User talk:Corvus cornix

Please post all entries below the line below, and start new entries at the bottom of the page. Thank you.

---

coven-the short film

Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)This is pagonistic,and an offence to my religion! if you disagree you are allowed to express your opinion as well (as long as its not abusive)Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)comment-futhermore I checked out the movie and there is nudity! unacceptable!!Gayunicorn 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayunicornleave your opinions on the deletion discussion page not my talk-thanks!Gayunicorn 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A note on assuming good faith...

When someone is saying something like "i hope you die, you stupid jew"[1], you don't really need to bother with assuming good faith. ;)

I replaced your light note with a block notice, since I'd already blocked that IP just prior to your leaving them the note. Next time, you could probably just take them straight to AIV (where hopefully nobody would balk at a lack of warnings). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:172.212.61.104

Hi there; seem to be having a little trouble with this guy; he's been vandalising Theft over the past five days, and I've reverted every time. He's now (as you will see) having a go at my Userpage. Not sure where to go with this one, as he's an anon IP block. Any ideas? --Rodhullandemu 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

okay, well that is my own user page so i don't think it really matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.196.68 (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Matine

I went ahead and indef blocked Matine before I saw your most recent warning. He'd already been issued a 3 level and then a bv warning so I figured a block was appropriate as it was clearly a vandalism only acct and was ignoring the warnings. I replaced your last warning with the block notice, as they were in response to the same edit, just wanted to give you a heads up. Goodnightmush^Talk 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MunkySpunky

Probably 81.77.254.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), some random vandal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

:) --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A user claiming some legal authority

Hi Corvus cornix. Some time ago you asked me on my talk page to check up on the Swedish UNNET/UNOMBUD guy named Peter Lundgren. I have tried every now and then to call him but he never answers. And his parents have unlisted phone numbers so I can not reach them. So I will not bother about doing anything more. If he bothers Wikipedia again tell me. And then I will contact him by fax or letter or some other more direct means.

--David Göthberg 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilderness Confederate Order of Battle

Hi! Please do not change the name of this article, as it is consistent with the naming convention we use for ALL Civil War orders of battle. Please see Category:American Civil War orders of battle and you note that we want the battle's name to show up first. Thanks for the inquiry! 8th Ohio Volunteers 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. By the way, feel free to visit WP:ACW for more information on Civil War naming conventions, biography and article guidelines, and suggested manual of style. 8th Ohio Volunteers 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Montauk_We_Hope#Montauk_We_Hope

Hi there. Thank you for nominating this article. I have located evidence that this is not only not notable, but has verifiably false statements of fact. Another editor has written that it's a copyvio. See the AfD discussion and the article itself. Bearian 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It gets so many hits with keywords because somebody placed them out there. It's called spam. Bearian 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User: Qiubowiki

Both you and I are watching this user. Let's try and make sure we don't pound him with two warnings for each incident. Icestorm815 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you, I just wanted to make sure he didn't get warnings he shouldn't have, that's all. Oh well, its over anyways. :) Icestorm815 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Raven FAC

Hello! You had left a comment on the FAC page for "The Raven" - I made the citations you suggested, and thanks for pointing them out. I wondered if you wanted to take a second look? It's gotten lots of comments but very few votes! See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Raven. --Midnightdreary 04:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy

Was being on the show fun, or nerve wracking. I have a friend that was on, and she said it was over in a flash. Did you upload the video to youtube? I should upload hers for her. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tme2nsb

I am aware of this, thanks for the reminder, though. I thought he/she was changing the words of other editors. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Keep up the good work! --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

dolhijn

you removed all my pages concerning the history ofr cinema because they do not comlpy ? They are spot on. I have the most comprehensive source of world cinema online, in ALL countries of the world. Those European-films.net links which are on almost all cinema pages dont comply. I think u are random in your choice of deletion. I even saw rottentomatoes.com, a totally commercial site on the USA page. I think you should explain to me why my pages, which are fully dedicated to the history of cinema in the respective countries are not compliant and those pages are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolhijn (talk • contribs) 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I was mad for what the person did, and usually get mad when non valid info is added, i appologize --Yankeesrj12 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Done please look and respond on what you think --Yankeesrj12 23:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope I dont, and once again sorry :) --Yankeesrj12 23:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Coyetty

