation of celebrities.) Instead of the requirement of verification, we could just take it as given that some users will adopt a celebrity name either as attempted impersonation or, more often, as a homage, the way we have User:Diderot. Is it really a problem? No one should be foolish enough to think that just logging in and creating an account as User:GeorgeWBush is enough to prove that the President has taken up a new hobby. It would follow that there should be no assumption about the authenticity of the user's self-identification. For example, if we're resolving a factual issue about a celebrity, we would give zero weight to a statement like "Well, I'm that person, so I should know." Based on that principle, I'm editing Hilary Duff to remove the link to her supposed user page.

This issue ought to be addressed (one way or the other) at Wikipedia:Username. I'll raise it there unless you can point me to something I've missed that covers the subject. JamesMLane 08:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do feel that impersonating a famous person is on par with impersonating a user. Anonymous editing is fine in a Wiki, but if you choose to reveal your identity, you should be truthful about it. Incidentally, there is also a User:Jerryseinfeld (he has no user page and doesn't claim to be the Seinfeld AFAIK). -- FirstPrinciples 08:47, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

~*~*~*~

Ooooo... I hate how Snowspinner and EVERYBODY else won't just stop bothering me!!! --*Hil* 22:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (This was NOT Hilary's original message. She never hated anyone, just what they were doing! --JGal2004 03:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Did I vote against you for admin, Snowspinner? I don't remember, but I sure hope I did. It seems to me that whenever I see you mentioned, there's some trouble involved. Which is to be expected from someone who goes after others for the sake of policy—actually, not even for the sake of policy, but for the sake of what you describe on your user page as "common sense". So we have a rogue admin who acts purely according to his own "common sense" driving off a user who may well have been Hilary Duff, mainly by claiming to be some kind of authority he isn't. And I complain to you about it, and I get no response. I haven't yet seen an admin who so deserved to be desysoped, if for no other reason than to contain his ego. Have you set a record for most cases before the ArbCom? Everyking 22:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I remember other cases involving you besides just that one, Snowspinner. If it was just Lir who had a problem with you, I'd congratulate you. What about that whole deal surrounding your harassing User:Orthogonal for holding a minority viewpoint, which he raised a hue and cry over time and time again? What kind of good work do you do here that offsets your habit of driving off users?

Anyway, the whole problem was that you approached the matter with an intimidating pretense of authority. If User:Hilary Duff would just verify her identity to Snowspinner, everything would be fine, because really, he's the only one who matters anyway. But otherwise, there'll be trouble. Right. A new user doesn't automatically know how silly that sounds, though, and doesn't know that you can't really do anything about it. Such pressure makes a person think that editing here just isn't worth the hassle. Everyking 07:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've raised the general issue of celebrity usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username#Celebrity usernames. I'd be interested in your comments. JamesMLane 20:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Snow-s, for taking the lead in this in behalf of the community. It's a necessary job, and it looks like you're handling it appropriately. --Jerzy(t) 05:12, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Lir

Hello Snowspinner. Just to let you know I have unblocked Lir. I don't agree that the block followed the terms of his parole. As I read it, the parole allows a maximum ban of a week, and that only in the case that he uses socks to revert a reversion of a provocative edit. I'm happy to discuss this with you if you disagree. Regards -- sannse (talk) 23:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also note that Lir's first edit appears to have been to put up an arbcom case over this. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:23, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of interpretation whether an IP is included in the ruling about accounts. I wouldn't regard an IP as an "unauthorised account". If it's clarified as being the case, then I would support future bans for this. -- sannse (talk) 23:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI --> [2]. Regards - sannse (talk) 11:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As you can see, my sockpuppet Sannse is trying to receive your vote for arbcom; by showing you his diligence in absurd censorship. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Everyking's block

I notice you support this block. I don't think policy allows a sysop to block someone with whom they are involved in a debate, especially not a long-standing account, and most especially not for content disputes which are then called "vandalism". From the protection log I can't see any evidence that Everyking was abusing page protection (although please correct me if this is not the case)

