User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

TY!

DocOfSoc has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

wrong

fight on your own pages, please

I believe your removal of my comment was wrong. What policy did you apply to remove it [1] Besides that comment was posted after the user was blocked and not before, and so far I have never seen any apology for that. I mean I do not care about user apologizing to you via email. May I please ask you to post my comment back? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I applied the don't-pour-gasoline-on-a-bonfire policy. Also, insisting on apologies tends to make them less likely. I am not going to restore that comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Very well. I will not restore it either, but I would like like to tell you clear and loud: unblocking the user who made the above comment and this edit summary "Please consider suicide, kthx" only because of his email request was dead wrong. BTW I an far on "insisting on apologies". As a matter of fact I do not care for one. I only was surprised that the user, who made such comment about me, will have a nerve to go after me on AN/I. On the other hand I guess there's nothing to get surprised about unomi any more. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I blocked him indefinitely and told him to request unblocking when he figured out why. When he emailed me and clearly stated that he should never have made the "consider suicide" post, I unblocked him. Believe me, if I ever see anything similar out of him again, he'll be blocked so fast and so long that his head won't stop spinning for weeks. That said, if you have a problem with his behavior going forward, ping an admin about it. Don't poke the bear. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Well, whatever. I just posted the link back. I said I would not, but circumstances has changed. Now that link is my defense, but I will not be surprised, if you'll delete it again. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC) wrong. Yes, "four days ago" is "just", and I should be allowed to use that comment for my defense now when he proposed topic ban. The use of that comment for the defense will be allowed in any court of low. You misused your administrative power by removing it.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I didn't realize you cared. It was unfortunate that I responded in such a manner to your dancing on my grave as it were, I shouldn't have done so, and I overstepped the norms of our community by not exercising more restraint. Unomi (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Of course I do not care, but I believe I should be allowed to use that comment for my defense, if you do not mind. If you do mind, I will remove it.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I find it a bit distracting to be sure, it is unfortunate that you reaffirm your predisposition to attacking the accuser rather than reflecting on your own behavior, but we are all Just human after all. I have no strong feelings regarding having it there other than that it constitutes a diversion. Unomi (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I guess after that I'll let it stay.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Whatever floats your boat, perhaps someone else will remove it, perhaps not. Regardless, I think that we both understand that my unfortunate diagnosis does not excuse your actions, not that you seem likely to be held accountable anyway. Shrug, Unomi (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nemenčinė

The name was not "already mentioned in the article's text", the name was removed from in the lead today and dumped dumped down into the text today. If you are not familiar with wikipedia policy about lead, read it.  Dr. Loosmark  19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are names in multiple other languages, it doesn't make sense to only list one in the lede.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah only that the majority of the discrict's population is Polish. Again check the policy about the lead.  Dr. Loosmark  19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just did, and pasted the relevant section to your talk.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant text just confirms my position. For the majority of the district's population the Polish name is not a foreign name, it is the name of the district in their mother tongue.  Dr. Loosmark  20:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Per your quote of the Wikipedia naming policy here: Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead

does this imply that the name "Breslau" can be removed from the lead of Wroclaw since it is already discussed in the etymology section of that article? The policy also implies that the other name, "Brassel", should be moved to that section and also removed from the lede.radek (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, because "Breslau" is the primary English name, as far as I know. Brassel, though, could probably go.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh... what makes you think "Breslau" is the primary English name? Pretty much every contemporary English language source uses Wroclaw. "Breslau" is very clearly an "alternative name" at best.radek (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the German name and used up until today, and I'm sure that makes it the second most used and important name, especially historically. Hekerui (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use and my quoteboxes

Hi Sarek. Say, I was wondering if you would explain a bit more about your removal of my quoteboxes from the Toy Story 3 article. I have carefully read Fair use and it seems to back up my previous understanding that a paragraph of quoted material is not a violation. I'm willing to be corrected, of course, if I am wrong about this. Is there a relevant Wikipedia guideline I am unaware of? Happy to take your answer here or on the TS3 talkpage, where I had made a new section to discuss the quoteboxes prior to their removal. Many Thanks, Jusdafax 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Like you, I have responded on the article talkpage. Thanks! Jusdafax 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for finding the source for File:John howard.jpg so author info and licensing could be substantiated. Hekerui (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your close

