User talk:Yellowdesk

To leave me a message on a new topic, click here. Please sign your message with ~~~~

Archive #1 September 26, 2006 - April 2, 2008

Aloha Airlines

To some extent the 60 days might be excessive. However it does not apply to established editors. I suspect from what I have seen that the problem is with new and anon editors. The anon editors can not be easily communicated with via comments on the talk page. So the protection is the only way for avoiding the revert wars. If at some point you want to unprotect this before the 60 days and see what happens, drop me a note. Once this is out of the news I suspect that the problem will go away. Also over time, the article will be rewritten to show its cargo only status, further reducing the problem. Today we can not say when this will all change and everything quiets down. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for cleaning up my edit a bit on the Wikileaks page. I ended up slapping current-events on there, and I guess I'd forgotten what it meant (Man, not editing seriously for 6+ months messes up your memory of templates). I'm assuming though, that there's an "ongoing" template of some sort. Not sure but it seems like something like that might be better, since Wikileaks keeps pumping out more documents, turning their threat of document-based retaliation into reality.

So basically, thanks! Now, however, I need to go template hunting :P. Logical2u (talk)

I always like to hear some feedback and opinions, even though I was more used to seeing massive amounts of tags than none-at-all (Although that may be because I did a lot of vandalism reversion). (Must, resist, urge, to use, Current, tag! Just joking, I think you have the right idea when you say the dates will give people the point of it's "currentness".) Logical2u (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Singapore spaceport

It is future project. (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And the article already explains as much. The template {{tl{future}} is superfluous.

The purpose of the template is to use in articles which describe future events. (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• That does not change the obvious needlessness of the use of the template. The text of the article indicates the futurity. Need there be banner to restate the text? To what extent does the presence of the {{future}} template further inform the reader? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "obvious needlessness". The template has been created with this purpose only. There is another template which describe a person is recently died. Now the reader can understand this only by reading the article. As per your own logic, if an article does not have any reference, there is no necessity to add "unreferenced" tag as the reader will understand viewing the article that it lack reference. The purpose of the template is to describe the article, to tell the reader about the article before (s)he starts reading. (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The obvious needlessness is the redundancy of the template, restating the indication that the topic is future activity, obviously contingent to the reader. Those words being: proposed, spaceport and The estimated completion date of the spaceport in 2009. What aspect of all of those phrases are not redundant in relation to a banner restating the same to the reader? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Oldham Athletic A.F.C. season 2007-08 worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The 'Current sport' template is needed at the moment. crassic!^[talk] 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just a couple years and ten thousand edits late on the welcome. Your assessment is erroneous. You'll eventually learn how to communicate effectively with fellow editors.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"current" templates

Hi Yellowdesk. FYI, you've tagged {{current motor sport}} for deletion, but haven't listed it at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21. Conversely, you've listed {{Current PW}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21, but haven't tagged the template. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Acting AG boxen

Thanks for the heads up about this. I totally forgot about the 24hr delay between Clement and Keisler! Everything is now fixed! - Thanks, Hoshie 13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No offense

I don't want you to think I was picking on you. If you don't date a cite tag, a bot will come along and do it. So I was simply getting it out of the way. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I had to revert the last few of your edits to the Electoral College (United States) article in order to return footnotes 44-61 to normal. For some reason, one of your most recent edits to that article had caused those footnotes to be merged into footnote 43. Feel free to again make the reverted edits, as long as the footnotes aren't destabilized again. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of United States Senators from Massachusetts

Thanks for attempting to clarify Ted Kennedy's beginning of term. Can you correct an error you left on the table? The 110th Congress got left on a wrong line. Thanks. —Markles 15:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

done -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Help desk searches

I see you have some reference links and templates on your user page. You may (or may not) be interested in {{Help desk searches}} which I recently made. --Teratornis (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Request comment

fwiw.....I'm canvassing for general expertise regarding a pair of re-titling proposals for 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign "Controversies" daughter-articles and would be delighted to get, if possible,

