User talk:Duchamps comb

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

File:RPRlogo.jpg

GO RON PAUL!! United States presidential elections

This user is a participant in WikiProject Martial arts.

Don't be a WP:dick!

File:Pdnbtn.png

Do not bite the newcomers!

		Pain in the Ass Star
		For consistently being a pain in the ass. Providing quality edit-wars for Fascists and COINTELPRO throughout Wikipedia. December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Moneybomb, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Moneybomb, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I noticed you're not using any citation templates when you reference articles. In the future, please use the citation templates listed at WP:CIT. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Moneybomb. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tea Party amount

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm a giant Paul fan myself, but you'll notice there are a lot of folks who will hold you to strict neutrality here, so be careful. It is my understanding the campaign announced $6.0 million actually raised even though the widget went up $6.4 million in the 24 hours. The $.4 million in offline receipts was not necessarily received on 11/16, and (being a Sunday) probably wasn't, given the campaign's statement; we have no source that it was in fact received 11/16 (HNN does not address this, relying only on the widget number). While we have sources for both $6.0 and $6.4, we should either state it as a conflict, or resolve the conflict unarguably. IMHO the evidence favors sticking with the $6.0, but if you want to use some neutral wording like "between $6 million and $6.4 million", that'd work with the sources cited. But we may not favor one number in the light of a conflicting number without resolving the conflict. Anyway, as a new editor, you would do very well for yourself to demonstrate your neutrality by picking some compromise version (or going right back to the $6.0) before someone else does. Trust me, that's a lot better than trying to defend a pro-Paul edit in the face of conflicting sources. I'll wait to see how you handle it, but I might step in tomorrow if nothing happens. Thanks! John J. Bulten (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm serious, they will come after you if you keep it up, it will not help the "improvement of Wikipedia" to fight this battle on the article page itself. Your Ambinder source says $6.6 million, not $6.4 or $6.0. When you have conflicting numbers, don't insist on one of them without talking it out or demonstrating unarguable proof. Obviously only one of them is correct, and we cannot presume on which one without consensus. But "over $6 million" is correct regardless. I would strongly encourage you not to fight this particular battle and instead learn useful stuff like Template:cite news instead. It would greatly help your reputation to think of a neutral way of accomplishing your goal and revert yourself accordingly. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sign your posts!

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First Warning re Moneybomb

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. Your language in your edit summaries, such as this is inappropriate. Please discuss your edits civilly and remember that edit summaries are not a proper venue for discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on Moneybomb

I dislike editing any political articles because it usually ends up very badly. In this case, I don't mind contributing with a neutral point of view as it does help. No problem! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moneybomb.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Moneybomb.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Muchness (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding references

Duchamps, you need to start paying attention to your referencing. This is at least the third time I've had to clean up your mess. When you add references to something, cite them properly. And if the article is already referenced in the page, just create another link to it rather than adding another ref tag. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ron Paul Revolution

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ron Paul Revolution, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived at: User:Buspar/Ron Paul Revolution

Re: AfD - Ron Paul Revolution

Thanks for letting me know. That article is a close call, but I think we should err on the side of caution for now and keep it, as I don't think we've ever seen anything as large and organized at the grassroots level as the Ron Paul campaign. And to think that we were amazed how well Howard Dean could use the Internet for campaigning back in 2004! --smileyborg (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Enasni (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Duchamps. I hadn't seen the article but had edited related ones. Now that I see it I like it. I voted to keep it. Korky Day (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

--What an Asshat...--Duchamps comb (talk)

Please read WP:CANVASS

One way to keep people from accusing you of canvassing to stack discussions is to make sure you notify people you know disagree with you. In the case of the Revolution AfD, which seems to be headed to "delete", you informed only editors you knew to be Ron Paul advocates.

I don't really care; AfD's aren't votes. But I thought you should know, it's pretty easy to tell what you're doing.

