User talk:J.delanoy

My wheel-warring policy:

Admins: If you see me make a logged action that you think I should not have done, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo it without asking for my permission. However, if I marked the action as being done after running a checkuser query, or as part of a sockpuppet investigation, you should ask me or another checkuser before undoing it. In any case, if you do revert one of my actions, I would appreciate it if you tell me that you did so. Thanks!

Chess, anyone?

Make a move...
View current game and archives

J.delanoy vs. World
Chessboard	Moves
a b c d e f g h 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 a b c d e f g h
	J.delanoy to move...
	# J.delanoy World 1 e4 e6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bd3 Bb4+ 4 Bd2 Na6 5 a3 Bxd2+ 6 Qxd2 c5 7 Nf3 O-O 8 e5 Nd5 9 Nc3 Nxc3 10 Qxc3 cxd4 11 Nxd4 Qg5 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

76.7.141.220

Could you please take a look at the report about this user on AIV? It has been sitting there for almost an hour. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 16, 2009 @ 23:19

Thanks

Thanks for blocking User:My edits will not be constructive‎. Now, if I can just get that users other (but not yet confirmed) sock User:Vanlalism warner blocked, I will have a night. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 04:10

Question

Hello. I hope that you can help me. Can I place a CSD template on a user page if it appears to be an attack page or to infringe WP:BLP? The page that I am concerned with is User:Skatergirl32797? It claims to be written by the person it prima facie disparages, but I don't really imagine that what it says is not total nonsense, and I can imagine that it could be written by an 'impersonator'. James500 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I would say ask the person on their talk page to take it down, or just blank it. User pages are not indexed by search engines, IIRC, so it shouldn't be a problem from that standpoint. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have put a message on the user's talk page asking the user to remove that content. James500 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, this one is a problem per BLP. G:10 does apply to user spaces, and userpages are indexed by google. Even if this individual were for some reason making up stories about herself (maybe she really dislikes her brother?), it contains identifying information about an individual who would be 11 years old. I've deleted it under BLP and left a note for the contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Remark deleted. James500 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's likely to lead to privacy violations, feel free. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. James500 (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ello'.

I was just wondering, is there any way that I can add a personalized welcome message to twinkle? Thanks. :) Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have to modify the javascript, and then you wouldn't get any updates for that module of Twinkle. Not sure though. You might try asking at WT:TWINKLE. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay thank you! As I am no good with JavaScript, I'll leave as is before I destroy something. :) Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mario article

Just wanted to let you know that I've accidentally reverted your edit on the Mario article as I thought you've added "non-" before "fictional character" when you've actually done the opposite. There have been so much vandalism on this article for the past few days that I've hit "rollback vandal" a bit too quickly. Sorry about that! Laurent (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Stuff like that happens, and it is pretty obvious it was not intentional. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Hi, I noticed that AIV has a huge backlog. Unless someone else is already on it, would you mind to have a look? De728631 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Filter 8

SoxBot seems to have been caught in your filter here. —Nn123645 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the filter, thanks for letting me know. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Your name flashes across my screen a lot and I wanted to acknowledge the good work you do in many different areas of WP. Johnfos (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:AGentleUser

Can you please decline the unblock request at User talk:AGentleUser? -- IRP ☎ 03:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dozens of unused socks

Greetings. Take a look at this. These seem to be numerous user pages belonging to a single individual (self-identified as a teenage girl in Alaska) who has made numerous accounts for no apparent reason. Thanks. --Boston (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Hi. Could you please take a look at 217.206.25.213 this IP has just completed a six month block for persistant vandalism and immediately started vandalising again. See his Contributions page. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Heather Cave

Could you have a look at the page Farhan I'm on to you! Heather Cave’s page has been redirected to it. I don’t know how to fix it. The page is being vandalized by a couple of users and will need cleaning up as well. Jackfork (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi can ypu please check the edit made from User_talk:131.111.229.18 this user was issued a warning from you as well as my self and i do believe this could be a false positive i am using huggle please let me know thanks.