• INPUT----both here and here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 09:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, re: semi protection, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
Would you mind extending the block for a total of seven days to let the IP editor cool further on this particular topic? Their edits had been going on for several weeks prior to protection of the article. Many thanks. - Yellowdesk (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll see how it gets on in a couple of days. If he comes back straight away just buzz me and I'll prot. for a week. Thanks for your message, friend! 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Would you please revert the edit to the summary submission for 12:40, 9 June 2008 75.207.232.31 opposed to the one added later by Bdushaw. Bdushaw's summarization is a poorer version compared to the previous submission. A common reader will now not be able to understand how this issue is related to the US Attorney firings, which it is.

Also, is there some way to prevent Bdushaw from constantly removing others' submissions to the page. For the past three weeks, he/she has constantly reverted others submission without providing valid reasons. Now, he appears to have locked out other users from the page and is continuing to remove others submissions.

Lastly, the user did not vandalize the page. If you review the submission, he/she simply summarized the original submission since it was already linked to a separate page.

• It's odd that a user with one edit (at the time of your inquiry) has such detailed concerns about another editor's activity. I see that the edit you are interested was an automated bot reverting an IP editor's change: by 75.207.232.31
  I have to guess you were the IP editor in question. In any case, the Cyril H. Wecht summary there at this moment succinctly makes the connection you desire, and has a link to the voluminous details at the Cyril H. Wecht article.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the edit currently on the page does not do that and overlooks key points that should be in a summary related to the dismissed U.S. Attorneys controversy. No, I am concerning the summary that was first changed by a bot, then reverted back, then changed by another user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.238.20 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bowles

Haven't I? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia

Anybody can edit wikipedia and anybody can undo anybody's edits regardless. Nothing is set in stone. I was previously the editor User:Southern Texas, I am no stranger to using talk pages. An idea is brought up, it is boldly implemented and then discussed. That is how wikipedia works.--William Saturn (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes on background for the banning of User:Southern Texas and associated sock puppets:
Case of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry Reported at 19:24, May 13, 2008

Sarah Palin

Couple of comments, I hope it doesn't come off as too opinionated. Just food for thought for you going forward.

You replaced the current event template with the future election template because it was " All speculation about election". However, Speculation can be a current event... and more importantly... if it was all speculation... why would you put in a template that definitevly says it relates to an upencoming election... such a template goes beyond speculation and states the speculation as though it were fact fact and would actually be completely inapropriate.

I realize that, at this point, it's been solidifed that Palin is McCain's VP pick so these comments have little bearing on the present... I just wanted to present food for thought.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• The candidate in question was McCain at the time of the change. Speculation about candidate McCain's interest. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tenerife disaster

Hi. I've started a discussion about the naming of this article. Perhaps you would like to give your opinions here. Thanks. Abc30 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, done. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OFHEO statement

Fresh from the press: http://www.ofheo.gov/newsroom.aspx?ID=456&q1=0&q2=0 :) GordonGross (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up

Perhaps you can contribute in the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates about the FHFA action? __meco (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

bailout

freddie and fannie chartered by congress...-Tracer9999 (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

revert.. valid source. see three revert rule. get consensus from talk before removing or be blocked -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

you deleted 2 times.. next is three and your out -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

lol.. your right.. I revert back... Im fine with your previous text -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Subprime article

Thanks; I've been tangling with some folks that are really full of themselves and getting cranky. I'm working on splitting off major sections of the subprime article and populating them. The trick is leaving the key ideas intact in the main article. I'll start a few tonight. I want to get the main article down to a summary length; can't boil the Ocean with one article, with the way the waves of crises keep spilling out.Farcaster (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007-2008

