Thanks Chris. Sorry, not to have understood you first time around: I have a streaming cold today and it seems to have gone to my brain! :-) Terry George himself could do wth a ticking off, but I guess that there's no way to stop the self-promoting types. Ho hum. OK, I need LemSip! Alchemy12 (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, but the article was already judged unsuitable for Speed Delete, so have reverted it to AfD. Alchemy12 (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chris19910, you added an 'A1 deletion' flag to an article i posted, so I was hoping you could offer a bit of advice.
I am new to contributing on wp, and have tried to sort though the help/standards/etc, but am still unsure. Specifically, I recently added several articles (about mechancial fasters, herehere and here). They are all items that a) are common in the mechanical / automotive world and b) are not well-documented (by which I mean wp has zero mention of them, and a google search does not turn up anything worthwhile in the first 20+ matches). Thus, I added what I could.
I believe after a round of edits, including making them stubs, I have made them acceptable... but I would appreciate any feedback you might have. In light my specific posts I'm especially interested in how to go about posting such a thing that your very sure belongs in wp but aren't an expert in and can't find definitive references....
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 11:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your speedy tagging of Made in Bangkok was misguided to say the least. It contained the names of six people, all of whom have articles here. Please read articles before tagging them for speedy deletion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)[edit]
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am and was not sure how to contact you. But I found your note; ' This user has been offered adoption by Chris19910'
YES, PLEASE I would like to be adopted. I am User:Carol Sutton.
I went to my own 'my talk' page, but did not see a message from you. But saw you message on a Yahoo search engine return.
I have placed my note here, under another help me post; as I do not know how to send you a message.
What should I do now?
Many thanks, Carol
___
Note, I've disabled the helpme in the above message, as I don't think it was intended, but please feel free to put it back up if not. Hersfold(t/a/c) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have just declined the speedy you placed on Laura Taylor Swain which had nominated as "Insufficient context to identify the subject of the article" which as the opening sentence at the time of tagging was "Laura Taylor Swain is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York" leads me to believe that you hadn't actually read it before slapping on a CSD notice. Please could you take more care in future as inappropriate speedy tagging creates unnessary work for admins, but, more importantly has the potential to drive away good contributors who see their perfectly acceptable articles tagged for deletion within seconds of being created. Less haste more speed. Kind regard, nancy(talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you nancy for your prompt response. I second what she has said and add that Chris19910's recent attempt to speedy delete Stewie Griffinhere failed to take into account obvious previous vandalism.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the uw-vandalism2 template recently added to my talk page.[1]
However, I would like to request that from now on, you do not hand out warning to users who are removing (lengthy) copyright violations from frequently-vadalized pages. I have re-removed the material in violation.[2]
After that message accusing of "apparent vandalism", i responded politely and, checked back to your talk page, because some user respond on their own rather than send to other (that is an option). MY MESSAGE was gone, on purpose or not, and i'll wrap up saying that:
Do not tell me, PLEASE, that if one sees a POORLY wikilinked article, with VANDALISM and OVER-THE-TOP POV, one cannot edit immediately, to the best of their abilities. I will be honest with you, Chris. I entered WIKIPEDIA on October 22, 2006 (at least that was my first edit), and i still do not know what the SANDBOX is, honestly, i just edit on the spot, with THE BEST (rest assured) intentions.
Oddly, enough i have been called an "apparent vandal" more than once, maybe it is time to go and something more productive with my life, it this is the reward i get for HELPING OUT...
From Portugal, have a pleasant life/wikistay,
VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris19910, my change to the Orrell article was intended to bring the article into line with the main Wigan article i.e. the intro uses numeric characters when referring to distance rather than a written word (e.g. '3' instead of 'three'. I believe this should be the case with all Wigan related articles . Thanks Man2 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Man2 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you leave an "attack page" warning on my talk page? -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't make sense to me. How is that article in any way an "attack?" -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entire text of the article. Please tell me what portion of it is an "attack." -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea Parhamovich (known as Andi) was a National Democratic Institute employee killed in Baghdad on January 17, 2007. She was the subject of the book I Lost My Love in Baghdad: A Modern War Story, written by her fiance-to-be and Newsweek reporter Michael Hastings.
