Talk:Lexington, Kentucky/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Cityscape 2 External Links: Clark's 2006 Almanac 3 Categorization 4 Proposed merges 5 Area Code 6 Not on water 7 Likely factual error corrected (population doubling and tripling) 8 Nickname 9 "New Developments" section 10 cultural organizations 11 external links feel like ads 12 Highways 13 Cleanups 14 History 15 Photo 16 Demographics photo

Cityscape

Fayette County's population has doubled since 1950 and tripled since 1960.

Is this possible? Did Lexington shrink significantly between 1950 and 60?

External Links: Clark's 2006 Almanac

I'm removing this link [1] because it doesn't seem to add any knowledge to the article and appears to be an advertizing ploy. If anyone disagrees, let us converse. --Robby 21:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Why is...

"Within a day's drive of 75% of the population of the United States, Lexington is strategically located at the intersection of Interstates 64 and 75. Lexington is accessible by air with approximately 100 direct and nonstop flights from Blue Grass Airport."

in the Geography and Climate section? --Anthony5429 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, doesn't the location of a city in relation to other cities have a little something to do with geography? It makes sense where it's at to me. BMetts 20:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merges

I have proposed that the articles Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky and Fayette County, Kentucky be merged into this article. Any content in one of these articles applies equally to the others, and there is no sense in having three articles with identical content! Comparing the current content of these articles, there is no unique content in the Lexington-Fayette article, and only a small bit in the Fayette County article, which could easily be worked into this one. Cmadler 17:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree about merging the Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky article, but counties, even where a city-county merger has occurred (Jefferson County, Kentucky, Marion County, Indiana), should have their own articles. --rogerd 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's bad to merge city and county entries. It's confusing enough that so many already duplicate. Imagine merging Lexington Ave. (NYC) as well, or Indiana, PA [2] with the state of Indiana. Carrionluggage 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the merge of "Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky" into this article. Cmadler 18:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Fayette County, Kentucky should remain separate. Fayette county has a distinct history. Also, counties are thought of differently than cities by other government and non-government organizations. For example, Fayette County Board of Education is not part of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. In KY, most people ID by county rather than city. For this cultural reasons, I think we should keep Fayette County separate. FloNight 17:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Fayette County, Kentucky should be merged into Lexington, Kentucky. An example of this type of action is Orleans Parish, LA (to New Orleans, Louisiana). I'm not sure there would be as much confusion as people are thinking. The county and the city are the same entity. How many people in Kentucky say "I'm from Fayette County." rather than "I'm from Lexington."? What is truly gained by having them separate? Those are my thoughts on the subject. RobbyPrather (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RobbyPrather, there's not any real benefit to have the separate...--Dp462090 22:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the harm in having separate articles? Why are you so intent on merging them? I might agree if we were only talking about the present. In an encyclopedia, we mostly write about history. The history of the two is completely separate. There were other towns in Fayette county with a distinct history. Many of them disappeared well before the government merged. --FloNight ^talk 22:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted currently Lexington-Fayette is one entity, but historically Fayette County was one thrid of the entire state of kentucky. Perhaps the Fayette County page can be historical with a link to lexington for the current incarnation. Somehwere I have a projeny list of all the counties Fayette spawned since its creation by the Virginia Leguislature. I'll hunt for it, and am willing to put a(n) historical spin on the thing. K3vin 22:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

K3vin points out yet another good reason to keep a separate Fayette County article. Counties aren't cities, and their histories are quite different. Bill 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good idea since Lexington and Fayette county is one. However, I wouldnt object to seeing a seprate section in the artical dedicated soly to Fayette County's history itself, such as the founding of the county and some of the divisions and when it was incorprated into Lexington. N@vi Friday July 14, 2006

The fact that Fayette County and Lexington, Kentucky have had significant history as separate entities is in my eyes sufficient reason to think that they should continue to hafve separate pages. Having said that, I can easily imagine that most of the overlapping data could be contained in one article. Badbilltucker 13:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur 100% with Badbilltucker. The merge templates should be removed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Area Code

