User talk:Grouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Move or merge 2 London Congestion Charge 3 Texas history 4 Texian 5 Me and a Gun 6 INDEED! 7 UT page 8 Houston Chronicle 9 Cyrus Farivar 10 =) 11 Hook it over here 12 Michael Dell 13 DSCF 14 Lone Star Showdown 15 Re:Suicide Sunday 16 Thanks! 17 What's your prediction? 18 References 19 Dal Tech/TIT = 20 Cyrus Farivar Reloaded 21 DYK 22 re: Edwin Black 23 {{main}} 24 your user page 25 WikiProject British Royalty 26 Multiples in SI units 27 More thanks 28 Shrimp vs. prawns 29 Image:PayPal.png 30 Test of HagermanBot 31 Your third opinion 32 Third opinion on Kwik Save 33 WP:3O 34 Thessaloniki (name dispute) 35 In need of a little advice 36 Papua New Guinea (single) 37 Thanks for providing a 3O in the number of Tigrigna speakers matter 38 user:mckaysalisbury 3O 39 RfC Summary Comments for Upper Canada College 40 bryan adams 41 Thanks for the 30 on Image Development 42 Just for the record

[edit] Move or merge

"In the recent AfD, numerous editors suggested a move to either Bioinformatics software tools or Sequence analysis. What do you think? Strictly speaking, I do not think that the "keyword based profiler" section really fits into what has traditionally been known as sequence analysis. Grouse"

Yes, its not a bad idea to move or merge. The first suggestion of Bioinformatics software tools is a bit tricky, since it could tend to become a directory of known services. The second suggestion of Sequence analysis seems to be fine but slightly misses the point of query profiling/outlining. The core of the article should outline different types of data oultining tools that are capable of analyzing, organizing and presenting the results for a query. This brings me to the keyword based profilers... These are unlike typical search engines. A casual visit to the Entrez will demonstrate the point. For one query the results page returns the hits across all the NCBI databases. So in a single shot, a word like "muscular dystrophy" would be profiled across the NCBI databases. There are other services like this e.g. Bioinformatic Harvester and HPRD. The term 'data profiling/outlining' is key when planning to move/merge.

So my suggestion would be to merge/move the piece with Bioinformatics data profilers OR Bioinformatics data outlining tools. You may have to be the guide lest I neologize. Opabinia regalis could also be a help in this. What do you say? Nattu 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London Congestion Charge

Thank you for your kind comments about the photos in the London Congestion Charge article. It has been very interesting to see how things develop. All good wishes, -- Nevilley

[edit] Texas history

Isn't Texas history part of American history?? If not then the Eureka Stockade is part of Victorian history NOT Australian history and that Australia did not exist until 1901 as a nation.

answered in Talk:Eureka Stockade --Grouse 13:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Texian

Hi Grouse! I originally redirected Texian to Texan because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Texian was nothing more than a definition. More importantly, I didn't see how it could ever be expanded into anything more than a dicdef, which is why I replaced it with a redirect. Your revert made me reconsider, and after reading the ext. link you added [1], I'm convinced that Texian is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Thanks for sticking to your guns :-) --Diberri | Talk 22:15, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Me and a Gun

The comments on the talk page are two years old. It was never put through a VFD - which would actually be somewhat binding if it had, but this isn't binding at all. Deletion precedents have changed significantly in that time, and where songs were often deleted back then, they're now almost always kept, particularly ones such as this. If you want to remove the other information from Little Earthquakes, feel free to do so, but this deserves an article, and I've reverted the redirect again. Ambi 13:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then fix the article, rather than effectively deleting it. Ambi 17:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with how the current article is. And come on, calling two very brief two-year old comments (relating to policies and methods that have vastly changed in the years since) a consensus, and accusing me of "unilaterally going against what they had decided on". It's not as if the article went through a VFD in the first place - rather, they effectively unilaterally deleted it then.

[edit] INDEED!