Just a heads up. I removed your {{nonsense}} tag on Joseph Coyetty, as there are several reliable sources that do give him as the inventor of modern toilet paper. (Is he notable? That's an entirely different question. *grin*) --Fabrictramp 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Coyetty and copyright

Please explain where the copyright violation was? I looked at both the article and the provided URL and there was no copyright violation. Are you quite sure you understand what copyright violation is? While the topic is the same they do not share any sentences in common. Please see here for guidance, in particular "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". I trust this is now clear. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 02:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comment and add that I haven't reverted to a copyright infringing version. My reversion didn't affect the text of the article at all and the supposed "copyright infringing" material has not been touched. I removed an inappropriate copyvio tag. Once again, if you think that removing a tag is reverting to copyright infringing material I ask if you actually know what a copyright violation is? Frankly, I find your attitude extremely hostile and I don't appreciate your threat to take the matter to WP:ANI. Rather than breach WP:3RR I will leave the tag in place but will be adding details of this conversation on the article talk page for the administrator's information. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 04:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds

Actually the season is over, he played his last game on Wednesday and since he hasn't announced his retirement, you assume free agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kskk2 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD/Eddie McGee

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie McGee Just a question about your response. You said:

* Keep Will Kirby. His appearance on this season's Dr. 90210 makes him notable. Corvus cornix 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you think they all should be kept, or just Will Kirby? - Rjd0060 23:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more! It is very frustrating that the policy is very clear on notability, and people just seem to overlook it with reality players. I am trying though. Maybe it isn't worth it, because you say you have been through it a lot. - Rjd0060 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arp (techno artist)

Shouldn't the article that it's redirected to get deleted? And it should be db-bio or db-music, not db-ad. Corvus cornix 23:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I missed the redirect. Will fix it now. --Rodhullandemu 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia

I've found that the "crap" on the talk page about various WP faults can offer new leads for possible additions to the article. I'm hesitant to pull comments out of the talk page that contain criticism of Wikipedia, even if the comments aren't tied closely to existing sections of the article. Of course, obvious vandalism or nonsense should be reverted, but otherwise I think we should be pretty lenient about including criticism of Wikipedia in the talk page of...Criticism of Wikipedia. Casey Abell 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Again, I don't mind criticism of Wikipedia appearing on the talk page of Criticism of Wikipedia. Such comments may offer valuable starting-points for additions to the article. No other editor previously removed the sections you took out, so there doesn't seem to have been consensus for your edits.

And if I might offer a little unsolicited advice, you might want to avoid unnecessarily aggressive language like "Do you see at the very top of the page..." on other users' talk pages. You're likely to be much more persuasive if you approach other users with a little humor and friendliness. Casey Abell 17:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just offering a little advice. As for the talk page issue, an example of what I'm talking about is this comment. While the comment does make a passing reference to a section of the article, it's mostly a general complaint about the quality of writing on Wikipedia. That comment got me looking for sources on the issue, and I dug up a quote (from Orlowski, but you can't always get fresh sources), which I added to the article. So sometimes general complaints about Wikipedia on the talk page can result in meaningful additions to the article. Casey Abell 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Leticia Cline

You are rude and inconsiderate. Saying FU is not kind words. I happen to be Leticia's bestfriend and she would like to promote her new magazine cover so please be kind and stop changing her picture. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessie ward (talk • contribs) 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tingri/Dinghri

Thanks so much for saving me from myself! I hope I have not done too much damage with my cut & paste jobs. I have now put a request for a move in as you suggested. Thanks again for picking up on it all so quickly. Will go back now and try to fix the Redirect pages I altered. Cheers, John Hill 22:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Social Parking

I have made changes to Social Parking. Please check it out. Perhaps you might change your mind about it. -IDNexpert —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDNexpert (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Buddahelps 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) sorry! but can you tidy up this debate, its a real mess and hard for people who may wish to vote on this ! I can't tell who is saying what, also many unconstructive comments there.Buddahelps 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Rebel Image

Hi, I noticed that you recently removed the FU image of Jreb.jpg on Johnny Rebel (singer).