Regards Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 18:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

216.114.150.13

Hello again, J.delanoy ... FYI, 216.114.150.13 (talk · contribs) is back and vandalizing again after your last block ... Happy Editing! — 138.88.32.143 (talk · contribs) _{18:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)}

Looks like Edgar181 already got him, thanks. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

explanation required

Could you please explain to me how you seem to crop up on Wikispecies within 60seconds of certain vandalism by anon. IP and undo their vandalism??? It looks to me like the vandals could be your sockpuppets...
stho002 (over on Wikispecies)

replied on species:User talk:Stho002. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up! It just looked a bit odd to me, but I guess you can swoop down in the blink of an eye!

stho002

Edit warring

Ibrahim4048 has continued edit warring on the Mehmed Talat article[1],[2],[3]. Stating that he deserves a platform for HIS opinion! This has been to mediation, and the mediator was subsequently verbally attacked by Ibrahim4048. Do you have any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave him {{uw-3rr}}, so I guess we will see if he violates it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided two references, both from the IAGS, which removes the possibility of this genocide being "alleged". --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Denying to give me a platform to discuss whether the armenian genocide committed by the ottoman government is a fact or that it is disputed (thus allegedly would be in its place) is alright by you? I mean it IS seriously disputed among scholars and countries, it's not just my personal opinion. All the arguments and pieces of text I gave on the talk and mediation pages were from academic sources. Unlike the holocaust there was no racist/religious doctrine (armenians, greeks etc co-founded the young turks, young turks were secular) in the young turk government and there are no documents that prove anyone from the government ordered armenian civilians to be killed. In contrast thousands of documents and physical proof (gaschambers, furnaces) exist to prove the holocaust and neither do the germans deny it. Putting alleged in front of holocaust or in some other way expressing doubt about the factualness of the holocaust would be wrong for these reasons. In the case of the armenian genocide there is simply no proof that the ottoman government ordered armenian civilians to be killed. Even if you believe the ottomans did commit genocide, you should accept the fact that there is no conclusive proof and accept the existence and expression of other views. These users have been reverting my contribution and just don't want to discuss it. They even warned each other that discussing it with me on the mediation page would give my arguments legitimacy. This has been the tactic they used in all the other armenia-turkey related topics thus far. They simply revert contributions made by genocide deniers/doubters and even delete comments made on the talk page. They created a sort of POV_fork by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the genocide page and banishing everything to the genocide denial page (which also is critical about the denial and doesn't mention a lot of the arguments given by genocide deniers/doubters). This is a violation of wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and should give both sides of an argument/subject in an article and shouldn't be written to represent a certain view about a subject. It would be ok to have a separate denial page of course but only to expand on the denial section (that should be) in the genocide article itself.

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

Unless you can show me that the armenian genocide is considered fact by wikipedia, I should have the right for a platform to discuss it at least. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought. Do not use Wikipedia for pushing a point of view. Edit warring and POV pushing is unacceptable under any circumstances, and if you continue to do so, you will quickly find yourself banned from editing. J.delanoygabsadds 12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the the contributions/arguments I made are original thought. They are all from academics, published by established publishing houses and universities. I am not the one who is pushing POV here. Kansas Bear and the others are pushing POV by not allowing even the expression of doubt about the genocide and their desire to represent it as an established fact. Since you deny me the right to discuss my contributions about the armenian genocide and appear to agree with pro-recognition views, I can assume wikipedia has taken a stand in the dispute on the side of armenian genocide recognizers? At least that way we can establish wikipedia's position on the genocide and perhaps something could be done against it. Or is it just your POV and abusing your administrator rights to push your POV? How can you deny me the right to defend my contributions when they are all properly referenced by legitimate sources? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought. Do not use Wikipedia for pushing a point of view. Edit warring and POV pushing is unacceptable under any circumstances, and if you continue to do so, you will quickly find yourself banned from editing.

Ok, so the above message was just a standard message? I am sorry if I misunderstood but I think you can understand why I thought that you took sides when you know that the user who reported me to you and the other uses involved in the mediation (except the mediator) refused to give me a platform to explain my academically sourced contributions. They seem to think that by refusing to discuss it with me and just use their superior numbers in reverting they can just push their view that the armenian genocide is an undisputed genocide. It is far from undisputed because firstly turkey refuses recognition and secondly there are many (western and turkish) scholars who dispute the armenian genocide recognition and the vast majority of countries don't recognize the genocide. Six countries have actively refused bills to recognize the armenian genocide among whom the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden. I think you can understand why I thought you were also refusing me to defend my contribution when you read the mediation talk page, and how the users have been sabotaging the mediation by warning each other to not discuss things with me [4] but simply use their numbers to win an edit war.

