Jump to content

User talk:Looper5920

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prof77 (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 18 February 2007 (changed talk page to discussion page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (Sept 2005 - March 2006)
Archive 2 (March 2006 - May 2006}
Archive 3 (May 2006 - June 2006)
Archive 4 (June 2006 - August 2006)
Archive 5 (August 2006 - November 2006)
Archive 6 (November 2006 - January 2006)

Assessment kinda

Whoohoo first post! Anyway, I was hoping you might look through another list of mine and tell me if you see any changes that could be made or any improvements, United States Navy enlisted rate insignia. I'm still working on the last few sections but I just want to get an overall feel of the layout and information. Don't beat me up on references for the last bit since I'm still working on them. If you have time thanks.— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal for February

I've made some suggestions on the Coordination page. Have a look, add your ideas. I've tried to look forward in the sections below the monthly. — ERcheck (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready for prime time since it is has "missing" tags in a few months, but Cactus Air Force would be a great article to be featured in the Portal. Any possibility that you could fill out those sections? — ERcheck (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flight deck personnel on Amphibs

This was the last entry in the last archive so I will repost here:

Hate to bother you with a Professional Knowledge question but I was curious if you knew. On big deck amphibs, LHDs and LHAs, are all the deck crew Marines? So, no Sailors serve as QA, Safety Officers (white shirts), or LSOs, correct? --ProdigySportsman 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be an expert on this but when I was on the MEU the flight deck personnel were Navy and Marine. I didn't think any one service had a monopoly on those jobs. (Looper5920 writing in from work where he can no longer log in)--203.10.224.60 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both the CV and LHA/LHD flight decks have a mix of ship's company (USN) and squadron personnel serving in various roles on the flightdeck. On an amphib, the squadron personnel (except corpsman) will be 100% Marine. On a CV, which also can have a USMC Hornet squadron, it will be whatever personnel the squadron has assigned to flightdeck duty. HJ 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assessments from unregistered user

Ah, no problem. It's no big deal, in any case, even if random people are assessing things; everything up to B-Class is meant to be pretty fluid. Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Portal

VMFA-314, which you just edited, looks good. (I just removed some non-notable video game trivia.) There are some great pictures down in the article which can be used — perhaps Image:VMFA-314 1.jpg, which I show here. — ERcheck (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm out the door right now. Running late. — ERcheck (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also really like HMM-261, with this image. I don't think a helicopter squadron has been featured yet. — ERcheck (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting on HMM-261, including formatting citations, etc. So, good to go if you choose this one. — ERcheck (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added another News item and DYK to the Portal. — ERcheck (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a vandal

Hello there I just wanted to see if there is a way you could help me I am having trouble with a guy that is constantly changing the number of killed american Marines at the battle of Ubaydi near Al Qaim from 9 to 31 which is just stupid and total fiction. Contrary to all the prove gathered he just keep changing it back and puts a reference which yes states that 31 were killed but in the whole of Anbar during that period. When I confronted him with this he said that the oepration was for the whole of Anbar province, he doesn't understand that operation Matador was only at the revier towns on the Sirian border near Al Qaim. Can you help.Top Gun 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next collabortion article

3/3 has only been the collaboration article for a few weeks. How about History of the United States Marine Corps as the next one. I don't think it is far from being FA. It would be nice to get it to that point. — ERcheck (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS El Toro article

I see you reverted the change to MCAS El Toro. To prevent a revert war, please add your comments to the article's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: What year was Image:Overhead MCAS El Toro in 1944.jpg taken? Does the image give a credit to the photographer? — ERcheck (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to make wikipedia so great! My edits for Col. Sabow are based in part on my desire to ensure that military personnel who commit their lives to the decisions of their superiors (civilian and uniformed) know that their lives are valued and their commitment is regarded with respect. There's a lot more to do beyond edits on wikipedia, but wikitruth is something. Semper fidelis! JPatrickBedell 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea of what you speak. You say you want to honor the man? How, by posting his autopsy photos all over the internet? You're a dirt bag. Stay off my talk page.--Looper5920 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

  1. The user page picture. Looking through the historical user page, I'm guessing that the editor was borrowing a line of text from a page he's seen, as it is only the caption has the questionable material. Expanding the picture, it is apparently from Sabow's autopsy. I suggest that you leave a note on the editor's talk page indicating that the caption does not describe the picture, etc.
  2. Agree on the user subpage. It appears that it was {{prod}} tagged and the owner removed it; which is acceptable. The next step is a full AFD.