I have to ask about your close here. There were only four opposes, one of which clearly didn't understand what the proposal was for, and there must have been at least 15 people in support with extremely detailed rationale for their support. How did you interpret that discussion as no consensus for a ban. Weaker consensus for topic bans have passed. This didn't even appear close. I'm not trying to attack you for your decision. I just don't understand how you reached it. Swarm^Talk 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't close, no. There's definitely a problem with the NACs, and if I had opined, I would have come down on the support side. However, there were a couple of strong opinions that the discussion had been sufficient to demonstrate that there was a problem and hopefully get Erpert to change his NAC behavior (especially Atama switching from supporting to opposing the ban). I decided to go with those opinions and give Erpert some more time to show that he could work within consensus here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Fair enough. Someone can remain stubborn and defiant in a discussion but still change, and hopefully that will be the case with Erpert. Swarm^Talk 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey thanks for the friendly welcome, is that an automated thing or did you just message me because of my fantastic editing skills!? Haha I haven't done much editing but I get a strange sense of satisfaction from editing pages for the better! I never add any info because i find referencing and such to be too complicated so i just fix mistakes, change tenses to the past if they are out of date and remove irrelevant info.

Anyway thanks again! Marc

Marcmcd92 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have Joss Whedon on my watchlist, so when I saw you had edited it and had just joined, I figured I'd drop you a note. :-) I used WP:FRIENDLY to perform the actual mechanics, but I don't run around just randomly welcoming people. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Lerdthenerd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the advice, noted and will keep out the offending paragraph--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:PCHS-NJROTC

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Could you see to conforming the protection of User talk:PCHS-NJROTC with Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages, please? It doesn't have the required mitigation for prolonged semiprotection per the policy. I leave it to you as originating administrator to determine whether the user should be counseled to provide the mitigation, or whether the protection is no longer needed. Thank you much. --Bsherr (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pinged the editor. Thanks for pointing this out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the heads up. I grant that I'm new, but I'd have thought the time for discussion was prior to someone deleting all I wrote wholesale, in spite of the time I took to insure relevence and provide references. However, that said, I will go and discuss this with the person who edited me out. I will seek to learn what other changes I could make that would sit easier with that user.

Please let me know if I make any other faux pas.

Alexandria177 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(And thanks for the cookies! Live long!) Alexandria177 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point

but please make sure that admonish all parties involved, not just one, if you feel that a comment is warranted. Thank you. Misessus (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about

unomi vandalized other editor comment [2].--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz called my edits vandalism, boo hoo. un☯mi 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what?

Hey Sarek, Surely you can see that it is somewhat inappropriate for SnottyWong to be establish what if any consensus has been formed. Both given our prior interactions and that he is not an admin, nor does he have insight into the participants in the discussion. The vast majority of those that 'called for sanctions' of me were, if I may be bold, the usual suspects. Considering that she just got off a 3 month block topic ban for much the same behavior I don't think it was particularly out of line to suggest that she may find editing on other articles less stressful. Best, un☯mi 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether it's appropriate for SW to close it or not, edit warring over the close -- ESPECIALLY CHANGING IT TO A DIFFERENT CLOSE -- is not cool at best, and blockable at worst.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, I must admit I have rarely seen ANI sections closed by nonadmins, but I agree I should have brought it to your attention instead, mea culpa. un☯mi 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Then go for it, block unomi. Haven't I been harassed more than enough by unomi already? I did not close the discussion. I only reverted the vandalism and the lie about "no consensus". BTW I've never been blocked for 3 months. My longest block was 72 hours.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sarek, I see you've unclosed the proposal, asking for an uninvolved admin to close it. I'll respect that decision, even though I disagree with it. The proposal had 3 supporters and 17 opposers. 5 editors indicated they thought the proposal was frivolous, and called for a ban on Unomi for wasting their time. I didn't vote in the proposal, therefore I considered myself uninvolved (although that's arguable, seeing as how Unomi was recently banned for asking me to commit suicide). I am unaware of any rule that says only admins can close discussions on ANI, especially those which have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. SnottyWong ^yak 20:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite often ani threads just peter out for the archive bot to take care of, inactionable is inactionable after all, I don't take issue with the position that no action was going to be taken with regards to mbz1, I do, for obvious reasons consider it unlikely that you are the best person to be closing an ani thread with wording to the effect that I had been officially or otherwise warned. In the IP arena both ANI and AE reports are routinely populated by claims of frivolous harassment etc. Why not ask Sandstein to close it? He is familiar with the matter. un☯mi 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Then ask Sandstein to close it. Honestly I even do not care how it is going to be closed. I just like to stop harassment. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) While I've seen threads closed by non-admins on ANI (and have closed several myself), I believe consensus discussions should only be closed by an admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Sandstein to take a look here. un☯mi 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