What do you think about my claim that they violate POV_fork by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the armenian genocide page and banishing everything to the armenian genocide denial page. It is almost the same thing as creating a fork because they either created the denial article themselves so they could push their POV on the armenian genocide article or they basically forced others to create it by not allowing denial/doubt views on the armenian genocide article.

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

It is clear I think that the armenian genocide article doesn't represent all facts and major Points of View on the genocide and should be drastically rewritten. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim4048 continues to be disruptive, by adding the word "alleged" to describe the Armenian Genocide. The sentence in question has 4 references that are from reliable 3rd party sources(International Association of Genocide Scholars). Can you assist in this matter? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I was about to ARV him, actually... Cheers, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism needs administrator attention. -- IRP ☎ 21:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was not that bad. In the future, you don't need to ping me unless there are like 15 reports there. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I posted a notice here was because I have made two reports to AIV more than an hour ago and apparently no administrator noticed them. -- IRP ☎ 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sock?

Hi,

Just been looking through the recent changes page and came across a of edits by User talk:24.44.90.82 on this userpage User:Come clean wake up, who was blocked indefinitely due to evading a block by creating a new account. I've never tagged anyone as a sockpuppet anyone before so i was just wondering if you could have a look to see if what i've done is correct? Thanks Uksam88 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Episodes Table

Follow this link and you'll see the table of episodes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jon_%26_Kate_Plus_8_episodes 70.24.233.37 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicky Evans

Please do not revert good faith removals of speedy deletion notices, reverts of the kind you performed should only be used for vandalism edits. Forward planning failure (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My AGF meter got a crack in it when you showed up out of nowhere and proceeded to do nothing but remove CSD tags and field complaints about your actions. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gangland (video game)

Can you delete this page. It is a duplicate copy of Gangland. I do not want to redirect to that article. After deleting the article. The gangland need to be moved to Gangland (video game) after that the article "Gangland" needs to be redirected to Gangland (disambiguation). Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) I hope I sorted it correctly. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You have done a wonderful job. Thank you.--SkyWalker (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosselin Epsiodes

There's already a table that is shown above the episodes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jon_%26_Kate_Plus_8_episodes 70.24.233.37 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please see this thread. It's not personal. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. Given the circumstances back then, I would have supported the measure, so there is no ill will or feelings. I just hope that it doesn't continue (I've been in contact with RHMED for a while). What a horrible outcome to something that could have been prevented. seicer | talk | contribs 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(Replying here so that that ANI thread isn't kept alive unnecessarily) Based on my reception at ANI, it's pretty clear how a proposal to codify ISP contacts would end up, so I probably won't be bothering to follow up this on. I haven't changed my opinion, but I see that it's not a concern shared by many so I'm dropping it. I'm sorry if you felt I was singling you out, but the circumstances were an ideal illustration of why I feel there needs to be more attention given to these actions. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidove

α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Enjoy!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Move problem

Hi. I need your help with something. Somehow User:Tau Phi Sigma Fraternity Inc. has moved his user talk page to Talk:Tau Phi Sigma and moved his userpage to Tau Phi Sigma. I tried undoing the talk page move, but I accidently moved Talk:Tau Phi Sigma to User talk:Tau Phi Sigma instead of Talk:Tau Phi Sigma to User talk:Tau Phi Sigma Fraternity Inc.. Could you please fix it? Thanks, Reliable Forever^talk 18:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My Username

Will not change, until images of The Prophet(pbuh) are removed. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. These images are offensive to the religion of Islam, and I encourage all good Muslims to join me in the removal of these images.

You ask why advertise that I am an administrator and the answer is because I can. Why does it bother you?

From: Take down images of Muhammad

Chess game!

Please continue the game. You've made only one move in the last three months.

Also please unprotect the page. It's not you versus "the world" if the world can't play. Soberknight (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rushton Article Revert

Hey, you reverted my edit to the Rushton article. I considered it to be quite constructive and included an edit summary. I plan on reverting it back, please provide a reason as to why you don't think it was a constructive addition. 99.255.5.248 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced negative additions to biographical articles are reverted on sight. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I have found some time to finally come back to the wubbolous world of wikipedia, and the first "vandalism" I saw was a user trying to post a comment on another's talk page. The user's comment was a little rude, but not vandal's work. I agree with the user 24.208.19.195 that it is Until it sleep's choice to delete it. No proper warnings were given, so I believe that the block should be lightened or lifted. I will personally warn the user without an automatic script, for friendliness, about the situation. Cheers! WikiZorro^sign 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry For Editing. It Wasn't Intentional

I wasn't even aware that I had edited the page you notified me about (Frederick Banting). Can you tell me how I edited it? What my edit was about? Have I edited any more pages unawares?

