_________

心のままにっ (Kokoro no Mama ni!)

Wikimood [purge] [edit]

さよなら出来ないっ (Sayonara Dekinai!)

And I think to myself... ...What a Wonderful World!

An advice from VG Cats to stalkers in general: #252

[edit] Posts

[edit] List of ships attacked by Somali pirates

Firs of all I'd like to thank you for your help in improving this article. It seems like you also update List of ships attacked by Somali pirates that are still captive which has in turn prompted me to award you a barnstar which I will in the next section.

I was wondering if you'd like to help me move information from the IMO pdfs to the article. They have a database of ships attacked by pirates.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WC, thank you very much for the barnstar. Also, dittos for your work in table-izing the list of attacks from Piracy in Somalia to a separate page. Where is the International Maritime Organization's database? I've browsed the site several times but I'm unfamiliar with it. I would definitely be willing to help. Switzpaw (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This was posted on the article talk page by someone else ;) You may want to start with September as it is almost finished.

This is September 2008: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D23951/126.pdf

Other PDFs are listed here: http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=334

I have added a coordinate box on the template. It seems with IMO we have a very large database for coordinates making this a standard info. Existing use of coord template needs updating on both the articles.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit conflict

Hi, I seem to have edit conflicted you and may have reverted things without wanting to do so. Take a look: [1]. I was merely trying to remove {{coord}} uses and adding lname parameters. Feel free to revert as you see fit. -- Cat ^chi? 19:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re edit conflict: Just noticed that. I don't have time to go through and fix it now -- I will later tonight when I re-do the seconds portion of the coordinates. While I'm at it, I'll check the existing ones because I think the template may be transposing minutes and seconds with the lat_m and lat_s parameters. Switzpaw (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea. BTW you forgot to add the lname parameter last time. Don't forget it. :P -- Cat ^chi? 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the lname parameter is not being derived from the name parameter... Switzpaw (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That can be done but there are complex exceptions (such as when multiple ships get involved). -- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other usernames to include

Hey, while you're at it with your timeline, you may want to include User:Terryeo and User:JustaHulk as well. Terryeo was part of one of the earlier arbitration cases. ←Spidern→ 21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy! :o It will get very complicated it seems... -- Cat ^chi? 21:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Please also consider adding the usernames from here as well:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS#COFS

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS#COFS_2 (see also table combining checkuser info here)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup#Highfructosecornsyrup

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup#Highfructosecornsyrup_2

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI

Some of these may be relevant, some not, will leave that up to you. These are also good pages to look for some other historical and relevant information/findings. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll review this after toolserver decides to work again. It seems broken. -- Cat ^chi? 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay thank you, no worries. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up a bit more: The current "Scientology" Arbitration case which is currently open is the fourth such case (relating to Scientology). For previous cases, see this prudent info provided by Durova:

Previous arbcom cases provided by Durova
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
[edit] Prior Scientology arbitrations This is Wikipedia's fourth arbitration case in four years over Scientology disputes. Prior cases are: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (2005) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo (2006) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS (2007) Several of the named parties in this arbitration were also named parties in the COFS arbitration. I initiated this case and the COFS case but had nothing to do with the Terryeo or AI arbitrations.
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hello Jossi, thanks for your quick response.

I noticed your username is actually mentioned on the past arbcom case. User:Anynobody accused you of past involvement on a now ancient discussion. Was that related to Scientology? DO you recall what that was about?

I am merely trying to have a general idea on how everyone fits in the picture.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

White Cat: if you want to do this unsolicited job of gathering evidence for that case, go do it. But please spare me in getting me involved in your investigation. And please do not cross-post. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am merely conducting a Q and A before going through the contribs of all involved. I'll of course get to the "truth" anyways as the evidence will support it. But I'd rather not go through all your contribution if you can establish the above encounter to be a mere coincidence.

Your replies to my questions may help point me in the right direction. For example it may point me at the underlying breaking point of the dispute even if you weren't involved with it. I am more curious of the interaction between involved parties from the first case and everyone else.

-- Cat ^chi? 07:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you said you'll "openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Wikipedia as a motivation to edit". Care to elaborate on that?