I had already satisfied another Wikipedian recently who noted that I had no fair use rationale, and I did so by adding a rational . . . and he seemed particularly struck by the mention in my rationale that Johnny Rebel was a pseudonym and that the real person who portrayed him avoided having his photograph taken in order to preserve his anonymity. Thus, the album covered seemed appropriate, since there is no known free image of Johnny Rebel that could be put in its place. Do you agree? If so, can we restore the image? Sincerely, --Skb8721 01:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for restoring the image. --Skb8721 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for my response to the survey

Thank you for my suggestion about the survey at Wikipedia: Village Pump. I must say, I could see counter-arguments, and I am inclined to agree with you, let us just delete personal opinions on such articles, or else respond to them accordingly. I applaud your comments on the true purposes of "Discussion" pages. Thank you again for your comments. ACEOREVIVED 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with that little spot of trouble there. Now, I wonder who got the password to MarIth and used it to vandalize? Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 03:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

EffK

You may want to keep your eye on this, he's getting more and more bizarre in his rants, even suggesting a lawsuit against Wikipedia and the Cabal. ThuranX 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Notable or notorious antisemites

Why did you recommend deletion? And I cannot find any discussion page? Best, --Ludvikus 00:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My apology to you. Neat work on your part. Found your setup for deletion discussion. Best to you, Wikipedian, --Ludvikus 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "remove" anything. I don't know what your talking about! --Ludvikus 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note of Appreciation

Thank you for your help in dealing with the vandalism to The Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger, and Andy Reid. I greatly appreciate your stepping in, as I couldn't revert them again without violating the 3RR limit. -- Davidkevin 01:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has done a great deal of work on The Green Hornet article and had to deal with repeated instances of this same act of vandalism since February of this year, I join Davidkevin in thanking you for your action. However, I feel obliged to point out that no less than five different IP numbers have been involved in this, yet not just the content but the style has remained consistent. Blocking this one IP may not be of much help. Ted Watson 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note received and understood. Thank you. Ted Watson 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship?

I believe that you will be qualified to be an administrator. Would you accept the adminship nomination or not? NHRHS2010 ^Talk 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA

RFA for the bot is flawed. Oppose votes deleted and people blocked for opposing. That is corruption to me. AS 001 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All hail king Jimbo. – Aillema 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Green Owl is an italian vandal-only user. You can see all its sockpuppets on it.wiki pages linked. In the category there are 145 clones of this user (and about hundred are uncertain). Its original name is Leopardo planante Leopardo.

sockpuppet on en.wiki:

• User:Green Owl
• User:El Beadur

see also:

• it:Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Leopardo_planante_Leopardo (all sockpuppets on various wikimedia projects)
• it:Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni sospetti di Leopardo planante Leopardo (sockpuppets on it.wiki)
• it:Utente:Leopardo planante Leopardo (first page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.16.15 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Me ? i've done what i've to do... That user is the worse vandal on it.wikipedia, it's a big risk for en. one. I've not to discuss with anyone, cause i don't know how. I gave you these linx, you can see or show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.16.15 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

New accounts do not get franchise

Hello, I noticed this note: "I'm sorry, but new users do not get franchise on RFA's." [2]

Is your statement true? The RFA page states: "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets." [3]

This states that they may be discounted, not deleted. Also - is the RFA really a vote, or is it a discussion to determine consensus?