After looking into the matter a bit more, I have to say that you're completely mistaken. I've never even attempted to access/read the page on Frederick Banting, let alone attempt to edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.27.75 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. You have a dynamic IP address, so it is likely that someone else vandalized, and then you got the warning that was intended for them. Just don't worry about it, and if you get warnings like this a lot, you can avoid them by creating an account and logging in. Cheers, and sorry for the confusion. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check this new anon

Hi could you please check this new anon that has suddenly appeared 207.67.17.45. He is currently active and had just reversed a suspect vandalism edit from an anon editor that I suspect is also vandalising another article with a different IP in his same block unit. I haven't even finished warning the first user and tying the two IP's together when he reversed my edit. He also appears to be reversing other editors work? NB: It seems odd that a 'New' editor would know to place this link here Talk:Conservapedia. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't really done anything, so I'd say just keep an eye on him. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Coolsprings

I'm Coolsprings and thank you for getting my page under protection. I am deeply appreciating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsprings (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

HG

Hi. I saw all the 'undoing own edit' summaries on Tubular battery etc., and, just for a second, I thought HG had gone temporarily nuts.  ;) Taroaldo (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! No, Huggle didn't go crazy, I did (runs around room waving hands and yelling) ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also LOL. That's understandable. It happens to us all at one time or another! Taroaldo (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Huggle

Is that what HG stands for? well, Stop fuckin using that script to send messages to ips. it's soooooo annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.127.172 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2009

I would contend that the vandalism itself is much more annoying than the reversion of such. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Help re-protect the Escalator page!

Hello. I noticed that you recently granted semi-protection to the Thomas Edison page, so I hope I'm not presuming too much to ask for your help. The Escalator page was semi-protected, but either it has expired or it was removed accidentally (being optimistic here). We've had our fair share of vandalism, and a new round just popped up on March 19-20. Could you help us and please re-protect the page? Thanks!--BFDhD (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The cheapo

Something really needs to be done about him. He keeps creating accounts, to attack the editors that he had contact with, and he keeps giving death threats. Is there anything that you can do about it? See this category for all the sockpuppets The cheapo used: [5] Reliable Forever^talk 22:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there is anything I can do, other than block the accounts if I see them. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Revert, block, and comprehensively ignore. I have your page watchlisted, and any active admin will block on sight based on the abusive nature of the edits. Acroterion _(talk) 22:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle help

Do you know how I can set Twinkle to where it does not watchlist every page I revert and won't watchlist the user talk pages of the users I revert? This didn't seem to work. -- IRP ☎ 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this post to the bottom of this page due to no reply. -- IRP ☎ 23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask on WT:TW. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk header

I noticed your talk header trick, and shamelessly copied it for my own talk page. How do you prevent SineBot from automatically signing the page every time you change something on it? I temporarily fixed it by opting out of auto-signing, but it's a little dangerous. —LedgendGamer 23:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a way to make a page be ignored by SineBot. Look at its userpage for a link to information, iirc. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you put !nosine! in the edit summary, the bot won't sign that particular edit. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuwell3

J.Delanoy, I'm not sure if you'd noticed, but the Stuwell3/Grawp sock you banned has a counterpart. Within one minute of the creation of the Stuwell3 account, an account for User:Stuwell2 was created.--LWF (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, while I was informing you of this Stuwell2 made his move and has been banned.--LWF (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the other account right away. It was only two days ago when I had requested removing the semi-prot. of my talk page :/ ~ Troy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Turns out, there's also another account user:Stuwell, which was created at the same time as the others, same day and time and all that, but so far it's edits have not been vandalistic in nature, but I find it to be too much to be a coincidence.--LWF (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My Bad

That was not my intention there had been some vandalism a few seconds before I made that edit. I will be more carful next time. Best, otisjimmy (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Actually, I missed some of the vandalism myself, so I guess I can't really yell at you for doing the same ;) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

bongwarrior edit

i did not vandalise a page, i simply stated a fact, which is the purpose of this website