--- tqbf 03:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. But I only contacted people who edited Ron Paul's page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views.--Duchamps comb (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not true- I am not anywhere close to being a Ron Paul supporter, and he contacted me just to take a look at it without any sort of impropriety, which I did. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He only contacted people who had (a) edited Paul content and (b) hadn't added negative material about Paul. I'm sorry that I suggested you were a Paul supporter; I don't blame you for being irritated by that. --- tqbf 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

tqbf, that's not true. I did contact people who edited on ron paul's page (as I have already said) without knowing how they feel, to open up the Discussion. I am new here (this place is not like myspace) I contacted Monsieur because I bumped into him/her on another page, (and he/she seems to give unbiased feedack) as well seem to be rather pleasant, unlike other DUMB FUCKS like you running around here on some sort of power trip. -Keep your small-mindedness-idiocy off of my page...--Duchamps_comb

Nice. --- tqbf 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your comment above:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

--- tqbf and HelloAnnyong you both only reveal what YOU really are, "Cyber-bullies" who are weak-minded (and probably obese) that have nothing better to do but mess with the "new kid." On some sort of self-aggrandizing-power-trip deleting new articles, sending warning messages and being very Anti-Ron Paul. -I suggest just leaving me ALONE!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchamps comb (talk • contribs) 06:31, December 28, 2007

Burned! --- tqbf 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb Conspiracy?

To: — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ]

Yeah, I saw that go by on my watchlist, but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. I agree with you that it's getting tiring, fighting the POV-warriors there. My guess is that the increased activity is because of the weekend fundraiser. I'll try to take a look later. No matter what though, we can still wait them out, which is what I did last time. In a couple days when activity decreases, we can go in and re-neutralize the article without much fuss.  :) --Elonka 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

---

To:--- tqbf

Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded, but I'm going to try to disentangle myself from this article as well. --- tqbf 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

To: --- tqbf

I'm not sure about that. It's certainly big with the Paul community, and this may be WP:COATRACK. But we've been down the avenue of deleting it, and it came to no consensus. I think you'd hit the same with a move. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) + +

---

To:--Elonka

Hey Elonka. I know you were active on the Moneybomb page awhile ago, so I could use some help. A single-purpose account has been editing/hacking/butchering the article I'm trying to assume good faith, but the page is a mess now. I reverted it twice today already, but the page could use some help. Could you take a look at it and try to work out the kinks - or failing that, give me some advice on how to proceed? Thanks! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

White supremacist part

I think you are wrong on the addition of the USA Today article regarding Black's donation and it being kept by Ron Paul. It is from a perfectly legitimate source, and I see no POV problems. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with, "Paul keeps white supremacist donation", USA Today, 2007-12-20 www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-20-Paul-donation_N.htm

If you digg back far enough I even added to the criticism section. I take issue with “unknown users” statements: “It is a well known fact that white supremacists- including the KKK and David Duke- support Ron Paul.” and to imply “he's on good terms with hate groups? “ --Duchamps comb (talk)

I didn't see the part you were talking about- that sounds to me like vandalism that should have been removed ages ago... I'm sure it wasn't an intentional keep. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

19:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008‎ It is in the talk page.--Duchamps comb (talk)

Re:Merge Proposal

Well, it's been pointed out to me that there is poverty and then there is poverty. On the other hand, there is no [[Bruce Lee statue]s article. Maybe if you want to have one central article, you can create one and then write a short section in the Bruce Lee.--Kannie | talk 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your opinions about this candidate and the validity of this "white supremacist endorsement" claim do not entitle you to blank other users talk page comments. --- tqbf 08:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) --- I had reverted this out less than 2 minutes after writing it --- tqbf 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

anonymous users

I don't like anonymous users much but it seems pretty clear that the powers that be at wikipedia aren't going to take away their editting privileges en masse. as such i don't think it is productive to tell one that "soon this article will be semi protected and you won't be able to edit" as you did on the talk page for the lakota article, respond to his points (even if they're wrong( not his being an anonymous user. thanks SJMNY (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP case

