User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2005 July

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request

Hello, JYolkowski! I have a favor to ask of you (and several other admins), and I hope you would mind helping. User:Ashida Kim has been giving several of us some trouble regarding the factual accuracy of the article Ashida Kim. I was first made aware of this issue after someone listed the user on Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. Therefore, I contacted User:Ashida Kim and left him a friendly message and welcome note. He responded with insults, and I again politely replied, telling him that he needed to follow Wikipedia policy and provide sources/proofs to back up his facts. After checking out his history, I see several other users have been attempting to talk with him as well. He insists on talking to an administrator, via email. He claims that he cannot contact any administrator (despite being pointed to the list).(For appropriate sections regarding this matter, see the two sections on my talk page, see his talk page, see the section titled "Personal Attack" in the help desk (Wikipedia:Help desk#Personal Attack), see his contributions, and see Wikipedia:Clueless newbies). I do not wish to get involved in this dispute (several other users & admins are already involved), but he basically requested (challenged?) that I contact several non-involved admins after I made a friendly offer. Therefore, would you mind taking a look at this case and seeing what you can do? Thank you very much. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 3 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyways! I'm just hoping that at least one admin will open a dialogue with him, so he can't complain that a admin never contacted him... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 3 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my user page a couple of weeks ago (I only just noticed!). Jez 4 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bedel23

Danny and I both blocked User:Bedel23 wher a sting of attack pages showed up on RC with him as the author, he was unblocked by Danny very soon after when the pages were checked, Bedel had just been tagging them for speedy.--nixie 5 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)

[edit] Please help!

Hi. thanks again for reverting that anon user who vandalized my talk page. I have another favor to ask of you. DreamGuy has been posting several harsh and rude commentaries on other user's talk pages and in the history sections of various articles. He erased warnings that four other users put on his talk page as well. I have tried to be civil to him; and I will confess that I vandalized his talk pages months earlier, but I have desisted from these actions ever since. I have offered truces with him, and I have complemented him for his good edits, yet he continues to be extremely rude to other Wikipedians. Therefore, I ask that you block him for a while (about two weeks) and let him figure out that he is dead wrong. I'll post the same message that I did on Vandalism in progress

~DreamGuy (talk • contribs), may or may not pertain to the "moderate" category has often left rude and criticizing comments on history sections of articles. Avoids "direct" vandalism by using anagrams such as WAFM - which is certainly a cover-up for "what a F***ing moron- often deletes other people's complaints about his vandalism. Here are examples of some of his harsh words:

Hi. If you had bothered to look at the change you mention above, you would see that it was clearly making it more NPOV and not POV. I had a typo in the edit description area, as those are more dificult to catch as they do not show up on preview any different than when first entered. MAking it "clear that these are beliefs and not necessarily true" is CLEARLY making something NPOV, and looking at the edit you would see that that's exactly what I did. For you to try to use that to claim that I am knowingly putting POV into articles when it is clear I am doing just the opposite is simply absurd. DreamGuy 03:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)



You have got to be effin kidding me. The delete votes clearly strongly outpaced the keep votes. It's ridiculous things like keeping articles most people clearly thought deserved to be deleted that makes this place such a joke. A bunch of juveniles kiddies can come along and screw up VfDs by making nonsensical claims to keep a useless and craptastic article like this and then some admin who can;t count keeps the article. The lunatics are running the asylum here. DreamGuy 05:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


Such is clearly a POV rant if not vandalism. He has been warned by several others but simply deletes messages. I myself have relented from vandalizing his site since 25 April(he has reported me before, and given his demeanor will do so again), have offered truces, and I have even complemented him on his good edits. Although he is a fine editor, his actions in dealing with others must be checked. If he persists, I recommend an immediate and two week block. Horatii 8 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)


Please stop him, and please check out his history section from his talk page and his contributions to see what I talking about. Thanks. Horatii 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

[edit] RC Patrol

Thanks for putting a "no-no bad user" message on vandals' userpages when you revert their trashy edits. So many RC patrollers don't, but it makes such a positive difference in keeping track of what they're doing, and in getting them to stop. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 16:26 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Thank you for pointing that out. I will refrain myself in the future. PeregrineAY 03:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Chicago

