User talk:Edbrown05/Archive MyTalk 1

Another RfAr
Please enter your opinion as to whether the ArbCom should accept a request for arbitration in User:Brian New Zealand v User:Amgine --Chiacomo (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I've only now checked 'Recent changes' after getting your message Chiacomo. Thanks for the heads up. -Edbrown05 05:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be that we should wait for Amgine to make a statement before voting on the request. What do you think? --Chiacomo (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Without having yet looked at the RfAr, I couldn't answer one way or another. :) I'm still doing a little work on this polling story, but will turn my attention to it next. -Edbrown05 05:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should force users to WN:DISPUTE in most cases. In this one, I don't think it would be helpful. --Chiacomo (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe an exception (already). I do remember a flash bit of userbox controversy, but unless the problem is first addressed in 'Dispute resolution', how could arbitrators track the history of the dispute? -Edbrown05 07:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if an example of a user box is especially relevant at this stage in the Arbitration process. We shouldn't be making judgements on the facts of the case, but rather on its merits. Basically, is this an issue that the ArbCom is empowered to hear and if so, are we ready (have other avenues been explored)?
 * Sorry! I figured you'd seen the mass deletion of userboxen and stuff. I've added a summary of the complaint the RfAr page... Let me know if I can clarify further. --Chiacomo (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For an example of some userboxes, please have a look at My User Page Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush quote
Hi, It seems as if you think I made that error on purpose; which isn't so. I had finished the story and hurriedly just searched the words "Bush" and "polls" looking for a response of his as some NPOV to stick in at the end of the story and I found this source ... I only put in Afghanistan because I misread the damn thing thinking it said before going to Pakistan from Afghanistan. I don't really know what difference it made to the content of the article whether he said that in the US or Afghanistan but perhaps it does. I am quite hurt that you,Ed, would assume that I put in deliberately misleading information into an article before asking me about it. It wouldn't bother me at all or much if it were most any other editor but from you hurts the most as it shows how superficial/shallow the level of trust is that I have from anyone in the project. Neutralizer 13:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This "lack of trust" may be my own fault. I'm going to have to think about this a lot. Neutralizer 14:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Mailing List
I have created an ArbCom mailing list on Google Groups (I didn't get a response when asking in #wikimedia-tech). Please [mailto:chiacomo@gmail.com send me a message] from the address to which you wish to receive arbcom message. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Procedural mishmash on Arbcom
I've moved your entry on the Arbcom page to the /Workshop page for the case and placed it under "Principles" as a finding of fact should be "User:Chiacomo deleted all of Edbrown05's subpages in violation of blah blah...". Also we won't publish anything on the main case page until we reach the various decisions we need to reach.. I hope you don't mind... --Chiacomo (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind my not yet understanding the layout yet! I will look into it :) Edbrown05 06:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Visit W:WP:RfAr and look at the cases in the voting phase. Have a look at the workshop pages there as well... Very instructive and it's obvious they've worked out a good system... That's why I so shamelessly adapted it to Wikinews. :D --Chiacomo (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Buffalo Cartoon
Wel thank you :) Really...one of my better? I thought I was doing a good job on the hotel articles ;-) Jason Safoutin 11:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent hotel article
Sorry if I sounded harsh on the talk page. I realized it might have sounded so after I wrote my comment. that was not my intentions. Just had a long day and its hard to think when you are tired :) Jason Safoutin 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been following these developments as you report them. It's not my neighborhood, but it could have been. Harsh? No, I expected correction for errors. Somewhere, I recall wiki encouraging to edit mercilessly. Don't let me make a mistake :) Edbrown05 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus I knew were were present and would catch me straight off :) Edbrown05 04:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Hydro
Ed, just for your info; it now seems that hydro does have a hidden agenda so to speak (good catch by you). These wi-fi transmitters will also be reading "smart meters" hydro plans to install in every home to track and maybe even control(in the future) home owners' hydro usage..as well as providing customer online access to their hydro usage data. Neutralizer 14:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Layers of templates
They are simply extra copies of a basic layout. They are a bit distracting.

I think the way it works is, a principle, finding of fact, or remedy which appears to be accurate or "true" on the /Workshop may be proposed at the /Proposed decision by an ArbCom. ArbCom members will vote on the principle, finding of fact, or remedy proposal. If four or more ArbCom members vote in favour of a proposed decision item, it will become part of the final decision for the case.

