User talk:Antaeus Feldspar/Archive 01

RE Catholicism

No Problem, I've listed it on Vandalism in Progress and asked for a 24 h page protection.--Samuel J. Howard 02:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on the removal of the inappropriate section, and have reverted to your version twice now. If it is reverted again, I will list this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. However, I would ask that you please tone down your comments on the talk page. Yes, the anon is being childish, but your comments come across as unnecessarily acerbic. This simply fuels the "flames." I think if you deliberately restrict yourself to neutral-toned comments and refuse to stray from content related aspects, you'll steal his fire. Just think of how you would write if you were *discussing* this with your mother instead of *arguing* with a stranger. It might be a good idea to archive the talk page and start fresh. Just remember to stay on topic (the topic is the article, not the other user) and friendly. Logic is on your side, so don't let it get emotional. SWAdair | Talk 03:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh; since my mother isn't the kind of person who would vandalize talk pages or litter even the most heated discussion with insults to the family of the person she disagreed with, it's hard to picture this being a discussion with her. I do agree with you -- the discussion should be about the content, not about the personalities. However, when you articulate numerous reasons, based on the content and the article, why the content should not be in the article, and the response you get is not any actual answer to those points, but "I see you've decided to pick on little semantic things, to make yourself appear to be in the right" -- honesty, as

much as we both wish there was, is there any basis to believe this is someone acting in good faith? After this user has vandalized both the talk page of the article and one's own user page?

I'll try to take the high road. However, since ClarityMS07 and his various alter egos have shown their willingness to take the lowest of low roads, it won't be easy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have very little doubt about the reasons for this anon's actions or methods.  ;-) That's why it is even more important for you to take the high road. I expect he'll revert again and then I'll be listing the article for RfC. When that happens a lot of eyes will be trained on the article, the article's talk page and this talk page. Let's make sure they see sane, rational discourse. Your version has logic going for it, but others coming into the middle of this need to see that you are focusing on logic. I expect the anon(s) will continue using flame bait for argument, which will only show his "C of RCC" section for what I believe it to be -- a deliberate attempt at disruption. SWAdair | Talk 09:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point -- and good prediction. ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to archive the talk page and start fresh. I agree; for obvious reasons, I don't think ClarityMS07's slanders on myself and my family should stay there any longer than is needed to convince anyone getting involved but as yet undecided that one side is arguing from logic and principle and the other side, the side resorting to personal attacks, is arguing from spite and pique.

However, because of the obvious conflict of interest, I think I had best leave it up to someone else's judgement as to when the archival should happen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have archived the talk page (it was getting really long) and left a clear note directing people to the archive for previous discussion about the "C of RCC" section. Anyone checking into it will see it. SWAdair | Talk 02:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• With no sign of the anon in the last few days, it looks like the article may be back to normal. I'm removing the article from my watchlist, but feel free to contact me if that section reappears. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 04:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User page

I reveted an anon edit to your user pageGeni 03:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dracula

I just reverted an edit of yours to Dracula (you removed the mention of love story: [1]). As I made a second edit to the page straight afterwards, I thought I should mention it, in case you wanted to object and/or discuss it. Why'd you remove it, as a matter of interest? It's the most beautiful love story ever written (imho), which was pticly amplified in the Coppola film, albeit in ways not in Stoker's novel. Anyways, just thought I should let you know. :o) — OwenBlacker 22:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Because I really cannot fathom how it reasonably can be described as a love story. Coppola's film, yes. Certain other renditions of the story, yes. Stoker's novel, no. Dracula is at best a seducer in Stoker's novel, and not in a way that has anything to do with love.

Furthermore, I asked the question how the original novel could be described as a love story back on July 21, 2004. That was two months ago, and no one who believed in the "love story" interpretation bothered to answer the question in those two months. To ignore the question for two months and then revert the edit still not having answered the question strikes me as very rude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd not seen the item on the Talk: page (I've been on a bit of a Wikiholiday, so not really paying as much attention as I would otherwise). Rudeness really wasn't intentional. If noone else has justified it either, then evidently consensus is against me (I put the link in in the first place), though I would still assert that it is, in part, a love story between Dracula and Mina. Sure, the Coppola film amplifies that beyond recognition, but I never got the impression he was just a seducer. Maybe I've seen the film too many times and not read the book recently enough. I'll put it back on my list of books to read and get back to you if I still care… :o) — OwenBlacker 12:57, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the film is highly revisionist. Which is not, in and of itself, a bad thing -- except if you then go on to name the film "Bram Stoker's Dracula", as Coppola did, and was roundly criticized for. Coppola turns all Stoker's heroes into fools and hidebound squares, and brings in the "Dracula seeks Mina because she's the reincarnation of his lost love" aspect, which is nowhere to be found in Stoker's novel. The original novel really doesn't show Dracula as having any capacity to feel for another living being -- perhaps because he isn't a living being! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stolen Honor

