(First, hello all, please be patient with me, as this is my first post to the mailing list and I'm sure I'll do something wrong in the process.)
I have a very specific question that I can't seem to find an answer to, and it seems that the mailing list is the best way to get a definative answer, particularly from our Fearless Leader. Everyone knows that there have been a couple of recent VfD's that have created havoc on the site, and have been commented on ad nauseam. I don't want to rehash those particular examples, rather, I want an answer to this question:
Is it appropriate for the fate of pages in the Wikipedia: (project) namespace to be decided on VfD?
The deletion policy is vague on the issue. I understand that the recent VfD's have involved specific issues that many would consider exeptions to policy, but all I want to know is, is it okay for otherwise acceptible pages in the project namespace to be VfD'd:
1) If I propose a policy in good faith, is it acceptible to disregard standard proceedure for gaining consensus and instead list the page on VfD, and if it survives, consider it policy, and if it fails, consider it dead? 2) If so, can established policies/guidlines be overturned by a VfD. For example, WP:BITE. 3) Finally, if established policy is subject to VfD, is official policy, for example, NPA and NPOV, subject to VfD, and if not, why is it any different from other policies that have gained consesus but are deletable under #2?
My guess is, getting a definative answer on the issue is about as likely as finding a flying pig, but I'm putting it out there nonetheless. I'd really like to see an answer in the form of: "No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy" or "yes, all pages are subject to VfD." Bonus points if the header of that response says "From: jwales"
Thanks all for your patience,
Essjay --------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On 20/08/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
Stuff
No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy.
Why? VfD is a small corner of WP which isn't a terribly nice place and many people go nowhere near it. Therefore, it's incapable of ascertaining whether or not a policy page has consensus amongst the community.
I can't imagine anything in the WP: space would even need deleting. Failed proposals get marked as such.
Dan
On 20/08/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/08/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
Stuff
No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy.
Why? VfD is a small corner of WP which isn't a terribly nice place and many people go nowhere near it. Therefore, it's incapable of ascertaining whether or not a policy page has consensus amongst the community.
More to the point - the policy does not exist "because there is a page on it". Wikipedia is not, as I believe a guideline says somewhere, a game of nomic; the existence of hard-and-fast policy is integral to the system, not just something we happened to write.
So you VfD WP:NPOV. Wow. Big deal. If it got deleted, all that it'd mean would be that we didn't have a page defining the NPOV policy (so someone would have to write it again). It wouldn't magically cause that policy to cease being a fundamental part of the project...
Andrew Gray stated for the record:
So you VfD WP:NPOV. Wow. Big deal. If it got deleted, all that it'd mean would be that we didn't have a page defining the NPOV policy (so someone would have to write it again). It wouldn't magically cause that policy to cease being a fundamental part of the project...
We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that Wikipedia is endowed by its creator with certain inalienable principles; that among these principles is the Neutral Point of View....
On 20/08/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Andrew Gray stated for the record:
So you VfD WP:NPOV. Wow. Big deal. If it got deleted, all that it'd mean would be that we didn't have a page defining the NPOV policy (so someone would have to write it again). It wouldn't magically cause that policy to cease being a fundamental part of the project...
We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that Wikipedia is endowed by its creator with certain inalienable principles; that among these principles is the Neutral Point of View....
I was actually thinking more in terms of a common-law system, but close enough...
On 20/08/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point - the policy does not exist "because there is a page on it". Wikipedia is not, as I believe a guideline says somewhere, a game of nomic; the existence of hard-and-fast policy is integral to the system, not just something we happened to write.
Policies are also descriptive, not prescriptive.
I'm sure that, in the early days, there were some "decrees from on high" from the likes Wales and a couple of others.
Ever since though policy has been more about a record of what happens, rather than an attempt to change it.
The "how to create policy" page makes a telling point - in the last two years, only about 5 out of 70 attempts to 'create policy' succeeded.
