This is an archive of past discussions with User:Oren0. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I ask that you not consider the changes vandalism, that might be taken as rudeness.
1) I removed the category for cooling since it does not exist.
2) cooling was part of the climate change debate since climate change means the climate changes either warmer or cooler.
3) The industrial revolution did not begin in the 1850s, see the article on it. I am afraid someone is stating that to make some POV that IR and climate change are more linked than they might be. The 1850s was a period of cold and the earth was recovering from that.
Hey there Oren0. I protected the page per a request at RFPP. After going through the history of the article, it just seemed to me that there were disagreements going on, with several reverts and such. I understand you guys have a bit of a consensus going on, but perhaps a bit of discussion on the article talk page to figure out the issues could come in handy. Let me know what you think. Jmlk1703:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry, I should've looked more careuflly at my edit. Just thought somebody might've missed it. Thanks for assuming good faith though. Discgolfrules (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles in question all have a table of contents that gives readers the ability to get their own quick summary of the issues they consider "major issues" without reading the ones they consider "minor issues".
Oren0, I know that articles are supposed to have lead sections, but the political positions articles are the WP:COMMON and WP:IAR exceptions to that. The whole point of these articles is to give a full treatment to the positions involved, without trying to boil them down to oversimplifying or inaccurate one-sentence summaries. For example, you cannot coherently explain Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq in one brief sentence; as the article's section makes clear, it has evolved over time and includes some nuanced stances. The same is true of John McCain on the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. Let the full material speak for itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the WP:IAR position is the exact opposite. The lead is supposed to give a concise summary of the article; in this case a concise summary involves what their positions are on the key issues. As for the liberal/conservative things and the assertion that which points are major are unsourced, all of those things can be easily sourced if that's your problem. WP:NPOV doesn't require that all positions be treated equally, therefore it's perfectly legitimate to explain some in the leads but not others (see also WP:WEIGHT). Oren0 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least narrow your assertions. Say that Hillary is for an Iraq troop pullout in 2008, because she sure wasn't for it in some other years. Say that she's for universal heathcare in 2008, because she was for an incremental plan earlier, until Edwards pushed her in his direction. And so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the articles were trying to convey the candidates' current positions (ie the positions they are running on) rather than their past ones. But fine, change that. I'm not of the position that my selected issue summaries were perfect, just that there should be summaries of the major issues. I think the assertion that choosing some positions violates WP:NPOV is ridiculous, it is no more a violation than choosing major points to include in any article's lead is. Is it an NPOV violation that Bush and Kerry are mentioned in the lead of United States presidential election, 2004 but Ralph Nader isn't? Is it an NPOV violation that Alaska and Hawaii are mentioned in the lead of US History but Kansas isn't? As editors, we have discretion to decide what parts of articles go in lead summaries and what don't. Disagree with my choices if you wish but I believe that disagreeing with our ability to add this info to leads at all is silly. I think that the idea that anything I added is unsourced is equally ridiculous, as all the info is right there in the article (see Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations) Oren0 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, these articles are meant to capture the political figure's positions over time. In other words, if a politician has "changed" or "evolved" or "flip-flopped" (take your choice of term), this is where we bring it out. Look at Political positions of Mitt Romney for a good example of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I just picked results from the first Google page. We all know I could find numerous sources for this if need be. Oren0 (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The candidates and media. I could find dozens of sources stating that the major issues in this war are Iraq and the economy, and therefore those are the statements we'd use. Or even better, go straight from the horses' mouths. Look at the major issues on the front of the "issues" pages on the candidates' websites, McCain, for example. Oren0 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
We do, as editors. Look at the wall of text that is Barack Obama's economic position. We don't include all of it in the article's "economy" subsection; rather, we selectively take the positions that we believe to be representative of his position as a whole and only include those. Why is doing this in the lead any different? Oren0 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, just also leave out your personal opinions about what "the major issues" are, and don't presume to have the "editorial discretion" to be able to summarize and distill, from a neutral point of view, in just a sentence or two, what the candidates' positions are on issues:
as interconnected as "the war in Iraq" and "the economy"[1],
as broad as "the economy",
on which candidates flip-flop (e.g. McCain on the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, McCain on comprehensive immigration reform).