Your additional material was removed for reasons posted on talk page. It belongs on Sherwood's personal article page, not on Stolen Honor. Please read the talk page archive. This issue has already been debated and resolved. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is, to put it bluntly, a lie. The matter has not been "debated and resolved" on the talk page. What you probably mean is that you have already "resolved" what you will believe on the subject and have decided to ignore further debate on the subject; however, this is not binding on myself or upon anyone else.

Now, looking at the article, I see the following paragraph:

Sherwood previously worked for former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, whom George W. Bush subsequently appointed as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. In 2003, the Bush administration chose Sherwood to create and manage a new federal website aimed at first responders (police officers, firefighters, etc.). While working as a Ridge administration official, "Sherwood directed then-Gov. Ridge's award-winning broadcast TV and radio operations in Harrisburg". [4] (http://www.insiderpa.com/archive/insider6-2003.htm) He currently works as an executive vice president of the WVC3 Group, an anti-terrorism, security firm headquartered in Reston, VA.

Who added that to the article? You did. To quote you, "Stolen Honor article is not about Sherwood". Yet you decided that this information was relevant to the article. If Sherwood's employ under Tom Ridge is relevant, if Sherwood being picked to manage a federal website is relevant, if his direction of Ridge's media operations is relevant, if his current employment in the private sector is relevant, then surely the previous praise and criticism for his jounalistic activities is relevant -- seeing as how the article is about one of his journalistic activities, not about himself, a fact you seem to frequently forget.

Now if you would like to debate this further, I would recommend doing so on the talk page of the article itself, rather than my user page. Perhaps they would be interested in your claim that the issue has already been "debated and resolved"; they might find that information interesting, and just possibly surprising. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, deal with it on the talk page of the article. That's where this threat is going. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

Rex listed you on the vandalism in progress page for Stolen Honor. This hasn't been the first time he's pulled this crap, and he's been warned before not to use ViP for content disputes, but naturally Rex ignores the rules when it suits him. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. No, this doesn't surprise me too much. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Antaeus. Yeah, I see what you mean. I'll try and moderate my responses in future. Sahara 02:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. (I find it helps to remember how many of the bad 'uns of history were brought down because they overreached themselves -- McCarthy attacked the Army; Hitler tried to invade Russia...) There's something else you should know about, too, a rule that you should be careful to obey to distinguish yourself from Rex, who doesn't: the three revert rule. I know it's frustrating, but it can also be a relief -- after three reverts, it's legitimate to take a break and say "I can't do any more on this without damaging my own cause." And when Rex breaks the rule, it just shows him up for what he is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee proceeding

Of the pending arbitration proceedings against Rex, the first one has become so piled high with evidence that I don't know how anyone can sort it out, while the second has a fairly limited focus. Would you be willing to join me in initiating a third? We would try to keep it limited and manageable. Charge: Rex violated Wikipedia policy by listing edit disputes on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, after he'd been warned not to do so. Proposed remedy: 24-hour block. His associated personal attacks would be mentioned as part of the background, but we wouldn't go into a lot of detail about his multiple transgressions, because that would just mushroom.

