You have sent me the same warning FIVE times, the situation is allready taken care of. Please stop sending me Warnings...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH (Bairdso66)
sirico continued
What is your deal??
wow
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You've got to stop this crusade about vandalism. You have given me the same warning about a Tony Sirico page that I didn't even vandalize over and over. It is not your duty to do so...please stop--Bairdso6603:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Pegasusbot's adding subst: to <nowiki>'ed templates
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello there, mate. Your bot, in this edit, added subst: to a template that'd been <nowiki>'ed. The reason for the nowiki tags was so that I could tell the lad I was talking to use subst: for that template (mildly ironic, no?). Perhaps you could program your bot to not modify templates within nowiki tags? I can imagine this problem arising again on, say, help pages, etc. Anyway, I'm not here to complain, just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, Blackcap(talk)03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your bot is subst'ing the "vandal" tag. According to the discussion at the page, it shouldn't be. Please fix this so I don't have to keep cleaning up after it on my user page. Thanks.--chris.lawson04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Is there any way to stop Pegasusbot doing substitutions on my user talk page? I don't think the edits it makes there make sense, but I don't want to have to keep reverting them. — ciphergoth 07:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
substing commented templates
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The Image is tagged as fairuse and WP:FAIR blatantly states that fair use images cannot be used outside of the article namespace and even in the article namespace they can only be used in a narrow range of articles. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 13:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Pegasusbot
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey; I just noticed a way Pegasusbot could be improved. It substitutes templates on user talk pages, right? Well, I found that it misses templates that are included with "Template:" explicitly there, for instance, see User talk:Makedonec, where it left an un-substed NPA warning that was included as {{Tempalte:NPA}} but did subst the welcome template! I may be wrong about what pegasusbot's inefficiency is, but it's something... that was a very weird contribution. Mangojuice05:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
hah, forgot to mention it was fictional when i first began writing it. All of whats written must just look like a load of nonsense hehe. still in the process of completeing a final draft, ill notify you when its done :-)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, just writing to let you know that I've uploaded a larger version that has the slope corrected. I hope you like the new version :) enochlau (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
ARV
Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Maybe I'll have to write a function that doesn't allow you to report yourself :P
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Pegasusbot seems to be depopulating {{Template:sharedip}}, which seems to me a poor use of time. There's nothing wrong with having the message in template form, especially because it allows us to keep the formatting updated. Ingoolemotalk00:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Don't delete redlinks on sight; fix them if necessary
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In these edits, you deleted several redlinks in diet soda. Redlinks are useful parts of Wikipedia; they represent desired or needed articles. Note my edit following you. I left "Kirsch Bottling" unlinked, since it seems unlikely that a defunct beverage company from the 1950's will ever get an article (though you never really know...). But Big Red (soft drink) was just a misspelling of the correct title Big Red (drink), and Sierra Mist Free was discussed at Sierra Mist, so deserved a redirect with possibilities (with the link pointing at the redirect, since in the future Sierra Mist Free might be broken out into a separate article). So I created the redirect. Hansen's is a national brand and deserves an article, so it should be left redlinked so that the desire for an article on the topic can be tabulated (that's how the lists of most requested articles are generated, for example).
I'd point out that a year ago, this article was filled with redlinks, but over time articles have been written and more and more of those links have turned blue. If we just deleted the links to get rid of the redlinks, or piped them to extant articles that were not exact (say, [[Coca-Cola|Coca-Cola C2]] instead of just Coca-Cola C2), the article wouldn't be as correct today. In this way, redlinks and redirect links future-proof an article.