You mention a dispute on Wikinews. While that has no official bearing on wikipedia, I'd like to hear more about that. It seems the blocks were temporary or at least are no longer in effect.

Bravehartbear suggests "Scientology slanted editors came out because drastic changes were done" in the Scientology article by you. How would you like to respond to that? Do you think you should be added as an involved party?

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat ^chi? 17:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, White Cat. I will gladly answer all of your questions, but am not sure of the best place to respond. Seeing as you are an independent investigator here, would you mind if I respond directly on your own user talk? ←Spidern→ 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. -- Cat ^chi? 13:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job on your "CSI" subpage, until you made each of the commentaries collapsible. In my opinion, doing so made the entire thing less readable, and a bit tedious to click "show" on every single section. ←Spidern→ 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That does bother me too but the threads are getting too long. -- Cat ^chi? 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something small

I inadvertantly removed your comment regarding the Moreschi case on the RfArb page - I would like to state here it was unintentional. There's no beef on my behalf. Kind regards, Caulde 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings :P.

Seriously though, I wouldn't have noticed had you not inform me. :)

-- Cat ^chi? 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

1. On your statement you talk about your use of public internet hubs and not proxies. To what extend do you move around?
2. I am not asking for any private info but I want to have a general idea on the distances you travel giving me an idea of how many different IPs you would be using. This may help resolve weather or not the ips are public ones or not.
3. Another thing you state is that you use "computers in the Church of Scientology" yet on the next paragraph you state that you have never been to the "church of scientology san francisco". TO my untrained eye it seems the two statements are contradicting each other. Care to elaborate?
4. To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

Hi Cat, sorry, I wasn't around to see your question. Here is an answer:

1. I am working from two locations, one on the East Coast, one on the West Coast. In between I am logging in from airports or internet cafes. When using wireless I am going through a VPN/SSL connection (or something like that, hub, proxy, maybe there are different names for this). The idea is that the wireless line can be hijacked and using a SSL connection helps preventing that.
2. During a normal week I am using 4-5 different internet lines. I guess that makes 4-5 IPs.
3. There are thousands of scientology groups in existence (7,500, per the latest publications). I assume most of them have internet. Some of them have wifi and I used it there. Others have computers for use, e.g. to watch the scientology video channel or to log in on other scientology sites. I used those too. Or I plugged in my notebook in a network outlet and used this line for internet, like in a hotel. This whole discussion is ridiculous, trying to tie editors to IP addresses will never work. And I haven't even tried (yet) editing on Wikipedia through my phone. As for the above statement: I have never been to the "Church of Scientology San Franscisco". That's what I meant. I know most Churches in Southern California, New Jersey, Florida and New York as well as Canada. But somehow I missed SF in my trips.
4. I think I am the cause for the Scientology dispute or at least created enough contrast so the "two sides" (pro/con) could be seen better. I am active as a Wikipedia editor since 2007 and before I showed up the motto was "happy adding of trash material" to the scientology-related articles and "happy ignoring of anything neutral or anything perceived positive". I registered for the purpose of improving the Wikipedia articles on Scientology. My point of critic was and is that primary sources are used instead of reliable sources and that "reliable sources" of the lowest possible quality are used and promoted (I dare say BECAUSE they contain negative material about scientology or related subjects), instead of looking for better material (which would be neutral and defensible). The mass removal of primary sources that happens in the articles right now is what I wanted in 2007. But then, as in Scientology, it again is done in a one-sided way. Dozens of primary sources (to scientology websites) were removed and the trash links to private hate sites kept, including to porn mags (example "Penthouse", which seems to be "ok" as long as the "content" is "anti-scientology").