Whatever one's opinions on current policy and any particular people, I would think we can agree that policy should be enforced at least superficially as it's written, and not simply ignored whenever anyone feels like someone else should be blocked. — Kate Turner | Talk 20:19, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Indeed, as Kate notes, I engaged in no protection or unprotection of any article, and Hemanshu was a revert warrior himself in the dispute for which he blocked me. I am surprised to see that anyone would endorse such a blatant misuse of admin powers. Everyking 20:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, you don't know the first thing about rules. For my part, my "common sense" tells me somebody ought to block you for this. But unlike you, I don't act on that, because unbelievably, I actually do care about the rules. The day we get policies that enable the swift desysoping of users like you will be a great one for this community. Everyking 02:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users should certainly be to ones to unblock themselves if they are outrageously and unjustifiably blocked by a sysop who is involved in the dispute. It isn't my fault that nobody with an ounce of civility noticed the block. I've been wondering for a while, Snowspinner: who put you in charge of things? The all mighty Snowspinner shall impose and retract blocks according to his whim. He may even block fellow sysops for no good reason if it suits him. Man, what would they do to me if I acted like that? Is it because you sit around on IRC so much instead of editing, is that some source of higher power? I don't get it. Everyking 03:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, I'll expect an apology from you, of the same sort that I presume will be shortly forthcoming from Hemanshu. Everyking 03:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, I suppose your response tells me more than an apology would have anyway. Everyking 03:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, the matter of Snowspinner vs. Lir. If you wish to supply evidence, please do so to the evidence sub-page.
Thank you very much.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 18:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche

Snowspinner, I have just seen your e-mail about the LaRouchies. It is a shame you didn't inform yourself about this before becoming involved. The users are inserting into Frederick Wills, who made a speech to the United Nations in 1976 about debt reform, that when he made the speech Wills was putting forward Lyndon LaRouche's debt proposals, because they had met in the previous year or years. There is NO evidence whatsoever to support this claim. If user:Herschelkrustofsky, user:C Colden and user:64.30.208.48 are in a position to know this, there must be some published evidence somewhere. It looks to me like an attempt to claim Wills' ideas on behalf of LaRouche. The onus is on the people who insert factual statements like this to provide evidence. This isn't like inserting a LaRouche perspective, or LaRouche POV, into a LaRouche-related article. It is an allegedly factual claim, which they seem unable to show is correct. Slim 23:11, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Well, what I am supposed to do about that? I voted against the proposal, I made my arguments, it isn't my fault. You see now the can of worms it's opened, with trolls now taking advantage of it. Everyking 02:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alas, there already is one. I've received support from only one user, though, while Reene has been backed up by a few. A rule that would ban a long-time hardworking contributor like me just for trying to prevent the removal of factual info (no one disputes that it's factual, at least that I know of) by a new user who has an admitted dislike for the subject matter is sheer silliness. I respect community consensus, of course, and if someone not involved in the dispute was to block me I wouldn't unblock myself, although at the same time I imagine I'd raise hell from the mountaintops. If I'm blocked, what good will that do? I'll still have to revert it again when I'm unblocked, and I have a 5,000 page watchlist to look after. Just going to sleep for a few hours means a considerable amount of work waiting for me when I get up. I can't imagine how it would pile up after 24 hours. I'm a volunteer, for Christ's sake. Everyking 03:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You protected the article on Reene's version? Surely you didn't realize what you were doing. My version is the long-standing and far more complete version. The burden should be on the person removing information to justify it, and we should err on the side of inclusion. That is only sane. I believe that in a dispute such as this, we should have some sort of democratic process established to determine whether or not information within articles should be deleted, as opposed to simply the question of whether or not whole articles should be deleted. Everyking 08:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would it be crazy of me to say I don't believe you? Also, I want to point out that this isn't a normal dispute in which the lines are somewhat blurry. Reene wants to remove information that she herself does not dispute is factual. There is no valid justification for that. If she is going to push such radical logic on Wikipedia, she may do so, but we must favor established convention for the time being. Everyking 08:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I ask that you do this for me, out of recognition for the absurd amount of time and energy I spend here, and the sleep I lose on account of it: if you won't do what I previously asked, add a message to the top of the article noting that there is another, more complete version of the article at User:Everyking/Autobiography (album). In the name of civility, do that for me. And restore the table somehow, as it no longer appears in the article due to your adding the template. Everyking 08:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also add that others are welcome to edit it. Since it is in my user space, of course, I retain the right to indefinitely revert any removal of information there. Everyking 08:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to do it, just tell me, so I can take my request elsewhere. Everyking 09:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner, think for a minute. You have already shown favor to Reene's version by protecting it on that version. Obviously. By adding my user space version, you aren't showing favor to my version. You are showing favor to her version but slightly mitigating it by giving the reader a choice to read an article that hasn't be stripped of information. Obviously. I thought for a while you were prepared to be reasonable with me, but I see now that I was fooled. I've raised the issue at Requests for Protection, so I'm not dependent on your whims. Everyking 17:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeopardy!