I AM a Texan ex. We worked there at the same time. I can only assume that you are a Texan ex well, or were in the Hellraisers with the venerable Mr. Hunter. Now, if you worked at the Texan, this would truly be a coincidence! Katefan0 20:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and I was a reporter... general reporter, senior reporter, then eventually was deputy news editor in the news office. Katefan0 20:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • TSP Board huh? Uh oh. All right, I'll bite. Who are you? Katefan0 19:12, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • HAHA! Yes, yes, I'm so glad to hear it... That was a very judicious way to say it ALL. That's fine by me, I probably won't know who you are anyway, or vice-versa. Katefan0 08:16, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you change your mind? Katefan0 03:43, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, sorry to be confusing, I meant your offer was fine. Katefan0 19:27, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Aha! So I was wrong, we do sort of know each other. I remember you. Can't say we've ever officially met, but I remember you as one of the more reasonable TSP Board members. Skoal. Katefan0 20:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikilove. Katefan0 22:03, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UT page

Hey! I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but thought I'd leave a msg on your talk page just in case. A couple days ago H2O pretty much deleted all the information on UT's rankings, status etc. from the page, citing Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Personally I thought it was fine, it's all verifiable. But since you wrote a bunch of it, I thought maybe you could help me dig up a few sources. He's talking on the talk page, which is good, but seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about UT .... For what it's worth. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:28, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Houston Chronicle

Hey MH! I have no idea how you'd come down in this particular debate, and I promise I won't be offended if you disagree with me, but I'd like to get some more NPOV eyes, particularly those familiar with Texas politics, on a dispute between myself and another user, Rangerdude, over what's appropriate for inclusion in this article. We've both given here and there on smaller issues but are now down to the larger ones that we probably won't be able to agree on just between ourselves. If you're interested in weighing in, come take a peep at the talk page. I've just recently listed it on RfC so hopefully we can break our stalemate soon, however it shakes out. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Farivar

No problems re: editing the vandalism. I simply didn't parse your comment correctly when I scanned the recent edits. Cheers! Brainwidth 00:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] =)

Hey, thank you! It was good to see you pop up again. Here's to you becoming a wikiholic again sometime soon. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hook it over here

Portal:University of Texas at Austin
and
Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin
We need you!!! Johntex\^talk 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• When you have time, please vote on which page notice you like best. Once we get a good consensus, we will put that page notice on all pages related to the project. This will drive a lot of editors to the project. Johntex\^talk 02:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Hi Grouse, sorry not to provide a link. Here is link to discussion about the page notice, which I I think is most important, because it will go on the most Artilces (on their talk pages): Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Page notice. I think having that one up will drive a lot of traffic to the project and to the portal.
  

There are also proposals for stub notices: Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Stub notice, and a "collaboration of the month notice": Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Texas at Austin/Collaboration notice. Finally, at the Portal: Portal:University of Texas at Austin. There is a place to discuss what our first "selected page" and "selected article" should be. Several nominations are already at each spot, so you can support one or more and/or put up a new nomination. Best, Johntex\^talk 14:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Dell

Very interesting! Souces don't seem to agree on where Michael Dorm founded his company. Even Texas Monthly can't decide. Here are a smattering of references I found:[2] Johntex\^talk 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DSCF

Hi, thanks for taking me up on the expansion of this acronym. I'm not sure what was my original source but http://www.stands4.com/bs.asp?st=DSCF&SE=1 is a secondary source giving that expansion. However, after reading the metafilter page I'm not convinced so I'll leave the page as you have it. I don't know any primary or authoritive sources. FWIW I have a kyocera camera that uses DSCF, but they may just be copying Fuji. Zeimusu | Talk page 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Star Showdown

Texas!!! [3] Johntex\^talk 23:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Suicide Sunday

Sure. I'd also advise sending a list of suspect IP adresses to AIV. Beno1000 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. The problem with the IP addresses is that some of them are University of Cambridge web cache addresses used by thousands of people and would therefore be difficult to block.

Good point. I guess the admins would be reluctant to block an entire IP address range, as well. Beno1000 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

but I don't want to fall foul of WP:3RR.

Agreed. We should probably notify an admin and see what they can do. Beno1000 17:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey, I really appreciate your feedback - makes it all worthwhile :-) Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's your prediction?