Dan
Call me biased, but I think that if a personal wants to delete a page in the WP: name space, they should in very limited circumstances. I know that user pages are not deleted unless they are using it as a personal website or promoting illegal activities.
If this was over the VFD mess I started, I mainly wanted to ask for the deletion of the page since when I first read the page, it was not trying to ask for a change in policy: they were going to do their own thing and circumvent policy. While I know the VFD will be closed under no-decision, with many people focusing on the project after the VFD, the project itself will fail under it's own accord.
Regards,
Zachary Harden
From: Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk,English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VfD vs. Wikipedia: Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:39:32 +0100
On 20/08/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
More to the point - the policy does not exist "because there is a page on it". Wikipedia is not, as I believe a guideline says somewhere, a game of nomic; the existence of hard-and-fast policy is integral to the system, not just something we happened to write.
Policies are also descriptive, not prescriptive.
I'm sure that, in the early days, there were some "decrees from on high" from the likes Wales and a couple of others.
Ever since though policy has been more about a record of what happens, rather than an attempt to change it.
The "how to create policy" page makes a telling point - in the last two years, only about 5 out of 70 attempts to 'create policy' succeeded.
Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dan Grey wrote:
VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy.
Completely agree. IIRC, this use to, indeed, be codified, but the VfD weenies have had it removed in one of their endless redraftings, or something.
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
James D. Forrester wrote:
Dan Grey wrote:
VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy.
Completely agree. IIRC, this use to, indeed, be codified, but the VfD weenies have had it removed in one of their endless redraftings, or something.
I agree too, and I've readded a notice to this effect to the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] page.
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
On 20/08/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/08/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
Stuff
No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy.
Heh, when I wrote that, I thought you were talking about true policies and the like, not the sillier examples of Wikiprojects.
VfD is welcome to them...
Dan
I think we have to understand that there are no hard-and-fast rules to Wikipedia. IAR applies to every policy and every guideline, including, confusingly, itself.
Therefore, I don't think we can say "you may never VfD a page in project space". Nevertheless, I think it would be almost impossible to create a case in which policy might be put to a deletion vote. Even less one where it would actually succeed! Any posting of a policy or guideline that had been ratified by the community would struggle to be anything other than disrupting Wikipedia (possibly to make a point). As such, it would be immediately eligable for a speedy keep, and I would have no qualms about doing such myself.
As to other pages in the project namespace, I don't think we should forbid listing them on VfD. Apart from anything else, they could be seriously detrimental to the Wikipedia community if something misleading were put there, when it could not be replaced by something legitimate.
So, in all, I'd say that VfD'ing project namespace pages is not forbidden, and shouldn't be, so long as it isn't forbidden by an existing policy, such as WP:POINT.
Sam/smoddy
On 8/20/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
(First, hello all, please be patient with me, as this is my first post to the mailing list and I'm sure I'll do something wrong in the process.)
I have a very specific question that I can't seem to find an answer to, and it seems that the mailing list is the best way to get a definative answer, particularly from our Fearless Leader. Everyone knows that there have been a couple of recent VfD's that have created havoc on the site, and have been commented on ad nauseam. I don't want to rehash those particular examples, rather, I want an answer to this question:
Is it appropriate for the fate of pages in the Wikipedia: (project) namespace to be decided on VfD?
The deletion policy is vague on the issue. I understand that the recent VfD's have involved specific issues that many would consider exeptions to policy, but all I want to know is, is it okay for otherwise acceptible pages in the project namespace to be VfD'd:
- If I propose a policy in good faith, is it acceptible to disregard
standard proceedure for gaining consensus and instead list the page on VfD, and if it survives, consider it policy, and if it fails, consider it dead? 2) If so, can established policies/guidlines be overturned by a VfD. For example, WP:BITE. 3) Finally, if established policy is subject to VfD, is official policy, for example, NPA and NPOV, subject to VfD, and if not, why is it any different from other policies that have gained consesus but are deletable under #2?
