-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!
Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
RfA start
Hey Bwilkins, I started up the RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2. This is only my second time, so I can't guarantee that I didn't mess anything up. anyway, feel free to take your time filling out the answers and waiting for co-noms if you like; transclude whenever you're ready, I've got in on my watchlist! Good luck, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs23:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I thought your answer was good. Thought that discussion complemented what you had said pretty nicely. It's always nice to know that there are other people out there on the limb with you :) Guettarda (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*starts singing "Rudolph, the Brown-nosed Reindeer"*. I guess it probably would not have been appropriate if I had used my work on the disambig page Wilkins as one of the pages I was most proud of. Why don't we have "Featured Disabig Pages"?? *LMAO* (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re, your message, oh, I am, trust me.. The same situation happened to me during the Frei Hans incident.. don't know if you were there or not, but he filed a sock case against Tan, that listed every single person who interacted with him as a sock. ... His reasons? They all have barnstars... You get my drift, heh. Also c.c I've looked it up, I've read the wiki article, but I still don't understand why they're called copy-edits.— DædαlusContribs12:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Id like to offer an alternative view on this incident due to it being showcased as an example of your good work on the RFA and as for me it resulted in a good editor being excluded for no good reason. I hope this doesnt sound too critical as i dont think many would have handled the situation much better and there may be things Im missing. It was great that you took the time to intervene initially with good advice. What you didnt seem to understand is that for the more passionate person who isnt as detached or reflective as most it takes a while for them to change no matter how good and tactful any advise is. Even more so when theres language issues in the mix. WGB did seem to have taken much of the advice on board, and there wasnt really any need for him to be reported for making a couple of support votes, especially as he hadnt been formally banned from RfA. A lighter touch could have avoided the drama and retained a quality editor for the project. I doubt you will agree, but at least you might take this into consideration once you have the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? He participated in the ANI discussion, and was 110% fully aware that the had been community banned from WP:RFA. When I politely advised him of this (at which point, if he had merely removed his !votes as accidental, there would not have been any problems) he attacked me and other editors. I remain considerate of this editor - indeed, his actions have been exasperating - it is not fun to watch a meltdown. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question at RfA
I asked you a question at your RfA. It's certainly optional, but I'd really like to know why someone who wants to be an administrator is making comments like this:
"Maybe he should have used the word "fuckface" - after all, as Russell Peters says, "it cannot be an insult: it's simply the face you make when you fuck"
on AN/I. AN/I is supposed to be one thing, a place where editors can get help from an administrator about a wikipedia incident that requires the assistance of an administrator. I'm tired of the drive-by idiotic posts there, and I'm tired of how it makes wikipedia look to the world. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already responded. I am actually quite surprised in how you responded - using it as an oppose, rather than simply ask me in the first place - I think the clarification earlier would have been far more beneficial. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if I got this. We're writing an encyclopedia here. There's a problem at AN/I. It's been escalating. Someone brings up that Guy called someone a fuckwit on their talk page. Guy defends it because that someone called him a vandal a couple of times. It eventually escalates into a discussion of Guy's calling someone a fuckwit, and a couple of editors express the concern that calling someone a fuckwit is never appropriate. You add a remark about your facial expressions while having intercourse. That's not what I thought the remark was, but that's your claim here. I thought it was just grossly inappropriate; you now seem to be proudly claiming it's far worse than that. So, just before your nomination for adminship you add a comment about your face during intercourse to an already heated situation that was cooling down. You want to be an administrator. We're writing an encyclopedia. How did your remark about your personal life have anything to do with what was going on at AN/I. I ask a question about what I think is an inappropriate comment by you, and you turn it into something far more inappropriate, claiming that you were discussing yourself during the act of intercourse. Was that SMART?
