User talk:Sean William

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, Sean! Appreciate it :) How are your new tools suiting you? – Riana ^ऋ 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They've been suiting me very well so far...although I was introduced to image backlogs the other day, which was something I later regretted. :). Cheers, // Sean William (PTO) 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they're a pain... but it's kinda fulfilling when you go back to the main page and see one less number on the backlogs :) I think at least 70% of my logs must be deleted images! – Riana ^ऋ 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good

I applaud your linking to said article on Jimbo's talk page, SqueakBox 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As soon as something like that happens, Brandt always advertises his "wise" actions at WR. // Sean William (PTO) 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For reference, SqueakBox is an active participant in the discussion here, on a proposed guideline. I've linked your edit as a reference case for the participants in the discussion - I hope you don't mind, and if you do, I'll remove my comment there. JavaTenor 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Good luck getting the guideline to work. // Sean William (PTO) 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Of interest

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

Hey. Since I seen you wrote on Darkness of Meta's userpage about that dodgy emai. It turns out hundreds of Wiki-users has recieved it, and one of the users has created a userpage section about it, where you can comment, [1]. Plus, this user has became a big, big problem after violating several policies and has been using open proxies to create hundreds and hundreds of sockpuppets. Just to inform you, the debate is here. [2]. Retiono Virginian 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on the ANI thread above. Thanks for informing me. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey PTO. I see you've got your name changed :). Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's unfortunate that your RFA failed again. I'll be sure to support you whenever you run again in the future. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Due to some "transclusion confusion" I apparently went and deleted some pages under U1 that User:Andrew Hampe did not want deleted. Sorry about that -- the CSD backlog was large at the moment and the U1's are usually the easiest ones to knock of. Well, I thought so anyway. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Dina 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Andrew Hampe explained his situation to me over IRC. Cheers, // Sean William 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Two people with usernames that start with 'Sean W', both having recently got username-changed to them? A serious coincidence :) Please respond on my talk. —Sean Whitton / 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page per request. // Sean William 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Sean, thanks so much for the heads up and your thoughtful suggestion. In fact, my friend Tdxiang, who's also a Simple Wiki admin, alerted me about this circumstance a few days ago, so I was aware of this unpleasant impersonation event. However, I'm not sure what to do at this point - should I do something to get that account deleted somehow, or can it be usurped in order to register myself there? I'll follow your advice on this matter. I registered my name on de.wiki, es.wiki and fr. wiki, but I completely missed the Simple English one :( Again, thanks so much for your help, dear Sean! Cheers, Phaedriel - 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'll do just that then :) Thank you, dear Sean, and let me know if you ever need my help over here at en.wiki, k? Hugs! Phaedriel - 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks a lot, dear Sean - I'll wait then ;) Cheers! Phaedriel - 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the block of 71.41.210.146?

The explanation given is one word: "Vandalism".

I can state categorically (but subjectively) that no edit from that IP classifies as Wikipedia:Vandalism in that it's not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

But even falling back to the other two lesser legal standards of "wilful", namely recklessness and negligence, I'm not sure what is objectionable about any past edits. How are they even misguided or unhelpful, much less harmful?

My latest big project has been to add accurate SMILES formulae (preferably the canonical "unique SMILES" form usable for database lookup) to the simple molecules in Category:Biochemistry. It's been a bit of a learning experience, as the chirality annotations are a bit subtle to figure out, but http://cactus.nci.nih.gov/services/translate/ has been very helpful.

It's not like switching IPs or waiting out the block is difficult, but as someone who wishes to contribute positively, the possibility that I'm doing harm without meaning to is alarming. I remember being disagreed with over Endianness, but at least that comment said something about why the reverter disagreed.

The one word "vandalism"—describing an offense for which I know the mens rea is absent—leaves me bewildered. Can someone please explain in considerably more detail?

