User talk:Michael Snow
educational games
Hi. I read http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/046862.html which is about trying to help the Wikimedia community to grow and the phrase "educational games" jumped out at me. It would be great if the board would authorise Wikigames projects that were both fun and educational. I recommend that you ask Sue to ask Eric to talk to the Sloan Foundation for guidance on what policies the Wikimedia Foundation should insist on so Wikigames projects are educational in a way that they and other contributors will see as support worthy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Interview?
Hello, we met at the fifth Seattle Meetup, I'm one of the computer science grad students doing some wikipedia research. We're kicking off a study on dispute resolution and were looking for a couple people in the Seattle area who might be interested in being interviewed. Would you be interested? Let me know!!! Thanks, Leafman (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikimania 2009
Is Wikimania going to be in July again next year? Ksnow (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Ksnow
Notice of request for deletion of editor Michael Snow :)
Michael Snow, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Michael Snow and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). SimonKSK 22:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haha, I want to be deleted too. :D --[ Dario D. ] 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Titiangate
Would you like me to write something on this [1] aka Wiki'd lies, as one of the editors (already) most active at Titian? If so, when would you need it by? Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Seattle page
I was looking at the Seattle page under History, and there're these details of all the planes manufactured at the specific plants. This is all after 2001, that is, 2001 is mentioned, and then this information follows. Do you think we should edit this? It certainly seems like it should mention Everett and Renton as large plants, I suppose...Dsnow75 [[User Talk: Dsnow75|Talk]] (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Nova Spivack
Any reason you declined the {{prod}} for Nova Spivack? I see neither an assertion of notability nor significant coverage by reliable sources on this article. --beefyt (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and friends with Leafman. He approached you a little while back about the etiquette of using the Meetup area to invite people to participate. We've gone ahead with those plans and are working to gather people to meet on either April 8 (Tuesday, 6 - 8 pm) or April 18 (Saturday, 10 am - noon), and both session will be somewhere on the UW Seattle campus. The focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.
I'm really hoping that you will be able to join us. If so, please RSVP here.If you can't, I'm hoping you will encourage other local Wikipedians to join us. :) We're trying to cast a wide net to get novice and experienced editors to participate. If you'd like to know more or share your thoughts, you can visit our user talk page . Thanks for your time! Commprac01 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to recreate the page for David Choi. His page has been deleted several times for a few different reasons. ONe being that the page was blatant advertising. Another because the page didn't have enough sources to back of the information and the facts were thought to be false. Anoth time it was deleted because it was felt he was not a person of value to be placed on the wiki. I have reasearched him and put together alot of facts regarding him. As far as his worth, I think I have put enough things and sources to back them up to prove that. I wanted to message you because since you are one of the people who has deleted his page in the past I was hoping that you might find time to look over the page and see that it is accurate, and well written. This is also my first Wiki page and I read the rules, and formatting information over MANY times before creating the page. Please feel free to make me aware of any issues with the page, as I would like to adhear to all of the rules of the site, while being able share information about this artist. When I created the page I did not capatolize the last name. When I went to move it I noticed the long history of deletion and the fact that the David Choi page was blocked. I do not wish to step on any toes in this situation but I am new to WP and do not know the proper procedures for unblocking a page. If my newly created page is even worthy of being left up. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am leaving this message for everyone on the deletion log of the page, not for redundancy but I do not wish to offend/upset anyone who feels this page should have been deleted in the past. Thanks, Chip MileHighCFI (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
an apology
albeit with my tongue at least bit in my cheek - I thought twice about naming a section at an arbitration page with a silly title, and given a proclivity for putting both feet in my mouth, that should probably have been enough to preach caution as the wisest path. Regardless, I'd like to apologise for any offense caused - and I wonder if you might have a moment to consider this past proposal of mine in regard to sexual content on wikipedia, which is in reality a far more serious issue than me being childish. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey whats up I love your page Simon it rocks!- Usaer: dserna14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dserna14 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An open letter to Michael Snow and the Wiki board
Mr. Snow, I am writing to you, the board chair of Wikipedia about a policy that deeply troubles a growing number of us in the Wikipedia community. We've observed that Wikipedia articles are increasingly being held hostage to political correctness at the expense of free expression and historical accuracy. I could cite a number of instances, but two examples are particularly illuminating:
1. Kent Hovind. Mr. Hovind is a controversial figure primarily because of his college campus debate successes in support of intelligent design (ID), specifically, young earth creationism. The Wikipedia entry is clearly biased against Mr. Hovind because it reads like a tabloid dossier of innuendo, half-truth and accusation. Somehow, the primary individuals responsible for writing this wiki entry have successfully blocked editorial access to those who have first hand knowledge of Mr. Hovind, preventing contributors from balancing the entry with factual information.