Should we get this mediated? There has to be some process for this. These guys don't want to discuss anything.--Lmbstl (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not keen on the threatening and authoritative attitude. Maybe I am overstating the need for consensus, but they are not attempting to work toward achieving it. Merging (and even deleting) the article may be in order, but deciding this without debate (along with editing articles to support a position) doesn't seem to be the way things work around here. It seems that they want the article to simply go away and are trying to do so as quickly as possible. I have a problem with the methodology.
As far as the article itself-- it does need help. However, once issues have been identified, there should be some reasonable time to work them out.
I can see that things are spiraling out of control here, so I'll try to explain my actions a bit more thoroughly. I can see why it would look like I'm on a rampage from your point of view. So, this post is long, but I hope it helps smooth things over...
As far as the concern that I was canvassing, I came across User:Paddy_Simcox when I saw his AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of Arizona State University and saw he was cleaning up the same type of articles I was working on, and asked if he would like to help. I don't think that qualifies as canvassing, which is usually "If you agree with me vote here on this AFD/RFC." I just asked for his help in merging this group of articles. Also, Paddy Simcox has AFDd a bunch of UK student unions, which I haven't touched (since I know US/UK student unions are different animals, and I know nothing about the British ones).
As far as the concern that User:Paddy_Simcox and I are suckpuppets, we are not. I can't really prove that unless you can find an admin to run IP checks, or whatever people do to check that out. Yeah, I see that he's only been around for a few weeks, and that prods are usually reserved for more skilled editors. That I cannot explain. Perhaps he lost his old password and made a new account. Maybe he's just a fast learner, I dunno.
As far as the list of AFDs, I am a very organized person, so I did keep track of the articles I was working on: User:RedShiftPA/Cleanup. I also keep a to do list (User:RedShiftPA/ToDo) and a list of thing I've already done (User:RedShiftPA#My wikipedia projects). That "cleanup" page doesn't mean I was issuing orders to anyone, just that I'm anal retentive.
I really don't have a vendetta or grudge against student government articles. Here's the (rather long and boring) story of why I started merging a bunch of these articles: As you can see from my contrib list, I almost exclusively edit articles in politics (especially PA politics). I was beefing up the College Republican article and adding a bunch of folks to the Category:College Republicans, when I stumbled across the article for something called "DUGBA" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dugba, which was merged into the Associated Students of Michigan State University article [2]. It was an insanely well done article about their student government, but it was totally original research. I even tried to contact the VP to see if they wanted to save some of the history of the organization before it was merged (no luck with the email, by the way). So, then I worked with the original author User:Lovelac7 to merge it to the main MSU article Michigan State University#Associated Students of Michigan State University. You can see from his talk page that we worked very well on the merging process. From there I saw Category:Student governments in the United States and was surprised to see so many similar articles. And that is how I came to the WUSTL student union article.
But, in conclusion, I really think that student government/student unions are best served under the main article. Wikipedia can't be a hosting service for lists of former student government presidents and a server for constitutions. Anything that can pass WP:OR and WP:RS wouldn't be much more than a stub.