Will Colt McCoy be the starter for the 2006 Texas Longhorn football team? Johntex\^talk 01:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

How do i reference on Wikipedia? Also, can you sort out the layout on the FCC page after the sources i added? Simply south 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dal Tech/TIT =

I've noticed you removed the Dal Tech/TIT line from University of Texas at Dallas due to it being unsourced. I'll support that removal--in my three years as a student at UTD, I have never heard a single person refer to it as Dal Tech or TIT. My guess is that it's an in-joke among a very small clique of students that hasn't spread to anyone outside that clique. jgp (T|C) 20:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm--this was supposed to go on Talk:University of Texas at Dallas, not here--must've clicked on the wrong link. Since it concerns your edit, I'll both leave it here and past it on the appropriate talk page. jgp (T|C) 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Farivar Reloaded

Hi, I'm a relatively new user reopening this issue: The following comments are a reply to Morton devonshire, who questioned my notability tag (and I suspect, removed the tag from the Farivar page without either addressing the issue, or knowing the background. Sorry to clog your page quoting my comments in full but I see that Vfd, notability tags and other stuff mysteriously disappear from the Farivar page. Perhaps delete all this later? I think it's important for WKP that this issue be decided and a legitimate majority view be carried:

Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:

decidedly NOT notable - the subject is not notable in himself, andn greenlighting was not a notable hoax

the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05) came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?

mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact

a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational

refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world

a bad precedent

The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance.

Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion.

I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential.

I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion).

Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote

I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error. As I am a new editor, maybe I am missing some procedural convention?

My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed.

Centrepull 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly and helpful response. I wonder if you could clarify a little:

I'm too new to understand what the deletion voting process is for if not to make a decision on deletion. If not, then how is a decision reached?

Before reopening the issue of this page, I noted that the last vote for deletion was in August '05, yet there were still people (as I did when I studied it), who felt the decision was wrong and had been diverted. Why do you suggest I wait another year? I ask this as I feel the page is already present under false pretences.

Thirdly, my main view of the page is that it isn't notable. Have I got it wrong that a notability tag is the best way to discuss this issue? If I understand this, I'll be sure to pull the tag.

I have tried to be reasonable, follow protocol and start a discussion on the talk page, but it seems there is a group that doesn't want any discussion, which makes me suspicious that the page is still present through partisan action, rather than on merit.

My proposal is that the biographical material be userfy-ed, which doesn't seem to have been proposed before. On the vote, I note that I have been variously informed that 'there isn't actually a vote-count for proposal for deletion', 'a 2/3 majority is reasonable', and a 'rough consensus' (according to the official administrators' deletion policy page). Reading through the responses for the Aug '05 deletion process, I think that a rough consensus was reached. Surely one should not need to put out a call at the village pump to ensure that a weak case does not prevail in the deletion process? For example, no credible notability has been argued. NPOV, supposedly non-negotiable, has also not been argued.

I firmly believe the case for this page is very weak, but disappointingly there seems to be no decisive way of establishing a consensus. I still think that the last consensus was actually to 'delete', as the Afd Wikietiquette (and common sense) would lead one to examine the relative strengths of the arguments, even if one doesn't count the numbers of 'keeps' and 'deletes' on either side.

Thanks,

Centrepull 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Boyle Roche, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-20 02:46

[edit] re: Edwin Black

Thanks for reverting the talk page blank on Edwin Black. An anonymous user keeps doing this and removing the necessary {{cleanup-tone}} on the page. Could you please help me watch this page? --Grouse 10:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on the watchlist. Thanks for the heads up. Alphachimp ^talk 14:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{main}}

Please remove {{main articles}} from your user space page. It is being orphaned in preparation for deletion per TfD To Orphan. {{main}} allows multiple articles to be listed (currently up to 5, it should be expanded probably). You can show that as well on your page. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered it was a template, so I modified that template. Sorry to bother you. --MECU≈talk 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your user page

You get "The Awesome User Page Cookie" because of all the helpful things you put on it! Keep up the good work! Lauren 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but it's really just a couple of templates others have provided. And even that idea was taken from someone else (I think I left a note of which user in the history page). Grouse 20:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject British Royalty

Grouse, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Multiples in SI units

Please don't remove multiples from any of seven base SI units. Rather remove them from derived SI units, for consistency please keep multiple examples left intact at least in seven base SI units. Thanks. Many people can't imagine higher and lover multiples of units and these examples are useful for them in using units especially at micro and macro scales.