Why would you think it would be appropriate for the encyclopedia-writing community at wikipedia for you to bring up anything about you during intercourse, at AN/I, or at your RfA? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.17:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have always considered our working in the same areas to be fairly cooperative, you are welcome to vent here as well, just as you are. Your unfortunate misreading is just that: unfortunate, but please, go ahead. My response on ANI was quite clear, and quite truthful. The original situation clearly did not need "enhancement", but you asked, so I was open and honest with you. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so I had. In fact, I think I read yours last of the three, because I assumed it would be a quick glance through your edit history and a rapid no-brainer support. You seem to do a lot of work, edit with your brains, and work with other editors. One of the worst things on wikipedia, imo, is the drive-by gratuitous commentaries, mostly by administrators, at AN/I that turn it into a hate fest. (Mostly, as one long time editor pointed out, directed at other administrators.)
I don't think wikipedia needs talk like yours. It does not contribute to what our mission at wikipedia is: writing an encyclopedia. It makes us look unprofessional, and it turns users off. If things are cooling off at AN/I, administrators should learn to shut up instead of adding a drive-by, pointless, useless, idiotic comment that has the potential to inflame the situation and make wikipedia look like it's run by a bunch of idiots. If your language is so bad, that I get reverted and called a vandal for posting it, then wikipedia ought to be looking elsewhere for administrators, in my opinion. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.19:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask for clarification: Do you think editing Wikipedia is a profession? Are you advocating that the sole purpose for logging on to the site be editing article space and all experiences here be joyless trudges through bland factoids? I would like to assert that you misstated yourself above: We are writing a Community Encyclopedia. I don't think Community can be left out of the discussion. As inappropriate as BMW's specific statement may have been, I hope and plead that we don't reduce our interaction to the lifeless, joyless, hopeless interaction it appears you are advocating above. Heaven help us when we get so serious we can't make fun of ourselves. Why do we need to appear professional? We're not. (Unless, of course, you are actually a professional encyclopedia editor. I don't know) I am not, nor shall I ever lay claim to being a professional editor. I'm willing to bet most of the people on here are not professional. I don't want to cast aspersions but I wonder how many people expect Wikipedia to be edited by professionals? Was the specific comment by BMW out-of-line? Yes, I don't think that's up for debate. Should we castigate the guy and cast him upon the stones? I don't think so. Padillah (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, the two choices now are: 1. you can call people fuckwits on wikipedia or 2. if you can't it's a "joyless trudge through bland factoids?" and wikipedia is a worthless piece of drivel? Interesting. Not really. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me.23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you wish to view the situation then, yeah. If keeping the atmosphere around here congenial means allowing the occasional "fuckwit" through then those that oppose will have to understand that's the price we pay (hey, I don't want Glenn Beck to have a TV show but I'm just gonna have to suck it up). In point of fact, and you can read what actually I said if you want, I said twice that what BMW said was out-of-line. But that's because of it's context, not it's phraseology or relevance. There is no need for any of us to be held to the metric of "professionalism" because none of us are... (professional editors, that is). Padillah (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I'm being opposed because I'm the most recent in a line of 2,000 admins to have cursed. Rather than say try to convince me to rally the troops to be curse-free, I get to be the first in line for a "Never" vote on RfA to set a poorly-considered example - or more likely a martyr. Apparently, based on the fact that people do occasionally swear, IP69 will never be able to provide a single "yes" vote - which will, of course, make sure that he goes the way of editors such as DougsTech. Wise thinking. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say
That's a pretty impressive collection.
I admit to being slightly intoxicated at the time of writing on your RfA. Nonetheless, I hope readers there appreciate my point (that some people, in good faith, seem to be missing the point of RfA somewhat), and that it hasn't been looked upon as a WP:POINT (I don't believe I have disrupted wikipedia, and if I have, I apologise profusely).