My guess is, getting a definative answer on the issue is about as likely as finding a flying pig, but I'm putting it out there nonetheless. I'd really like to see an answer in the form of: "No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy" or "yes, all pages are subject to VfD." Bonus points if the header of that response says "From: jwales"
Thanks all for your patience,
Essjay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
So, then anything can be VFD'd via IAR, and if it's in the wikipedia: namespace, it can be speedy kept, via IAR. IAR is useful, eh? :) Anyway, if you notice, it says on the vfd page it is for _articles_. I put that in bold, maybe it will help a little, with the rediclousness.
How long will it be before people VFD a VFD on a VFD of a VFD of a wikiproject?
On 8/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I think we have to understand that there are no hard-and-fast rules to Wikipedia. IAR applies to every policy and every guideline, including, confusingly, itself.
Therefore, I don't think we can say "you may never VfD a page in project space". Nevertheless, I think it would be almost impossible to create a case in which policy might be put to a deletion vote. Even less one where it would actually succeed! Any posting of a policy or guideline that had been ratified by the community would struggle to be anything other than disrupting Wikipedia (possibly to make a point). As such, it would be immediately eligable for a speedy keep, and I would have no qualms about doing such myself.
As to other pages in the project namespace, I don't think we should forbid listing them on VfD. Apart from anything else, they could be seriously detrimental to the Wikipedia community if something misleading were put there, when it could not be replaced by something legitimate.
So, in all, I'd say that VfD'ing project namespace pages is not forbidden, and shouldn't be, so long as it isn't forbidden by an existing policy, such as WP:POINT.
Sam/smoddy
On 8/20/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
(First, hello all, please be patient with me, as this is my first post to the mailing list and I'm sure I'll do something wrong in the process.)
I have a very specific question that I can't seem to find an answer to, and it seems that the mailing list is the best way to get a definative answer, particularly from our Fearless Leader. Everyone knows that there have been a couple of recent VfD's that have created havoc on the site, and have been commented on ad nauseam. I don't want to rehash those particular examples, rather, I want an answer to this question:
Is it appropriate for the fate of pages in the Wikipedia: (project) namespace to be decided on VfD?
The deletion policy is vague on the issue. I understand that the recent VfD's have involved specific issues that many would consider exeptions to policy, but all I want to know is, is it okay for otherwise acceptible pages in the project namespace to be VfD'd:
- If I propose a policy in good faith, is it acceptible to disregard
standard proceedure for gaining consensus and instead list the page on VfD, and if it survives, consider it policy, and if it fails, consider it dead? 2) If so, can established policies/guidlines be overturned by a VfD. For example, WP:BITE. 3) Finally, if established policy is subject to VfD, is official policy, for example, NPA and NPOV, subject to VfD, and if not, why is it any different from other policies that have gained consesus but are deletable under #2?
My guess is, getting a definative answer on the issue is about as likely as finding a flying pig, but I'm putting it out there nonetheless. I'd really like to see an answer in the form of: "No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy" or "yes, all pages are subject to VfD." Bonus points if the header of that response says "From: jwales"
Thanks all for your patience,
Essjay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/20/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
How long will it be before people VFD a VFD on a VFD of a VFD of a wikiproject?
When they do, I shall speedy delist, then block them until kingdom come with a particularly virulent blocking summary. VfDs should never be deleted unless there is a really really good reason. There could almost never be a good reason to delete a VfD.
"So, then anything can be VFD'd via IAR, and if it's in the wikipedia: namespace, it can be speedy kept, via IAR. IAR is useful, eh? :) Anyway, if you notice, it says on the vfd page it is for _articles_. I put that in bold, maybe it will help a little, with the rediclousness."
Methinks you take the IAR line a bit too far. My point was only that you can never say that something is absolutely forbidden. Wikipedia is not black and white (except in the Classic skin). My statement said that policies could be speedy-kept by WP:POINT, as they could never be anything else. Actually, your point about what it says on the VfD page is a good one. I suggest applying IAR and allowing ourselves to nominate project namespace pages there.
Sam/smoddy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Sam Korn wrote:
Wikipedia is not black and white (except in the Classic skin).