I'll write it up but I'd prefer not to be only one bringing it. As I'm sure you know, your joining in such a request will touch off another firestorm against you from Rex. There's also a good chance that he'll file some frivolous cross-complaint against you. JamesMLane 03:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm game for it, firestorm and all. After all, it's not exactly as if he's going to stop harassing me, in any scenario short of surrender to him, for which he can cordially be invited to wait in vain. My only question is when will this be? I was actually planning to log off WP for the night. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Only one person can post it anyway. I can write it and state that it's brought on behalf of both of us. You could authorize me now to say that about a proceeding that's along the lines of what I described above. Alternatively, if you prefer to see the exact text before signing on, then just log off; I'll post a draft here and we can file it tomorrow if it meets with your approval. JamesMLane 03:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either way works for me. I trust you to bring a proceeding that accurately and fairly represents everything I could contribute; if you'd rather wait and let me see the draft, then I'll check it as soon as I'm on WP tomorrow. Would you mind tossing me a link to how these proceedings work? I'm afraid it's something I'm not as up on as I'd like. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll try to do it tonight. The whole panoply of dispute resolution methods is described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which includes links to more detailed pages, including Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. JamesMLane 03:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration proceeding: User Rex071404 3

I've begun the new arbitration proceeding. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Rex071404 3. The next step is for the ArbCom to vote on whether to accept it. Thanks for your help! JamesMLane 06:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My answer to JamesMLane's most recent attempt at advancing his admitted agenda of getting me hard banned can be read here [2]. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Rex! Remember me? I'm the one that you listed on "Vandalism in Progress", after you already had an RfA opened against you for that exact same offense! Strangely enough, this cannot be blamed on JamesMLane; you were the one who knew the consequences and went ahead and did it anyways. If you do get yourself "hard banned", it would not be undeserved and it would be no tragedy; everyone else abides by certain rules and receives certain privileges, and there is no reason you should get only the "privileges" half of the equation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A small correction: The first time Rex abused the ViP page, an admin deleted his improper listing and explained the correct procedure to him on his talk page. No one started an arbitration based on his first mistake. The pending arbitrations arise from other matters. With Rex's earlier listing, though, he used up his free shot. Thus, his listing of you and Sahara could no longer be excused as the mistake of a newbie. For that reason, it was an appropriate basis for a Request for Arbitration. JamesMLane 17:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that.

I see Rex has answered at the RfA page with a couple of huge pastings (I corrected the formattings, since he included section headings that were one size larger than the section he was pasting into -- what do you want to bet he'll try to class that as "vandalism"?) Since two Arbitrators have already put in votes to incorporate this into the open RfA, should I bother answering any of his accusations there, or is the existing RfA the place for that now? (As we both know, Rex tries to argue that an accusation that isn't answered within twelve hours is a charge admitted to. Cause it's not like the person could have been away from Wikipedia for twelve hours, right? Impossible.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see how closely you follow things "Feldspar"... [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Rex. This comment demonstrates that you are not acting in good faith, as it reiterates your accusation that I am a sockpuppet -- after you were warned that was a personal attack and unacceptable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know how to answer your question. Rex's lengthy response is to the effect that, in the edit dispute over Stolen Honor, he was right. Of course, what he's nominally responding to isn't the charge that, in that edit dispute, he was wrong. The charge is that it was an edit dispute. I think his response strengthens the point I was making, namely that his "Vandalism in progress" listing was improper. Therefore, I don't know if it's worth your taking much time to get into detail about what should or should not be included in Stolen Honor. JamesMLane 22:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ME 262

There is an egregious factual error in that article. Your participation in the dialog aimed at correcting it, is invited here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, Wikipedia has watchlists, so that when an article that we have interest in is modified, we will be alerted. There is no justification for you to come to my user talk page, where you are not welcome, and leave notification of your edits. Either I am interested enough for the article to be on my watchlist, in which case your notification is redundant; or I am not interested enough, in which case your notification is irrelevant.

In either case, I will view further notifications of this nature to be harassment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

This page has been updated. Your comments and questions about any edits to it, are welcome. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, Wikipedia has watchlists, so that when an article that we have interest in is modified, we will be alerted. There is no justification for you to come to my user talk page, where you are not welcome, and leave notification of your edits. Either I am interested enough for the article to be on my watchlist, in which case your notification is redundant; or I am not interested enough, in which case your notification is irrelevant.