— ERcheck (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revise my statement #1. The editor uploaded the picture to WikiCommons yesterday with the caption "Scan of two cannabis seeds and two cannabis seedlings next to inkjet printed page. Own work, released to public domain." This is obviously a false attribution, meant to get around copyvios. I'm about to go out of the door. If you choose to point out that the editor should request that page be deleted from Commons because it is incorrectly uploaded/named, feel free, else I'll try to address it later. — ERcheck (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to communicate to the editor the relevant policies for both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I hope that he is willing to abide by Wiki guidelines and that he is not here to use this as a way to advance his personal mission to see "justice" for Col. Sabow. — ERcheck (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about not completely reading your note. You said right side of the page. Now I see it. The image violates WP:NOT - self-promotion. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking that it be removed. — ERcheck (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad...I should have been more specific. I did mean your other right.--Looper5920 11:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST Assessments

Wow! If you didn't already have a Barnstar for helping out with clearing the backlog of unassessed articles, I'd give you one. Excellent work! LordAmeth 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Marine Corps battalions

Where is 1st Reg (of 1st MarDiv) here? I thought it was there once before. Maybe not. --ProdigySportsman 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reguesting your opinion

Someone wants to rename the Categories of the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Silver Star and Bronze Star Medals, to something like this: "Category:Recipients of the United States Purple Heart medal".

I personally oppose this move because these military decorations are only awarded om the United States and therefore cannot be confused with some other country's decoration. I see no need for the move. As a person who has been involved with United States military related articles, I invite you to express your opinion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Thank you, Tony the Marine 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabow article

There has been additional discussion on the James Sabow AFD as well as the subpage MFD. — ERcheck (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-the-beach capability

The term "over-the-beach capability" shows up a number of times in a Google search.[1]

If you enter the term in the search box of http://www.globalsecurity.org , there are a number of uses of the term. It is also found on the New Zealand Ministry of Defence site.

As such, it shouldn't be {{prod}}ed as a neologism. It certainly needs a lot of cleanup.

— ERcheck (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, i now realize i should have done that in my sandbox. i had already spent lots time on the research and wanted to make it available. thanks for the feedback (Jschager 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Philadelphia Meetup 3

FYI. We we're planning a Philadelphia area Wikipedia meetup. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --ike9898 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USMC article needs work

Ross Lindsey Iams--203.10.224.60 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAG-26

MAG-26 has a new patch...

http://www.2maw.usmc.mil/MAG26/MAG26/images/mag26new.gif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.227.57 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tags

Sorry about that. I tend to just put the template on my clipboard with "yes" next to the task forces that are relevent to the general topic I'm looking at, then just start pasting it to the talk pages. I'll try to be more mindful in the future. And by the way, kudos on finishing up the assessments. I know others did assessments too, but the vast majority of them were by you. Amazing job--Nobunaga24 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about the perception people have in other countries about America. I am reminded of a story I heard, reputed to be true, of a group of Japanese people asked to draw a picture of what they thought of America. One person's picture was of Michael Jackson holding a gun. I am constantly having to smash the perceptions of a lot of my students (and even my girlfriend) have about the U.S. But the thing that kills me about some of the non-American foreigners here is that they can have their stereotypes about Americans, but heaven help you if you have even the most minor, benign stereotype about their country. The only country's citizens in Japan that haven't yet rubbed me the wrong way are the Irish and Jamaicans (God bless 'em). Ok, I guess that is my rant...--Nobunaga24 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the Irish. They are unassuming and just out to have a good time, meet people, etc... I will not list my top ten shit list of whiny cunts but needless to say the list is long and distinguished... like my ... I almost went for the full Top Gun line but ultimately refrained. --Looper5920 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessments

Thanks for taking the time to assess some of the aircraft articles, but it would be much more helpful if you would also add comments (there's a link provided in the fine print) about why you chose that particular rating, even if it's just one or two sentences. That would be a big help to those of us who've written the aritles, to know where we need to improve, or what additional information you expect to see in them. Thanks! Akradecki 14:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in a serious discussion on Pantano's talk page.

Please engage in a serious discussion on Pantano's talk page.

An immediate reversion, without serious discussion, is bait for an edit war -- but I am going to avoid biting.