It is a few days after the comments were made. As a follow-up to this, I wanted to remind you that both making racist comments, AND accusations of racism can both be considered to be severe violations of WP:NPA. I'm going to assume that tempers have calmed down, and I would hope that we will not see repeated violations. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this article is under attack yet again by the anti-British Isles POV army. This user, Þjóðólfr, insists on removing the relevant and obvious fact that Bert Trautmann was the first player outside the British Isles to win the award. I've explained above why this is the case, but to no avail, apparently. As with other members of the anti-British Isles group, this user is gaming the system by insisting on a reference to an obvious fact - and not any old reference, but one that specifically states, word-for-word, the contested sentence. I'll fix up the article for now, but we could be into edit war territory yet again. Mister Flash (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFA
Hello DangerousPanda. You are receiving this notice because you have either supported or posted constructive suggestions during my recent self-nominated RFA, submitted on 18-01-2010. Please do spend a few minutes to read my comments on the nomination, and feel free to respond on the relevant talkpage for any further comments or questions. Thank you for participating. Regards. Rehman(+)15:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are now an administrator
Congratulations, I have just closed your RFA as successful and made you an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask me if you ever have any questions. Useight (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it's your size, cuz I threw away the receipt Congratulations! Here's your t-shirt, check in with the leader of your cabal for the secret handshake. Keys to the executive washroom now require checkuser status. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. I didn't want to state it at the RfA since it is so cliche, but I always just presumed you were an administrator all along! Now you won't be fooling anyone else! Happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! I (back when I was TravisTX) remember being impressed with your work at ANI ages ago so I gladly welcome you to the ranks! —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah! I popped back to RPP and found that there's another admin doing some protection after I'd been holding the fort all day (again!), and it's the newbie! Congrats, and if you need any mopping advice, give me a shout! GedUK14:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They let you into the admin for life cabal? Jeesh. Next thing you know even Everyking will make it into the club. It seems Obama's parties aren't the only ones where gatecrashers are a problem. ;) Oh well. Congratulations and enjoy yourself, but not too much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems I'm late to the party and Everyking is already in. Now we need to get someone to nominate Giano. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it did seem to take a while to get you across the finish line. By "yikes" you mean to say it wasn't "that" hard and you're not really that outspoken on controversial subjects? Might want to clarify. I know you agree with me that he's one of our best and very worthy of the utmost respect. Congratulations. Your good faith efforts here give a good indication that you will be a worthy admin. If so, that would make 3. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giano has a different level of passion than I do ... I enjoy a good battle, but will back away if it helps me win the war. I hold passion at its own level of respect accordingly. I will do my best to do the best I can do ... if that makes sense. I will never please everybody, but I will always try to act according to my philosophy, and hopefully that works out ok. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politicalchronology, although you deleted the redirect of the article that was the primary subject of the AfD it remains as Chronology of world political changes because the author moved it (twice, in fact). There are also various related articles and redirects remaining, at least one of which was specifically mentioned in the AfD discussion. Please consult the original author's contribs for the comprehensive list. Can you delete all of these, or will I need to create a separate multi-article AfD and go through the process again? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I caught 2 additional ones that included "Politicalchronology" which was the key basis for the deletion... I'll go through the list again and remove any that include that title. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just the problem of the neologism, but also the original research and apparent content forking. In my opinion (and this seems to be in broad agreement with the consensus at the AfD discussion), all related articles should be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting St Cyrus. At least that piece of church promotion shouldn't bounce back for a while. I've just removed similar information from Johnshaven — the two villages share a minister and are part of the same parish, so I suspect the same editors may be at work. There's also an article on Mearns Costal Parish Church, which looks to me to be of dubious notability. In fact both village articles seem to contain a lot of non-encyclopedic stuff too, but that's another story...! --Deskford (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor has now reverted my edit to Johnshaven, without any explanation. I have removed the time of the church service and the name of the minister again, but I really don't want to get into an edit war with an IP editor, particularly one who seems to change his IP address on a daily basis. Any advice? --Deskford (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - we appear to have a disagreement about our interpretation of the guidlines. The page for Mearns Coastal Parish Church has been deleted. If I recreated that page and left little more than a link on the St Cyrus and Johnshaven pages would that solve our problem? Hope we can sort this out.