[edit] More thanks

Thanks for all your help with the Boyle Roche article. You'll be happy to know it was rated GA. :-) ubiquity 04:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrimp vs. prawns

Actually they are different groups of species. See shrimp and prawn. But usually a cuisine will only use one term, despite whether shrimp or prawns are being referred to. Grouse 20:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In any event it doesn't affect my edit, because neither shrimp nor prawns are commonly barbecued in Aust, despite the well-known phrase. Asa01 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PayPal.png

Thank you very much for the "Third opinion" - I appreciate it! Its all too hard (Image:PayPal.png), I have marked it for deletion. I am sorry for the confusion about the comments on my Talk page. Ansett 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made changes to Image:PayPal.png. Is that acceptable? Ansett 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it again. I hope it's up to standard! :) Is it acceptabile for me to place it back into the PayPal article? Thank you! Ansett 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Ansett 13:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test of HagermanBot

Test of HagermanBot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grouse (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Your third opinion

We have two POVs here: either 1.Baltic states were occupied or 2. Baltic states were not occupied. As sources prove, the first POV is shared by overwhelming majority in the West. It is a POV of the overwhelming majority, and POV of the non-participants. The second assumption has without exception been advanced by Soviet/Russian officials. It is a minority POV. We must not give prominence to the occupant's own justifications, or to draw a parallel, Flat Earth Society thesis here. Pushing the Soviet-Russian POV is trolling, if I'm not mistaken?Constanz - Talk 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945. Grouse 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion on Kwik Save

Thank you for offering your opinion and clarification of the situation on Kwik Save. Fourohfour 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3O

HighInBC and Luna Santin are making up policy as they go along to justify harassing other editors like Pco.

Show me where in WP:3O it says that a lack of neutrality is grounds for removing a dispute. Actually, better yet, show me a single dispute listed on WP:3O that has been neutral in its description of the dispute. They were right to remove the dispute only on the grounds that more than two editors were involved, but neither of them noticed that. KazakhPol 19:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#Neutrality. Grouse 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#Neutrality. KazakhPol 20:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm having increasing difficulty taking either of you seriously. You said in your edit summary that I should stop removing this entire section. Unfortunately, if you had actually looked at my edit, you would have seen I removed a single sentence, not the multiple paragraphs that make up that section. The entire issue over whether the entries need to be neutral has not previously been discussed. I also now have the admission from HighInBC that he did not look at my previous edits. KazakhPol 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have behaved very well about this issue Grouse. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and quoted you (Grouse) on the talkpage. Im pretty sure no commentary is needed to make my point, KazakhPol 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm watching WP:3O, by the way, so there's really no need to repeat things here as well. I will see any comments you make over there. If you still feel the need to spend the time writing comments in both places, though, be my guest. Grouse 00:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thessaloniki (name dispute)

Hello Grouse. I was wondering if you could help here Crvst 22:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems he's just going around requesting help from random people. r9tgokunks 23:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In need of a little advice

Hello, I'm not quite sure how to proceed in regards of that stage name related dispute you recently offered a third opinion for (thanks for your time, by the way), as I have never been in a discussion becoming quite that heated, over something like a style question and coupled with rather aggressive reverts by the other party involved. Would it be fair to assume that your comment has helped to establish a consensus in favor of standard English text formatting or are further reverts of my related edits to be expected? Regards - Cyrus XIII 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Papua New Guinea (single)

I would like to thank you for providing your third opinion regarding my disagreement with Normanby over the inclusion of the disambiguation link on Papua New Guinea to Papua New Guinea (single). I am still fairly new to editing, and was not completely sure of interpreting the guideline correctly; your confirmation was well appreciated.

However, Normanby is still adamant on removing the disambiguation link. From his edit history, my guess is that he is a Papua New Guinea native who does not think too highly of the single bearing the same name as his country, and has taken it upon himself to diminish the association, despite that I explained to him that the single is of notable importance within the trance music scene (even being listed, by someone other than myself, in the List of notable trance music records article).