In either case, I will view further notifications of this nature to be harassment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your policy. I will take it that you prefer we not communicate. I will therefore, ignore all communciation from you in the future. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that you have yielded at Dedham, Massachusetts, shouldn't you strike your talk page comment there which alleges that I edit to "harrass"? Were you to do that, I would count it as a good faith acknowledgement, and would redound it to your esteem, in my view. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have not "yielded", Rex. I do not back down in the least from my assertion, which you continue to substantiate, that you edit to harass. I do not care in the least for your empty offer to now, far after the point where you should have started, begin abiding by the "assume good faith" policy. You, assuming good faith? You, who even now absurdly leaps from the fact that I am a skilled wiki-user to the absurd conclusion and personal attack that I am a sockpuppet? The chances of you living up to that promise are even slimmer than if Michael Moore promised to stop shading the truth in his documentaries.

That is what separates us, you and I. We may both be lifelong Democrats, but unlike you, I do not consider my political affiliation to be a goal pursued at the cost of personal integrity. I find this tactic of yours, pretending to be a vicious, ethics-free Republican who takes it as fact that nothing but dirty tricks can advance his cause, to be reprehensible. If you are really so anxious to promote the Democratic cause, do it honestly -- not by smearing the Republican party through association with yourself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Did you read this link? It absolutely 100% affirms what I said about Dedham, Massachusetts and the Establishment Clause. As for the other points, they range so far from this particular point, that it's better we dispense with Dedham 1st. Here is the remaining issue there: You have stated that my Dedham edit was to "harrass". Given our background, I see how you could have jumped to that conclusion. However, you are wrong regarding my Dedham edit and by admitting that, you can make a positive overture. Are you willing to take that step, or not? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:41, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the delay in responding, but I'm afraid there will even more delay until I can look into it. I've been away for a few days and only have time right now to basically do a quick check online. I can see from glancing over the links you provided that I have no knowledge base on these topics. I'll have to educate myself on the material. In the meantime I would recommend becoming fully familiar with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. SWAdair | Talk 15:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Horses that have unfortunately passed on

By my count, the vote was 16 votes for "Redirect or delete", 6 for keep. If you feel the procedure was filed badly, I'd recommend asking (kindly) on the Wikipedia:Village pump, and/or filing a Wikipedia:Request for comment. HTH.

Yours, a possibly not-logged-in User:Meelar.

I saw no sign of consensus in the deletion debate beating a dead horse. My count was 6 to keep, 6 to redirect, and 6 to delete, with one other voter supporting either deletion or redirection. There was no consensus for any option, thus by Wikipedia rules the article had to be kept. Moreover I personally found several of the arguments for retention highly convincing; especially those that pointed out that we have many similar articles on idioms. If you feel this decision violated due process, or that the vote was in some way unrepresentative feel free to relist this article for a second round on VfD. - SimonP 19:24, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

RE Arithmetic encoding

Ok. I'm not touching anything there, sorry.
But that page indeed is in need for some illustartion, and straight to the point explanation on how to do that. Believe me, I know that data compression students are looking for.

Oops it seems that someone repeated my mistake there. But if you don't mind, there is something I agree with. That "i.e." in the first line looks silly. Regards, Gnomz007 02:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've made that change. Any others you recommend? I really have to hurry up and get this article to a point where it represents all I can do with it, and then let everybody loose on it to make improvements. I've just been concentrating on trying to give it a really solid foundation, and it's ... frustrating to watch the work of months suddenly ripped away. ^^;; -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm new here. I didn't realise it was a mistake to edit pages. I tried to keep everything that was there, while adding an illustrative analogy. I'm sorry you thought your material was ripped away. I thought I was keeping it. But I certainly feel the frustration of deleted work now. Perhaps you will consider including some of my work in your solid foundation? Maybe take another look at it? Scottcraig 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, again. I am still learning the protocol. And you are right about the clean-up page. I would never have found this page without it. Since I can't find where the suggestions for improvements have been going, I'll just put some here.

I still think my version is better for a few reasons. The main one is that the article jumps right into an example, which it then interrupts with a discussion. I think it is better to start with an analogy describing the method. Follow this with a complete example of the simple static case. Then discuss the adaptive case. And those diagrams in the history looked interesting, too. It was a shame to discard them.

And in general, the prose is too wordy, with too many asides within sentences. Go for simpler sentence structure, with fewer words. I don't have the page in front of me, but I remember the first sentence had these flaws. There was no need to define a message within the definition of arithmetic coding. A separate sentence would flow better.