Hi! How can Jeopardy! results be found out before 7:00 at night Eastern Time (US)? Marcus2 19:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Undelete procedure

I like your procedure. IMHO it meets any legitimate need to view the article being discussed. I don't see how there can be any objection to it.

You may or may not be aware of an incident in the past where I was asked to temporarily undelete an article. I did so, placing a VfD-like notice at the top explaining that it was a temporary undeletion and pointing to the VfU discussion. Shortly thereafter someone removed the notice and made several edits to the article. I felt strongly that I had been taken advantage of, that the request to "view" the article had not been made in good faith, and that someone was trying to make a fait accompli undeletion prior to completion of the VfU discussion. Given this background I think your procedure meets an actual need. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Election articles

Here are all the spinoffs of 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities that I could find.

• 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, although JimLane stated on IRC that he is using this article as a cleanup attempt
• 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
• 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio
• U.S. presidential election, 2004, exit polls
• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines -- Already VfDed
• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression -- Already VfDed

--Slowking Man 06:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

election controversies article

Hey snowspinner, the election controversies article already survived a recent deletion attempt? Why did you list it again? zen master 08:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I did relist the article... Everyking 12:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Didn't I already do that? Everyking 18:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basically, yes, but I did write a little note explaining that I was sponsoring the listing in the interest of fairness. That isn't good enough? Everyking 18:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you not going to restore it, man? Doesn't everyone deserve fair treatment? I've gotten so tired of the chilly, almost hateful atmosphere around here. That's no way to build a community. Whatever happened to Wikilove? Everyking 03:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please undelete Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be

because (a) it is required as evidence (b) there was NO vote for deletion (VfD)

Isn't that an abuse of adminship? CheeseDreams 18:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfA

I honestly do not understand why you want to argue about this. It is true that I labeled Cool Hand Luke's addition an "ammendment." If you don't accept that wording, delete it. I don't think you have a right to move his complaint, but that is between you and he. As for my complaint -- frankly, I don't care what your opinion of it is. I am requestion arbitration concerning a set of disputes between me and CheeseDreams. You may not take my side, you may not think this requires arbitration, you may think it duplicates your complaint. But I am not competing with you, nor am I commenting on your complaint. Everyone at Wikipedia has a right to seek dispute resolution. I have gone through RfC and RfM and I have a right to make a request for arbitration. You simply have NO right to remove my complaint, it is utterly uncalled for and the only reason I am not making any formal complaint against you is that I think you made an error of judgement in good faith, and I hoped that once you realized what you did you would accept that.

Do you believe that the arbitration committee will treat our two requests as connected? If you think my request is being unfairly or inappropriately attached to your complaint, than I propose this: you ask the arbitration committee to consider each request separately. But you have no right to remove my request. Slrubenstein

Anthony DiPierro

Why did you revert my edits to User:Anthony DiPierro? I see no justifications for him to have his own licensing terms and conditions BS. Oven Fresh 20:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temp undeletion

That wasn't aimed at you - it was an innovative idea. :) It was aimed squarely at Anthony, for requesting being able to see deleted articles, then when you give him the opportunity, asking for auto-undeletion on his whim. Ambi 01:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Auto

Since you were the one who protected Autobiography (album), I'd like to ask you to be the one to unprotect it. It's been a week now; it was protected on November 30, and there's been little discussion since because Reene doesn't want to talk to me. I see no reason why it should just be protected indefinitely, after all, and I've been working pretty hard on some revisions at Autobiography (album)\Temp (and thanks for creating that, it didn't even occur to me to use a Temp page instead of a user subpage), and I'd like to have a chance to try them out. The revision also includes some updates regarding current events, so I ought to at least have an opportunity to add those. Give it a little while without protection, a few days or a week, and let's see if that's enough time to get this worked out. If we're still reverting then, there'll be no hard feelings if you want to protect it again. Everyking 00:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)