User talk:Yilloslime/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad Tag in Lindane article

I've removed the 'Ad' tag from the Lindane article, which I believe is due to you. See my comments there. Rick lightburn (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Kelly letter to Science

I've posted about this at my blog and on Crooked Timber. Lots of fun ensues.JQ (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Yilloslime (t) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Anogenital Distance studies

I can only find 5 studies in which this distance was measured in human male infants, which counts as rare in my book. The authors of two of these studes discount the utility of this measure. Pustelnik (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem: you can only find 5 studies—that's original research. If there's a review or article out there that says, "to date there are only 5 published studies of anogenital distance in humans..." or something like that, then great, let's use it, otherwise it's all just WP:OR.

Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop photo

I thought you'd like to know I've uploaded a photo of the Doodle, per your request! It's not much, so feel free to overwrite it if something better comes along. — DustinGC (talk | contribs) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture is great! Thanks! I don't think I could do any better, and I'm not in New Haven anyways, so...Yilloslime (t) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Statistical Assessment Service

I've moved your comment and my reply from my user talk page to the article talk page, so that others can participate in the discussion. DickClarkMises (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yankee Doodle Coffee Shop

Thanks for the request, but I've no time. I already owe another belated article for Danish Wikipedia. Sorry! --Nielspeterq (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the note. Yilloslime (t) 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Last Days of Humanity

I'm thinking of criterion #5 of WP:MUSIC. It's probably a stretch to say that those record labels are "important indie labels" (I didn't look at their articles too closely) but I took it as enough to remove the speedy tag. That is quite a long album list.

In the end, I doubt it will matter too much either way. :-) Grandmasterka 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I agree it probably won't matter in the end. Thanks. They do seem to have a lot of albums, but if you look closely most are compilations or splits, including the two on non-redlinked labels. Yilloslime (t) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

junkscience.com

While I understand your essential comments on junkscience.com as "...excellent example of the use selective quoting and referencing to manufacture what appears at first glance to be a well referenced narrative that actually that runs counter to the scientific consensus on the subject..." I'm curious for more specifics.

Note: I'm not a scientist by trade, and only took a minor in Physics pursuant to an otherwise Liberal Arts degree, yet when I look at (some) of the points made in junkscience. Your scientific background - particularly in Chemistry - would seem to be useful, if I may pursue the questions with you.

I'm sensitive to the possibility that Steven Milloy has essentially perjured himself through his associations and funding; yet his own reputation cannot taint what are essential facts. If a rascal points out that 2+2=4, we might double-check the results, but it wouldn't ipso-facto make 4 the wrong answer.

In that light, I actually looked some of the assertions which he makes (through his well-documented references, but not always easy to follow) and found to a reasonable level of amateur understanding:

- the eggshell thinning results so strongly emphasized in Silent Spring seem to have been a result of diet, not DDT. It seems that the original researchers and subsequent repetitions of the experiment concur.

- The US ban on DDT - and the role of William Ruckelshaus in particular - seems hardly the result of objective study and policy resolution, whether one agrees with the result or not.

- The ban on DDT was in the US, not the world. Nevertheless, the US ban on DDT accelerated (but didn't start) the phase-out of widespread use of DDT.

- Mosquito-resistance seems to have already been an issue by 1972, but I found the literature mixed regarding why DDT use was scaled-down or phased out: I see many authors asserting that it was due to the danger of DDT in the predator chain, some saying it was due to Western pressure on 3rd world states to discontinue it, and only tertiary due to increased insect resistance to its effects. Of course, it's hard to determine which of these are even attempting to be accurate, and which are merely pro- or anti-environmentalist polemics.

- In a number of recent mass-media discussions (PBS, MPR, as well as talks on predator birds by the U of MN Raptor Center volunteers to school groups) the 'mainstream' view is that DDT was thinning eggshells and causing the deaths of raptors, therefore it was banned. Arguably, that's the one point that junkscience does seem to debunk accurately.

I look forward to your comments in reply.

Thanks! Styopa (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Styopa.