Financial crisis of 2007-2008 is a current event because the situation is rapidly changing. Our article is unlikely to accurately, or fully, track the rapidly changing situation. Fred Talk 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article will always lag the latest news coverage. Fred Talk 12:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• That is well and good, but it is not what the {{current}} template tag was created for, as a reading of the guidline for its use will show. It is unremarkable that any topic is in the news, as a few thousand topics are constantly in the news. George W. Bush, for example. It is also standard that all articles are out of date, and this too is unremarkable. The template is intended for those rather few occasions in which many, as in many dozens may edit the article in the same day, and perhaps several hundred edits a day are being saved, and everyone is stepping on each other's edits. For example: 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the article which was the cause of the template's creation, which had 460+ edits in 48 hours. I think you can agree this is not the case for Financial crisis of 2007-2008, which has hardly had at this moment 50 edits over the past three days, 30 by a single editor, with the participation a grand total of one dozen editors.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AIG

Thanks for your continued diligence on this page - lots of detail to sort through, amidst all of the opinion. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the news updated with your nominated entry

On September 26, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Washington Mutual, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

—Slowking Man (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Current template

Thanks for fixing my incorrect use of {{current}} -- I obviously had a severe case of the brain farts today. Todd Vierling (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington Mutual template

The template at the top is a current-event template. It or a more generic current-event template should stay until editing has died down. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The template is not needed, and is redundant, as all of the entity changes have been described on the lede of the article. Closure of the subsidiary, Washington Mutual bank, receivership, sale of assets to JPMorgan Chase, filing for bankruptcy of the Holding Company.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy vio of legislation summary

I have found the government source at Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008,
Perhaps you can remove the tag. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tag removed. Good work. *^YES! 14:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proposed bailout of United States financial system

Ah, well you have a point. It would still be historic for the House to go along with such a shenanigan. If the Senate can just shelve any spending bill from the house and reload it with any sort of spending it wants, blue slipping is essentially meaningless. One of the original Senate sponsors of the bill was Paul Wellstone, who has been dead since 2002![1] But, I guess I'm bordering on WP:CRYSTAL here, I'll try to find a reliable source (as opposed to the blogosphere) reflecting these concerns. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's even more bizarre, since it seems like the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was actually already signed into law in April, making H.R. 1424, passed in May, moot. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

HR 1424 on wikisource

Re: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._1424 Can you edit the source to make the divisions not be a subsection of the prior division in the table of Contents? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone has already taken care of it. Cheers.   — C M B J   03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Washington Mutual Takeover

There's a big blur in the information that's coming down about this Washington Mutual thing.

If your auto insurance company made an actuarial prediction that you were about to have an accident, then showed up in your drive way and sold your car to your neighbor for ten dollars, that's much more representative of what happened with Washington Mutual. That part about the shockholders not getting anything in the deal would be like saying that no allowance was being made for the fact you still owed ten thousand to your dad for the car.

The primary banking assets were stripped out and sold. The holding company that remained then went into voluntary chapter 11. So actually the soul of the company is still alive on the operating table. And the media is all about the body being stolen. But the interests of the stock holders lie with the holding company. And there's wide speculation about what's left. Preliminary reports filed by Washington Mutual claim the company is still worth 33 billion. The company claims 5 billion in cash and says it owes 8 billion dollars in various forms of debt. The bankruptcy filings also claim that there are resources available for the unsecured debt holders but there is no information about how much that will be.

People don't make enough distinction between a voluntary chapter 11 filing and "being Bankrupt" or "being Bankrupted" This is a fine opportunity to educated the public.

I'm truly fascinated by this case! From the perspective of many it's the biggest bank robbery in history. Mid september JPMorgan chase informed ten interested subsidiaries that there might be an opportunity to acquire a major west coast bank and told them it needed to raise capital. At the same time nearly 19 billion in deposits were being withdrawn from the Washington Mutual Bank. The FDIC contacted JPMorgan Chase Mid September about the possibility of the banks failure. So with the information out and JPMorgan Chase telling ten friends so to speak, very soon the word spreads and the Washington Mutual banks bonds are downgraded while certain large depositors flee and the FED lending backstop falls down. So it's one thing to proffit from the misfortune and it's another to profit from a misfortune one caused.