Please show more collegiality and a greater spirit of cooperation. Remember, wikipedia is not a battlefield.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will not sit around and let people call individuals "War criminals" if that is what you mean by collegiality. I will revert it every time it is placed on the page. One only needs to look at WP:BLP to see why. The cateegory is called "Iraq war crimes". It is bogus to put in alledged "War crimes." Who shall be the arbiter of what is an alledged war crime? You? Me? I don't think so. An individual is either a war criminal or they are not. To say alledgedly and then place that category on their page is plain wrong. In no way do I consider that reversion an edit war. It is removing vandalism pure and simple --Looper5920 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

[2] It is long established that users are perfectly entitled to blank their user pages and remove warnings that they have read. Please assume good faith don't revert such without good reason. Thanks.--Docg 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

See new article on John K. Davis, USMC, created by JPatrickBedell. — ERcheck (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Knights Templar

Hiya, I guess I'm a bit confused about how the WikiProject's assessment process is working, so perhaps you could help me? Currently the box on the Templar talkpage has several entries like "References, not checked; Structure, not checked; etc." How do I get those checked? Do I just go through them myself, or is there a more formal process that's needed? Thanks, Elonka 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are refering to the B-class process I am assuming. I am sorry that I did not add that to the article's talk page. I would encourage you to fill those out yourself as up to a B-class rating the project is very flexible. I was borderline on whether or not the article should be B-class so please be honest if making your own assessments. It is a bit light in references and a bit light in content considering how much history they have. Hopefully this helps. Cheers--Looper5920 09:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll work on those, and then submit it for a MilHist peer review. :) --Elonka 09:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Have you been thinking about plans to bring the Portal to featured status? We could start with a general outline for each featured box, perhaps rotating between bios, bases, infantry units, aviation units, etc.

Check your e-mail. — ERcheck (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS El Toro

Please review my recent comment on the MCAS El Toro talk page. As you have been a major contributor to the article, I'd appreciate your comments. — ERcheck (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roundels, et al

I appreciate your addition of the USMC logo on the C-130 crashes page, but the identifying marks are really for the NATIONAL identification, not the individual departments. The lion share of lost C-130s are from the USAF, but we're not using the Department of the US Air Force logo to i.d. them. All US military services carry the national insignia that is rightly or wrongly coded "USAF roundel" - not the individual service badges, themselves. I'm sure that the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have individual emblems - but all still use the same roundel, not counting lo-viz variations.

Mark Sublette 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:2coverdos gringos.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:2coverdos gringos.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sand20trap.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sand20trap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of articles

Do you agree with the inclusion of the articles you mentioned? I'm reluctant to fix up an article that is on AFD unless I feel that it will survived AFD or have a chance of surviving. Time spent on an article to be deleted seems a waste. On the other hand ... — ERcheck (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said earlier.... I personnally may not have created them but now that they are here they meet the requirements. These men have been appointed by congress, have commanded major combat units and some have done so in combat. They meet the criteria as I have stated in my votes to keep them. I think at this point our duty is to make sure they are well represented. Thoughts?--Looper5920 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about well-represented is my "on the other hand." What a mess. I tried to make some major edits to one, but got caught in an edit conflict. A lot of "citation needed" tags; but as the bulk of the article seems to be from the USMC bio, that is an easy ref — I think that came from having it as a footnote for one item rather than as an overall reference, which I fixed. Also, trying to slip in an OC Weekly article ref — take a look and see about notabililty/validity/reliability. I'll return later. — ERcheck (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know the biggest problem... It's that there is someone creating USMC info and they cannot be trusted. By that I mean whenever I see you name and a select few others I never question the edit. I just assume it is good to go and it is just one more thing I do not have to worry about when I go through my watchlist. Now there is a loose cannon out there and it is a pain in the butt. Even after the contentious beginning, it may be in our best interests to work with him as long as he is creating USMC material. --Looper5920 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially important to strictly adhere to WP:BLP. See my comments on Talk:John K. Davis. — ERcheck (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock IPs

I've blocked Mr.Banana for a week. If the vandalism continues, give me a call and I'll semi the article. Cheers, and good luck... yandman 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a number of IPs are being used to make the same edits as Marshalbannana; and Yandman has handled some of it. The change in numbers is not supported by the reference given by the IP; and the edit summaries are deliberately misleading. A case of vandalism and 3RR. Looks like there are a number of folks keeping a watch on vandalism of this article. (BTW, the IPs are editing from the same city; evidence of sockpuppetry.) Take care. — ERcheck (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help--Looper5920 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal updates

I recently added a DYK for the Portal. One source was the monthly histories from the USMC History site, but they haven't updated it to February yet. Do you have any new items you could add? The rest have been up for quite a while. — ERcheck (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets everywhere