At the bottom of the page is where a motion to close the case may be placed. Again, if it is voted in favour by 4 or more arbcom members then the case will be closed, and the decision posted.

All of the above should probably be discussed with the other arbcoms, because I'm just guessing on what I think is how this works. I don't know; I'm not an arbcom. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * May I request that you post your findings to the /Proposed page? Your posting has just caused a wheel war on the site, and it has not been approved by the ArbCom as a group. I would really suggest you hold off on posting findings until all the ArbComs have a chance to vote on them. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I thought about that. This process is taking too long. Make a decision and move forward. - Edbrown05 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What if your fellow ArbCom members do not agree with your decisions? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect that. They will make their finding known, and the process moves forward. -Edbrown05 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they do that on the /Proposed decision page, because the final decisions page is, for those involved in the case, law. What you've done is said you're speaking for the entire committee, which I don't think is fair to them. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, not really, Amgine. I was meaning to get around to undeleting them anyway, his posting at a time when I had a realitively stable conenction and didn't have better things to do was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Anyway, you can't really criticize him for anything when your the one reverting all the restores! Someone else could maybe, but not you. Nyarlathotep 08:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was speaking for me. That I don't understand "all these layers"... well, you get the point. It's a committee of six. None have to agree on anything. So why sit around and agree not to agree when you can just do what you are supposed to do, which is "find" on an issue. -Edbrown05 08:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's a committee. A committee is organized so that any one person does not make the decision, but a group of people who will moderate each other's individual views on an issue and make a decision in the best interests of the group they represent. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. All persons that form the committee make up what is the finding of the committee. Very early I asked ArbCom will the discussion on issues be private or will it be public. Typically of Wikinews, the answer was in-between :) Typical of myself, the answer is the discussion will be very public. So... ? I prefer to be public about my comments and positions, it keeps me honest. -Edbrown05 08:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And you know I respect that. /Proposed decision is a page set aside for exactly that public discussion. It is supposed allow ArbComs to argue on the record, where everyone may see what their votes are and what they think is correct. The place you've placed your findings is where the final decisions of the arbcom, as a committee, are normally placed. All I'm asking is that you put them where they are not considered final decisions. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I realise that Amgine. And I did it anyway. I understand that I am being abrupt. I meant to be that way, and I do not mean to imply that my posts represent the committee as a whole. They (other committee members) have to step up... that is my intention.


 * And there is a new matter for ArbCom that I won't get to tonight. Best regards to you and others, Good night :) Edbrown05 08:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. Good night! -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

RfAr
Can you please take a look at WN:RfAr and make your comment on whether or not to accept the matter for arbitration - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

typo in amgine arbitr.
under Proposed Remedies/Amgine is subject to Administrator confirmation after 14 days, "reframe" should be "refrain"? Doldrums 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching me on that :) I learnt sumthin! -Edbrown05 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

email
Thanks, I inquired before on the water cooler and Chiacomo said I had to confirm the email and I thought I had; I will try again. Neutralizer 11:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I neglected to check off a box before; should be ok now. Neutralizer 11:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok; apparently I needed to "confirm" my email address again, maybe it works now. I tried to send you one and got this message; "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."

Neutralizer 13:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I stepped through the e-mail confirmation for my own user account. After I validated my e-mail address, then I needed to return to 'preferences' to select the check-box to enable the preference. The features does now appear to work for my user account. -Edbrown05 19:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

abritration agmine
why dont you be a dear and just vote on the fucking points .if you guys would get off your asses you could move to mrmiscellaneous --84.19.182.23 07:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting from an open proxy. Clearly you're a desirable contributor working to improve Wikinews both as a news source and as an online community, and have our best interests at heart. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm getting pissed off and will probably post something I'll regret! But... hey, -Edbrown05 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hans Blix
I wish I knew why. In fact I wish I even had a clue why, just a somewhat plausible idea. Helen made some suggestions to that end that I have edited out to preemt any NPOV concerns and they were not very creative anyway. Heck, I don't even know why Bush would call on the outspoken war critic Helen in a news conference right now, after he managed to avoid this for the last three years. --vonbergm 05:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) Good choice. Better taking a picture from the actual event. By the looks on his face he is probably just done "answering" Helen's question. --vonbergm 04:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Occam's Razor
Please pardon my evesdropping; An Occam's Razor approach tells me why Bush went to war and why he's seeking out loaded questions. Also, the Occam's Razor approach is pretty well synonymous with NPOV I think as it circumvents all the programming/brainwashing. This approach tells me that Bush does not give one rat's ass what the US public(to him "joe public" is just cattle on the range) thinks of him(he majored in history and knows history is maleable) now that he's got the power for 3 more years; Hell, his granddaddy helped Hitler and still went down in history pretty damn well. Occam's razor also tells me Bush's priority is now globalization and helping his family's network(e.g.UAE ports deal); PERIOD ! and in the process he is intentionally sabotaging the republican party for the next election cycle...thus now taking questions that he knows are going to hurt the republicans....occam's says it's because he wants to hurt the republicans. Occam's razor also tells me he wanted and planned for the situation in Iraq to develop exactly as it has (he has,after all, been the manager of the thing). This is supported by lots of facts like the pre-invasion warning he got from Powell "you break it,you'll own it"..little did Powell know, that's exactly what Bush wanted ..to own it! Money is made from conflict; the more conflict,the more money. Oil was $16 a barrel on Sep.10,2001; now its $62.