While we are all here, would you say that vandalism is a fair characterization of my actions regarding the reverts? I ask because it has now been characterized as such twice by Mbz1 and if it indeed does not meet WP:VAND I would like to nip the trend in the bud. un☯mi 21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing the result of a discussion which has 17 opposes and 3 supports to "No consensus" is clearly an attempt to draw attention away from an ill-conceived topic ban proposal. Since the discussion can obviously not be characterized as "no consensus", and assuming that you are aware of this (given how long you've been on WP), then I must conclude that your edit was in bad faith, and therefore labeling it as vandalism is fair. SnottyWong ^verbalize 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was a clear case of vandalism in its worst "Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged." So, not only you vandalized the other editor comment, but to call 17 to 3 votes "no consensus" was a big misrepresentation of the reality.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As a relatively uninvolved editor, I must say that it is difficult to assume good faith in an edit which changed a consensus close to clearly misrepresent it. But let's stop the bickering and clear off of Sarek's talk page, shall we? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, to be honest it didn't even register that I had changed the close, there is no difference between no consensus and 'no action', I can see though that there was a difference of degree between the wordings, but in terms of representation of outcomes as it were I didn't mean to change it. Obviously apart from the indication that I was found to have made frivolous topic ban request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs)

There is a big difference between "no consensus", where there is no consensus one way or the other, and consensus opposing the proposition. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If there was no difference between "no consensus" and "no action", then why would we close an XfD as "Keep" instead of just closing them all as "no consensus"? I think you're just playing dumb now. SnottyWong ^yak 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not AfD, the level of consensus on AfDs are often cited as reasons for later reAfDs, mergers or renames. I am not aware that the same value is derived from the moniker attached to an inactionable ANI thread. un☯mi 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just consider yourself very lucky I didn't block for that "no consensus" edit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that I am. I honestly didn't think my edit that controversial at the time, but in hindsight and with all your comments I appreciate that it was a bad move. I trust that you won't mind if further incidents which might potentially result in similar drama are brought to your attention by me? un☯mi 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can certainly _ask_... That's a little joke. Humor: it is a difficult concept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Balagonj786

I blocked a sock based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balagonj786. You'd blocked the main account two weeks. I defer to you on whether to extend the block or leave it as is.--Chaser (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it for now. Preventive, not punitive, after all... If he comes back with yet another sock, though, that would be a different kettle of kimchi altogether. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability

A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Heinlein

Hi, Sarek. Just saw Star Trek again, sorry about your planet. Geez, one black hole can ruin your whole day! Though congrats on having Winona as the wife this time! *winks*

Any how, I've been in discussion with Lithistman on the Robert Heinlein Discussion Page, however it seems not to be much of a discussion. He accuses of bad writing first, then backs off of that to claim that I simply put in "original research". When I point out that I only added and cited, he backs off of that and claims my addition was too long.

So, I guess I'm curious as to where I go from here. At the moment, I've posted to him on the discussion page, sharing my concerns, and asking why he feels it to be too long. But it seems unlikely that I'll be getting any kind of explanation.

Thoughts? I get that I could just let him have his way, however, the issue of Heinlein and his writing on sexuality is one of the major things about the man's history and life, and one so major that it is still in public discourse today. A mention - a proper mention, not how it had been before - seems of value. My posting gave that issue it's own section, and dealt with it neutrally, and cited a source, though I've offered to put more citations in. They certainly abound.

Alexandria177 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sleep apnea

Thanks for catching my link error. I mistakenly put the new link into the Hsu citation instead of the next citation with authors Li et al. I just put the removed link in its proper place in the Li citation. The removed text was correct and supported by the Hsu source, and I have restored it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, KPi -- sorry I didn't realize that cite was just downstream from where you put the link. I'm going to tweak the wording a bit, though, it's awkward as it stands. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My only concern is that the phrase "issues with patient compliance" seems to be written for doctors, rather than a general audience. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but the fewer words, the less likely we are to get caught in the sentence and never find our way out again. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I reduced the words even more, while not writing to doctors. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Brewing controversy over pagemove.