That DDT causes eggshell thinning in birds of prey and that this thinning has adversely effected their reproduction is well established and widely accepted in the scientific community. While you may find this disputed in OpEds from free market thinktanks, it isn't controversial in scientific circles, and you won't find research articles in major journals disputing it. While Milloy may be able to point to one bad study (and note that all his references are rather old), there are plenty of others which confirm that DDT/DDE does harm bird reproduction. The article DDT goes into this a little (but needs to be expanded), and so does Bald Eagle, and I've got some refs on my userpage here. Also if you search the webpages for the EPA and the Fish & Wildlife Service you'll see that the consensus is against Milloy's views. Also note that the paper Milloy cites is study in chickens--or was it pheasants?--either way it's not that relevant to the question of whether DDT or DDE harms bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and other birds of prey.

Re:Ruckelshaus banning DDT: DDT was banned in the US primarily for ecological reasons, though there was also growing concern about its effects on human health. The risks to the environment far outweighed the perceived economic benefits of continued DDT registration. (Note that DDT use was already declining by that time as insect resistance was on the rise and other insecticides had come on the market.) That Ruckelshaus someone contradicted the previous finding of the agency is dubious: All claims to this effect seem to trace back to the work of J. Gordon Edwards (entomologist and mountaineer), who published his thoughts on DDT in obscure, non-reliable journals like 21st_Century_Science_and_Technology (a publication of the LaRouche movement), and JPANDS. (See [1] and [2] for more info.) If there was any independent verification that things actually happened this way, I'd be more inclined to believe it. But, so far, I haven't seen anything.

Finally, DDT has never been banned for malaria control, but rather has been used continually for that purpose since the the 1940s. True, the WHO-led malaria eradication campaign relied mainly on DDT, and since that program ended, DDT use has dropped off. But here's the kicker: the WHO program was abandoned in 1969--3 years before the US ban, and for reasons unrelated to evil environmentalists pushing for a "ban." See DDT and the references therein for more details, as well my userpage. Finally, yes, the Stockholm Convention does ban DDT sort of--it bans only agricultural use, and this ban has made it a more effective tool in vector control. And, yes, there was the infamous Sept 2006 announcement by the WHO giving DDT "a clean bill of health." Conservatives and libertarians like to talk about this as the WHO "lifting its ban on DDT" but they are either misinformed/not paying close attention, or actively being deceptive. All the WHO did in 2006 was make a small adjustment in their policy. They had always approved of--and even recommended--that DDT be used in situtations A, B, and C, and with the Sept 06 announcement they recommended that it also be used in situation D.

Hope this clears things up. Sorry to be so long-winded. Yilloslime (t) 22:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Plague

Hi, Yilloslime! It's been a couple weeks and I haven't seen any activity on Joshua Plague. As it stands, the article says he's done some writing, singing, and cooking. There are two interviews, but I'm not convinced of the reliability. Unless you object, I'm going to either prod or afd the article? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I removed the PROD a couple weeks ago, I promised to dig up more info on notability, which I haven't yet done. My bad. Can you give me a day or two to see what I can find? Yilloslime (t) 20:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also in terms of WP notability guidelines, Plague has been in several bands which "Ha[ve] released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"' which suggest that he notable. Additionally, there is no WP guideline for Chefs that I'm aware of, but in the world of vegan cooking he is certainly an important figure.Yilloslime (t) 21:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced. One of the more indie labels? The bands and most of the labels mentioned don't have articles. I'm fine with some more time, but I'm leaning towards AfD. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi SatyrTN. True, none of his bands currently have WP articles, but the labels that have released his stuff are none the less important indie labels, especially Kill Rock Stars which put out Mukilteo Fairies.[3], and to a lesser extent Outpunk, which put out some MF and Behead the Prophet No Lord Shall Live records. At any rate, I have neither the time nor interest in creating articles about his bands, I'm more interested in him as a chef. And to that end I've added a little more to the article on this topic in the intervening days, but now I've put in basically all the effort that I can muster. So if you think he's not notable, go ahead and AfD it. (I'd prefer AfD to PROD, to at least get a few more sets of eyes on it.)