Image:ChicagoSeal.jpg

Hi. As you seem to be interested in Chicago, I just wanted to let you know about WikiProject Chicago. Our goal is to improve the quality of the Chicago and Chicago related articles. In doing so, we hope to Chicago will become a featured article. To read more or join us in our efforts, please see the WikiProject Chicago page. Thanks! -- BMIComp (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Chicago

Hi, I just noticed that you joined WikiProject Chicago and would like to welcome you aboard. Please see the projects talk page for any current issues and projects. Also, I saw your post on my talk page, and yes that is a good idea. I have created a template at Template:ChicagoWikiProject-Invite based on the invite message BMIComp sent to you. Feel free to revise it if you wish. Thanks, --Gpyoung talk 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need help on image tag

I was wondering if you could tell me whether this image is public domain or not? I found it at a site that's co-owned (or entirely owned) by the University of Virginia.--Kross 06:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Danke! I was thinking the same, but I wanted a second opinion. :D You're the best!--Kross 12:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monopoly

Hello. I've just been visiting and updating the Monopoly page (and localization article) to reflect the Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005 - for the latter article, I notice you changed the "Delete" to a "Merge". Since I don't see much point in an article on a limited edition of the board game (it's not notable!), I wondered why you did this. Would it be OK if I changed it back to a "Delete" or would a stub be more appropriate (in which case I'll relink it from the main article)? A redirect doesn't seem appropriate as nothing else linked there. I'm fairly new to this chat stuff, so please let me know if I've got it wrong - Thanks! Stephenb 19:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems pointless keeping the redirect, but I bow to your experience :-) Stephenb 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago photo

Do you think any of these would work better for a Chicago picture? [1] The photographer is a relative of mine and I could probably get him to license it if one of those suited it better. Just a thought. -- BMIComp (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Kelly Martin 03:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, thanks for the warning. Which article are you referring to? --AI 08:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The article in question is Scientology controversy; I noted that you reverted changes to the categorization of that article three times in a relatively short time; a fourth revert would have violated 3RR. You technically avoided 3RR by changing the categorization to something slightly different (so that it wasn't exactly a revert), so I don't think you'll be blocked, but I would still warn you against edit warring. It's obvious that you and Antaeus Feldspar disagree over the categorization of this article; I would suggest that you attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page or through mediation rather than through an extended edit war. Kelly Martin 13:27, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice Kelly. I will read up on mediation. --AI 02:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critics

My intention is not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, but with all due respect, your revert in Rick Ross[2] is inconsistent with apparent consensus (within some controversial articles) that generalized critical claims are permissible. There should be more concisely stated policy, as I run into this disputed point on a regular basis with users such as Antaeus Feldspar, Modemac, and BTfromLA who unceasingly revert my revision or dismissal of unattributed critical claims and allegations. --AI 02:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The behavior of other editors does not excuse your own. The comment I removed from Rick Ross is a classic example of weaseling: an attempt to convert a blatant, unsupported opinion about someone or something into a "fact" by prepending it with "Some critics say". This practice is not consistent with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and is therefore not permitted on Wikipedia. If you want to call Rick Ross a "media whore", you are going to have to put those words in the mouth of some sufficiently notable individual or group; you may not put them in the mouths of anonymous "critics". Kelly Martin 03:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
First off, I am not trying to excuse my behavior. I am a newcomer and I would appreciate it if others would not bite the newcomers. But most importantly, thank you very much for your opinion, that's what I wanted to hear and I completely agree with you. Are you an admin or someone with authority here on Wikipedia? You should look at some of the Scientology articles, they are loaded with weasels and let me repeat myself: I run into this disputed point on a regular basis with users such as Antaeus Feldspar, Modemac, and BTfromLA who unceasingly revert my revision or dismissal of unattributed critical claims and allegations. --AI 03:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] read the VFD

and see that tis ubn nessessary and it all stems from one users inaprpriate edits. (dreamguy went aganist consensus) Gabrielsimon 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cantus

Thanks very much for your help. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] but

but he gone i do not now were he is he leaft a long tyme ago and he need to be her i can not et or slep with out him be ing here Marijuanaisbad 01:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation

Hi, I noticed that you restored some pretty POV material from the Masturbation article. I was wondering if you meant to do that or if you felt the edits are legits. I was on RC patrol and I saw that edit come through and it looked like blanking vandalism at first glance but it seemed to me that someone was taking out some pretty questionable material. I just wanted to let you know because I'm going to take it back out. If you feel it belongs there drop me a note...Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 03:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry....looks like you beat me to it! Rx StrangeLove 03:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing Ugolino della Gherardesca so quickly

Made the redirection in the wrong page and ended up with the self-redirect. I never found the "Rollback" button and was afraid that I would had to re-do the previous merge. --JuanPDP 00:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pugnare

Can you block User:Pugnare and revery all his changes, he makes every pages 20 times the size by copy/paste over and over, including to my talk page, (please revert that as well.) --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job

It surprises me how fast you admins act when presented a vandal, but how indifferent you are to messy articles in dire need of cleanup. I wonder if the fast reflexes you applied when blocking me will also apply when shown an appallingly written article. I guess not. I even wonder if what I say has an effect on you, as it has not had one on many administrators, obsessed as they are with deleting, blocking, reverting, edit-warring, article moving, disputing, quarreling, and so on and so forth, etc. etc.

You pay attention to worthless vandals, who by the way do not need immediate attention, but not to popular articles (such as the new Harry Potter Bk. 6 and 7 articles), which need much more serious attention than annoying trolls disrupting unimportant matters.

This is a threat. You may choose to view it as such or as a friendly wake-up call from a user who has long been disillusioned by the apathetic dealings of the big-headed administrators, too proud to even look back at the activities they used to do. Once elected, what do they do? They do things irrelevant to the quality of articles, all because they think they are on a "higher" level than other "normal" users, even though this is not so. Before being elected, they work hard, real hard, cleaning up articles, adding new ones, things they cease to do once bestowed the title of "Administrator."

This is a threat. If you do not change and spread this word, I will personally make sure a virus is uploaded into one of the media files so that whoever opens it will get infected. Mark my words.

Think about it.

This is our only hope. Pugnavi 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

My dear sysop friend, I do think you have a problem in differentiating threats and blackmail from friendly messages. I was able to talk with User:Violetriga without any hostile responses like yours. Please reconsider and do not block me only because I am sockpuppeting. I consider this a more effective way of corresponding than registering an email account and emailing you.
Like I said, I am fed up with your indifferent attitudes to the detrimental quality of most articles and with your suspicious attitude towards newcomers. Please reply civilly. Pugnavi2 14:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You have been blocked because you made a very dire threat to Wikipedia. Your sockpuppets are being blocked because they're sockpuppets of a user blocked for making dire threats. Rescinding the threat might get you unblocked in a month or so.
The primary responsibility of admins is housekeeping. We block vandals, delete garbage, and protect pages involved in edit wars because only admins can do those things. The other things you complain about, such as cleaning up articles and so forth, can be done by anyone. If you are upset about the number of articles that need cleaning up, clean them up yourself. Admins spend a lot of their time just keeping up with the vandals; there simply isn't a lot of time left over to do the work of a regular editor. I've already wasted quite a bit dealing with you, time which I might have otherwise spent on doing something more useful. Vandalizing a major page to get attention is NOT the way to endear yourself to the Wikipedia community. Kelly Martin 14:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
If you'd even taken the time to read what I wrote to Violetriga, you'd have seen my point that the "normal" users who you say are supposed to clean up the mess are actually the ones who are adding to it. As an admin, I'd have thought you had more sense than to take the title too seriously and prance about holding your head high because "we admins are the only ones who can do this, so you ordinary oafs should clean up your messy articles." This job was entrusted to you with a reason and that is not to drop your old one of contributing to articles, but to add that to a wider range of tasks. Cleanup is still one of them. Again, I am quite shocked by your arrogant attitude. Hendiadis 15:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pugnavi

Darn it, you beat me to it! I was going to make blocking that account my first admin action! I presume you saw the threat on El C's page to upload viruses to the database? I was going to block for threats and sockpuppetry (per the note on the talk page. Good work though! -- Essjay · Talk 14:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I just blocked two more socks. -- Essjay · Talk 14:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal needs warning (low level)

Noticed a couple of instances of vandalism from numeric I.P. 82.69.14.30, no warning has yet been issued; seems low level.