2. President Barack Obama. Despite the noteworthy accomplishments and stature of America's first African American president, the current Wiki entry portrays a largely propagandistic and blemish-free version of Obama. This verbally-photoshopped caricature omits controversies regarding Mr. Obama's past associations and questions surrounding the documentation of his citizenship, even when substantiated by published mainstream sources, verified documents and first hand knowledge. This entry's gatekeepers have systematically censored such additions. Barack Obama is an historic figure, but the best Wikipedia now can offer is a locked entry that is biased, factually-gutted and largely irrelevant, reading more like an Obama campaign press release than a reputable and credible reference source.
I am sure you and your board recognize the danger when an information technology is co-opted by propagandists--regardless of their point of view--both in terms of relevance and the muzzling of free speech and free access to information. I hope you and your editorial board will address these abuses and make Wikipedia available to all points of view, so it can achieve its goal of being the world's first truly universal database of knowledge freely available to all.
sincerely,
Bruce Curtis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voicewr (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
New site design?
Hi there, Michael. I was just wondering if Wikimedia has any intent to (significantly) update Wikipedia's design anytime soon, because I live and breathe this kind of thing (software interface/website design), and have been thinking about the kind of design philosophy that would help the editing experience in particular be able to reach people of the third-world, and be accessible/inviting (<key word there: actually *inviting*, not just "easy") to non-tech-savvy users in general... (without developing an interface that requires endless bandwidth). And, of course, the look of the site. Anyway, you can see what I do here (software design stuff at the bottom - And not shown is a new editing interface for forums that use SMF (preview image) that is currently being discussed by the SMF devs, and might become the standard for SMF2 forums. - Here's the thread where I first posted it), and if you're curious, I can mock up a Photoshop comp (preview) of a new Wikipedia look (way more than just a skin), so you can see if you wanna mess around with the idea. If you do, I would do all this for free until work actually gets started (in other words, free during the design phase), then just collect some dough upon completion. (so you understand I wouldn't be trying to get myself into something that I would try to make drag on for eternity, for more dough. That's totally not me.) Otherwise, if you guys aren't interested for the time being, that's fine. Either way, my email is dario@deefrag.com ... Take care! - Update: Oh, and I just read an article saying that you guys got a huge grant to work on this very thing (at least the editing aspects of it). Sounds exciting. --[ Dario D. ] 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Dario, there are two distinct sources of design for what you see on a Wikipedia page; within the frames, what you see is designed by volunteer editors (including the main page). Content outside the frame comes from the MediaWiki software, specifically the MediaWiki skin. Skins are also designed by volunteers, and there are certain skins you can switch between while using Wikimedia sites. At the nuts and bolts level, MediaWiki design is done by some paid but mostly volunteer developers - managed by Brion Vibber, the Chief Technology Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation. You might want to take a look at some MediaWiki resources and familiarise yourself with the open development process, and then contact Brion if you'd like more information. If you use IRC, you can also connect to Freenode and join #wikimedia-tech to speak to Brion and the other developers directly. Nathan T 22:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- You should visit usability project group and perhaps share ideas with them. One aspect of their development is in fact a new skin called "vector", visible in an early state here. Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Michael, I noticed you deleted the article North East Collegiate Lacrosse League back in 2007. I do not understand your reasoning for doing so. The reasoning you gave was "college lacrosse includes NCAA along with official club-level teams; this is neither, it's a page created by the "commissioner" to promote a loose coalition of recreational players, check with me about any questions". These are official club-level teams. We all (I am on one of the teams) are sanctioned by our schools' club sports department or the equilivant. This is no a "loose coalition of recreational players". This league is very organized; we pay dues to the league, we have corporate sponsorship, play teams all over the northeast, have by-laws reviewed by lawyers, etc. This league is on par with, and is actually more organized than, the National College Lacrosse League which Wikipedia still has an article for. Furthermore, the reasoning why our commissioner created the article is not at issue. The league is worthy of an article. I request that this article be un-deleted.