Now, when you add these up I come to the conclusion that Bush's primary allegiance is not now, and never was, to the Republican party nor to the USA. His primary allegiance is to his family's global enterprises(still managed by his dad) and to his closest friends/society (Image:68 classskullandbonespix.jpg) and their objectives. When you think about it,that's pretty normal; to have family,friends, and family business as one's priorities. There is only 1 member of Bush's society/cult who is in the 2008 presidential race; and he's not a republican. Kerry took a dive in '04 and now its his turn to wear the belt; so Bush is nosediving Kerry's opposition. Half the people in his "society" are/were democrats;e.g.Averell Harriman. Kerry's 30-1 right now; I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Neutralizer 13:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Final thoughts. We have no trouble at all believing that the leader of Iran doesn't give a s___ about the Iranian people; we have no trouble believing that the leader of N.Korea doesn't give a damn about the Korean people; same with even elected leaders like Hamas and Hitler; we are always ready to believe that foreign bad guys don't really care about their own people. But when it comes to our own leaders, for some reason, we just can not even entertain the possibility that any one of them simply might not care at all about the american people. It's much easier for us to believe that he or they is/are just stupid/ill advised and monumental scewups. Just because we've been taught from childhood and just because it's more comfortable for us to believe that all our Presidents have put the well being of the american people first in their decision making does not make it true; at least that's what detached(attempted) analysis is telling me. Scotland Yard has an ancient form of Occam's for determining likely suspects of dastardly deeds; "who made the most money from the crime." Our newer phrase is "follow the money". Who made the most money off of the invasion of Iraq ? worst still; who made the most money off of 9/11?defense contractorsandoilmen Neutralizer 18:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that summation Neut. I will definately reflect on that. I particularly find the Bush nose-diving to a Kerry ascention interesting. Best regards, friend. -Edbrown05 02:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Motion to Close - BNZ v Amgine
Would you please vote (or discuss or make a change in the implementation notes) in the Motion to Close in BNZ v Amgine? Thank you! --Chiacomo (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

On Brian v Amgine you're down as supporting a whitelist
On the final decision, you are shown as having voted as follows,
 * Amgine is subject to Administrator confirmation after 14 days Oppose. Amgine and all editor(s)/administrator(s) refrain from deleting userbox implementations. A policy debate open to the community will decide the issue.
 * Userbox creations are restricted until policy is developed Oppose. A community policy can be formed on an issue only upon the basis of what it confronts through experience with it. Since instances of userboxes have been deleted, there is currently no basis for the community to form an opinion.
 * Userbox whitelist Suppport.

By creating a net-5 vote on the last point, you are making it policy on the motion to close, though you said that this policy should made by the community, through its experience with it. Which is it? If you think ArbCom should not do this, you need to change your vote for the userbox whitelist! If you are even tempted to support this, then consider a whitelist for allowable news topics as well.

StrangerInParadise 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point SIP, and thank you for calling my attention to it. My understanding of how a whitelist would be used by Wikinews, is that if a user wishes to implement a new userbox, it would first have to be approved by the community. In this way, (and as Bawolff has noted on the watercooler) the community is 'proactive' on userbox creations.