You've got your signals crossed, it's completely unrelated to "attack pages". --- Fuzheado | Talk 14:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from putting speedy deletion notices on the work i am doing. It is not 'nonsense' and if you care to follow the categories i have been careful to add, you will see a whole development section on speedway in the uk. --Rml123 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this works, but the pattern reminds me a bit of one of a flurry of users indef-blocked for racism last fall (Fourdee, Hayden, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised to see them try their mischief again. Here's hoping I'm wrong, though.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final warning regarding inappropriate speedy deletion tagging[edit]
Your more than welcome just thought that you should have them seen as I have seen you around and about doing great things for the community. Bridwater (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Carol, what you need to do when you want to email me is you need to go onto my usertalk page and you need to find the toolbox on the left hand side of the page there should be a link that says email this user. This is how you email me if you have any questions email me or just go onto my talk page and add a comment by clicking on the + beside edit this page and i will respond to your concern or what ever is needed. Chris19910 (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adopting me.
At this point I am wondering how I should proceed or IF I should proceed if my article is going to be deleted. Should I be the one to delete it? Maybe someone else will put up an article on Andre Fauteux?
I take offense to your comments " Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to TheSkittzo, you will be blocked from editing. Chris19910 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)" I was merely deleting a page I myself had created after it was tagged for speedy deletion (why I do not know).
I do not 'want' it removed, but if it was going to be removed automatically I was simply going to save time. If it is going to be reviewed for content than allow it to remain for the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsmith2004 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm trying to understand something here. Earlier today User:Bridwater awarded you an anti-vandalism barnstar, for which you thanked him/her. Later, Bridwater blanked your userpage and reverted a few attempts to revert them. I issued a 24 block following a report at AIV, and am investigating this matter. Bridwater, in their unblock request, says that they have your permission to blank your userpage - are you able to confirm this? I have asked Bridwater for the diff, but getting your affirmation would negate the need for "evidence". Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I have watchlisted this page for your reply.[reply]
yes i gave this user permission to do it as long as they reverted it afterwards sorry for causing a mix up Chris19910 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now resolved; Bridwater is unblocked. Bridwater was unable to revert their own blanking, as other editors were quickly doing that, and he was revert blanking (presumably to be able to test the unblank option) and it appeared to outsiders to be an edit war - which was reported to AIV. Hopefully we all learned something today... Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the autoblock function... I will try again! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be cleared now - I will note at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your message at my talkpage, I suggest that you allow the case to be presented - CU can clear people as well as condemn. If your conscience is clear then let it proceed; afterward you can delete the notice from your talkpage. However, I will have a quick look at the various contribution histories and make a comment at the RFCU page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from each others user/talk pages I see no crossover, most importantly in article space, and I note that the Carol Sutton (talk·contribs) account predates yours. There is a very dissimilar way that you and Bridwater handle your talkpages. I will post these comments at the RFCU page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are now there. I have made a comment about you possibly having a previous identity, which I picked up from one of your earliest edit summaries. If this is the case, I make no comment, it may be that you will have to identify your previous account by email to evidence your familiarity with WP for such a new account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. You may wish to comment that you had a previous identity at the above case, so the reviewer is aware why you have such experience for a new account. I doubt if it is necessary to email anyone who you were, as long as the CU determines no likelihood of the accounts being from the same area. As I have suggested there is too much dissimilarity between the accounts to pass the duck test, the only concern being if one the other accounts were placed close to you geographically - and dependent where that is (there being possibly hundreds if not thousands of addresses from a major city, against potentially very few from a rural area). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have expressed interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. However, after reviewing your edit history, I feel you may need more experience editing (i.e., >2,500 edits & 4 months of activity) on Wikipedia before you can know for certain your ready to begin the process of becoming an administrator. Therefore, at this time, your application for Admin Coaching has been declined.
My suggestion would be to seek adoption from a more experienced user who can help you experience all of the various components of editing an encyclopedia. If you decide adoption is not for you, there is also the editor review process that may help you find areas to improve upon in our editing. If you would like to talk more about this, please feel free to leave me a note at my talk page. MBisanztalk 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I came across your speedy deletion taggings, and I noticed that some of them were in error (wrong tag, or a page that doesn't need speedying at all). I also notice that you have had quite a number of remarks about this before. Could you please either be more careful, or stop speedy tagging altogether for a while uhntil you have more experience? Examples of errors: G6 housekeeping on a brand new article which appears to be about a legitimate subject[3], or "foreign language article" for an article with many strange words / names and unclear contents, but which is basically in English and seems at first glance to be about a notable subject[4]. Finally, there is no indication at all that this[5] was a test page, it could at worst be a hoax, but it doesn't look that way. Everyone who does speedy deletions makes errors, but three or more in an hour is clearly too much.