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I wanted to check, did you finish configuring pegasusbot to do the automated checks for {{categoryredirect}} templates placed on cats by admins to populate the new cats? I wasn't clear on whether you were just going to manually turn it loose on things or set it up to be semi-automatic like User:NekoDaemon was. I ask because if it does do the automatic checks I can tag some of the backlog at WP:CFD/W for it and continue trying to grind away at others with syrcatbot (which uses AWB). Thanks! --Syrthiss01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I actually haven't gotten around to doing that yet so at the moment any CFD related edits I make are semi automated using pywikipedia or AWB but since smaller ones can be done using AWB on my main account I only due ones with a lot of listings to move semi-automated with the bot. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - I removed your speedy tag. The community may have made a decision, but that decision was not backed by consensus. The debates were very mixed. If this were merely a repost with no new information I would agree; for better or worse, there had been a decision. Frankly, consensus is never going to solve the problem of this article... I think this may end up having to be an ArbCom case. Mangojuice18:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just realized that might have come off as a threat. I meant that the ultimate fate of this article might have to be an ArbCom case, I didn't mean to imply your behavior is a problem. Anyway, if you took it that way even for an instant, I'm sorry. Mangojuice18:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
BTW, it was User:Ashibaka who recreated the article, and I know he's not the most neutral person. I have joined User:Stifle in requesting him to delete the page (as the only real author) and move this whole business to DRV; I mentioned that you feel the same way. Mangojuice18:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
List of shock sites
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks. I'm keeping an eye too. I'm just not keen on getting into revert wars over the images. I think maybe the course of action in such cases should perhaps be remove the image, if reverted then remove it again and protect the user page until the user agrees not to use fair use images on their user page. What do you think? --Durin19:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
User:Mindspillage (member of ArbCom) suggested reverting the re-inclusion of the image, and informing the user that continued re-inclusion of the fair use image would constitute vandalism. Follow up continued re-inclusions with sterner warnings, with a last warning to block if re-included again, then block. --Durin21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
it's my perogative
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Look>> If I want to blank my userpage I will jolly well do so. Just because I don't always respond to comments - it does not follow that that in itself makes me in the wrong. I left the deleted images off my userpage. If you and your cohorts paid attention you will see that i reverted once - i felt harrassed.. Please don't jump on the bandwagon -- max rspctleave a message20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Re: Ami James
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is generally considered to be a bad idea to delete comments by other people on talk pages, which is not the same as archiving. The deletion of links to such archives (like you did), can be seen as obtrusive. May I ask you to re-insert the paragraph you deleted?
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I deleted it because it was a removal of a poll to determine consensus for a proposal so it was not vandalism, I suggest you withdraw this notice by striking it out and noting it as such. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, you only confirm that you were "targeting [a] talk page [...] for blanking". I wasn't speaking about copying text from an archive back to a talk page, I was talking about deleting the link to that archive, and the text surrounding that link written by me.
And no, it is incorrect to call that "vote" a "straw poll", per Wikipedia:straw polls#Creating a survey, e.g. point 2 of that section: "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." (and that's not the only point where the straw poll guideline wasn't followed...) Putting the title "Straw poll" above something which doesn't comply to even the most basic Straw poll characteristics, is sort of trying to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, well, don't do that per Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
So, I'm sorry to say, but again:
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Uh no, we aren't going to be bullied by the fact that you don't like the fact that things aren't going your way in terms of getting this approved and I suggest you re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF since by your comments above you have apparently forgotten about them. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since your right that it was wrong for me to remove your comments I have replaced your comments with my response in a section underneath the poll and I was never talking about deleting the subpage and indeed never made any edits to it so now both your comments, the link, and the subpage are there as well as the poll though since the poll is still active (I reactivated it when reverted your premature closing of it) it's still up there as well. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict:)
(as a reply to your last comment:) Apologies accepted, but nonetheless: (what follows was what I wrote before the edit conflict:)
Sorry, I think I've been very civil about your deletion of my comment at Wikipedia talk:Semi-bots. I've pointed you to where it would be a bit unrealistic to consider that removal as part of normal wikipedia procedures.
Deleting a comment that contains a link to an archive from a talk page is difficult to interpret as you assuming good faith on the one's whose comment you're deleting.