I will say, I think Ploeg is interesting case in terms on WP:N. He's an important vegan chef, though there aren't specific notability guidelines for chefs, and even if there were, he might not meet them. He's also an important musician, though whether he meets WP:MUSIC, is also debatable. Finally, he's an important figure in the queer movement, at least as it relates to punk, though perhaps not important enough to merit inclusion on the these grounds alone, either. Taken separately, his notability in each of these areas is questionable. But I feel that if we can combine his notability in these disparate areas, and look at the sum-of-the-parts, he's a notable guy that's worthy of inclusion. Certainly more interesting and notable than some random cricketeer or fictional Manga character, but I'm not sure that there is any policy to back me up here. So AfD if you must....Yilloslime (t) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, actually I realize now that there were once articles for two of Plagues bands but they were deleted. I've asked the closing admin to put the deleted pages in my userspace. If/when that happens, I will try to incorporate any relevant info into Joshua Plague. So can you hold off on deletion procedings until those band pages get userified (or my request is denied) and I get a chance to update the article? Yilloslime (t) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice

Hello Yilloslime! I noticed that you frequently revert vandalism, and I would like to say thank you!
However, I noticed that sometimes you do not provide warnings on the talk pages after doing so.
If you see any vandalism, you should always leave an appropriate notice on the vandal's talk page after removing the vandalism. (a full list of talk page warnings may be found here).
Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I used to be better about warning folks, but I've gotten lazy. I'll try to do a better job now though. Yilloslime (t) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly of interest

Thought you might find this interesting... The study in question (PMID 17065637) was pretty provocative - I remember discussing it formally with my colleagues. Of course, tobacco-industry funding doesn't automatically invalidate a study's conclusions - I think the bigger issue is that the obviously relevant conflict of interest was not directly disclosed, as the money went through an intermediary group. A reasonable conclusion would be that there was an attempt to conceal the source of the money.

I'm almost certain that NEJM would not have published the study had the tobacco-industry connection been disclosed at the time - it looks like the journal editors have said as much in the Times article. Also interesting that this researcher received American Cancer Society funds during this time - the ACS has a very strict policy of not funding researchers who accept anything resembling tobacco-industry money.

Finally, the same authors issued an unrelated conflict-of-interest disclosure just this past Monday in JAMA ([4]): they wrote a letter criticizing a study saying that CT screening was ineffective, but failed to disclose that they held 1 active and 10 pending patents related to CT screening until someone else brought it up. MastCell ^Talk 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting....Yilloslime (t) 15:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in a way it's really too bad, because a lot of oncologists (with no tobacco-industry connection) think that some form of CT screening is going to prove useful. But it's a pretty controversial area, and this certainly won't help find the answer. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joshua Plague

An editor has nominated Joshua Plague, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Plague and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Erin Brockovich

sorry, but you have written to the wrong person. The vandalism has been done by an anonym user and not by me. Atually you have revertd to my version. Ciao--Massimo Macconi (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Woops Sorry! My bad. I'll strike the warning on your page! Sorry. Yilloslime (t) 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

[Barnstar from Ed (Edgar181) moved to User:Yilloslime]

Thanks! Yilloslime (t) 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Multicolumn reflist

Just following up on the multicolumn issue, would you be interested in logging the issue with Apple's bug reporter? Wikipedia's bugzilla says the problem is not on their end. superluser_tc 2008 April 11, 21:28 (UTC)

Sure, but pardon my ignorance--how do I do that? Is there a link you can point me too? Yilloslime (t) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Must have missed this. Apples bug reporter: [5]. If you could send me a link to the bug after you file, I'd appreciate it. superluser_tc 2008 April 18, 07:34 (UTC)

bpa tag

In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. Please self-revert. RDM2008 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I can quote policy too. From the intro: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies .... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort" Emphasis is my own. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That was done on the talk page. WP:TAGGING was complied with. RDM2008 (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally. Was that so hard? I should note that WP:TAGGING is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline, and that it also says "any editor who sees the tag but does not see any problem with the article and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page should feel free to remove the tag and note on the talk page that they are doing so," which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time.Yilloslime (t) 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be so condescending with your "Was that so hard?" I haven't said anything I didn't say in my first comment, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bisphenol_A&diff=prev&oldid=206190296 when I first added the tag and you removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RDM2008 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly an accurate characterization of your first talk page comment. Also, when you said that "i've given cites and they've been ignored" which cites were you referring to? www.factsonplastic.com? Yilloslime (t) 04:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [6] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy, so I multiple choiced it. Yilloslime (t) 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you watching my talk page?...