Let's not help them bury the body shall we?

This is no small matter. In Seattle 4200 employees of Washington Mutual who worked at the corporate offices were pink slipped. The city will suffer from the loss of the 200 (low guestimate) million dollar payroll. Houses will be sold. People will suffer huge business losses. A major lender with strong ties to the region has been lost as well.

Let's make the Washington Mutual Article Very Clear about the nature of this transaction because the historians telling us about this in 20 years won't do us much good now. Don't bury this event in bizness lingo.

DH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.179.153 (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• And what exactly is unclear about the article as of this date? Yellowdesk (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits at attorney controversy page

Yellowdesk: Thanks for taking the time to respond. While i'm new to taking wikipedia edits seriously, i'm not new to wikipedia. But one of my weaknesses is lack of knowledge on policy. I'm almost certain that there is a policy/guideline that calls for stripping our irrelevant information ("kitchen sink" stuff i call it.) In this instance we have an article that's about a controversy over alleged abuse of power for political reasons by the Bush administration in the Justice Department. Someone then includes over 1,000 words about other alleged abuses of power by the Bush Administration, at other times, in other places, etc... While all of this kitchen sink stuff might belong in an article titled "A review of alleged abuses of power by the bush administration" it's entirely innapropriate to include in an article about the specifics of the firing of 9 federal prosecutors. Do you know what the specific guideline on irrelevant information in an article might be? I'll bet one unit of whatever currency didn't lose value today that such a guideline exists. Best and thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An invitation: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

I invite you to read through the talk pages and talk pages archive of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, where you'll see some of the issues that have brought the article to its recent state, however positive or lamentable you may view it to be. Please also take a look at the several linked articles as well.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding.... read them already, indeed, before i contacted you. Thousands of words on anything that can be tangentially connected to a topic is very, very bad. ("Article is about Zippy the talking chimp, member of the Barnum and Bailey's circus. I recently came across new research about the effect of habitat destruction on chimps in the congo. Now, let me add a long explanation of said matter and various scientific controversies surrounding its signifigance because, after all, this article is about chimps. Also, here's 300 words about general habitat destruction in the congo because, after all, this article is about the congo."). This way lies madness, i submit.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 2 October 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

Spencer^T♦C 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hi there Yellowdesk!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Well, to be honest, I was looking at names through recent changes. I'm trying to get as many users as possible, so I asked. Will you join?--^sign _review 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I don't think I can take on attending to articles beyond my present overcommitted interests, which have not been sufficiently attended to, including these and their relations:

• Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008‎
  
• Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
  

and their related articles.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. See you around!--^sign _review 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thacher Proffitt promotion

I deleted the link added by Thacher Proffitt (talk · contribs) because it was a link to the Thacher Proffitt web site, which is a conflict of interest. Also, they're not a neutral source; they were one of the major law firms promoting mortgage-based securities. Can you find a neutral source? --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have seen now about five or so law firm analysis such as this. Each far better than any media-published analysis, of which I have seen zero comparable. The alternative to the actually useful summary that Thatcher Proffitt etc. published, is to post several law firm analysis by a non-self-promoting (via Wikipedia) firm. We might find that the Thatcher Proffitt one to be as good or better than any of the others. There are probably about 50 that have been published, perhaps only for client viewing. I suspect there will be no such analysis for six months, if ever, available to the average citizen, put out by a media-entity. As such, any such link though biased, actually provides a useful perspective to the reader, and has many elements of being a reliable source. I say as much without having recently read the policy regarding links. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Treasury as a source