While I agree that "UK's basketball program is immensely popular in the city" and that "the area code (859) spells out UKY" are both true, I don't think it's correct to say that the latter is an example of the former. UKY is not even something unique to basketball. If UK's basketball program is really the reason for the 859 area code, please cite that fact. Mescad 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objections or citation thus far, I made a change to remove this claim. Mescad 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It was widely reported in the lexington Herald Leader that the 859 area code was chosen as a nod toward the UK basketball program, as well as a consolation for being a central city that lost its area code to a surrounding rural district. this arbitrary removal due to lack of citation is a trivial waste of a nit-picker's time and effort. I have already spent more time writing this objection than it would have taken for mescad to do a simple search on the subject and perhaps leave such a non-issue intact. K3vin

I researched the subject a bit before suggesting the change. The only references I found were statements like, "Commission officials said they requested 859, or UKY, because they wanted numbers that would be significant for Kentuckians and easy to remember." Contrary to the above statement that it was partly a consolation for losing the area code to a surrounding rural district, most of the articles suggest that the change was necessary due to the fact that Lexington was growing, not the surrounding rural district. If I'm wrong, please cite the facts and make the appropriate edits.

I would hardly call the edit an "arbitrary removal due to lack of citation." First, the suggestion was made and input was requested. After eleven weeks passed with no objections or citations, the edit was made. Wikipedia:Cite_sources clearly states that "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy." Mescad 03:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not on water

I've heard that Lexington is the largest city in the US not built on a body of water. Is this correct? Dynzmoar 11:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are other, larger cities that aren't on bodies of water, San Antonio, Las Vegas...Is Denver on water? but its probably at least one of the largest that is not on water

I don't think that Lexington is the largest city not on water. Atlanta is not on water, although the Chattahoochee runs nearby. --15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Cjwpmm360--

Likely factual error corrected (population doubling and tripling)

I have removed the following line because it makes no sense:

Fayette County's population has doubled since 1950 and tripled since 1960.

I doubt there was a population decline between 1950 and 1960 since that was the peak of the baby boom, so how can the current population be 2 times the 1950 population and 3 times the 1960 population? If you can clarify/correct this, please do so. Until then, this line is probably best not included. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Factors during that era, such as the opening of the IBM research facility and the creation of many jobs around that as a result do not go along with a population decline. Nor does the completion of East New Circle and the expansion eastward towards East New Circle via Winchester Road. Seicer 17:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

The Nickname the article gives is that this is the "Horse Capital of the World", but I'm not sure that actually passed. (If I remember right it reach some controversy with a few other cities who also called themselves the horse capital of the world, so it was desolved.) What I do know is that Lexington is known as (or at least was known as) "The Athens of the West." (If not its still sort of nostalgic.) I went ahead and added it. I don't think there should be too many objections.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by N@vigation (talk • contribs) .

I'm not aware of what passage (or failure to pass) you're referring to, but "Horse Capital of the World" is a fairly common nickname for Lexington, although there are other cities (such as Ocala, Florida) with the same nickname. At least one official site (visitlex.com, maintained by the Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau, uses the nickname. The urban county government also sponsored an essay contest with a theme of "Why living in the Horse Capital of the World is important to me". Michael Slone (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"New Developments" section

I just wanted to question presentation of the "New Developments" section of the article. I think this section does make a very important point (the building and renovation boom in and around downtown), but I don't think it is necessary to present a catalog of individual developments. Also some of these are very POV ("this mixed-use development introduces rowhouses and townhomes that blend in very well with the existing historical structures.") and read like advertisements ("Only 20 of 96 units remain available!") Cmadler 19:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You should initate a discussion before deletion. I will revert until such a conclusion can be made on how to correct it. If there is any critism, please stick a tag before the section, such as NPOV. Seicer (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that the article has been restored to prevent an edit war and for all parties to reach an approperiate conclusion, I feel that it is a worthwhile read in itself and if anything, should be split into a seperate article. If no one objects, I will split it off Wednesday. Seicer (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was a bit of a row about all this until User:Seicer asked me about adding {{advert}} under the Cityscape heading. I feel that the trend information presented by the twelve subheadings is certainly pertinent — that Lexington is making a concerted effort in revitalizing and renovating its downtown is certainly inportant and noteworthy. However, listing each individual development taking place; and in such a fashion that it reads as an exposition strikes me as excessive. My 3¢: the blow-by-blow of residential oppertunities be re-written along the following lines (facts have been ignored to protect the lazy):

"In the recent years Lexington has made a concerted effort to revitalize and renovate their downtown area, especially in the venues of residential availabilities. In the last twelve days alone, over 6,000 townhomes and three apartments have been renovated and replaced on the market where none before were available or desirable — with around 13 more similar projects either being planned, already underway or nearing completion. Of the over three billion renovation projects planned in the downtown Lexington area, as of June 2006, approximately 28% has been completed."