WP:SSP VanBrigglePottery is a username violation, so I've blocked it for that reason, it matches a company name. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Breaking (martial arts)

Hi, I restored the sentence you cut out because Wikipedia should probably not make an impression in its articles that Chi energy is a scientifically proven and really existing phenomenon. If you can rewrite the sentence in such a way that it reflects this doubts, naturally I have nothing against other wording. happy new year! Pundit|utter 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• ...and I restored the brick breaking image, which is relevant and useful for tameshiwari article. Pundit|utter 21:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not arguing whether it exists or not, I'm just saying that it has not yet been scientifically proven, and this is more or less the encyclopedic requirement. It will definitely be sufficient to write that in many kung-fu styles there is an assumption or belief that Chi can improve the hit. The image indeed is not very impressive, but still relevant, and alas there is nothing much on commons to substitute it with. take care Pundit|utter 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your uploads

Please don't upload images with incorrect license tags. If you need help figuring out what the correct license for an image is, ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Carnildo (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on copyright law. In regards to your edits here, there is no magical "10%" rule, you can't claim ownership of an image simply by making changes, de minimis and public domain have nothing to do with each other, and "educational purposes" is not a blank check for using other peoples' work. --Carnildo (talk)

protection templates

WP:RFPP. The admin will add the templates. Burzmali (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron paul presidential appearances

Can you add back the appearances? Tracer doesn't know the difference between merge and delete. And you were one who said it's best to have it all in one article. Buspar (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you revert Tracer's last edit? He's disruptive and has already started insulting me on my talk page. He can't revert again without violating WP:3RR. Buspar (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm working on writing him up on the admin board so he's banned. The last thing we need are disruptive editors. Buspar (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The section looks good. Thanks for putting it back. Now the others can get to work turning it into prose as they wanted. Buspar (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting.. maybe you should look at the time stamps on the article... I have not reverted since the first warning...what gives? as a matter of fact your boy here reverted again after being warned.I stopped editing the article. Its obviosly going to stay as a wikipidia propoganda piece anyway..I know your a ron paul fan by your userpage but thats a bit silly to give me a warning for no reason. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tracer's been blocked for vandalism and harassment. Buspar (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Look. I've reminded you about your adding of references, and I've reminded everyone on that page about them. I just had to fix the reference you added again. That article is already cited on the page; rather than just adding a ref to the article, why not take a minute to look through the page and find the source? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Please read up on the fundamentals of copyright. I don't know where you got your ideas of how copyright works, but they're about as wrong as possible. Some good starting points would be Wikipedia's articles on copyright and derivative work. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

                              Making Changes to Photographs

[1] The 1976 Copyright Act grants the "fair use" of copyrighted materials for a variety of purposes, for the creation of new works, for educational use, and for personal use.

QUESTION: What if the student or teacher were to change the attributes of a picture.

ANSWER: Yes. This would be considered fair use for education, comment, criticism, or parody. One must inform the audience that changes were made to the photographer's copyrighted work.

Fair use normally entails copying and is of three kinds:

1. Creative fair use by authors who copy from other works to create their own work.

2. Personal fair use by individuals who copy from works for their own learning or entertainment.

3. Educational fair use by teachers, scholars, and students who copy for teaching, scholarship, or learning.

The fair use statute is section 107 of the copyright statute, which is printed in full in Part IV. It provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies," is not an infringement of copyright. As exemplars of fair use, it lists "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" and provides four non-exclusive factors to be used in determining whether a use is fair. They are: (1) the purpose of the use, including whether the use is a commercial use or for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the work; (3) the amount used; and (4) the effect on the marketing of the work. These factors are discussed below.