Response?
I wrote the above request a long time ago, but have not heard back. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject. Jackbauer24gp (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Michael, thank you for your response. I am sorry about the confusion. I didn't even think of the anonymous account issue. Anyways, yes, partially this is self-interest. But, with the current size of the league (currently 8 colleges I believe, some of which are NCAA Division I universities), I think there is value in the article. Also, there is a league website: NECLL website. Also, Laxpower, one of the most popular lacrosse-related websites, includes the NECLL as a legit league (LaxPower link). Further looking at this, LaxPower is used as a reference 93 different times through Wikipedia[2]. Other references include UMass Amherst Lacrosse Team website and Bowdoin College team website. I hope this answers some of your concerns. If not, please direct me to what I can do to answer any other concerns. Thank you. Jackbauer24gp (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment
Dear Michael,
The server seems to be going really slowly. In the loading, I also got an odd message at the first line of the article I was editing: "This page is 56 [or so] kilobytes long."
Love, D.Dsnow75 [[User Talk: Dsnow75|Talk]] (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy Michael Snow's Day!
 |
User:Michael Snow has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Windows 7 and IE 8 interoperability
Welcome home! I have Windows 7 on my new machine and find some problems that I think are related either to the operating system or the browser which someone should look into. When I am editing a page, it jumps down so that the line I am editing is the last one in the box (or at least further down). Ksnow (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Ksnow
- I will check. It might also be a result of the fact that IE 8 is not compliant with the new standards. Ksnow (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Ksnow
- I have done some poking around, and the same problem seems to be on Firefox. But they have a worse problem. The ALT+S keyboard shortcut doesn't work because it goes to their History! Ksnow (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Ksnow
- I will check. It might also be a result of the fact that IE 8 is not compliant with the new standards. Ksnow (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Ksnow
Wikimania 2009
Hi Michael during Wikimania I gave you a present from the proposed Catalan Chapter to Wikimedia Foundation. I told you that by viewing our presentation you will be able to understand why we think this is a symbol closely related to wikimedia spirit. Now we have edited the presentation adding the slides and now you can see what I was talking about. You can see it in minute 37.03 of the presentation. Sorry for the low quality due to size limit. We will try to improve it. --CàlculIntegral (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Request
Hello Michael, how are you? I was wondering if you could check out the Copyright Infringement of Photos allegations discussed in Talk:65th Infantry Regiment (United States) in regard to the images in 65th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Notable Puerto Rican members of the 65th Infantry. I am not too knowledgeable in these matters. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
To donate? No way - I demand my money back
Sir,
I was a (financial) supporter of Wikipedia for over last two years. Being a college professor of the European 20ieth century history, I never attempted to contribute anything of my knowledge to any article. I've limited myself to some (caustic, many times) anonymous comments placed on the talk pages. Editing an article, then seeing it altered, mutilated, even removed by ignorants or by those who are not aware of their intelectual limits, the forced into a 'peer discussion' with such people, is a huge waste of time.
Still, I believed that there must come some maturity time of Wikipedia and that was my only reason for donating some money, from time to time. But, it did not happen nor, I believe, it will ever happen.
Last and this week, I've been amused by reading some articles and the talk pages of these articles. I do not want to suggest anything as a bottom line, just wanted to relate my disappointment to the disappointments and frustrations of others who tried to do some serious work for Wikipedia
Article Magnum Crimen
This article was written mainly by two men: J. A. Comment and Don Luca Brazzi. They got 'assistance' from an adminitrator Ricky81682 which can be explained
this way (Archive 1 [3]):
- No - encyclopedia is all about knowledge. It has nothing to do with ownership. Can be edited by anyone who posess proper knowledge of the edited subject. --J. A. Comment (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, anyone can edit the article. That is the entire argument behind WP:OWN which is a core principle. The article should not require that someone has read the entire book to your satisfaction to be allowed to edit. If there are accurate, factual claims, based on reliable sources, then it goes into the article. To act like you and only you can decide who can and cannot edit is an attitude that will not be accepted. I mean, why are you just removing the fact tags without any explanation? There are plenty of statements that need to be sourced, including some that are disputed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia administrator avoided mentioning that he and some other editors, his friends, never read a single sentence from that book nor provided any "accurate, factual claims, based on reliable sources" which could justify "statements that need to be sourced, including some that are disputed". At the end of this "accurate, factual claims, based on reliable sources" story this administrator removed half of this very well written (say at the college sophomore student level of knowledge), then, with help of his friend (another administrator - EyeSerenetalk) blocked bot of them. See [4]. If you go to the talkpages of these two users, you'll find them wiped out.