You could say I am guilty of polarizing. My contributions were not worthless or a violation of Wikipedia policy. They were just unpopular because the majority of those who are hanging out in the article (or "watching over it", such as Cirt and AndroidCat) are anti-scientology editors. Their POV/COI problem has never been addressed and I cannot detect any willingness to look at at. Which - if not addressed - would make this Arbcom another farce and a guarantee for the next edit war. Shutterbug (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Shutterbug, I urge you to expend a like effort to this response (at least) on the arbitration page presenting evidence, i.e. show the one-sidedness. We are blindingly aware of it but others are not because they have only been schooled in anti-Scientology material and have no idea that another side exists. As least no idea in any "real" way - most will acknowledge that people are free to believe any (kooky) religion they care to so I guess this is validity of a sorts. For even the so-called neutral here, it is not criticism of Scientology vs. the real perceived worth of Scientology. It is criticism of Scientology vs a set of kooky beliefs that I guess we should tolerate. Only we can show how glaringly one-sided editors like Cirts are. So please put up some diffs. Also you really should put up diffs showing the legitimacy of you edits. Show how 20 of your edits were legitimate. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am lacking the time to go that deep into research but it seems to be necessary. White Cat, Diffs are coming, hopefully by the weekend. Shutterbug (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Ross

Now that's an interesting development. User:Rick Alan Ross and his sock User:Rick A. Ross talks about Rick Ross in an ArbCom about Scientology [2]. Or to discredit some editors? Shutterbug (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That is part of an ongoing scuffle between Jayen and Ross over his bio. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this before. A whole series of red flags should have gone up already, like WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS. Admin Cirt's too busy, I guess.[3] Shutterbug (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ross is entitled to make his case on talk pages. If he has edited his own pages then he should stop and I think he has. Ross is a distraction - nothing really to do with this arb. Ignore him and make your own case as I mention above. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Shutterbug (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology RFAR

White Cat, I just saw your Evidence collection[4]. There is some missing information. User:Justallofthem went by User:Justanother earlier (separate account), Cirt went by User:Smeelgova, then User:Smee, then User:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage(a pseudonym for the founder of Erhard Seminar Training) and finally User:Cirt. Shutterbug (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Point of information, Shutterbug: The founder of EST was Werner Erhard, not von Savage.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Justallofthem -> User:Justanother connection is presented in the graph. -- Cat ^chi? 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything Pre-2006 is uninteresting for the purpose of my investigation. So I'll leave out anything before 2006. Even 2006 isn't very interesting. -- Cat ^chi? 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing pre-2006 in what I said. Shutterbug (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay so User:Smeelgova has 1 edit only which was on 21 Feb 2007. The account itself was created on 11 September 2008. All that of course is confusing, I know. -- Cat ^chi? 05:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's because when Smeelgova became Smee the edits were transferred over to the new account but sometimes some of the edits don't go and get "stuck" on the old account. I had the same problem when I renamed Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs) to Sarah (talk · contribs). Those 2006 edits shouldn't be there because my account was renamed in 2007. Also, when you get renamed you used to have to recreate the old account name to prevent impersonators registering it because the old name became available for registration again once the rename had been done (not sure if that's still the case or not). The Smeelgova account was probably re-registered in 2008 when Cirt or someone else realised it hadn't been recreated. I recently recreated Veritas (talk · contribs) and Strothra (talk · contribs) for people who were renamed when they left the project so those accounts can't be used to impersonate them. Look at the user creation log for Sarah Ewart [5]. It says the account was created on 25 September 2008, but the contributions log says the account made those 2006 edits some two years prior. It looks like the Smee/Smeelgova accounts are in a similar situation. HTH Sarah 11:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I think I'll pass altering the table over this since the rename isn't that crutal as it is ancient history. -- Cat ^chi? 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451, "Curt Wilhelm VonSavage" was a pseudonym of Werner Erhard. He apparently used the name on a marriage license. In fact, Wikipedia had a (now deleted) redirect at Curt Wilhelm VonSavage and variations that were pointed at the Werner Erhard article. Interestingly enough they were created by Smee on 19 June 2006, so he was no doubt aware of the connection. Theres an RFD here: VonSavage RFD Sarah 12:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repost of comment to Jayen466

White Cat, I thought that you would find this relevant: "Jayen466, I read the above statement. You state some points that I find helpful, but you make some very colored remarks than lead me to question your interest in the scientology articles: You state that Stephen Kent is the most hostile scholar. Please show me that he is hostile and then show me that he is the most hostile. Factually, he publishes articles that the Office of Special Affairs does not like. You also divide editors into two camps, the scientologists and anti-scientologists. I think that is an over-simplification that obfuscates the variety of perspective editors of scientology articles have on the English language Wikipedia. Since you are relatively new to editing scientology articles, you may not be aware that there have been sincere attempts in the past of various editors to work with editors with differing perspectives on various scientology articles. This has had limited success after the last Arbcom when special rules were instituted on the scientology articles, but did not bring harmony to the editing process. I have my own views of why this did not occur and cannot occur. Over to you. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