Fair Use and New Communications Technology The application of new communications technology created by computers developed after Congress enacted the 1976 Copyright Act. Consequently, application of fair use to the transmission of material by computer, e.g. on the Internet, merits special mention. Originally, fair use was a judicial doctrine that one author could make fair use of another author's work in creating his or her own new work. If the amount used was fair, the method or scope of distribution made no difference. If, for example, Author X made a fair use of the work of Author Y, the fact that Author X's book sold a million copies did not divest the material of its fair use status.

Today, fair use is a statutory right that applies to all copyrighted works and all rights of the copyright holder, and whether a use is fair is to be determined by applying the four factors listed in the statute. Since the method of distribution is not one of the statutory factors, it follows that the distribution of material by electronic rather than print media is not the decisive issue. The important point is that if the amount used does not unlawfully interfere with the copyright holder's marketing monopoly, it is a fair use. The Fair Use Doctrine, which was codified in §107 of the 1976 Act, excuses certain infringing uses of a copyrighted workThe exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public For example, nonprofit educational purposes. --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image licenses

Unless you took the photograph that Image:HKbruce-statue.jpg is based off of, you cannot claim it as self-created, and even if you did take the photograph, you might not: it depends on the freedom of panorama laws in the country the photograph was taken and the copyright of the statue. Please don't upload any more images until you have a basic understanding of copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, and persistent problematic uploaders can be blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

In moving stuff around to maintain coherence, I may have pasted in an outdated version of your comment. Please restore it to what you meant to say, as I certainly didn't mean to falsify your civil comment. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Images yet again

When you uploaded Image:RPR.jpg, you marked it as "copyrighted free use" and linked to the ONESITE terms of service page as proof, specifically the section that says "ONESITE does not claim ownership of Content you submit". All this means is that ONESITE does not hold the copyright of the content in question; it says nothing about who the copyright holder is or what the copyright status is. --Carnildo (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism. --- tqbf 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason you tagged your own article with AfD? If you want to delete your own article, use one of the WP:CSD tags. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to create a talk page of it's own. Oops.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism

I have nominated Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism. 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

If you really want to report me for a 3RR violation --- and I think that's petty and unproductive, and won't go where you want it to either with admins or with the article you're editing --- then you're going to want to actually warn me on my talk page first.

As it stands, you've gone behind my back and tried to ambush me with a 3RR warning on a page where something like 5 other editors are also over their "revert limit" for the day. But 3RR doesn't work that way. You have to actually be in an edit war, and you yourself have to actually demonstrate that you are trying and failing to resolve it.

Next time, count edits, and then send the 3RR template warning, and then file your case, noting that you've posted your warning and that I have (as I likely will) ignored you. You will get further. Though, I suspect, not much.

--- tqbf 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note

You need to learn how to report 3RR violations. If you do it improperly, it most likely will be ignored. You need to specify the version that is being reverted to not as a diff, but as a revision, like this. You seem to confuse revision links with diff links, which makes it very hard to evaluate the situation. Note that the example on the WP:AN3 page says that the version reverted to is mandatory for a 3RR report. Crum375 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You report is still improper, and by now stale. If 3RR violations continue, you can report it again, but your report must be correct — even now it is not. Crum375 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your report is stale by now. Focus on the future, since our primary goal is to stop ongoing disruption. You already know how to link to a diff, because you have done it in your report, and you can see in my above message how to link to a version. For a proper 3RR report, you need to show the alleged offender's favorite version, that he is trying to revert to. Also, if you want your report to succeed, you should clearly show what is being reverted, for example, say the user wants to include the words "foo" or "bar" each time, and others are removing it. So you would have:

• Original version reverted to: Link (not diff) Time - Note "foo" and "bar"

• Diff1 Time1 - Added "foo"
• Diff2 Time2 - Added "foo"
• Diff3 Time3 - Added "bar"

. . .

• DiffN TimeN - Added "foo"

• Diff of 3RR warning (if relatively new user, never before blocked for 3RR) Time (before TimeN)

If you provide this kind of report, it will have good odds of being effective. Crum375 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)