And now it's blue and white in the Monobook skin! The Smurfs have invaded!
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Could you believe that I never even noticed the blue backgrounds until i was looking at MediaWiki:Monobook.css a while back? heh!
On 8/20/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Sam Korn wrote:
Wikipedia is not black and white (except in the Classic skin).
And now it's blue and white in the Monobook skin! The Smurfs have invaded!
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDB/UH/RxM5Ph0xhMRAxy+AJ93EkI2E29H9IIOovYgcYvkuT0R8wCeKlBF 5W3o8r95p9TnTBhR2ngLgzo= =DlEf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This is not true in practice; some unused Wikiprojects were recently VfD'd with little fuss. In fact, half of them had too few votes to even count as consensus.
-Humblefool
From: David humble.fool@gmail.com
This is not true in practice; some unused Wikiprojects were recently VfD'd with little fuss. In fact, half of them had too few votes to even count as consensus.
-Humblefool
Case in point: [[WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias]], which user -Ril- put on VfD because he claimed that it was POV to have a project addressing anti-Jewish bias unless there was a similar project addressing "pro-Jewish bias". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Addres...
Jay.
[[Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Jimbo%27s_beard]] You have GOT to be kidding me.
On 8/21/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: David humble.fool@gmail.com
This is not true in practice; some unused Wikiprojects were recently VfD'd with little fuss. In fact, half of them had too few votes to even count as consensus.
-Humblefool
Case in point: [[WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias]], which user -Ril- put on VfD because he claimed that it was POV to have a project addressing anti-Jewish bias unless there was a similar project addressing "pro-Jewish bias". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Addres...
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- David humble.fool@gmail.com wrote:
some unused Wikiprojects were recently VfD'd with little fuss. In fact, half of them had too few votes to even count as consensus.
Ive changed my mind. Im now a card-carrying deletionist.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Well, they already speedied VFD once... whatever the deletion reform may be, I hope it ends with a VFD of VFD...
FF
On 8/20/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
So, then anything can be VFD'd via IAR, and if it's in the wikipedia: namespace, it can be speedy kept, via IAR. IAR is useful, eh? :) Anyway, if you notice, it says on the vfd page it is for _articles_. I put that in bold, maybe it will help a little, with the rediclousness.
How long will it be before people VFD a VFD on a VFD of a VFD of a wikiproject?
On 8/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I think we have to understand that there are no hard-and-fast rules to Wikipedia. IAR applies to every policy and every guideline, including, confusingly, itself.
Therefore, I don't think we can say "you may never VfD a page in project space". Nevertheless, I think it would be almost impossible to create a case in which policy might be put to a deletion vote. Even less one where it would actually succeed! Any posting of a policy or guideline that had been ratified by the community would struggle to be anything other than disrupting Wikipedia (possibly to make a point). As such, it would be immediately eligable for a speedy keep, and I would have no qualms about doing such myself.
As to other pages in the project namespace, I don't think we should forbid listing them on VfD. Apart from anything else, they could be seriously detrimental to the Wikipedia community if something misleading were put there, when it could not be replaced by something legitimate.
So, in all, I'd say that VfD'ing project namespace pages is not forbidden, and shouldn't be, so long as it isn't forbidden by an existing policy, such as WP:POINT.
Sam/smoddy
On 8/20/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
(First, hello all, please be patient with me, as this is my first post to the mailing list and I'm sure I'll do something wrong in the process.)
I have a very specific question that I can't seem to find an answer to, and it seems that the mailing list is the best way to get a definative answer, particularly from our Fearless Leader. Everyone knows that there have been a couple of recent VfD's that have created havoc on the site, and have been commented on ad nauseam. I don't want to rehash those particular examples, rather, I want an answer to this question:
Is it appropriate for the fate of pages in the Wikipedia: (project) namespace to be decided on VfD?