Obviously over-stated, ...and mostly made-up..., but the right idea, I feel. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What about less of a "list" of developments but have expanded coverage for the projects in paragraph format? For instance, two paragraphs would cover most of the projects. Seicer (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a cleanup tonight on the page, Cityscape as a whole. Did some rewordings and condensings. I also added an image of the CenterCourt project. Please tell me what you think :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone cite the statement of there being a proposed 65 story tower under development by Sherman Carter Barnhart? I can't seem to find anything in Lexington's newspapers, or on the developers website suggesting this...a tower this large would be huge news for kentucky as a whole.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BK4867 (talk • contribs)

The user re-added the statement, so I will leave it up for three days. It already violates verifiability and the original research principle. I will warn the user on his talk page to include a citation. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

People who likely have no lives and get off on a pitiful little "power trips" make me sad. The Lexington tower was cited twice before you erased it. Are you mad it's not in Louisville or something? Get over it, Louisville will have the tallest for at least 3 years with the muesum complex. Please contain your overzealous editing to your ghost hunting articles. You've been reported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.237.67 (talk • contribs) .

I suggest you read how to cite sources, an official policy on Wikipedia before you start with ad homem attacks. Adding an external link is not how you cite a source. Within that link, by the way, contained no relevant information on the project, therefore it must be treated as original research. By official policy, that is not allowed. I suggest you read over the links I provided, then introduce approperiate citations where they are not links that contain no information pertaining to your statements, and then we can go from there. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not continue to add statements that do not abide by official policy. Others have reverted, asked for citations, and have discussed. Introduce your citations, post statements with no original research, and keep it civil. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

For Louisville, we discuss new developments to a good degree in the Cityscape section of Geography of Louisville, Kentucky. We also have separate articles for major projects. Perhaps this could be somewhat of a guide for Lexington (and other cities for that matter). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a seperation at one point, but some complained that it read like an advertisment. I think though, with the article expanding in size, it would be good to spin-off the Cityscape into its own section, similar to Cityscape of Huntington, West Virginia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Louisville, Kentucky has been at FA status for over a year. Yes, I am a proud Louisvillian, but really, this article and its offspring should provide a very good template for other cities, including Lexington. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: the "new 65-story building", I agree that should have a cite other than the architectural firm. If it's not appropriately sourced, keep it out. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

cultural organizations

I'm new to the Wiki thing so I don't want to go into the main article and mess up the layout, but I really think there should be a list of cultural organizations in Lexington. I know they aren't as well attended as the basketball games but Lexington has a lot of professional and semi-pro performing arts organizations for its size and people should know about them.

• The Lexington Philharmonic Orchestra [3]
• Actors Guild of Lexington[4]
• Lexington Childrens Theater[5]
• Lexington Chamber Chorale [6]
• The Lexington Singers [7]
• Lexington Opera Society [8]
• Central Kentucky Youth Orchestras [9]
• Lexington Ballet Company [10]
• Kentucky Ballet Theatre [11]
• Studio Players [12]
• Lexington Arts and Cultural Council [13]
• Singletary Center for the Arts [14]

By no means an exhaustive list but these are the major performing groups in town. One might also list art galleries, the Carnegie Center, etc.

Hope it makes it in! Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.73.34 (talk • contribs) Aug 17, 2006.

I'm not a fan of putting lists in articles, but I do agree that this article might benefit from an "Arts & Culture" section. Cmadler 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

See Louisville, Kentucky#Culture and List of attractions and events in Louisville for templates. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

external links feel like ads

Perhaps it would be possible to make links to things like the city department of commerce or perhaps some major media outlets? The existing list includes and even seems dominated by new home and real estate agent links which is not entirely a bad thing but kind of a distraction and not really encyclopedic. -- M0llusk 18:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I'll look at adding them. --FloNight 05:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial spam links should always be zapped out. Anytime they appear, remove them, and say "Wikipedia is not a web directory". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Highways

Let's discuss this section. First, is it necessary to provide the local names of the roads? I'm not sure that it is. If we wish to include this description, I think there are some errors. Looking at a map of Lexington you can see that:

1. US 25 aka Georgetown Road, does not enter the city from the West. At best I'd call it Northwest, but it's pretty close to North.
2. US 68 becomes S Broadway before it joins up with US 27. The article states that US 27 is "Nicholasville Road to the south, Broadway through town, and Paris Pike to the north)" and that US 68 is "(Harrodsburg Road to the south, multiplexes with US 27 in the rest of the city)". Would it not be more accurate to say that US 68 is Broadway through town and that US 27 multiplexes with it (since US 68 is Broadway before US 27 is Broadway, coming from the south)?
3. US 27 is called S Limestone between Nicholasville Road and the point where it (via some smaller streets) joins up with Broadway.
4. US 421 is called Leestown Road on the Google Maps, but Leestown Pike in the article. Is it Road or Pike, and does that make a difference?
5. Again we have a case of US 421 becoming Main Street (when coming from the west) before US 25 becomes Main Street, but the article states that US 25 is Main and that US 421 multiplexes with US 25.
6. The google maps source shows US 60, US 421 and KY-4 all multiplexing around the west side of town. Is this accurate, and does it deserve a mention?

Mescad 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Replies:

-> 1 - It enters from the north and leaves southeast.

-> 2 - I think so, because US 27 cuts over at Bolivar and Winsolow. That would be accurate but it is so damn confusing.

-> 3 - US 27 is also called S. Upper between Bolivar and S. Limestone - the portion that runs in front of the Taylor Education Building complex.

-> 4 - I have four maps that show it as Leestown Pike. Google Maps is not known for its accuracy most of the time.

-> 5 - US 421 is Main Street from Newtown Pike (IIRC) eastward to whereever it transitions to Richmond Road. US 25 comes in off of Newtown Pike and intersects with US 421, so both would have the same western terminus of Main Street. IIRC, Georgetown Road does not exist between US 421/Main Street and KY 922, but I could be mistaken. I could do a field check this evening or tommorrow to make sure.

-> 6 - This is a sticky issues. All of the US routes were to be multiplexed around New Circle, with the city regaining control of the routes inside so they would have more control (e.g. narrow down lanes, add bike paths, etc. easier without state wrangling). But I still see US 68, US 27, US 421, US 25, etc. shields inside the city - sparsely, but its there.

US 25 and 421 were to use New Circle, and under a KY 4 shield heading NB past the Richmond Road interchange, it is indicated as such. But there are no US 25/421 directional signs on Richmond Road itself. Therefore, US 25/421 bound traffic just continues on down Richmond Road (and to Main Streeet) without ever turning on KY 4. This is evident on the brand new guide signs on Richmond Road after it was reconstructed.

In this case, I am going to assume the routes, with the exception of US 60 (as it is still signed on US 60 as taking New Circle Road) that they are still in the city. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a cleanup and added information pertaining to their routings. All US routes were moved to the beltway, but are not really signed. It's a confusing mess. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Very confusing. I reassert my question of the necessity of this much detail. I appreciate the effort, but I think I'd rather see it in other areas of the article.

Perhaps it could be shortened down with a paragraph about the confusing mess of routes, how they are not signed on New Circle. As far as I know, the routes were all moved to the beltway, with Lexington regaining control of all the routes inside. The signs do not indicate this 100% though...

Would a general map help? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me some spare time and I'll draw up a general map with the major routes listed. I moved the page to Roads of Lexington, Kentucky and will simplify the page considerably, and make it more concise. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanups

Notable residents/people have been moved off of the main page in an effort to condense the information at Lexington, Kentucky and create sub-pages so that they can be expanded upon. See Notable residents of Lexington, Kentucky. Other headings have been reorganized and further cleanups should make this page more concise :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

History

Seems strange that the 'History' ends in 1935. Sca 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Like all Wikipedia articles, this is a work in progress. Feel free to expand. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo

In the image of Lexington at the top of the page, the rightmost office tower looks transparent (you can see the horizon through it). Is this merely an artifact or has the photograph been manipulated? I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm quite serious. --70.72.19.133 07:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like that because the Fifth Third building in Lexington is highly reflective. There is a picture taken at closer range that illustrates how good a mirror the building is. Michael Slone (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a few photographs from various streets that also demostrate the building's extreme reflectiveness. They must clean it quite often! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

interestingly enough, when you walk by the building around sunset on its reflective side, it has casts a really interesting light on the street. It is very reflective. --N@vi