As far as my tactics go, I didn't foresee that merging these article would be very contentious. I now (very clearly) know that this is not the case. So, for assuming that, I apologize.Is there some common ground that we can find on merging these into the main article? I will post this on a few other talk pages of editor who are also in the discussion.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I did some research on the title of the rock band version of super-sprøde, and while the OXM disc lists it as "Sprode", Harmonix's website announces it as "Super Sprode" (Whether the ø is missing due to website compatibility concerns or otherwise is unknown.) Did they change it for download or is it still the same as the OXM disc. I have a PS3 and haven't been able to find out.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm currently using IE7 to browse (I know, I know...get with the times and all that) so it's not an option at the moment. I'm still learning my Wikimarkup (as you can tell by the fact I didn't use a talkback ping), and whenever I want to quick revert some vandalisms I can't get to the right page that has the style. I'm likely going to put them all on my user page for quick reference. TRTXT / C19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
When I skimmed through that article last week, the first thing I noticed was "man, that lead needs a serious rewrite". Now that I have time to check back up on it, I see somebody else tok care of it in the meantime. Congrats :) --Stratadrake (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone predicting "cooling until 2015"? I guess you misread that one.. because there is no global cooling predicted in this[3]. (which i guess is what you refer to)...in fact their graph of the prediction indicates slight warming.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't read the paper itself, though shame on me for listening to those crackpot skeptics over at Reuters: "And while the study published in the journal Nature last week did not dispute manmade global warming, it did predict a cooling from recent average temperatures through 2015, as a result of a natural and temporary shift in ocean currents." [4]. Oren0 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its a well kept secret that popular media is a rather bad source for science ;)
Btw. have you looked at the references that Ron is giving for his contribution? He is pulling things out of context to an extreme degree. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So If I were to be a cantidate
And say that my position is that i'll make the deficit disappear, while giving you full government benefits and not tax you a penny, that would be acceptable, even though its impossible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That is 1000% not the issue. The issue is that the page in question is about the political positions of McCain. All that page strives to do is to explicate his opinion on issues, not to talk about editorial receptions to it. That stuff belongs elsewhere. Whether you or I like or dislike any of McCain's policies, find them plausible, etc. is irrelevant anyway. Oren0 (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, its totally relevant to the country, unless you want to allow the collapse of our economy, I think its important that voters are informed about whether the positions of the cantidates are realistic and truthful or whether its smoke and mirrors. If McCain is president and is allowed to grow the debt we could be at the point where the debt passes our GDP by the end of his first term. At that point we'll have a default risk on our debts and as a result higher interest will need to be paid on our debt or money will need to be printed, neither are pleansant options —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage you in a political debate here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What is "relevant to the country" and what is relevant to a page that talks about the political positions of a candidate have nothing to do with one another. I'm really not sure how to make this more clear. Oren0 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Richard Lindzen
The joke edits were contributed on the grounds that satire is the only adequate response to the inclusion of the pro-smoking material on the page.
My point is made, so I won't be trying to re-edit, but wikipedia is suffering greatly from the political leanings of some of it's keenest contributors.
The pro-smoking material is insisted upon by Mr Quiggin on the ground that he is interested in 'denialism'. He fails to explain how this makes the material relevant to the biog of a living person - and he already has his page on denialism to advance his POV.
Best Wishes,
Mark Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.42.70 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean the user talk warning to be anything personal, I just use them so it's easy for others to spot repeat vandals. I understand the frustration you feel but I don't think adding jokes to mainspace pages helps anything. There are steps you can take if you believe an editor is being unreasonable. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad you found your way to my user page. That's what I get for only checking how it looks in Firefox. IE messes up the look. I'll play around and fix it. Thanks for letting me know, Oren0 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that's fixed, at the expense of IE slightly cutting off my Barnstar. You just can't win with IE. Oren0 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey no probs, and now I know all about you and can find your weaknesses...*insert evil laugh*. Anyway, I only noticed tbh because I've been editing in IE for the last couple of days. IE does seem to have a few weaknesses, roll on IE8 that's what I say. I hope you manage to fix your Barnstar as well. Deamon138 (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Need a fresh take on an issue in RB songlist
I'm wondering if you could take a look at this discussion, as you seem to be a pretty regular editor. Things have started to get pretty heated in regards to what's considered reliable enough, to a point where I fear it's turning the article into a press release vs. a composite of sources. Was hoping you could take a look and maybe take a fresh look, and provide some input one way or another. Thanks! -- TRTXT / C17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Rfa
Greetings!