And finally, I feel it would be better to do the examples in binary rather than decimal. It is just as easy, and that's really how the algorithm works in any implementation I've seen. To do it in decimal is analogous, but needlessly confusing. And speaking of analogies, your algorithm is an analogy as well. The real algorithm doesn't calculate all the interval endpoints; it just calculates the two it needs at each stage. And the decoding works more like how I described, by scaling the intervals to [0, 1) at each step.

I know my version was not finished, but it had some of the elements I describe here. Could you look at it again and see if it may be possible to work some of it into yours? Scottcraig 08:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Protest Warrior

I get the impression that in order to communicate effectively, we'd have to have reams of debate over just about everything. I don't see that as being the purpose of the article talk page, but I am willing, if you'd like to discuss this off wiki, here is my contact info. Just for good measure, here are my politics, so that you can have a better idea who your talking to. If you'd like to see what I had in mind Re: the article, have a look @ Talk:Protest_Warrior/temp. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't imagine that we have anything to talk about, since you announced up front that "There is absolutely no way that calling the protest warriors claims "straw man" arguments is going to be allowed in the article." Surely you can't claim with a straight face that my time would be well-spent trying to get even one such sentence put in the article for balance, something such as:

While Protest Warrior describes itself as 'exposing' the dangers of leftism, critics charge that by defining "leftism" with uncommon broadness and attributing extremist beliefs to the left in general, Protest Warrior is really engaging in straw man smearing of its opposition.

See, I think that's reasonably NPOV, but since you declared beforehand your unilateral decision that this particular perspective on Protest Warrior's activities would never be allowed into the article in any form, I really can't imagine what the point would be discussing it with you -- on the article talk page, on this talk page, in e-mail, in IM, it boils down to the same thing: you asserted your absolute unwillingness to have Protest Warrior's own description of their activities balanced by how those activities look to the people that are their targets. NPOV? Hardly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? Because if not, "critics" ads up to you and some other wiki's. We arn't here to express ourselves, were here to express reality. Find an expert whose authority you can appeal to, and cite the quote in a verifiable way, and it'l be fine. Outside of that, your "critics" are much the same as the "most scientists" who always seem to agree w random editors POV's, until we discover there is no documentation handy on what scientists think on the subject. I understand how you feel, my point is, are you a critic of encyclopedic status? If so, adding your own opinion to the article would be original research. I hope you see my point, Sam [Spade] 20:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is bizarre logic, that I, as a moderate leftist being tarred by Protest Warrior's broad brush, must find some sort of "authority" to cite in order to support the claim that moderate leftists object to being tarred with Protest Warrior's broad brush. I'm curious, must gay people find an authority to cite before they can talk about gay people's objections to Fred Phelps? Must black people Google for an official statement from the NAACP before they can state word one about black people's reactions to the Ku Klux Klan? I will remind you that NPOV states that "we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute"; I am sorely puzzled why you think requiring the targets of Protest Warrior's activities to cite an "authority" in order to have their side represented at all is in any way, shape or form "fair". --

Kirisutan Holocaust

Please look carefully at this article, and at the other contributions from that editor. I do believe this is vicious anti-Japanese "blood libel", and I'm not sure how to treat it -- vfd? speedy? report as vandal and let someone else deal with it? -- The fairly new jpgordon {gab} 05:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's in part why I put the substub tag on, to attract attention that might include someone who can confirm or deny it. VfD or speedy seem to be overkill for what is basically suspicion without proof, at least no proof at this time. You might ask at Wikipedia:RC patrol, though; I believe they frequently handle cases like this one.

Google reports no hits for "Kirisutan Holocaust". It suggested "Kirishtan Holocaust", however, which returns 151 hits. That's not a huge number, true, but the hits seem to stick with consistency to a basic set of very specific facts, which blood libels usually don't. Refining the search to sites in the ".edu" domain seems to indicate that if it's a blood libel, it's one which fooled the Asian Studies Department at the University of Redlands.

So, I think that it's probably correct information. I've created a redirect to it under the better-known spelling as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: John Lott

Ugh. I had hoped he'd go away. Before listing him/her on ViP it'd probably be best to warn him about the three revert rule and explain that the removal of large chunks of an article without reason or discussion will usually be reverted. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the article's subject to really judge, but most of the text the anon removed had been there for some time, so some of it should probably stay. -- Hadal 05:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)