The deletion policy is vague on the issue. I understand that the recent VfD's have involved specific issues that many would consider exeptions to policy, but all I want to know is, is it okay for otherwise acceptible pages in the project namespace to be VfD'd:
- If I propose a policy in good faith, is it acceptible to disregard
standard proceedure for gaining consensus and instead list the page on VfD, and if it survives, consider it policy, and if it fails, consider it dead? 2) If so, can established policies/guidlines be overturned by a VfD. For example, WP:BITE. 3) Finally, if established policy is subject to VfD, is official policy, for example, NPA and NPOV, subject to VfD, and if not, why is it any different from other policies that have gained consesus but are deletable under #2?
My guess is, getting a definative answer on the issue is about as likely as finding a flying pig, but I'm putting it out there nonetheless. I'd really like to see an answer in the form of: "No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy" or "yes, all pages are subject to VfD." Bonus points if the header of that response says "From: jwales"
Thanks all for your patience,
Essjay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- signature _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
vfd has to be archived for historical purposes.
On 8/20/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Well, they already speedied VFD once... whatever the deletion reform may be, I hope it ends with a VFD of VFD...
FF
On 8/20/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
So, then anything can be VFD'd via IAR, and if it's in the wikipedia: namespace, it can be speedy kept, via IAR. IAR is useful, eh? :) Anyway, if you notice, it says on the vfd page it is for _articles_. I put that in bold, maybe it will help a little, with the rediclousness.
How long will it be before people VFD a VFD on a VFD of a VFD of a wikiproject?
On 8/20/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I think we have to understand that there are no hard-and-fast rules to Wikipedia. IAR applies to every policy and every guideline, including, confusingly, itself.
Therefore, I don't think we can say "you may never VfD a page in project space". Nevertheless, I think it would be almost impossible to create a case in which policy might be put to a deletion vote. Even less one where it would actually succeed! Any posting of a policy or guideline that had been ratified by the community would struggle to be anything other than disrupting Wikipedia (possibly to make a point). As such, it would be immediately eligable for a speedy keep, and I would have no qualms about doing such myself.
As to other pages in the project namespace, I don't think we should forbid listing them on VfD. Apart from anything else, they could be seriously detrimental to the Wikipedia community if something misleading were put there, when it could not be replaced by something legitimate.
So, in all, I'd say that VfD'ing project namespace pages is not forbidden, and shouldn't be, so long as it isn't forbidden by an existing policy, such as WP:POINT.
Sam/smoddy
On 8/20/05, Essjay -Wikipedia- essjay-wiki@hotmail.com wrote:
(First, hello all, please be patient with me, as this is my first post to the mailing list and I'm sure I'll do something wrong in the process.)
I have a very specific question that I can't seem to find an answer to, and it seems that the mailing list is the best way to get a definative answer, particularly from our Fearless Leader. Everyone knows that there have been a couple of recent VfD's that have created havoc on the site, and have been commented on ad nauseam. I don't want to rehash those particular examples, rather, I want an answer to this question:
Is it appropriate for the fate of pages in the Wikipedia: (project) namespace to be decided on VfD?
The deletion policy is vague on the issue. I understand that the recent VfD's have involved specific issues that many would consider exeptions to policy, but all I want to know is, is it okay for otherwise acceptible pages in the project namespace to be VfD'd:
- If I propose a policy in good faith, is it acceptible to disregard
standard proceedure for gaining consensus and instead list the page on VfD, and if it survives, consider it policy, and if it fails, consider it dead? 2) If so, can established policies/guidlines be overturned by a VfD. For example, WP:BITE. 3) Finally, if established policy is subject to VfD, is official policy, for example, NPA and NPOV, subject to VfD, and if not, why is it any different from other policies that have gained consesus but are deletable under #2?
My guess is, getting a definative answer on the issue is about as likely as finding a flying pig, but I'm putting it out there nonetheless. I'd really like to see an answer in the form of: "No, VfD can't touch policy, including proposed policy" or "yes, all pages are subject to VfD." Bonus points if the header of that response says "From: jwales"
Thanks all for your patience,
Essjay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- signature _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l