Demographics photo

Two IPusers and most recently a new single purpose account has been removing the image at right for no valid reason. It should be taken to WP:RFA because I have placed the appropriate notices on the users talk page and have exhausted my 3RR. There is no reason the image needs to be deleted, and if the offended user feels so strongly against the image, I suggest that they upload a replacement of their own. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because I am new doesn't negate the logic of my argument. If Wikipedia is going to be the great all inclusive resource it can be, posting the picture of one church of one denomination in the demographics section is wrong. Would you let the picture stay if it were of a Jewish temple? Who wants the picture there? What is its purpose? What INFORMATION does it convey? It adds NOTHING to the demographic data of Lexington. All major cities have hundreds of churches including Lexington. One church adds NO informational value to the demographic information being presented. Now, if one listed the number of churches in lexington with a breakdown of how many people go to which denominations and then threw in a sample picture of some of the churches, that would be appropriate. Unless you want to go through all of that, having the picture of one church implies some hidden agenda or preference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klettern (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 November 2006.

Give me a break. Your assertation that we should include images from every possible religion is absurd. You have made zero credible points against the image's removal, and outright deletion of the image will only force it to be reverted due to lack of sufficient evidence otherwise. There is no "hidden agenda" here, I am atheist myself so I could care less about what group the church is or whether or not I am professing my religion, but you have given no evidence to delete the image otherwise. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read very carefully. I didn't call for pictures of all churches in Lexington. I stated that including one picture means having to include more. The easier and more logical solution is to remove it. Once again, I will ask the questions you failed to respond to. What does the picture add in terms of demographic information? What is its purpose? What does it convey to people who are not native Lexingtonians? How does it demonstrate the depth and breadth of the people of this merged urban county region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klettern (talk • contribs)

You are reading far too much into this. It's just an image, harmless and without objection since its inclusion way before I came onto this project. The argument that you state is that because we include a photo of one church, we must include photos of all the other church demoninations? That's not going along with prior consensus, in which the image removals of the past have been reverted due to insufficient evidence or blatant vandalism (e.g. not leaving an edit summary again and again). I suggest that you actively contribute to the article and expand upon the section by following the lead from Louisville, as previously stated, and include free-use or self-taken images, instead of argue debates that hold no merit. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith here, but if you want to include religion within demographics, you should look at Louisville. If you can photograph an image of one that you previously uploaded without permission, or somehow ask for permission from the page's owners, it would make a welcome addition. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't like what I have said does not negate the argument I have put forth. You have still NOT given ANY reasons for the picture being there. I don't have to add anything to LOGICALLY question the content here. You still have failed to give ANY intelligent reasoning behind the photos inclusion. By your logic, a picture of dead rotting cow could be posted but I couldn't question it since I haven't added to the Lexington entry. That makes no sense. I really couldn't care less what pictures (why do demographic numbers need picttures anyway?) are posted, but there should be at least SOME logic or REASONING for their inclusion else this website ceases to have any validity as a source of information and facts. Why is my methodical examination of this such a problem for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klettern (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 November 2006.

Note: Please sign your posts using four ~~~~. Use : (colons) to indent posts under the reply of others.

Because your account, so far, seems to be solely to bicker about the legitimacy of the image. The image is WP:NOT advocating the religion, nor is it making a definitive statement that all Lexington residents are Baptists. It is also not a soapbox, and it falls within the range of acceptable doctrines. As I clearly stated in bold on your talk page, you should take it to WP:RFC and request some other comments if you so highly desire. But it is clear that others want this image to remain, as do I, unless you have a photograph that would otherwise supplement or replace it that would fall within the acceptable image use guidelines. I also invite you, to expand outside of your single purpose account, to expand the article and add a religion subheading similar to Louisville, Kentucky. Here is some help to get you started. As always, ask any questions on my talk page for editing, but I am not going to continue this pinwheel of a thread. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You have perfectly illustrated how petty illogical thought can ruin Wikipedia. Is anyone who actually spends time on this site capable of rational thought with the accompanying ability to answer logical questions posed by others seeking simple answers? Socrates would laugh at you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klettern (talk • contribs) 16:29, 11 November 2006.

Your ad-homiem attacks are no longer welcomed at Wikipedia. You have been given the opportunity to file and RFC but you have declined. You have been advised to add images of your own and to expand the article. Again, you have declined. I've run out of patience for your single purpose account, so if you have anything useful you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you are more than free to do so. Until then, I suggest you take the time to review Wikipedia's policies, review my useful edits for idea on how to get started, and follow the proper procedures on how to garner other viewpoints on this subject. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)