  • Vandalized Television - see: [3] (already reverted by another uses)
  • Vandalized Epoxy - see: [4] (unsure of status, will check and revert if necessary)

Hope you're doing well, Kelly. My best, Calicocat 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Database/Server issue?

Hi Kelly,

There seems to be a database/server issue, either when searchin for "Ophelia" or when trying to access Alexandre Cabanel, I tried two browsers, same thing:

Warning: strpos(): Empty delimiter. in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 1065

Warning: strpos(): Empty delimiter. in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 1065

Warning: strpos(): Empty delimiter. in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 1065

Warning: strpos(): Empty delimiter. in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 1065

you know who can fix that?

Thanks, --JuanPDP 23:12, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Ophelia (character) works, but it would fail if you try to search on ophelia. --JuanPDP 23:18, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dink Socks

The "Dink Sock" label is for the almost *two dozen* accounts registered here by the same diminutive dimwit. 99% of his editing history has been to vandalize my user/talk pages, and troll/disrupt the editing process of any page I've provided input for. Mel Etitis is well-acquainted with blocking this person's editing access almost on-sight. Sorry for any confusion I've created. Chadbryant 21:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A string of abusive sock-puppets have been appearing for some months (a partial list can be drawn up by looking at the History of User:Chadbryant — I've done it once or twice, the latest version being at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chadbryant & the eleventh plague). I'm afraid that Chadbryant doesn't really help, as he tends to react to them in the way that they're hoping for (and, as with this pointless "sock-puppet" picture, he sometimes acts so as to stir them up); he's more sinned against than sinning, though, by a long way. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I've now created User talk:Mel Etitis/Chadbryant vandals. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I always block the vandal sock-puppets indefinitely; they're obviously not going to be used for anything useful. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops

Just wanted to say thanks for not deleting that User page I kinda accidentally tagged for speedy delete. ... -_- You got to it before I could undo it. So, nice lookin' out. --DNicholls 04:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Another Request

Hello Kelly, Angela has suggested that your group Mediation "Cabal" may be able to help resolve an editing issue. As an anon I posted a link to fatboy.cc on the wikipedia Ted Kenndy page. A group of editors has been pulling down the link for every reason they can think of, except the truth, they just don't like it because it has political satire content. However, it also has a wealth of information about Ted Kennedy such as photos of his girlfriends, text about his past conduct, high resolution photos of Ted Kennedy and his family, and many other features found only at fatboy.cc I find this link to be on topic and not in violation of any wikipedia policy. I have had to get the Ted Kennedy page protected but would like to resolve the issue. One of the editors complaint is that it is clutter. Of the 2500 words on the page he needs to remove my 5 words in the link? Another is that fatboy.cc is a hate site. It is not. The are no threats there, no profanity, no racisim, or any other indication that it is a hate site. Any ideas? Thanks! (above unsigned comment by 24.147.97.230 at 06:01, July 24, 2005)

Hi Kelly, Thanks for your help but the editors involved are a moving target. One agrees, then another does not. Each claims to speak for the group when it provides suppport for their argument. Each claims to be an individual when it is to their benifit. I have posted a message to Angela seeking her advise again. I thought you were terrific, too bad the real intentions of the editors is to control. (as posted to Angela -> -> Hi Angela, Thanks for your help. I did request and was assisted by Kelly Martin. She provided much wisdom and made some terrific suggestions. However, the group of editors which forces their opinion on others will not negociate. Even if I was to request mediation it would not help as each editor demands to be considered as a seperate entity, except when it helps them to claim they are a group. I can see that the Wiki concept is doomed to fail. The system of checks and balances is missing critical elements. It reminds me of Nazi Germany. (I don't mean to offend you, I see you are in Berlin now) I have read military history at lenght. It is quite possible that the will of a few can be forced upon others, with horrible results. That I am the only person who seeks your help in these matters in no way shows I am the only person affected. To the contrary, it is often a single person who reflects the views of many. Best to you with Wiki, I have not given up on it...perhaps some day it will be better organized and have a chance to achieve its goals.