I also don't think that, with your current lack of experience, it would be a good idea if you would adopt a user. You are here since less than a month and clearly need to get a better grasp of many things around here (which is understandable of course). Waiting a few more months before adopting users may be a better idea. Fram (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping with patrolling Wikipedia. Please do not place this tag on pages before checking that they actually exist on other Wikipedias. If a page is in a foreign language and does NOT exist in another wikipedia, please use the tag {{Notenglish}} and follow the instructions on the tag, i.e., add {{subst:Needtrans | pg = PAGENAME | Language = unknown}} ~~~~ to the bottom of this section of Pages needing translation into English. Andreas (T) 15:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm going to have to decline you as well; not only do you have insufficient mainspace edits, some of your CSD tags are inaccurate- using G11 instead of A7, for example, and tagging I love Lucy rather than changing it to a redirect to I Love Lucy. Feel free to try again when you have a little more experience. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- I'm curious why you reverted my edits to the WPMILHIST assessment of Amédée Mouchez. I'd like to make sure I'm not misinterpreting the criteria. Thanks. -- Avocado (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with this? [6] His edits were correcting style and spelling errors! (see MOS:CAPS:"Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case.") Usually I would assume reversion of a new user's edits were removing vandalism or nonsense, but instead you're discouraging a brand new user who's making good edits. Please be more careful. Madeleine✉✍ 22:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of your recent edit history and the extensive and inappropriate use of the rollback function (some of which is documented by Fram above) coupled with a seeming inability to act on the constructive criticism you have been offered, I have revoked your rollback access. You are of course welcome to re-apply however it is unlikely that any request will be granted unless you can demonstrate over a reasonable period (say 2 months) that the accuracy of your reversions has improved significantly. Kind regards, nancy(talk) 08:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your last edit to Chemical warfare which was the final straw - you reverted an admin who had quite correctly inserted a space between two words where previously there was none. Your edits are not constructive or helpful.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. nancy(talk) 08:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Unblock|My edit was a mistake because I have been up editing wikipedia all night. Was just about to finish and go to bed when i saw that. Therefore that is why i did it.}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
You seem to make mistakes like that way too often. I've got a proposal: I blanked your monobook.js and protected it for a month. If you promise to stay away from RC/NP patrolling for duration of that period, there will be no point in keeping you blocked. And if your contributions will indicate that you've learnt your lessons and will not make such hasty decisions anymore, I'd be happy to unprotect it early. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just point out that the claim of being up all night editing Wikipedia is not supported by your contribution histroty which show that the edit to Chemical Warfare was only the 5th after an 11 hour break, and I might add was immediately preceeded by your removal of Fram's plea for restraint and extensive list of problematic diffs from this userpage. nancy(talk) 09:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, MaxSem very kindly unblocked you but this was conditional on your promise to stay away from RC/NP patrolling for a month and to stop using Twinkle. I am very disappointed to see that you immediately went back to new page patrol and reverting (both using Twinkle). This is a two-way street Chris and you have to show us that you can be trusted - voluntarily keeping to the terms of your unblock is crucial to this process - particularly if you want to succeed in your ambitions. Your last few edits have been adding welcome templates - that's great so please do carry on with that and there is also lots of other useful work you can get involved in which will keep you away from RC/NP. How about checking out some of the Wiki taskforces? - there are loads of pages that need categorising for example. Kind regards, nancy(talk) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chris, I have been watching this page since the Bridstone matter. I think you need to review the manner in which you are contributing to the encyclopedia. It seems to me that you are in the first flush of enthusiasm, and that you are attempting to do too much too quickly. I counsel that you take far more time and care over your edits, and especially bear in mind that you are dealing with people, in the future. Five or six edits that stick around for a while is far better than a dozen that get quickly overturned - it also means that it is likely that when the enthusiasm wanes you will be experienced enough to still contribute usefully with the fewer hours/edits. Please also remember to listen, since by learning you make fewer mistakes which means more good edits. Also, saying one thing and then not doing it does not bode well for a continued presence here. It is vital that you show that you can be trusted - otherwise you will not be allowed to use the tools. I hope you will take on the advice you are being given and become the excellent contributor you are capable of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I started, but there is an extremely long history of vandalism, and this is my first investigation. I am planning to finish it, but I'll be without computer access for a couple of days starting in five hours or so. Great to hear you contacted the schools, I am quite interested in their reply (if any). --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sucks to hear they haven't replied yet. I think it'd be great if we helped each other out, however since this is my first case, I know little. Perhaps we could ask User:Prom3th3an who had offered to take the report on before either of us started working on it. Thanks for e-mailing the school. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in formal mediation. Regretfully, I don't think you have enough experience in mediation in general, as well as the on-Wiki dispute resolution process, to successfully mediate with the Committee at this time. You may wish to take a look at the following pages:
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia's page describing the process by which disputes are to be resolved on-wiki.