Thanks for the tip, I might keep an eye on that. (And here, over lo these many months, I'd all but convinced myself that you were a high functioning bot capable of only complaining about the "misuse" of {{current}}! Ah, well, this project never ceases to amaze....) I'm usually sponging off slate.com most days, but after they went in the tank for the bailout, I switched over to Huffington post, which, while not an RS per se, isn't bad for an aggregator, and updates quicker than Slate. I actually like the liquidity injection/equity plan, though, which, aside from making way more sense than the "troubled assets" plan, shows how prescient I was about where this was going.[2] -- Kendrick7^talk 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Except that Paulson was against equity until the last week or so, and his original plan did not contemplate equity. Not to mention that he and his associates realized too late the gigantic mistake made in not supporting Lehmen Brothers: only after rescuing of AIG with the credit facility (and 80% equity /warrant stake via the Federal Reserve Bank) and the complete drying up of the commercial paper markets after many institutions and money markets lost money on overnight commercial paper. Paulson, a conservative on several different dimensions, has been moved by events, terror, and Bernanke, the scholar of the Depression, not by his own views. Witness the outrageous and dead on arrival "unreviewable by courts" clause in his original proposal.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Right, my original read of the situation back then was incorrect -- I figured Paulson really wanted to take equity, but didn't want to come out and say that for fear up upsetting conservatives in Congress, which explained to my mind all the no-strings-attached language in his original proposal. I didn't realize that Paulson was such a dyed-in-the-wool free marketeer, while it was Congress which, wisely, left the equity solution in as a plan B, which all means I might owe a few apology letters to Sens. Kerry and Kennedy and my Rep if this whole thing works out. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mid September

This edit is not optimal as you can see if you look at the history of the TED spread. There is a spike beginning in mid-September. Fred Talk 17:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The TED spread is not the only measure of activity on the topic, I dare say. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 stock market volatility

Are you planning to de-merge this back into a separate article? I wasn't sure from your statement closing the discussion. FWIW, I think it is probably better as a section than as a separate article. Ronnotel (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, no. Just trying to mark the conversations that are dead so we can tell what the active merger/move conversations actually are. Marked now as "merged". -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Goma

Hi! You stated that the reference didn't say anything like that, when this is what it says; "Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts intensified to find a peaceful, long-term solution to the current conflict.

The top U.S. diplomat for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer, was to meet with Congo President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa Thursday, and may travel to Rwanda to see President Paul Kagame, Deputy State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters in Washington.

Wood said Frazer, who is accompanied by a senior researcher from the National Security Council, will try to "get all of the parties to agree to respect international law and human rights."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also spoke with Kagame and was in touch with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Wood said." It states that diplomatic efforts intensified; then, after saying who spoke to Kagame about peace, says "... Rice also spoke with Kagame."

See what I'm saying? Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• This item is posted on the wrong editor's page, as your edit diff shows. Replied on your talk page.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sweet jellies. No idea how this happened, but I'm really sorry. Pretend this never happened. :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete references

• I removed them because they were out of date - a rumour < an acceptance. If Rahm's people have denied the acceptance, then they can both go back in. But without the denial, it would have pointless to include the original. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 13:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reason it's not pointless to keep prior citations, is that they may be used for other purposes in the article, and when they're gone, there's more work for the editor. The offer is no rumour, by the way. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• By that logic, no reference should ever be removed, in case someday, somewhere, an editor might want to use them. And every imaginable reference should be listed. If a reference isn't being cited, it should be removed. Simple. Worst case, go to the archive.-- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oh yeah - "the offer is no rumor, by the way"??? I never said the offer was a rumor. I stated that HIS ACCEPTANCE was rumored, as per the source. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• You have been unclear: "rumour < an acceptance" whatever that means. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's moot now, but "rumor < acceptance" means that an acceptance is more important (greater than) a rumor. 153.108.64.1 (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Current

Please quit inappropriately removing Template:Current, as you did here. You are not following the current guidelines for its use. We need a template to notify readers of the incomplete and tentative nature of such articles regardless of how often they are edited. And please do not modify the guidelines without participating in the debate regarding proper use of the template at Template talk:Current. Opinion there is clearly against your position. Fred Talk 12:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)