71.41.210.146 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, reviewing your contributions more closely, I've found that the block was in error. Now, the reason why you were blocked in the first place was due to a report on WP:AIV by a bot named "User:MartinBot". This bot works as an anti-vandalism bot, reverting edits that it deems to be "nonsense". Your edits were reverted immediately by this bot, due to the somewhat random nature of the SMILES formulae. MartinBot automatically reports editors who have vandalized more than four times to the bot section of the Administrator Intervention against Vandalism page. Administrators rarely check the contributions of a user when it has been reported by MartinBot because the bot very rarely makes mistakes. I hope you accept my humblest apologies for this block; it was a general misunderstanding between the parties. Cheers, Sean William 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh, that makes sense. Yes, I've reverted a moderate amount of "line noise" (although usually I think charitably that someone just leaned on a keyboard and hit "Enter" with the edit page open; I only call it vandalism when there's some obviously hostile text), and the SMILES formulae do resemble that. Um... I'll have to figure out how to get the edits past the bot's un-doing. I wonder why it only started complaining today? Oh! I know! Earlier, I had to add "|- | SMILES = <formula>" to infoboxes. The most recent ones already had (blank) "| SMILES =" entries that I just filled in. Thus, the addition was "purer" line noise.71.41.210.146 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to notify the bot's creator about this, in hopes of getting it fixed. Sean William 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I really think it's quite an exceptional case, so maybe it doesn't need a totally transparent solution, but a solution of some sort would be helpful. I could always make some pointless edits, like a large human-readable <!--comment--> and then remove it in a separate edit, if I expect it'll trigger the bot. In case it helps, though, a basic validation of SMILES formulae can be done by checking for properly nested parens, with possibly one innermost level of square brackets. (Oh yes, and my recent edits have included many more chirality @ signs, which might trigger e-mail address detectors.) 71.41.210.146 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, in the meantime, I notice that the block is still active. Is that likely to be fixed, or should I just wait for it to time out? 71.41.210.146 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have lifted the block. Sean William 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:o

What are the odds that I should drop by your userpage about 5 minutes after you've blatantly ripped off adapted my old userpage design? :) Spooky! By the way, Springeragh is actually responsible for most of that design - just making sure your credit goes to the right place :) Take care! – Riana _ऋ 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm found out! I guess I got tired of the "large user page" thing, so I decided to go with a simple page. I hope you don't mind :). Sean William 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Course not! I got tired of the big flashy thing too, but then got tired of the small simple thing... and now I'm tired of the big flashy thing again. You know, I'm just going to end up redirecting to my talkpage one of these days :) See ya round, – Riana _ऋ 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Sean_William/PullToOpen on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/sean-william. Thanks. --Sean William 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

7th Muslim Brigade

Maybe you don't realise that semi-protection would force the anonymous user to discuss his problems with article (he so far refuses). Or if he decided he has nothing substantial to say, he will go away. I've only been here short time, and I can see than for Wikipedia openess=anarchy (mostly). What is gained by letting one anonymous user rip up the version of an article several users accepted, without discussion or justifying himself even?--Methodius 16:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I didn't semi-protect the article is because it would only block the IPs from editing, and not established users. If pages are protected in a content dispute, the page must be completely protected from editing so that all parties must discuss on the talk page. As I said before, if an edit war erupts, ask for full protection and begin discussion. Of course, it would be much easier to begin discussion now, but as you said, the IP doesn't seem to want to engage in discussion. Sean William 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"it would only block the IPs" - it is dispute between one IP and several registered users. All except one IP are wanting to discuss. So only the one IP needs "coercion" to discuss, everyone else is already ready for discussion, so there is no purpose to "coerce" them also. So I do not see point of what you say. All is needed is blocking IPs from editing for week or two. Either he will discuss or he will go away.--Methodius 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the protection policy. We don't semi-protect pages for content disputes that have to do with IPs with the intention of locking them out. Sean William 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I hope he decides to discuss then.--Methodius 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can you please protect page? Same person is now harrasing me, putting sockpuppet template on my page again and again, insinuating Serbian newspapers are not reliable because they are Serbian, and making a mess of articles. You can see contributions.--Methodius 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have completely protected the page, and semi-protected your user page. Sean William 18:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

AndyZ already Desyssoped

Just so you know AndyZ was desysopped over at meta by Drini at 1:37 UTC. That's about 15 minutes ago. --24.44.158.33 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we're sorting it out on various IRC channels. Sean William 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Certified.Gangsta

Please see this - [3]. The editor did not violate his parole on just one article. He did it on several articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on that thread. Thanks for letting me know. Sean William 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message concerning Certified.Gangsta

All my edits are motivated by upholding Wikipedia policy and enriching the project. I don't know why on earth you think I am baiting Certified.Gangsta. Baiting requires a degree of intention, which I do not possess at all. Frankly, he does not need any baiting to get himself blocked every second day.

I assure you that baiting Certified.Gangsta was not in my mind and was no part of my intention. If you block me for my good faith edits, believe you me I will appeal it to the highest level to vindicate my good intentions.

I am surprised and shocked by your failure to assume good faith on my part. That has in no small measure influenced my reaction to your message and the tone of this message. If any part of this offends you, I apologise. Nevertheless, I feel I must express my indignation with an appropriate reaction. --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In making unprovoked edits to Certified.Gangsta's userspace, you're encouraging him to edit war, violate his parole, and get blocked. Pending the ArbCom's clarification, I won't be blocking Certified.Gangsta for userspace violations. However, you're making him violate the spirit of the sanction. I remember the discussion about spoofed new messages bars, and I'm pretty sure consensus was NOT achieved. Sean William 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your continued failure to assumed good faith appals me. Your imputation of User:LionheartX's behaviour and intentions to me shocks me.