Let's go in detail about your edit summary of the edit with which you deleted my comment: (rv as per the fact that this is a straw poll to determine consensus which is quite allowable and encourged)
rv — sorry, talk pages are not "reverted", unless assuming bad faith;
as per the fact that this is a straw poll — nope, it isn't. Inflammatory.
to determine consensus — sorry, where did you get that? Proposals are NOT decided upon by voting on them. That's what I find in the guidelines and policies. If it doesn't help to build consensus (which is about the opposite of determining consensus) it is a faulty procedure.
which is quite allowable and encourged — where did you get the "encouraged"? Where did you even get the "allowable"?
So, seeing the kind of unjustifiable comments you put in edit summaries, and now on wikipedia talk:semi-bots too ("per the fact that this is a straw poll to determine consensus" [1]):
I'd like to remind you to be civil and to not form personal attacks or edit wars through your or others' comments; doing so will only cause tension and annoyance.
Please also lift the refactoring (a.k.a. "unwarranted doctoring") of the page, don't put my comment under another section title, it's neither a "comment" nor something "other", it is calling this poll off as well under the name of a straw poll (per the provisions of Wikipedia:straw polls that weren't followed) as under the name of a vote (per "Proposals are NOT decided upon by voting on them") --Francis Schonken01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well it isn't a direct input on the subject of the poll rather the poll itself so I think the best place to put it is in it's own subesction of the poll needless to say it is definitely being duley noted that you object to even having the poll. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I pointed to the *fact* that this poll is not OK with Wikipedia:straw polls, nor with "Proposals are NOT decided upon by voting on them", so the poll should be aborted (not because I object, but because it is not OK). So "noting" that I pointed that out is not enough. Insisting that an unallowable voting procedure is "allowable", is still disruptive behavior, in the sense of WP:POINT, so the warning templates I used above still stay in effect... --Francis Schonken01:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
tx. Apart that straw polls are really not always "needed" for finding consensus on a guideline (I usually post at wikipedia:current surveys#Discussions and not at #Polls on that page). But whether a poll would be advisable, are worries for later as far as I'm concerned. Let's first build a text where as many people as possible could agree with. And, through the commotion, I still forgot to tell you that I appreciated your input in the text of the semi-bots proposal. --Francis Schonken02:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pegasus1138! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page.
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have Travb making personal attacks (my edits pathetic, i am howard stern (antisemitic?) [2] , called me a clown in edit summary[3]. Possible you could do something about that? Ta very much. max rspctleave a message13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I am kingsean1, don't you have anything better to then annoy people who use harmless images on their userpage? I mean come off it, if you don't like them, don't look at them! Also, preventimg me from displaying those images infringes on my constitutional rights, as the first amendment clearly protects my right to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of political association!
19:19 18 April 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsean1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is a private company and this is a private webpage so you have no rights, and yes I do have better things to do than to revert your continued defiance of the rules but unfortunately since you continue to violate both Wikipedia policy and copyright law this is something that has to be done. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Answers.com tool
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think I understand the intention of your added comment on the tools page, but I think we could say it better (and provide more information). I've revised the text. Do you find my revision acceptable? --Gmaxwell02:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You're a little off about the Talk Page; people have trouble agreeing on what rock genres Green Day belongs to, but everyone agrees that they belong to some form of rock music. Punk rock, pop punk, and Alternative rock all fall under the [{Rock music]] category. I understand the need to avoid controversy and constant edit wars, but after a certain point it just become silly to remove any mention of what kind of band they are (because there are other types of bands besides those that play music). WesleyDodds08:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are already mentions of it in the sidebar and in sentences further down, since nobody can agree the classification is pushed farther down where it can be explained better than right up at the top. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I've just undeleted this template per the request at WP:DRV. You tagged the template as PROD, which was challenged, and then as a speedy. The speedy criterion you used is clearly not part of the WP:CSD, which has a single template speedy criterion, apart from the general ones, and "being crystal bally" is not one of them. Please don't misuse the speedy criteria like this. I see you've removed a large number of usage of this template. I'm going to reverse them. To save my time, and avoid a RC-flood, I'm going to use administrative rollback with &bot=1. Not because I think you're a vandal, note, but because this is a rare case where it is appropriate to do so. I trust you'll understand. -Splashtalk17:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I understand regarding the rollback thing since we don't want to flood people's watchlists (again) with edits on those articles to replace the template. Though I'd disagree that deleting a template that is a blatant violation of policy is a misuse of speedy deletio and it should be noted that I don't have the power to delete anything (not being an administrator) so I wasn't the one who did the deletion I was just the one who tagged it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Things that are blatantly WP:NOT are good fodder for *fD, but not for speedy, as observed by the fact that WP:CSD does not duplicate WP:NOT. I've also left a note with the deleting admin, but I thought I'd let you know too since it was your choice to add the speedy tag. -Splashtalk17:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
That's understandable, between Gamaliel and the other user--I have not been involved with their conversation about me. They are "talking" about me on a page that's viewable by the public, if they want to investigate me and my activities, I would ask that they correspond between each other through private e-mail. It's only fair. EMN19:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually it's better if they don't do it behind your back, at least here you can read it and unfortunately for you you have no say in which medium they choose to communicate in. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
...and now I'm curious why you chose to delete my message without any response whatsoever. Granted, it wasn't phrased as a question, but I still expected some sort of reply, out of courtesy. If you'd prefer to do so on my talk page, that's fine as well. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@08:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I didn't even notice your comment until I went over the edit history, must have gotten lost in the shuffle, sorry. I have taken the liberty of putting it back in place and replying to it (see above). Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'll agree on all counts — and while I've done similar reversions myself, keep in mind that humor can be a useful tool to help defuse an angry situation. In any case, thanks for the note, and glad to bump into another person like myself who entertains themselves via RC patrol. Cheers. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@08:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Erm, yeah, that's why I used strike through. I was just trying to make the topic (which I had started) less inflammatory. You confuse me. Stevage20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
My User Page...
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Howdy Pegasus1138... I am just learning the ropes here on Wikipedia, and am not quite sure what to do about my user talk page ... It's some diff that has "Pegasus" involved...
It was my bot substing templates that are supposed to be substed, if you want my bot to avoid your pages in the future leave me a reply here and I'll add your pages to the list of pages my bot ignores. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Talk page archives.
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'd appreciate it if your bot could leave my talk page archives alone. Archives should not be modified from their original contents.
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have removed you from the Wikipedia:Bots/Approvals group. Your wish to be in the group was well advertised twice, don't worry, people saw it. If the need arises, one will be approached to join the approvals group. Certainly one should not add oneself to the list.--Commander Keane21:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well it was very brusque and fairly innapropriate to advertise for more people then not even reply when someone puts their name up for it, I also question the authority of the approvals group since it's entirely self appointed and has no real authority in itself. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for letting me know about the changes, I have reverted to the previous, consensus agreed version. Perhaps normally I would discuss first, but changing policies can be very disruptive (imagine if someone read the policy yesterday and returned today to see a different version!). The Approvals group system works. I don't know why you complain about "no real authority in itself". This isn't the government of a country - we are just trying to write an encyclopedia is the most efficient way possible. Perhaps you feel robbed because I removed you from the the approvals group. Note that the standard to be on the group is very high. Each of the members has been an admin in the past (not a requirement but a demonstration of the community's trust in them), all members are programmers. All members have been Wikipedians for a long time. Most importantly, the group doesn't have magical powers, it just confirms the consensus so we don't have any bot disasters. Also, no one would should put their own name on the list - at least if someone else does it is a check in itself. The comment about inviting more helpers I have removed. No highly experienced people came forward, and I'm not sure that we are desperately in need of extra helpers at this stage.--Commander Keane01:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have just updated Ref converter to handle {{ref num}} links. I am not entirely sure of the correctness of the new code, though, so I have uploaded it as a testing version here. Please use it for now, especially on pages that use ref num, and contact me with any bug reports. If no bugs are detected by 2006-04-24 00:00 UTC then I will overwrite the old version of the ref converter with the new version and you can go back to using wikirefs.pl. --Cyde Weys17:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
What vandalism? What Nonsense?
Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense.
Placing the cartoons behind a link in no way reduces quality and I would argue that it fact it enhances the wikipedia experience and creates a better environment for ALL users. With regard to this point I have a feeling you won't agree with me and I accept that - but please leave more accurate and constructive comments next time instead of sending me blanket nonsense (warnings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipidian (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I believe that acting against a supermajority may be disruptive editting behavior. However, I believe that you are using the wrong term when describing such editting as vandalism. I don't think this is an unimportant point, because WP:Vandalism very clearly says that even ill-considered edits made in good faith are not vandalism. Using the wrong term will not help to resolve disputes, but will rather inflame them. Minority viewpoint editors will undoubtedly see the WP:Vandalism policy as excluding their own edits, because they sincerely believes that their edits would be an improvement for Wikipedia. --BostonMA23:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad we don't see this too differently. I understand the difficult situation. However, what I am suggesting is to use a different term, so that the contentious editors don't look up the WP:Vandalism policy, see that it says that good faith edits are not vandalism, and take that as a sign that you are not applying policy correctly. --BostonMA23:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
NOOOOO. As I said I did not reduce quality of the article, as the image was still available - just 1 click away to those who wanted to see it, and as defined by wiki's own rules this does not qualify as vandalism.
You may call it disruptive/against the wishes of the majority of wikipedists, but the views of rachael1 and others on the discussion section (eg 71.72.212.152 etc) were not being represented and it appears to me that the consensus view was changing from earlier polls conducted 2 months ago (WHICH BY THE WAY DID NOT DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF PLACING IMAGES BEHIND A LINK).Wikipidian22:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It discussed the issue of alternatives including hiding it using javascript and placing it at the bottom of the page which is pretty much the same thing so don't try to wikilawyer your way out of that. If you feel that consensus has changed then start another straw poll don't change things unilaterally. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Point taken. I am new to this, so I won't argue any longer. Watch out for a new poll in the coming days (that'll last a tad longer than 2 days as appears the case for poll 1&2 - don't forget wikipedia has a Systematic bias and as any stats student will tell you, to reduce bias you need a greater amount of time or more subjects).Wikipidian23:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Unreflective use of refconverter is causing many problems, and in many cases actively harming Wikipedia. The tool is nice to have—in fact, it's the impetus for me creating my own "Citation Tool" (still alpha). But it is nice to have to aid editors who are actually involved in editing a specific article, and who have reached consensus about making a given type of change to an existing article. Unfortunately, the semi-bot is largely being used to make "drive by 'improvements'" to articles where editors either have not considered the citation style, or where they have actively decided on something different from what the tool produces. This is extremely disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and a gross violation of process.
I have not looked at your specific changes made using the semi-bot, but I strongly recommend that you follow a guideline along the lines of: "Use this tool only after consensus for a change has been reached on the talk page of the article to which it is applied!"
You may also want to take a look at User:Evilphoenix/ref conversion. This is a sketch of an RfC that may be filed to try to resolve this problem (I see no reason you might not opine there, even while it lives in userspace). Ideally, Cyde will back off his insistence on changing all articles, even where against editor consensus. But unfortunately, his attitude has only become more belligerent when I have repeated requests in this regard. I think a positive involvment of well-meaning users of the semi-bot might help matters resolve amicably. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters02:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since my name is not on it specifically then probably will not comment since I'm going to assume it does not apply to me or any of my edits and not comment on it, I will also continue as otherwise unless asked not to do so of course avoiding the articles listed to avoid on the caution section of User:Cyde/Ref converter.
Ref converter RFC
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there, I'd just like to make you aware that Lulu has filed an RfC against me and "other users of Ref converter". Since Lulu has previously contacted you regarding Ref converter I think it is safe to assume that you are one of the people named in the "other users of Ref converter" bit, so you may want to get involved. Just a heads-up, Cyde Weys18:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