Thanks, Uncle uncle uncle 22:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Baakari wilder

I disagree in a way. Notability is not apparent in that article, as there are no references or outside sources that assert that notability. Also, do you know for sure that it is legitimate? I do understand why you changed the tags. But since it is a copyvio it will probably be deleted anyways. - Rjd0060 23:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Like I said, I understand why you changed it, but the page is so horribly written, it would be better off deleted and recreated when there are sources, and other changes. If there is no verifiable sources listed included in the article, how can we be sure about anything? You understand what I mean? - Rjd0060 23:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. It is kind of hard to explain. I am glad I didn't need to continue to elaborate. A sidenote, good work here on everything that you contribute to. You name often pops up on numerous projects that I work on. - Rjd0060 23:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

David Stein

Ref your message to me - please assume good faith and don't template the regulars. I agree there was uncivil behaviour on behalf of an editor who appeared to be the actor. I happen to disagree that he is so unnotable that the article should be have been speedied. I fixed links (before the article was deleted) and I regard your message as gratuitously rude.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

By templating, I mean using a standard (and this case inappropriate form) of words. The article had not been to AfD as far as I know - and certainly I did not know that. I did not add the article to anywhere (other than the dab page) and from there I disambiguated where the name had been incorrectly linked. Stein in fact meets in my view WP:Bio as having a significant role in a notable movie - the movie is part of a notable series and notable enough for a wikipedia article.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify - AfD has a specific meaning in my view - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. While the article had been nominated for speedy deletion as a not-notable biography, it does, as I mentioned above, probably meet WP:Bio standards. The deleting admin in fact used citerion WP:CSD#G11 as his rationale - quite different. The point is that at the time I made my edits disambiguating the name the article had not been to AfD and nor had it been deleted.--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure that removing him from the cast list of that film isn't over the top - he is quite clearly there on the IMDB link! I did do some research to see if I could write an article on him - I can't in fact with the best will in the world! But I wouldn't remove him from the list.--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I know what you mean BUT - and it is a big BUT - focus on content and not the contributer. I am questioning myself why I am spending any time at all on this - I guess it is like doing crossword puzzles or Sudoku and the aim is to produce a better encyclopaedia entry than what was there before - the truth is out there ... I never watch horror movies! :-) --Golden Wattle ^talk 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• I have semi-protected Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School (Vancouver) and will report the editor to WP:AIV - focussing on content is one thing - repeated breaches of WP:NPA is getting a bit boring. I am not sure that it is a good idea to semi-protect the article talk page that is the other focus of his attentions but could do so I suppose. --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I noticed those too - I was going to include them in my WP:AIV report--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think AN/I is the best place for it - there is nothing to be done from AIV - I have no qualms about using my admin priveleges to block him or to semi-protect the school article so am not sure there is much more that can be done from the AIV forum. Others watching the movie talk page may help and hopefully they too will revert and block on sight. He may get bored but I did deal with another similar user - more than a year and ahladf later she still pops up with her obsession and insults - it wnt to arbcom and I guess that was useful for permission to block on sight, but .... --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Probably done pretty much simultaneously - there was databse lag earlier this morning I htink and it would work a bit like the undo command - the edits didn't apparently conflict - thye both show the time as 8:01 --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

There is a canvassing discussion here concerning this CfD nomination that you made. -- Jreferee t/c 03:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply.

Reason for page no longer being blocked is because the block has expired. SpigotMap 21:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

expires 2007-10-07 reads 7th day of October in the year 2007. SpigotMap 21:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.68.180.204

Nope, not at all. A higher warning level would be more appropriate. Jauerback 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mohamed Mooge Liban

Don't misunderstand me; I didn't mean to "accuse" you of American bias, I just noted the general danger of bias for African topics because sources are harder to find online and that it's reasonable to be a little bit more lenient about source quality because of that danger. — Coren ^(talk) 12:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Queens copyvios