Hi Kelly, I am starting to think about just leaving those editors to their selves, as cruel as it may be. I appreciate your advise and your intelligence. You are not predictable but instead responsive and fair. I need to get away from this cluster. It's the same story from these guys, skirt the issue, find fault with any proposal put forth, defend each other, fail to negociate. I'll take a break for a few days. I hope the protection stays in place until for a few days until I can again continue to present my views. 24.147.97.230 04:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Hi Kelly, I'm back at work on Ted Kennedy. The "editors" are now editing my comments in discussion. What's interesting is that they are deleting my quotes of you. I guess they don't want to see what you have to say . 24.147.97.230 15:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Howabout1's RfA (again)

Hi. I am copying this message to everyone who voted on my last RfA. By some strange twist of fate, I have been nominated (within 48 hours, it's probably a record). Please vote again. Howabout1 Talk to me! 21:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi sorryabout that!

My most humble apologies my silly friend did that when he was on wikipedia regards,

Xxx123 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I would just like to say that Howabout1 did not "put me up to nominating him because he was asked not to nominate himself". I thought he would make a good adminastrator and his edits had grown since last time so I did it. Now you're probably going to say he had a gun pointed to my head so I would tell you this. Please respond.--Anti-Anonymex2Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco! 01:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Howabout1

Hello. I would like to ask that you do not judge me entirely on this one event. I am not asking that you support me in the far future, you have every right to oppose, but I ask that you do not change your entire opinion of me (if you had one before). I did not put Anti-Anonymex2 up to nominating me, but it is understandable that you think so. I have put an explination of my actions on my user page, and I ask that you read it. At the very least dignify this with a responce. Howabout1 Talk to me! 16:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

You have replied to another user below yesterday, but not me or Anti-Anonymex2. If you do not wish too, at least tell me that you are not going to respond. You can do it here if you like, I am watching this page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aristocrats

Hi, I can't understand why you reverted my edits. I've been working on the page for a while, and I've gone through both of the jokes. If you look at the talk page, I've explained why I removed it. It adds too much heft to the article, without really saying too much beyond what the first example illustrates. It does add more scatology and incest, but at the cost of adding alot of reading material that just repeats what the first joke already shows. Also, some of the sectioning I did helps show where the jokes begins and ends. I really can't understand the unexplained revert. --Muchosucko 04:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My ex-red user page link

Hi there! Thank you very much for clearing my user page, which I am studiously keeping blank til I have something to say on it. I rather enjoyed having a red link to it, so that others wouldn’t be tempted to click through to it, but I imagine that there’s no way to have the page deleted without going through the normal deletion procedure (which I’ve never even used, so I don’t know how that works either!), is there? Whatever, thanks again! ☺

—John Mark Williams ❲⌂|☏❳ 17:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted your user page per your request. Kelly Martin 17:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks once more!

—John Mark Williams (user|talk) 18:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Touretzky

Kelly Martin, please explain how the judges quotes are irrelevant to the article --AI 18:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Kelly Martin, you're speculation[5] about User:AI is uncalled for and is taken as a personal attack which is unnecessary in the discussion about David Touretzky. This violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks has been documented. Furthermore, it should also be noted that you recently claimed to "know Touretzky". --AI 20:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

I think that User:Xxx123 and User:Gaaraxxx are sockpuppets. I say this to you because the latter vandalised this page. If you would like me to take this to another admin since you don't seem to want to contact me, just make a few edits that aren't replying and I'll take that as a no. The reason I beleive this is that both have three x's in their names, and both have simalarly vandalised book. Cheers. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Kennedy Article

Thank you for trying to mediate the issue about the Ted Kennedy article. I agree that there is very little likelihood of an agreement being reached, because there does appear to be a consensus against the attack link, but the anonymous editor is not interested in a consensus. Thank you for trying to achieve a reasonable settlement.

I think that Wikipedia needs the ability to block anonymous edits to articles that are being disrupted. However, some people, including those who do not have names, disagree. Robert McClenon 06:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-Up

I have placed the Workingwoman's Barnstar on your user page for your efforts. Robert McClenon 18:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Splash

Thanks for picking up on the block, I've only just seen it because I went for a bath in between - I don't normally make this mistake, but in this case.. mea cupla, mea maxima culpa, jimfbleak 19:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)