Good luck on your Rfa! I've looked through your last 500 contributions to wikipedia, and you seem fit for the job. Even though I believe you are fit to be an admin, its unclear(at the moment) if you will be granted the tools or not. If the community doesn't trust you enough to grant you the tools, don't get discouraged. Keep up the good work, follow the advice you are given, and try again in 6 months. Have a nice day!--SJP (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I really do appreciate the kind words. Hopefully things will swing in my favor but I won't be losing sleep about it if they don't. Oren0 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, best of luck. Yours seems to have become rather heated, I hope you don't take anything too personally. If you look at my support, the irony of course is that I was about to come ask you if you wanted a nomination. I stumbled across your contribs (for the life of me I can't remember where I first saw your name, we don't edit in the same areas by any stretch). But anyway, I had seen your contribs and was thoroughly impressed. The one thing I neglected to do was tell you that I had vetted your contribs and wanted to nominate you for adminship. Before I got the chance, I saw you pop up there. Happy to support. Some friendly advice to you, please don't take the opposers too seriously. While some are in good faith, a lot of the ones you've received are arbitrary and without merit. They are not a reflection on you or your contributions, and I'd hate to see you get too discouraged because of some editors' propensity for searching for reasons to oppose any candidate. Again, it's not personal, it's RFA. RFA is f***ing hell. You are a good editor, I only wish I'd gotten the chance to nominate. If this RFA is unsuccessful, I'd be happy to help you gain adminship down the road if that is truly how you feel you'd best be able to serve Wikipedia. Cheers, happy editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I do appreciate the support and the defense from some of the opposers. I'm pretty thick skinned and I'm not really bothered by what people on a website say about me. I think that mostly they are saying what they believe is best for the encyclopedia. I seem to be fairly on the border right now but this is a step up from where I was early on (a few editors told me to withdraw because I had no chance) and whether I make it or not I've learned valuable lessons that will help me continue to better myself as an editor. Oren0 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent response. Confirms why I supported. I wish it was going a bit better, but as you say, there is certainly a solid chance of passing at this point. As far as the early "moral support" that you received, I chastised said user on his talkpage. That is meant (if used at all) for n00b editors that have no idea what they are doing. Clearly not the case with you. You should pass, but again, RFA is hell, it is arbitrary, and it is unpredictable. You could start your RFA in 10 different weeks and expect 5 passes and 5 fails, I'm convinced of it. Glad to see you're not taking it too personally. By the way, and I know this will be of very little consolation to you, the admin buttons (I've had them since January) are ridiculously unimpressive. They cause more problems than they solve. You are better off as an editor than an admin, at least in contentious areas of Wikipedia. Still, I hope you get them. You deserve based on your contribs to be able to see what I can see, delete what I can delete, and protect what I can protect, etc. Wishing you well, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer23:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Oren0. As you have probably seen already, I'm feeling iffy on your RFA, but I do want to extend an offer of wiki-friendship (is that a common term here?) seeing that we do have some similar interests beyond the climate realm. I'm a fan of music-based video games, and while I don't really want to get much into editing articles such as Rock Band too much, I have rvv'd on them and noticed that you do a fair amount of editing on them. If you want to jam sometime, perhaps I can add you on XBL. Let me know, and good luck! Jason Patton (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, will do sometime once I actually put together my system (I took back to my hometown last weekend so my sister's friends could give it a go at her graduation party). I'll send a message along with the request so that you know it's me, as I don't really feel like divulging my XBL alias here. Jason Patton (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar note
I came here to suggest you should put up a note about standing for RFA; but I seee you have. While here, I noticed your barnstar from Brittania. Errr, you must have realised by now that B is hardly an editor in good standing, and a barnstar from that source doesn't do you credit. If you want to be taken seriously on anything GW related, you should reconsider keeping it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little tempted to keep both barnstars but I think that would go against your purposes of putting this here Oren0 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Re [5]. I intended to offer advice rather than make a request, but I admit it was ambiguous. I think you've shown good judgement and (FWIW) approve of Stephans award William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA.
I support you in your RfA but I am unfamiliar with the protocol. Are only admin's allowed to weigh in or can us normal folk do so as well?