What do you recommend should be done regarding this matter? His contribution on the Nuakata island article appears to be genuinely helpful, so I do not feel we should alienate him; notwithstanding, his repeated reversions on Papua New Guinea are starting to become unconstructive and irksome. So far I have only dealt with cases of indisputable vandalism, which this is clearly not, so I would appreciate if you could recommend me the best course of action for resolving this issue.

If you have time to reply, please do so here or on the article talk page rather than on my user talk page; I try to avoid fragmented conversations.

Thanks. CounterFX 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For right now I would just say to watch out for WP:3RR violations and report them. Grouse 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for providing a 3O in the number of Tigrigna speakers matter

Thanks for providing a 3O in the number of Tigrigna speakers matter. Itayb 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:mckaysalisbury 3O

Thanks for the 3O. Like I said on the WP:3O page, I didn't quite know where to put such a comment. WP:3O seemed like the best place. The purpose of the 3O wasn't to show that he was wrong to move my comment. Mostly, I had a question about policy, so I asked the administrator who executed the policy that I couldn't find referenced anywhere. But when I asked him, I didn't get a response. What you say (particularly the way you say it, partially knowing that it comes as a third opinion), makes sense, but I haven't seen such a policy anywhere. Could you point me in the right direction? McKay 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Summary Comments for Upper Canada College

Thanks for your intervention. I'm totally fine with your re-write at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Society%2C_law%2C_and_sex. Magonaritus 00:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bryan adams

mr. adams would like to speak to you directly. please tell us how he can reach you by phone. thanks very much Michelle1 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that anyone who wants to contact me regarding Wikipedia do so either (a) on this page, or (b) by e-mail (see "E-mail this user" on the left sidebar). Thank you. Grouse 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

that's fine, but since you've become involved in the finer details of this page, and have given me my last warning before i get blocked from Wikipedia, perhaps you'd like to make an exception to this, as I'm sure he would like to clarify and verify some of the ongoing issues. ie: his name. Michelle1 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The warnings are not to remove material from Wikipedia. You can still participate and even argue for its removal without having to suffer a block, but edit wars are considered harmful on Wikipedia. It is far better to discuss a contentious issue on a talk page, as we are all doing. Additionally, I would have no way of knowing that the person I am talking to is, in fact, Bryan Adams. Even if you were able to convince me of a factual point through a phone conversation, I would have no way of convincing others on Wikipedia, as they would have no way of knowing that such a conversation took place, or what its contents were.

I thought that we had resolved the Sweeney Todd issue, and hopefully you will take my suggestion for a resolution to the middle name issue. For the time being, the middle name is not in the article. If you would like to privately bring up any other issues, please send me an e-mail. Grouse 16:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

your suggestion being put something on the official website? Michelle1 17:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I imagine that would be the easiest way for you to establish that he has no middle name. Grouse 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

it seems ridiculous to have to go to these lengths some 25 years after he's started making records, with hundreds of links to his real name! but ok i will attempt to get it done, give me a few days. Michelle1 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

as requested: http://www.bryanadams.com/onlineshop/badnews/generalnews.asp Michelle1 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'd suggest you mention this on the article talk page rather than just my user talk page so others can see as well. Grouse 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the 30 on Image Development

Thanks for the 3O, it was good to get those points clarified. On another note, thanks for bringing up the other editor on the personal attack issues. --Davémon 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just for the record

[4]. You didn't restore the proposal to position before it was rejected, because the introduction paragraph that explained what the proposal was about has been removed in the meantime. I'm not sure why it was removed or if it should have been removed, but there you go. >Radiant< 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a bad edit summary. The point was that the headers should not be removed just because the proposal was rejected. If you would like me to restore the additional bit that was cut out, I will do that too. Grouse 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Although I admit to disliking this proposal, I believe that a proposal that is rejected should be kept intact so that people can read what it was about. So I'd appreciate a restoration. There have been some calls recently for deletion of failed proposals, but in my opinion those should be taken to WP:MFD rather than achieved by removal of lead sections and header tags. Cheers! >Radiant< 11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 14:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)