Please clarify your accusation. Are you accusing me of baiting on the basis of your perception of my intentions? On what basis do you make that conclusion? I ask because I see none.

Your argument seems to be that, because Certified.Gangsta is subject to a revert parole, I am somehow restrained from reverting him under the threat of blocking.

If your argument stood, that would place me on a revert parole with respect to any page edited by Certified.Gangsta.

That makes no sense to me. ArbCom imposed a sanction on him, not on me. If somehow a sanction on Certified.Gangsta requires me to stop good faith editing, then there is something seriously wrong with then ArbCom procedures.

I am editing in the same way I have always done, and I will always continue to do so. I refused to be restrained by some kind of secondary constraint on me resulting from an ArbCom case in which I was not a party and my behaviour was not impugned by the Arbitration Committee. A fortiori the Arbitration Committee did not at any point say that other users are to stop reverting Certified.Gangsta's bad edits.

In this particular case, may I remind you that it was not "unprovoked". Certified.Gangsta added a UI spoofing banner to his user page, which, on my interpretation and on the interpretation of many users now and in the past, is against community consensus. --Sumple (Talk) 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(here is the straw poll, from which you derived "consensus": [4])Okay. I don't think we're on the same page here. The reason I mentioned LionheartX was because I was showing that Certified.Gangsta has been baited before. If you were really "good faith editing" to Certified.Gangsta's userpage, then I will excuse myself from this issue and not deal with him again. I'm sorry, but sometimes you've just got to call a spade a spade. Please, don't revert his userpage again. As long as you leave him alone, I'll leave you alone. Sean William 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite being a dick

Cheers sean for your words, but I just had a tantrum and acted like a dick - had a stressfull day at work, next time I'll stay off the laptop when I'm in a bad mood! Thanks again - Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Everybody has days like that every so often :). Cheers, Sean William 01:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia IRC channels

Hi Sean William. The reason I am here is to ask you about Wikipedia IRC Channels. I usually hear the words "Wikipedia IRC channels" by diffent wikipedians. In my opinion, Wiki IRC Channel is similar to Wikimedia, or Wikimedia commons. Is it right? I hope you can understand my questions, respond in my talk page. Daniel 5127 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, how much do you know about IRC? Sean William 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just like chatting rooms for wikipedians to discuss the many problems in Wikipedia. Daniel 5127 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you know it's a chat medium. Wikipedia chat (generally referred to as #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en, but it consists of many different channels) is a place where Wikipedians can chat about Wikipedia. However, as conversations are wont to do, they sometimes get off topic. So, a better definition of "Wikipedia IRC" is "a place where Wikipedians can just let their hair down and chat casually with their peers". A few of the channels are used for coordination (#wikipedia-en-admins, #wikipedia-en-spam, etc.), but most are just social channels. To connect to an IRC channel, you need an IRC client (A good article comparing the clients is Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients). My personal favorite is Chatzilla, which is pretty simple and easy to use. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. Sean William 03:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

hey there

Hi

I stumbled across this page somehow - this, and I was just wondering...what does Mazal tov mean?

Apologies if this seems a little random, I like learning new things and somehow I couldn't understand the phrase, so I thought I'd annoy you for a little while :)

Regards, xC | ☎ 14:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mazal tov tells you all you want to know. In this context, I meant it to mean "congratulations". Sean William 15:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't I search on WP?? (Big dent in forehead where I'm hitting myself) Thanks for telling me! Regards, xC | ☎ 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to ask me any question you may have, and I'll see what I know! Cheers, Sean William 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdominal thrusts and choking

Hi there, as a member of the first aid project, i would value your opinion. I strongly believe that abdominal thrusts does not need it's own article, and should be redirected to choking, where we can have one coherent article on the subject. I think this should be the case because:

• Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
• With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
• It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
• It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
• It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information

I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page Talk:Abdominal thrusts

Thanks for your time, Owain.davies 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on the discussion. Sorry it took me so long; I've been rather busy today. Sean William 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Owain.davies 07:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, and i know you commented, but i'm having a few issues with another user reverting the edit, without very much reasoned basis - if you are able to help, the talk page is still at Talk:Abdominal thrusts. Thanks Owain.davies 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not me

I'm sorry for my brother vandalism he thinks it wasn't but it was so I'm deeply sorry for that Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

haha sorry person

HIM (band)

It appears to be consensus with the relevant editors that the genre should be Alternative Rock, could you change this as the page is protected? ≈ Maurauth ^(09F9) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! :)

Yes, dear sean - we've managed to turn a potential vandal into a newbie Wikipedian! :) Happy day indeed! Love you, and I hope you're doing great, Phaedriel - 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Good luck in helping that person become a constructive contributor. Cheers, Sean William 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Too quick!