 * I believe my vote on whitelists came 3 days after my earlier two votes on the Proposed decision page. So I would answer that my later vote, which supported a later development, supercedes my earlier position. I wonder how I should attend to that on the 'Proposed decision' page? -Edbrown05 02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I had read the water cooler discussion. Have you seen my proposal there? My comments on a news topic whitelist were not idle: for what reason should such a self-expression be subject to group approval? Do you really want to have a vote every time someone wants to mint a userbox? Why? Would you want a new vote for a new news topic?  StrangerInParadise 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I hadn't seen your post. But your comment above is interesting, looking now -Edbrown05 06:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did see your post, and it got too technical for me for me to understand. I am concerned over the issue userbox implementation taking the form of blatant advertising. I also am sensitive to the costs of Wikimedia hosting information that is not relevant to something useful. -Edbrown05 06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Too technical? Where did I lose you? StrangerInParadise 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to take a side on any issue here... but relating to the costs of hosting formation that is "not relevant to something useful"... that is a dangerous phrase. Be careful how you throw that around. It could easily be argued that there are many things not relevant to something useful, according to the definition of some particular entity. irid:t 06:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Noted irid, but... the word "but" negates my whole argument.
 * ? Yeah, but userboxes? I've seen good implementations. I bounce on the bad implementations. Allow it, and there will be plenty of bouncing... (sorry if that is flip comment) -Edbrown05 06:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ironiridis: talking about costing non-productive parts of the project is pointless because it is soo small (most doing it have no grasp of how such things are costed anyway, they're just making noise). We host user pages and talk pages to collaborate on news articles here (and encyclopedia articles there). Adding the four new namespaces is trivial, and would allow typical things we use to communicate to be templatized and categorized outside of the four news-related namespaces (Main, Help, Template, Category).  This would require trivial configuration changes. The resource load is no different.  The anti-userbox crowd claims that some of these modes of interaction are not project-related, but this is neither true nor relevant.  As for blatent advertising, it is no different with userboxes that with link spamming or anything else: the policy is there already.  The real story is how certain people want to dismantle modes of interaction so as to keep control in the hands of those who know the system. It is scare-mongering over a non-issue. Im my opinion, ArbCom got duped on whitelists, full stop. StrangerInParadise 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do believe that participants in WikiMedia pay their way. SIP you propose something new beyond main, help, template, category. To say it would have no load, there I am doubtful. -Edbrown05 07:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it at that my opinion on this point is expert. StrangerInParadise 07:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To say it would have any meaning, I'm hearing you to let experience decide. I don't go to Wikipedia politics. -Edbrown05 07:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am saying let experience decide. The issue with POV content in NPOV namespaces (Main, Help, Template, Category) is a clear one on which all can agree. My proposal adresses that with zero-instruction creep. The problem arises with cultural developments on Wikipedia, which have provoked some on Wikipedia, and which Amgine is trying to nip in the bud here. My opinion is that the dangers of these developments are grossly exagerated, and can be handled by simpler means.  The anti-userboxers are trying to counter the percieved problems with a jihad: burn the userboxes, ban user templating, purify the culture.  This has just the problems you would think that it would have. In a sense, Amgine and I agree that it is very important to avoid the problems here, but disagree sharply on how to go about it.  Many of the problems arise from certain weaknesses in Wikipedia decision-making, which the anti-userbox efforts try to mask rather than fix, but without success.  If you like, you can read more in my discussions with other key Wikipedians. StrangerInParadise 07:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is don't waste my time on a flame war... Edbrown05 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And my second reaction is I don't care about what Wikipedia is doing with the issue. -Edbrown05 08:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And my third reaction is don't inflame me, it should be simple :) Edbrown05 08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Flamewar? Who's flaming you? I was just giving some background because you seemed interested. StrangerInParadise 08:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you make strong points and I think this is a difficult issue for wiki projects. I don't have the answer, I'm simply participating in the dialogue. Best regards to you! -Edbrown05 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, except, don't blast user pages with meaningless crap. What else? I don't care if you are gay. What else? Oh, .... never mind .... -Edbrown05 09:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, WTF are you talking about? StrangerInParadise 10:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cats
Thanks! I think... In my mind, its now very important to add the appropriate categories -- especially as we've now got regional links on the left side of the page (in monobook). Cheers! --Chiacomo (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, now that you mentioned it. I hope the top right corner of the Main Page can be better put to use... I'm currently a bit pre-occupied (kids and the places on the internet they go), ((now this desktop machine sends more data packets via internet than it recieves, aarg)). -Edbrown05 08:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Recuse Request (re; Craig)
Sure,Ed, that's cool; I had figured the request was now dead in the water. Do I need to do anything to get things moving? Neutralizer 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Dang
Simply put, I don't wish this place to become Indymedia. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That question isn't for me to answer. It's for others to.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Me
I guess User:Karen thinks I look like some guy named Earl. I'm vaugely uncomfortable with that. ;) irid:t 16:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thompson and 9/11
Yes, Paul was quite interested in that but has not as yet found any details and likely won't. The aspect which most choose to ignore is the most important of all; the ever increasing ways members of the cult keep popping up in places where they can sabotage every single attempt to uncover the truth of what they did and do. For a club that only takes in 15 per year, they are pretty well positioned; "''The CNN piece was surprisingly balanced, with little credence being given to the views of the shill official story apologist National Geographic supervising producer Nicole Rittenmeyer. Turns out that the writer and head producer of the 'Inside 9/11' National Geographic series was the work of Jonathan David Towers of Towers Productions from Chicago. Towers has proven himself to be a willing propagandist for the elite time and time again....Jonathan Towers grew up in a suburb of New York and is a 1982 graduate of Yale University. Fleshing Out Skull & Bones (2003) by Kris Millegan lists Mr. Towers as a 1982 initiate of Yale's super-secret elitist fraternity known as The Order of Skull & Bones. President George W. Bush belongs to this secret and powerful fraternity, as does his father and grandfather. Sen. John F. Kerry is also a member."'' Neutralizer 05:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Edbrown05 05:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
I've copied my original remedy concerning reconfirmation and your revised version to the workshop page. Please see my comments on the Workshop page. I am concerned that the meaning of my proposed remedy has changed -- if they turn our two remedies (yours and mine) turn out to be substantially different (as they are now), we can of course include both on the proposed decision page. --Chiacomo (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Towers, national geographic
Imo, the connection is there. Cover-up is one of the most intricate and challenging aspects for cult members. Kerry led the Iran/Contra hearings. His only true objective was to protect the only cult brother involved, GHW Bush; which he did quite well. Hell, it's always been great to get your brother in the judge's robes or behind the investigator's badge. Look at McCallum being put in charge of 130 billion dollars of tobacco fines; everybody knew he had worked in Atlanta for Big Tobacco. This crowd is absolutely as cool and ruthless as genghis khan... in fact Bush is the only president to ever go to Mongolia (I believe solely to recognize the achievements of genghis khan "Inside (was a) towering white statue of Genghis Khan, the legendary horseman-warrior and country founder whose empire once stretched as far south as Southeast Asia and west to Hungary." Khan is one of the expansionist "warrior" leaders the Boners look up to. Also, Geronimo is a lesser one; that's why Prescott Bush stole his saddle and skull . They prefer the leaders who are the most brutal and aggressive. "I have a friend who was with George W Bush at Yale," Thompson recalls. "Bush branded him with a red-hot coat hanger."