User Historian35 (talk)
This user was blocked as a likely sockpuppet ( a very ugly word that shall be removed from the contemporary English) of another, longtime blocked user Velebit. See [5]. The sequence of explanations why this user is blocked and the user's complaints is:
- reason: You've been blocked as a likely sock of User:Velebit. I don't know if you've been told this before but templates should only be added to articles if the article itself is linked in the template. In the case of Template:The Holocaust, it's not meant to be added to every person involved with the Axis powers, but on the pages linked within the template. Spellcast (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- complaint: Likely - by someones opinion - means guilty?!Especially - "it's not meant to be added to every person involved with the Axis powers" is a wrong conclusion due to the fat that the Holocaust template is added to the biographies of those who effecively contributed to the extermination of a great number of people.--Historian35 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)"
- reason:"I agree that you are likely a sock of Purger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) / Velebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 22:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)"
- complaint:Due to the fact that the reviewer of my request responded just a minute after my unblock request submission, which is not enough to review all my contributions seriously - I am asking another administrator to pay attention to this apparently abusive use of the adminship. 'I agree that you are likely a sock of' cannot be a reason for declining my request
- reason:"Whatever or whoever you are, you are most definitely a disruptive editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)"
- complaint:All my edits are strictly based on the supplied or on the existing references. Inventing a new guilt and not being able to defend the old accusations - is just a proof that a group of people (editors+adminitrators) are harassing the other contributors. Just go to the suspected socks of Velebit - you'll find the IP addresses all around the US marked as the suspicious ones. Does in this country (USA) the suspicion equals to the guilt? Please stop this abusive group - bear in mind that in the Ante Pavelic talk page the user DIRECTOR explicitly threathened blocking me just for disagreeing with him/her. The block came not after even reporting any violation of the code of conduct or of the Wikipedia's editorial rules
- reason (final rejection):Because of your abuse of the unblock process, I am locking down the talk page. MuZemike 23:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)"
Earlier, I was unable to find reason for "You've been blocked as a likely sock of User:Velebit". Fortunately, the blocker Spellcast (talk) explained it nicely here [6]. Following of the Historian35 'guilt', as explained, we can quickly put in jail a person who has blue eyes, is male, and wears a Nautica jacket for the same is applicable to a bank robber who is already in jail, no matter that a bank robbery is not reported at all. Reviewing the blocked users and IP addresses those marked as a sock of Purger/Velebit I found: the IP addresses are covering different and distant corners of the USA, the user accounts are not connected to these two used as tags, by the checkuser.
All above are not just two isolated cases. I was able to detect many of the same level and see a great number of them already reported by other people, from the very Wikipedia's inception.
Sir,
Ive addressed you for seeing you as the chair of the Wikipedia Board of Trustees. I've addressed you this way thinking that it is not possible to not see this harassment of the sound mind. This is not what I ever wanted to support nor it is possible that you was not able to see what I've seen. I found evidence of the similar disappointments reported publicly by other people who believed in some altruistic and unselfish principles of the free knowledge.
Soon I am going to collect the proofs of all my money contributions and calculate the overall sum and ask Wikipedia politely to send me the contributed money back. Hope there will be no questions or denial of this request from the Wikipedia administration.
Request and offer to help
Good Afternoon Dr. Snow: My name is Dr. David Brust. I'm an exotic veterinarian of 25 years, and the President of the Association of Sugar Glider Veterinarians: http://www.asgv.org I am also the author of "Sugar Gliders: A Complete Veterinary Care Guide" - and "What Every Veterinarian Needs to Know about Sugar Gliders". I am writing you to request your assistance on a small - but important - issue.