Also, I have placed a notice at Talk:Rock_Band_(video_game) since that seems to be a place that you contribute. Are there any other places where you contribute regularly and that you believe people would be interested in knowing about this on-going RfA? --GoRight (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I do appreciate the support. Any user is allowed to comment on any RfA. I don't want to encourage any canvassing on my part, and I would only ask that any user who wishes to comment on the RfA does so on its merits and not due to my beliefs on any particular issue. Oren0 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, we can leave it at that. I meant no harm with my notice and I made the decision to make that notice on my own, just to be clear for anyone following along. --GoRight (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
political positions of Barack Obama
I am curious as to why you are asking me "use the talk page" when I have written more than 700 words on the issue there whereas the last person to revert me has written zero. Perhaps you could assist the resolution of this issue by admonishing that other party as you have admonished me? Also, you seem to be confused about whom is reverting whom. I'm the party attempting to ADD material, not remove the edits of others.Bdell555 (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased to report that some bits have been reorganized in San Francisco such that you can now cause all manner of harm on the English Wikipedia. My sincerest congratulations. Take a glance through the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, and have a lovely evening. Yrs &c. — Dan | talk02:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I've been patiently reloading my watchlist wondering how my RfA would be closed. I was already looking at new admin school and adding the Admin userbox to my userpage. Oren0 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. Was wondering if it was going to pass (it being right around the arbitrary no-consensus line) but you deserve the mop I'd say! ~ mazcat | c13:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. Use your new found powers for good, not evil, and continue to be the even handed arbiter that you have already shown yourself to be. --GoRight (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, Oren! :) Now that you are a big important administrator, you can help me make a wikipedia page. hehe. congratulations again. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shari.alaina (talk • contribs)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.
Belated congratulations. I forgot to add my support. Found your last reply to my questions convincing, and I've no doubt you'll make a good admin. Just tread lightly with potentially-controversial admin functions in GW and use good judgment (as you always have). Cool HandLuke04:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going through some of it now. I've also declined 50 Hollowz Productions because G4 only applies to previous AfDs, not to previous speedy deletions. I don't believe it meets A7 anymore either (though I'd guess it wouldn't survive an AfD). I notice that you're posting a lot of CSDs and I'd recommend becoming more familiar with some of the guidelines. Oren0 (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your support
At the risk of poking a bear (who will no doubt read this message) while in the process of charging me, to answer your question on the talk page of my RFC read the boiler plate at the top of the page very carefully, note that Raul knows these processes very well, and think about it. I recommend that we just let things take their natural course here. --GoRight (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).
A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)
Thanks for your kind words and evaluation.
I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...
Thanks again!
Kevin1987
Hi Oren0 - Not to second guess, but a block of only 12 hours in the middle of the night for calling an editor a Nazi because she posted a warning when he previously called another editor an asshole? It's not an IP, so there wouldn't be collateral damage - seems like a pretty light block to me. Just saying - but I guess it's your call. Cheers Tvoz/talk06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering that this is his first block and considering that he has made dozens of other edits, several of which seem to be well-meaning, I don't see why a 24 hour block would be any more effective. Generally I don't like to go longer than that for a first block. I'm not trying to teach him a lesson, I'm just trying to keep him from making more attacks. If he continues to make personal attacks, his next block will be much longer I assure you. I'll leave him another note on his talk page. Oren0 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - what bothers me is that he was warned about personal attacks a few days ago and in response to that warning the next time he signed on he made another retaliatory personal attack. But sure, let's see what happens next. Maybe he'll get the message. Thanks for adding the note. Tvoz/talk06:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Can I be cheeky enough to enquire as to why you reverted your comments? They seemed quite apt and civil. I'd looked for the RfD myself, but after I went through a few months worth, I got bored around march. Narson (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The outcome for Rock Band was to redirect to Rock Band (video game). I just was confused why the edit comment said that it was being moved according to RfD when that wasn't the conclusion. Then I realized that: a) WP policy seems to support the move to Rock Band and b) I prefer the page at Rock Band (I was one of the initiators of this forever ago actually: see Talk:Rock band). Oren0 (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning
It was nice not to have an ugly template slapped on my talk page.
May I ask you for a little advice? I don't agree with the edits on the article in question, specifically the use of the term terrorist - I have no overwhelming desire to continue discussing it on the talk page, as no progress is being made - what next?
I am not willing to stop removing the term that I disagree with, as people tend to claim "silence = consensus", however I don't wish to edit-war on the article either.
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.