...Please participate in an experiment by signing this thread.

This is just for fun and because I am curious. The idea is to see how many people are watching my talk page, and who they are. So, if you are watching this page, and are so inclined, please sign below. Feel free to leave a comment if the mood strikes you.

1. Yilloslime (t) 22:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Probably no surprise... MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this has been a disappointing failure... Yilloslime (t) 05:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I won't take that personally. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That was directed at me, not you. Yilloslime (t) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Free conference call

Just to let you know I've deprodded Free conference call and flagged it for speedy deletion under G11 - blatant advertising. Thought you'd appreciate me letting you know. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yilloslime (t) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Hey - you're probably already aware of this, but it was recently profiled in the Atlantic Monthly. Apparently there's currently an effort underway to sue a collection of energy and oil companies for conspiracy on the basis of their efforts to mislead the public about the risks of global warming, taking a page from the playbook used against the tobacco industry ([7]). As someone interested in the overlap between tobacco- and oil-company research efforts and tactics, I thought you might be interested. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks i'll check it out. Yilloslime (t) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Syngenta

You are correct it is FAR from perfect and I'm not sure why adding information from the website ( a reference ) is inappropriate. Can you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfdavis1971 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding info from their website is not necessarily inappropriate, but adding multiple paragraphs from their website (even in quotes and properly attributed and referenced) is inappropriate. Take a look at the articles on Bayer, Dow Chemical Company, or better yet, Microsoft which is a featured article. Some of these have little snippets of text from official company PR, but none of them have large swathes of text lifted directly from the company's website or press releases. There are a lot of reasons for this, which you can start to get sense for by reading through the pages linked at WP:5P. More specifically, wikipedia articles should generally be based on "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", i.e. secondary or tertiary sources, rather primary sources, which is what the website is—see especially WP:SOURCE (where the above quote comes from) & WP:PSTS. Yilloslime (t) 16:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, btw, you might not have seen it, but I left a message here: User_talk:65.190.134.26. Yilloslime (t) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:deadlinks

I do note that the link to Airlinerslist.com once pointed to some german site which dosent work, and I am quite curious as to why the link was amended this way. Nonetheless, I have restored the correct link, and also corrected the link for Airfleets.net (the airline-specific search no longer worked). Thank you for acknowledging the experience you faced thou, and I will not pursue this matter further.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

McGuffey Readers

I think the text may be originally from a source that is in the public domain: I have commented at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 May 31/Articles. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perchlorate edit

Thanks for undoing my bungled first attempt at editing the perchlorate health effects page. I will spend more time going through the tutorial later and navigate properly. To answer your question, the persistence of perchlorate in the skin is counter to the claim that perchlorate is not retained in the body. In 2002 the proposed perchlorate reference dose was pushed to 1 ppb by concerns about what perchlorate does in the skin. Thyroid concerns only brought it to 3 ppb.

Medicinal doses of perchlorate, iodide, and bromide all produce rashes in the skin (haloderma), perhaps through producing allergic reactions to haptens formed by the salts binding to proteins like albumin. My concern is that perchlorate may be lodging in oxyanion holes in defensins, impairing that vital component of the innate immune system.

I'm waiting to sign up on wikipedia using my real name.