Some questions you had a few days ago are probably answered here. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, one clarification: there have been ten prior formal dispute resolution attempts between Cirt and Jossi. They're listed in the second section of my userspace evidence presentation. Regards, Durova^Charge! 05:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That is probably true but this was sort of like a cross-examination... I have been asking people a lot of questions - of which some I knew the answers. This is to get a sense of their perspective. I am supposed to explain their edit pattern after all. -- Cat ^chi? 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SP2-Military.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SP2-Military.png. 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Russia Nuking US, Start of WWIII.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Russia Nuking US, Start of WWIII.PNG. 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas!

White Cat, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page.
Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :(
— neur ho ho ho^(talk)00:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems listening to this file? See media help.

[edit] Hello there

Hi, I was wondering if we could have a discussion (perhaps an IRC) one concerning a few issues... particularly the edit trend TTN is trying to enforce. While his behavior is disruptive, he is not the only person making such edits. I'll go to greater detail once we have a level of privacy.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss something in private with me, sending an email is your best option. I rarely visit IRC and the chance of me visiting IRC during the holidays is even smaller. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't gotten a reply from you yet. -- Cat ^chi? 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image reviews at FLC

Hi White Cat. I noticed that you did the image review for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. I am a frequent FLC reviewer, and as part of the FL criteria, images should be properly licensed/attributed. I have held up a nomination because I am not sure if their images meet criteria and am not experienced enough in this area to check every image. Could I request you to look at one? It is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Boston Latin School alumni. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million, although it is a bit of a letdown to have bothered you only to discover that all images are in fact correctly tagged/attributed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I created a {{Alumimg}} and will apply it to the list now. My check cannot determine the copyright status with 100% accuracy. All I can do is review the existing licensing and assume the person uploading it isn't lying (unless such a lie is obvious). -- Cat ^chi? 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiss (magazine)

A tag has been placed on Kiss (magazine), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I'm surprised upon reading your user page, the article suggests it was started by someone "new". If you object to the prod, please try and develop the article to provide more information. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to develop it myself. Someone who knows Japanese will be translating it from the ja version if you kindly allow it please. This takes time and does not happen overnight. -- Cat ^chi? 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, White Cat! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear White Cat,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes and characters 3

I think you are missing one important point. This dispute is less about the conduct of TTN alone and more about several actors (including TTN) who had been acting in complete disregard of any community input they feel unnecessary.

I guess what I am trying to say is: the scope of the RFAR does include TTN but resolving issues concerning TTN alone will not be sufficient in resolving the actual problem.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with other users in this topical area, please raise those concerns on RFAR. I dont wish to open a case with a very wide scope unless there has been justification given for a very large scope. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing how I fit in the picture. I have stopped editing fiction related topics for the past year due to this conduct. I have provided this evidence to arbcom before: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry). I am currently working on a tool with Betacommand to provide statistics on AFD behavior by editors. -- Cat ^chi? 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The only person clearly in this "picture" is TTN. I will not support opening a case that doesnt have a clear scope, and I dont like large cases that reinforce battlegrounds. If you think that there is a dispute beyond TTNs methods, please raise that at RFAR: cite other problems which would justify a large scope. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read through the evidence, please... Back then, I demonstrated how a group of editors acted as a collective to meatpuppet/votestack with or without TTN to mass remove fiction related articles. Thats a mere example of their conduct. By no means that is the only example. /Evidence phase exists for a reason. If you consider wikipedia to be a chess board. TTN is the queen. Queen (chess) is the most powerful piece in the game of chess. That does not mean queen is the only piece.

Please also read the article Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Please pay close attention to the Criticism section and the sources. The problem even made its way to the mass media. What must I do for arbcom to realize that there is a serious problem?

-- Cat ^chi? 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)