Another sockpuppet came out of the woodwork. Amazing. Since it is the same editor, and Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets specifically prohibits using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR, 3+ the sockpuppets is not needed to invoke 3RR. In fact, taken as a single editor making these edits, I see this as grounds for immediate blocking. I've blocked the latest, but will be gone a bit. — ERcheck (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

You're welcome! I find it pretty funny when one of these people makes some shrill promise "you'll never stop me! ha ha ha!" thinking they can wear out 1200 administrators and thousands more good editors who actually enjoy reverting vandalism. Shoveling sand against the tide, they are. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for the help dealing with the guy that is vandalizing all of my pages.--Looper5920 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I was happy to though It was crazy. Different IPs hitting it multiple times so a simple undo wouldn't work. Guy was nuts. --Xiahou 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Shoveling sand against the tide, they are." I like that what it feels like at times. Do they not realize a simple undo or a two edit or more RV takes care of it. With a complete history at our fingertips its not like we can't look back. Oh well. "Shoveling sand against the tide, they are." :-)--Xiahou 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just back. Looks like there are lots of folks helping. I'll check it out now. — ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI... I semi-protected all of your user sub-pages and talk archives that were being targeted. If I missed something, another admin can protect whatever I missed. -- Gogo Dodo 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that was a rather coordinated effort by many different IPs. That a common thing? --Xiahou 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was a first. I don't know whether I should be pissed off or honored. Again, thanks for the help. Although I have a feeling he will be back soon enough. Cheers--Looper5920 03:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Clark

Thanks, but that's where about half the images have already come from, I know the site. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAF quick question response

With as much material as there is available on the Cactus Air Force (CAF), there isn't any reason at all that it shouldn't make FA. My plan was to assist in taking as many of the sub-articles for the Guadalcanal campaign to FA as possible, including the sub-battles and other associated articles such as CAF and Tokyo Express, before finally finishing and submitting the main Guadalcanal campaign article for FA. We just have to take the information that's available and get it into the CAF article, as you know a time-consuming and laborious process. The outline that you've placed in the article gives us the framework to get it done. I think it's well on its way.

I was reading and making notes in Miller's CAF yesterday while standing in the unbelievably long lines at Tokyo Disneyland. So, in the future you may be seeing some text with Miller citations appearing in the article. Cla68 22:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds great. I have tried to buy Miller's book now for awhile but have been unable. Amazon doesn't have it...go figure. I guess I'll have to find a used copy somewhere.--Looper5920 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bought a used paperback copy from Half.com. It cost $1.50 plus $3 shipping. It's a small paperback that fits easily into my coat pocket but contains an incredible amount of information about the subject written very well. I'd put in my top four books related to the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 09:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now your just rubbing it in. Just kidding. I was actually thinking today about absolutely essential books that I own and the 2 that came to mind are Robert Sherrod's History of Marine Corps Aviation in World War II and Gordon Rottman's U.S. Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle. They are the USMC WWII equivalent of the bible. I will continue to try and find a copy of Miller's book. Cheers.--Looper5920 09:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nowak

I've filed an incident report requesting article protection against the current spree. Any other suggestions? Rklawton 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS El Toro

You're welcome. I tend to write and re-write talk page comments like that to get the wording right. I try to be concise, which forces me to focus on the policy/guideline in question and prevents me from having room to say anything uncivil! | Mr. Darcy talk 05:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, tend to get fired up and shoot from the hip which leads me to post comments I absolutely regret later. Oh well....--Looper5920 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Of course I'll look it over. I'm not the best copy editor in the world but I'll lay some fresh eyes on it. I totally forgot about telling you about what I dug up on VMX-22. They are in fact still active and just came back from a WTI. I have put together a few sources including some Marine Corps newspaper articles. They are surprisingly hard to get info on but I have a buddy that used to work on the Ospreys. I'll get back to you about both things. NeoFreak 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy too. It will probably have to wait until morning though since having a sleepy pair of eyes won't do you much good. I'll reply back when I'm done. And thank you for asking.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-since

Re: Asher Heimermann, why? What more information do you/wikipedia need? Tony16 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall

Thanks for the help reverting the vandalism on my talk page, I think I'm going to have to keep it semiprotected until he gets bored. Cheers! yandman 11:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


CIA edit

Dear Looper5920,

I respectfully ask you to reconsider your recent edit (a reversion) to the entry CIA. Additional information is available on my discussion page. Cheers, Prof77 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Looper5920&oldid=109137427"