Larry Ladd

http;//www.perchlorate.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.184.70 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry. Welcome to wikipedia. Taking a closer look at it, I think the formatting problem with your edit is that it had a <ref> at the end of the citation, instead of a </ref>. But in terms of content, I think the perchlorate article is better off without any mention of the study you were trying to reference, at least for now. The problem is that without proper context, mentioning that study adds nothing to the article. There are dozens of animal studies on the effects of perchlorates, several human studies (both intentional dosing studies and epidemiological studies), and various reviews and government sponsored risk assessments, so singling out this particular study, and highlighting it in the article doesn't make a lot of sense. In writing these articles, we must to use primary sources carefully if at all, without giving undue weight to any particular point of view, all the while avoiding drawing or own conclusions about what the such sources mean. Anyways, we seem to have the cart before the horse here. The article says that the recommended max drinking water concentration is 25ppb, not 3 or 1 ppb as you state above, so you might want to start by fixing that. Yilloslime (t) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Yilloslime. You have new messages at Wimvandorst's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steven Milloy

"Milloy has labeled specific studies junk science, such as two papers published in Science that were later retracted"

The problem with this is that it implies they were retracted due to Milloy or the reasons he gave. And Fox is hardly the most reliable of sources. Have Nature talked about this incident?

"but more generally he applies the term to climate change and certain health controversies including those detailed in the sections below"

I don't like the wording of this part, it's slightly too verbose. It's pretty obvious that the controversies below are his. This sounds like an undergraduate trying to fill a certain number of essay pages... I don't think we really need it.

And is it fair to say "Junk Science" was popularised by Milloy? Reading the article, he isn't really a center figure. yandman 16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm 100% fine removing any reference to the Science papers that were retracted. As I recall, someone long ago edit warred over including a reference to that Foxnews article, but I've never been convinced it was pertinent. And I don't think Milloy called them junk science before they were retracted, and we certainly shouldn't imply that he did. He's just flaming Donald Kennedy (who he mistakenly calls David Kennedy) in that FoxNews.com article presumably b/c Kennedy, Science, and AAAS had been highly critical of the Bush admin, OMB, and climate change denialists. So I think he's trying to make Kennedy look bad by publicizing some retractions in his journal.

I do think, however, that before the paragraph criticizing Milloy's use of the term, there needs to be an NPOV description of how Milloy uses the term--we can't just jump right in with criticism. I freely admit that what I wrote is not the best, and if you or someone else can do a better job, please do. And I do think it's fair to say he popularized, or at least helped popularize, the term in the American media. I don't have references off hand, but later tonight I can try to find one. Actually the C&EN editorial hints at this, calling junkscience the "best known" example of the right-wing antiscience movement. Yilloslime (t) 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I'll try and rewrite it a bit tomorrow. yandman 16:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just excised the Science bit and some excess verbosity, and the result isn't as non-NPOV as I thought it might be. Still, I think it probably needs work. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with... Yilloslime (t) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

New article on alkylphenols

I'm no chemist, so I'd appreciate it if you could check out alkylphenols and maybe help build it up. Also, what do you think about creating an endocrine disrupting chemical category? Incidentally, it seems like the pollutant categories could use more reorganization and emphasis as well. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't much about alkylphenols, but I'll keep it watchlisted and jump in if there's something I think I can contribute. As for an EDC category: I think this could be a good idea, but also could be pretty contentious. Therefore, in deciding whether a chemical should go in the category or not, I think we should stick to only those chemicals classified as such by an authoritative body. I don't believe the U.S. has an EDC list/categorization analogous to the EPA carcinogen ranking system, but I do think the EU does, and the WHO might as well at least for pesticides (under the Globally Harmonized System of labelling.) So maybe we could go from there. I think we should avoid categorizing chemicals on the basis of literature reports, since there is a lot of grey area for many chemicals, with some papers saying that a particular compound is an EDC, and others saying it's not. Yilloslime (t) 17:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be good place to start, particularly the chemicals in Annex 15. I'm not sure what the legal standing of the process and list is though... Yilloslime (t) 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy.

Hey, Yilloslime, we could always use some civility-appreciating editors over at Talk:Barack Obama if you've got the time. We're rebuilding from the rubble of some pretty heavy edit-warring over the past couple of weeks, but things're finally getting back to normal. Hope to see you around! Shem^(talk) 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll see. I don't have enough time to devote to the articles/topics that I care most about, so I doubt I'll be able to keep up with what's happening over at Obama, but maybe I'll check it out...Yilloslime (t) 20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)