There are about 650 of the Boners alive today; I have not taken the time to see where they all are; historically they gravitate toward business and education with only the best going into politics (because the Boners usually have nasty personal histories which include criminal records...when you act with such disregard for the law..you usually get caught sometimes).

Back to Towers, we'll likely see more of him in the future. Neutralizer 12:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Frugalware
I don't really know what to do about articles like that. Without a regional category it doesn't appear on any of the portal pages -- that doesn't really bother me with this article as I don't like it. It's really nothing more than a transcript of an interview with very little context. For articles like this one that don't have a specific region, however, I don't know how to handle it. We could add several regional categories, I suppose, but it's not that big of a story. What are your thoughts? --Chiacomo (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing user comments?
huh? I'm putting together an examination of the evidence provided on the evidence page. All my comments. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Firefox and Linux
Here is the response to your questions on my user page. Hope this helps! ~Linuxerist L / T 07:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Firefox is a free, opensource web browser created by the Mozilla Foundation. It has more features and is generally more secure than web browsers such as Internet Explorer. You can download it at.
 * Linux is a kernel that, when combined with other software programs, creates an operating system. See Linux.
 * Wait, so you were being sarcastic? Plus, the userboxes on my page are merely code. I would remove them as nessecary, but the only problems that would be likely to rise is from catergorys. (as at wikipedia) ~Linuxerist L / T 15:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was kind of confused there... Are user boxes not allowed here? Last I checked, something is in the works, but not completed. ~Linuxerist L / T 03:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The quick answer is WN:ArbCom made a find on it, but yikes, I can't locate it! Language and localization userboxes are allowed, for other implementations a whitelist of approved types of userboxes is to be implemented if a new request is made. I know of no new request having been made. -Edbrown05 03:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)