--Uvghifds (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main issues is that Wikipedia is not a directory. Most articles on individual churches, schools, etc are quickly removed, or blended into one larger school board article. Individual schools and churches are simply not notable. Please keep this in mind when you are creating articles - it is a shame to see such work continually deleted, and it's more harsh on the creator of the articles. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. However I still feel pn the St Cyrus page the fact that there is a church deserves a mention. Maybe you could write this in an encyclopedia friendly way?--Uvghifds (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be facetious, but doesn't every town have a church or two? If the church is a significant tourist attraction, or has the "highest steeple in lower Scotland", or "the first Prime Minister of Canada was baptized there"...and you have sources to prove it, then that's the only way the church becomes notable. (talk→BWilkins←track) 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that apparent understanding of the nature of OR at the end of the discussion, I unblocked with the usual proviso that any reversion to the previous behavior will result in a permanent block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFPP templates
Hello there! In case you didn't know,
{{rfpp|s|3 days}} will produce Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.,
thus avoiding the necessity of typing in the duration long hand. You can then explain rationale where necessary after the }}s. GedUK13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, cool, thanks ... I should have further read the template usage, rather than just getting right to work LOL. Other than that, everything look good so far with what I'm doing? (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with your way, it just involves more effort! I haven't checked over any of your protections, I'm sure they're fine. If you come across one you're not sure of, leave it for someone else! GedUK13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You might wanna take a look at this article. It appears as if the creator of the article is on a mission to use wikipedia as a promotional platform for his company. Amsaim (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to write my first text after unblocking to thank you for tap my back and encourage me to continue in WP. You are a good guy Bwilkins. I guess as an admin you will never need my help so have my wishes for good luck. --Factuarius (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a while to find some evidence, but AfD doesn't preclude a speedy deletion if there's a clear contravention. In this case an article called Islam Diaa created by an editor called User:Islam diaa seems a pretty clear and blatant self-publicity move. Please reconsider. Bazj (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
...or if you feel you can't since you've already voted for a delete, restore the speedy for another admin to consider. Regards, Bazj (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the ref, I know it can be done. Some of the original versions of the article had references, which have been removed as not necessarily appropriate. I have also left the editor a nice note suggesting that he voluntarily withdraw the article under G7 ... to be CSD'd once, then PROD'd, and now AFD's is a little WP:BITEy, and I'm trying to gently poke him into realizing that he is not yet notable. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nuff. I just read your edit summary that you wouldn't speedy because of the AfD as... yeah, well. I like your subtle approach, but just don't think he'll get it. Bazj (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the procedural requirements are well in hand. Baring sudden changes, I expect the green light in a few days.
Have you warmed up the hosting environment for 7SeriesBOT? Got a python interpreter, downloaded pywikipedia, etc? How much hand-holding would you like? Josh Parris12:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am warming it up ... I'm having to throw a new NIC into the PC that it will be running on (my wife won't accidentally shut it down :-) ). I will need a little handholding - but I'm reasonably technical. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Admin, I would like to confirm that Iaaassi was editing Mures Template in good faith. There was a dispute on the deletion of a template created by me, in which we exposed seriously opposing views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26
After we received the admin's decision, we tried to work out a compromise, and as I see from the edits, Iaaassi wanted to implement a compromise that I proposed to him on my talkpage and I expressed my thank on his talkpage for the good intention. I think he may have simply edited more times than was good. This is not the Romanian-Hungarian edit war, but Romanian-Hungarian co-operation, so let us be happy with it. The template is good as is now.
As I was the author both of the deleted Maros (Mures) county template and the new version this template, and had a main part in the discussion, I think I can impartially judge on this issue. It would be ironic that Iaassi is blocked when seeking compromise and undestanding. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your closing the Human Instrumentality Project DRV in my favor, but is it really necessary to full-protect the redirect? Obviously that makes it more difficult for me to make a full article in the future, and in the short-term makes it more difficult for the redirect to be updated. (Some editors like BreadNinja or Dandy Sephy are constantly agitating for various page moves & renames; it is not implausible that in the next year or three the redirect will need editing.) --Gwern (contribs) 15:31 6 February 2010 (GMT)
I didn't do anything "in your favour" :-) I made the logical decision based on the information at hand. If you want to make an article, that's why you have a WP:SANDBOX. Any admin can then move a completed article over, if it's written correctly, and likewise, you can make a request on the talkpage of the redirect to have an edit done to a protected page. Someday, you might make a request to have the entire page unprotected at WP:RFPP, however, I 110% agreed with the suggestions in the DRV to protect it for now. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah - if it was really so logical based on the information at hand, we'd turn over all DRV closes to an AWB or Pywikipedia script!