Sugar Gliders are most commonly known around the world as "Sugar Bears", and they are rapidly becoming one of the most popular companion pets in the United States. Upon the publication of my most recent article in the October issue of Exotic DVM Magazine, I noticed that the Wikipedia page for "Sugar Bears" does not address these animals at all. In looking at the history of this page, I noticed an all-to-common scenario playing out where some very valid information about these animals had been posted on this page in the past - but was then immediately taken down by lay people who are not veterinarians.
To put this in perspective, the biggest problem we vets face with many exotic pets - especially sugar bears/gliders - is an epidemic of unqualified, dangerous health and husbandry advice being given out on the internet. In addition, prospective owners are frequently given misleading advice by persons trying to sell these animals - and the animal then often ends up suffering in a home which is not prepared to care for it properly. Innocently following this kind of unqualified advice directly results in veterinarians all around the world such as myself seeing tens of thousands of sick and dying animals every year.
When it comes to sugar bears/gliders, most of these illnesses & deaths each year could be avoided if the information posted about them was moderated by a licensed veterinarian with extensive clinical and practical experience in all aspects of their care. As such, I would like to formally request that I be allowed to become the moderator for the "Sugar Bear" page (and the "Sugar Glider" page as well if possible). As such, I would take on the responsibility of creating the initial additional content of the Sugar Bear page - and moderating both pages to ensure that all information posted is accurate according to the latest standards in veterinary medicine. I understand that this may take a considerable amount of my time, but feel it is extremely important for the welfare of these little animals that such an important and frequently-used resource as Wikipedia be maintained to these high standards.
I have already looked into the typical procedure for becoming a standard administrator or sysop - but feel strongly that there is a unique and pressing urgency to the above which requires special attention. As such I would very much like to directly discuss this with you further. With that in mind, please contact me at drdave@asgv.org . I apologize in advance for using this forum to contact you, however I could not find contact information elsewhere. Thank you for your time and I look forward to corresponding with you soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Brust (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Uwe Kils. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Your assistance please
The record shows you deleted File:Ss northern ranger 261197-92.jpg. Your summary in the deletion log simply says: "not freely licensed".
I can't find any sign that there was a discussion over the deletion of this image. The deletion policies recommend that those who nominate an article or an image for deletion leave a heads-up on the talk page. I see that no one left that notice on User talk:Geo Swan in this particular case.
Would you mind reminding me of the original URL I supplied when I uploaded that image? Geo Swan (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Uwe Kils
I have nominated Uwe Kils, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
hallo from Uwe Kils
can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Request for Information and Possible Help
Hi, I was the facilitator of the Quality Task Force and was blocked by Philippe for a reason that doesn't exist in the "community rules" for the task force -- tendentioius editing.
I was a newbie, the only woman in the task force and had a slightly different POV than others, however, I took the time to explain my POV when asked and eventually a few task force members actually agreed with my POV. Given all ideas were welcome, I figured my giving my opinions, since this is/was a think tank of sorts, would be appropriate. When I was frustrated, I vented in private in emails to the project managers. However it is my contention that neither PM did their job correctly, and that they never applied a lot of the information that both had access to about welcoming newbies and ensuring they had what they needed to function. In short, they transformed a highly motivated user, capable of good contributions into a very dissatisfied and frustrated person in very short order.
In addition, and of even greater import, is that I am disabled and made multiple requests for accommodations under the ADA. My requests were ignored or treated as unimportant. Prior to discussing this with the DOJ, I would like to speak with someone at Wikimedia Foundation because I like to give organizations the opportunity to correct behavior rather than launch a punitive measure. I want to make it clear that this is not a threat, rather notice to Wikimedia Foundation that this has occurred, should Philippe, Eekim and Sue Gardener have hidden this from the board, and a good faith attempt to resolve this through dialogue. I have called Sue Gardner twice and left messages, and have emailed her a number of times and have gotten no response to either form of communications.
If you wish to email me rather than communicate on this site, Philippe, Eekim and Sue Gardner all have my email address.
I do apologize for not emailing you but I cannot easily find your email address.
Bhneihouse (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)bhneihosueBhneihouse (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)