Thanks for picking up the ball on the repeated copyvios from the Queens Borough Public Library's web sites. I had provided as explicit an explanation as possible to explain the issue about coping verbatim and that material must be in your own words, to no apparent avail. The sources are clearly useful, but not if cut and pasted into the articles. Thanks for following up on this one. Alansohn 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The block should help focus on the issues explained in our collective messages. Alansohn 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Asa Coon article

The school shooting article has been withdrawn, but you might want to see the related article history of Asa Coon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which should probably be speedy deleted. Burntsauce 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SuccessTech Shooting AfD

If you want to nominate this article for deletion, please make a (2nd nomination) AfD page, then copy and paste the two edits made to the original AfD into the second nomination page. Thanks. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't violate the 3RR rule at all:

1. Create new page.
2. Add AfD template which links to second nomination AfD page. Note that this would not violate the 3RR because you are making a different edit. Or, if you are really concerned about it, you can ask another editor to add the AfD template for you. Or, you could just wait for Dumb Bot to fix your entry.

Hope that helps! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SuccessTech Academy shooting

Would you be willing to let the matter go for the present moment, and possibly discuss it on the talk page? It's my experience that AfDs of recent events in the spotlights are much more trouble than they're worth. The precise phrase I've been using is "massive trainwrecks". I've also had a look of the relevant guideline in question, and it doesn't categorically forbid articles about things in the news, just reminds us to keep away from WP:BLP concerns (moot point here, shooter's dead) and forbids articles on routine news coverage - a very non-routine event making headline news on outlets across the States doesn't fall under that. That's my opinion, and from what I can tell, the general one. --Kizor 23:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, I do believe that recently deceased people are covered under WP:BLP. We still have the same editorial responsibilities for any article, that doesn't change if the subject(s) we're writing about die the very next day. Burntsauce 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Then it's not moot, but I still don't see BLP problems. Incidentally, Corvus? If I come across as superior, hit me with a fish. --Kizor 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note on ANI. If you disagree with an AFD, you DISCUSS. You don't revert it away. Wikipedia is full of bad behavior. Even admin don't like something so they revert it away. I wrote similar comments in support on ANI UTAFA 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WT:RfA

Your post: Do you have the slightest idea as to what WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF mean? Or are you only concerned with the opinions of people who agree with you? Corvus cornix 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not uncivil for me to point something out. My comment in no way falls under personal attack, and as far as assuming good faith, I clarified my point, making it quite clear, and you reply "quoting me" as if I said my position is that some admins are bad and we should make it easier to create more bad admins. How is that productive? Should I assume good faith and believe that you really thought that is what I meant by "The more admins, the less work for each. ... were there a process in place that held admins accountable for their behavior and actions, not only would it encourage the promotion of more admins, it might curb that hateful attitudes of current admins"? I think not, because to assume that would be to assume that you're a moron, and I don't. I believe you said it to be a smartass. That's immature, and it's unproductive. Perhaps I should have said immature rather than ignorant. You knew what you were doing, so I suppose it wasn't an ignorant comment. So I apologize for calling your comment ignorant, but it was immature.

Speaking of personal attacks, I'm not only concerned with the opinions of people who agree with me. I'm interested in discussing the possibilities with people who are capable of holding a mature discussion without skewing other's comments that they don't agree with. So don't be a hypocrite. You're opposed to the idea. That's fine. But you replied to my comment, which, by the way, was not even in response to you, by skewing my words and purposefully misquoting me. It is blatantly obvious what my view is, and I'm discussing it without being a dick regarding other's views. If you'll notice, I'm not attacking anyone for disagreeing with me. I'm simply stating my opinions and clarifying when asked to do so. Lara❤Love 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Too Confusing

Navigating this thing is way confusing... I tried to post something and was in the wrong spot... can't it be easier to post?

Also I tried putting the template thing in buy the thing was deleted before I had a chance.. really you all should give more time to the noobs to figure out how to do stuff... and DUH... make it so you can't edit OTHER peoples stuff.. but thats just obvious! Manduck2k3 23:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)