While I will admit that I am disappointed that you didn't include any restriction on GoRight's participation in dispute resolution in the terms of your parole (as was suggested by 2over0 in his original terms), I trust that you will be extremely vigilant once GoRight starts to involve himself in other editors' disputes again. I fear that his insertion of himself into other editors' fights was perhaps the most inflammatory and unconstructive aspect of his conduct, and seemed to be a major concern of both admins who previously indef-blocked him. That your unblock terms appear to gloss over any direct mention of these problems is worrying, but I hope that you are prepared to deal with this problem when it resumes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged - there's enough rope in what he already has, and I expect he may violate sooner than later. Inserting himself into other's fights will lead him into the realm of incivility, and that's covered. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I intend to try and find something else to do for a while and let things just cool down. After that, if I feel that I want to express an opinion in such a venue I will try to limit myself to a single civil paragraph and voting in any polls that crop up, and possibly responses to any questions which are directed specifically at me. Would this be considered out of line or disruptive in your opinion (I understand that content has a lot to do with it, but in general)? --GoRight (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content and context will be important. Stay out of fights, and edit. When push comes to shove, click "logout" and go and spend time with family/friends instead. There's nothing on this site worth getting hot and bothered over, and nothing that cannot wait until cooler heads are prevailing. Cheers. (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't being an admin fun? Are you enjoying all the crap you have to take if you actually try and do the job? Seriously though, I was about to step in here myself just to put and end to what is probably the longest unblock conversation I've ever seen, I'm glad you stepped up and made a decision nobody else seemed to want to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who hasn't had the mop for more than a few moments, unblocking GoRight was a bold move to make. It is very good to see a new administrator that isn't afraid to get things done. Good job. Trusilver21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You referred to a "mentor" for GoRight. Who would that be? A search for the word "mentor" on his Talk didn't see any explicit offers of mentorship. Perhaps it was implicit in other parts of the discussion, but I'd be grateful for clarification. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the same question but even without a formal answer I was planning to seek guidance from Bwilkins, Trusilver, and Lar should the need arise and I invite any of the three to be pro-active in keeping me on the straight and narrow. On a separate point, even though it is a bit of a formality you might want to consider recording a final set of the language for my editing restrictions at WP:RESTRICT. I have argued that this is an important step in the past and I don't want myself to be any exception in that respect. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I think such a statement is more than a "formality" given that the unblock statement as it stands is ambiguous and incomplete (except that you are in fact unblocked). As well as the lack of clarity in the mentorship provision it's also unclear what the "accepted topic ban" refers to, what is the "specified period," and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that his references to an accepted civility parole and an accepted article ban were regarding my acceptance of Trusilver's proposed framework. I just want a clear articulation of the final wording that is going to be applied and at WP:RESTRICT seems a logical place. My reference to such a recording being a "formality" was because in past discussions it has been pointed out that there is no requirement that these restrictions be recorded anywhere to make them "official", which by WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is obviously true but it seems a good idea in any case. --GoRight (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good, Boris. I am going to focus on other things for a while, Trusilver's framework is my operating assumption unless I hear otherwise, and so these i's can be dotted and the t's can be crossed in due order. --GoRight (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BW. I got this bizarre automated notice on my talk: diff to which I replied diff, but got no answer as yet, regarding the speedy deletion nomination of Fort Mason, Texas. As you were the deleting admin recently, could you please try to educate the editor who posted this on my talk that I have no involvement whatsoever with the deleted article? Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Dr.K.λogosπraxis18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied there also. Thank you very much for the clarification and the speedy response. Take care. Congratulations on becoming an admin by the way. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here, Have a Wiki-beer! The Thing Vandalize me 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.,