Additionally, your nomination was not filed in the correct way: see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Procedure for details on how to lodge a request to join the Committee. As I advised above, however, a nomination from you at this time will, regretfully, not succeed: potential additions to the Committee must be exceptionally well-rehearsed in guiding disputes over content to a successful conclusion; at the present, it seems you aren't.
Thanks again, however, for your interest. You may wish to try your hand at informal mediation, where no selection process takes place: one can simply float by (they have a backlog at the present, incidentally), take up a dispute that has been listed there as warranting attention, and mediate away. Wikipedia:Mediation cabal has more information on informal mediation and the processes therein.
All the best, Anthøny 21:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Chris you do seem to be making steady progress since our last chat and I am really delighted to see that you have been making good, positive contributions to the Encyclopaedia with your categorisation work. If I were to offer a little advice about the categorisation I would suggest slowing down a little and making sure that you have added the most detailed category/categories possible. Also if an article only has a 'stub' tag on it then it is still technically uncategorised so you should either leave the uncat template on it, or, of course add 'proper' categories. WP:UNCAT has a hints and tips section which has lots of useful advice.
There is only one recent edit of yours that I am really concerned about and that is your application for VandalSniper - you promised to keep away from RC/NP patrol for a month so I think that having VandalSniper at this time would just be putting temptation in your way - it may be better for you to withdraw the request? Anyway, keep up the good work, kind regards, nancy(talk) 08:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comments. Although the AWB page does say "minimum 500 mainspace edits", that's not the only criterion, and other issues may influence the decision. That is why your full links are available to the Admin making the decision. However, I see you've already taken the matter up with that admin, and you should wait and see if he is prepared to reconsider the decision. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
/* Disruptive application for automated tools */[edit]
Please stop applying for automated tools. Your applications are not going to be accepted and if you continue to apply, you will be blocked for disruption. Nakon 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Nakon 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This Admin is very agressive towards me I have complained about him in the past and is still attacking me, when I leave perfectly legit applications on the vandalism patrols will always deny it sayin that due to me being blocked before I am not allowed to do it. I would lodge another complaint but because i have been blocked I am unable to do it. If this matter is not sotred then i will have to leave wikipedia and I will tell all of my friends not to bother to use wikipedia at all because all of the admins just pick on you. If it is sorted out then that is fine.
Decline reason:
Sorry Chris, this block has to stand. An unblock might have been possible had you not created a sockpuppet and gone an extremely disruptive spree, refactoring other peoples decisions on request pages and generally acting in manner which does not inspire trust and has caused all manner of work for other Wikipedians. nancy(talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nancy i havent created a sockpuppet. I have heard this somewhere before and it turned out that the accounts actually had nothing to do with me. I havent created any other accounts since I joined apart from on the Meta wiki to talk to Jimbo regarding me testing some software if you would like to check this out then you can. Chris19910 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, please don't make it worse for yourself by trying to pretend that it wasn't you. As your Computer Science 'A' Level will have taught you, every time you use the internet you leave behind a trail which it is very difficult to cover. In this instance you have been caught out by your IP address; a new account User:Cookingexpert was created this afternoon from the same IP address as you and immediately edited the very same page (indeed your own request on that page) that you had been edit warring on. As soon as you were blocked you switched to the other account which was then autoblocked by the MediaWiki software. It is pretty cut and dried so the best you can do is stop trying the deny the truth and instead sit your block out in a dignified manner. Hopefully you will come back having learned and grown from this episode and will be the productive and constructive editor that I know you are capable of becoming. nancy(talk) 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy as stated in the unblock request I am leaving wikipedia and so are my college friends. I have warned them not to create accounts as the admin's just pick on you and also to write a letter of complaint to Jimbo personally. I will also be ringing him at his office and telling him exactly what I think of the wikipedia he has created and how there is a flaw in the blocking system. Chris19910 (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, you are blocked for two weeks. If you continue to make threats and disrupt the encyclopedia you may possibly be blocked indefinitely, and if you abuse the privilege of using your talkpage to continue making threats and causing disruption the page may be protected from you editing it. You have been given ample opportunity to become a useful contributor - and you have helped in many areas - but you have not shown the maturity and responsibility to use many of the tools, and you have a habit of making claims that you are unable to substantiate. You can learn from this episode, and still yet become the respected member of the community you so obviously wish to be regarded as, if you are able to conduct yourself appropriately in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia through sockpuppetry, your next block will not expire. Nakon 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)[edit]
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)[edit]
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)[edit]
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