You're just too quick - good work protecting the User talk:Boogiedowndj page! Just wondering, shouldn't the special protected template be added to the page? The one stating that the page is protected to prevent disruption from the blocked user? :)

Chrisch^Talk 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Boogiedowndj. When you protect talkpages to stop abuse by blocked editors, could you set an expiry time for the protection? In pratice a few days is usually fine. The other week I had to go through unprotecting nearly a hundred old talkpage protections, some of which had been protected since early 2006. It save maintenace work later if the pages are indefinitely protected... Thanks, WjBscribe 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that. I'll go ahead and change it, if you haven't done so already. Sean William 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"no, he's indefblocked. No need to add a template."

Why? --Iamunknown 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego was banned by the arbitration committee for one year. That ban was eventually extended to indefinite. The only way that Billy Ego will be unbanned is by a direct appeal to the ArbCom, which can only be done by e-mail. The only thing on the talk page right now is a notice of the ArbCom's decision, showing why this guy was blocked (the main userpage says it too). {{pp-usertalk}} says "This template page has been protected from editing to prevent (name) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template." Billy Ego is banned, and isn't allowed to edit. Period. There isn't any policy that I can cite to defend myself. I just think that adding protection templates on indefprotected pages of banned users is superfluous at best. Cheers, Sean William 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There also is not a policy one can cite to defend their use of a myriad of other such templates, but we tend to them anyways. It would certainly be useful for categorization and, in my mind, would do no harm, but if you are unwilling to transclude the template, I, as a registered account, can do nothing more. Thank you for your time, Iamunknown 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sean William 21:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Sean. I would like to ask you to protect 7th Muslim Brigade article again, because there are few users which do not want to accept sourced information. They don't want to discuss, they just make funny of me and keep reverting. They are deleting the previous version without reasonable explanation. For instance, I provided all reliable sources per WP:RS (courte decisions), and they just keep repeating as robots:

User:Nikola Smolenski:Even this International Courte's whitewashing doesn't show what you say: no effective control, but they were still formally a part of it. The "cause of Arab arival" being mass rapes and death camps is hopelesly out of touch with reality: no such things happened.

They are just denying the facts proven by international courtes. Thanks in advance. 85.158.34.219 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If problems persist, bring up the issue at WP:ANI. Sean William 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Sean!

Dear Sean, thanks so much for your wonderful gift and your kind words! :) I always find it very hard to find the words to thank beautiful gestures like this one you've gifted me; I prefer to enjoy the happiness that you give me without more ado. So just let me tell you, it's my pleasure to work alongside you, and I'm so happy our paths have crossed. Here's to a long and warm friendship, dear Sean! Love, Phaedriel - 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

HIM

It looks like another edit war could be starting on HIM (band) over whether all the listed genres from the debated part of the article should be put into the infobox or just a concise umbrella genre. ≈ Maurauth ^(nemesis) 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked each of the IPs for 24 hours for breaching 3RR. I'll keep an eye on the page to make sure the discussion stay civil after the blocks expire. Thanks for letting me know. Sean William 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My Talkpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. DXRAW 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to drop me a line if you need anything. Sean William 22:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple E. Wikipedia

Hi, Sean. I am wondering if I can copy Wikipedia-en articles and modify them on simpler words on simple-en? I will respond here. Real96 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we allow (and encourage) doing that. Cheers, Sean William 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Real96 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm...

How is this an appropriate use of rollback? Seriously. A re-read of WP:ADMIN might be in order. Mikker ^(...) 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's userpage can say whatever he wants it to say. Period. Sean William 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Why did you remove the listing for 64.140.181.126 from the AIAV page without blocking the villain? --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They haven't vandalized since January. We only block vandals who are active now. Blocks are to be preventative, not punative. Sean William 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I gave you the wrong page! (Too much cutting and pasting.) The vandal in question is 64.140.181.126. He was given a level 3 warning yesterday, and vandalized the same page today, which is when I reported him. And it does not appear to be a shared IP. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder :). That IP's last warning was on May 22, and was only a level 3 warning. The IP vandalized twice today, but stopped about an hour and a half ago. As I said above, we try to block vandals only who are currently active and vandalizing. Cheers, Sean William 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

being a dick

thanks for the advice. excuse the error: the "nonsense" was not intended as an insult. This site is not as elegant as advertised. Organisations are required to collaborate with errors before attacking them. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfd101 (talk • contribs)

No matter what happens, you can't vandalize other people's user pages. Sean William 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Wendel67

He still appears to be in editing difficulties. MelicansMatkin 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded. I have the page watchlisted for replies. Sean William 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please don't remove filed requests for arbitration, even if you think they're daft. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I won't be doing that again. Sean William 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man

Thanks for helping out at the incidents regarding User:Roswalt44. Deletion Quality 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)