Hi, I hope I can persuade you to take a look at the page move discussion here based on the consensus expressed here. Thanks un☯mi 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user and IP socking

A few days ago you blocked user:Mikemikev who is also poised to be banned by the arbcom.[3] It looks like the user is having a tough time letting it go[4], and today looks he's back with more socking.[5] If this continues what would be the most appropriate means or venue for handling the issue? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jazz at the Philharmonic/Norman Granz Vol. 2.

Here we go again. I feel another edit war coming on with User talk:212.242.173.165 [6]. How should I proceed? I can't really be bothered with all this. User has ignored my requests for reliable third party sources, as users own sources are OR. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with AN/I thread

Sarek,

How do I go about getting this thread on AN/I closed? Support for a topic ban is unanimous: the thread should be closed and the subject of the ban notified. I'd do it myself but as I started the discussion (and I'm not an admin), I'm sure that Jimmy would object. The protection on the article has expired and it won't be all that long before the discussion gets automatically archived, so if you could do it, or tell me how to get it done, or tell me it's okay to do it myself, it'd be appreciated. Yworo (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, somebody did come along and close it. Yworo (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good talkpage stalkers are like that :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: deletion criteria

Genuinely, this is not a deletion criteria anymore.

When was the last time an article was deleted for being a dicdef?

If enough people agree that a criteria never holds, then it doesn't hold anymore.- Wolfkeeper 23:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be working on it for a while

I'll be working on it for some time, so get off my case for a while, thanks. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to stay off your new page, but don't mess with the old one, please. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I am sorry. It is not an area that you are involved with nor have shown any commitment to working on.

The changes reflect Wikipedia naming conventions for regional purposes.

But, let's be frank. We have cross this bridge before and for whatever reason, you are "on my case".

I am sorry but it is not positive, It is not helping. Nor is it progressing the Wikipedia in anyway whatsoever.

So, please, if you are not going to become involved in the discussions around the use of British Isles terminology, and show a commitment to the project, then please keep out of it because, otherwise, you are just acting like a wind up merchant.

Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if I'm an involved admin, I can't edit, and if I'm an uninvolved admin, I can't edit either?

It don't work 'ike 'at, de-ah.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I am working on it right now, so butt out for a day or two until the rest of us have a chance to discuss and develop it. It is easier if we have something rough to start with.

I saw a template for just that, but I cannot find it right now. We now have decisions and progress being made.

Looking back, I realise that I should have probably just done a page move but I am new to this and learning as I work. Thanks. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "butt out" and "get off my case" weren't exactly linchpins of WP:CIVIL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, where does "unlimited rights to be on other people's cases and wind them up" fit into policy?

You have a choice to help or not. I would rather you helped and taught me with a positive example. All of this is hard enough to work without some other kid coming along and kicking over one's sandcastles as one builds them. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're building your sandcastles in the middle of the public walkway, that's clearly marked and that's been pointed out to you before many times, but you just keep building them as you please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I would say I am building the sandcastles in Terra nullius just as everyone before them was built.

You seem to be claiming me and them as being part of your sandcastles kicking zone.

So please stop for just now and allow things to develop.

Please walk around them for just now, or go and do some positive work elsewhere, until the participants have a chance to develop them.

Please stop obstructing and wasting time and energy in the meanwhile. Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow WP:POLICY, quit with the personal attacks, and I'll be happy to stop wasting time making sure you're editing within community norms. Believe me, there are lots of things I'd rather be doing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And there is no "no-man's-land" here on WP. All of it is covered by policy and guidelines, so if you want to edit here, you have to do it the same way everyone else does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So why this time and what's your problem? Are you going to sit down and sort out all the previous discussion? Because I am volunteering too. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Get consensus for doing that first -- I suggest a straw poll on one page, with links to it from the others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I read the bit where it said be bold and take responsibility.

• Are you following the discussion on the talk pages?
• Are you going to do any of the work?

To be frank, this is a voluntary project and I think you have a lot to learn about handling volunteers.

I asked you to cut me a couple of days slack on all this and allow me to do some work without kicking it over. Would you do that and see what comes of it? --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you going not going to do any of the work, then I suggest you keep out of for just now and allow those of us who are willing to do so to work in peace.

Do you understand that logic? Give us a chance to learn on our own. --Triton Rocker (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, no. If you make policy-based edits, I'll have no reason to revert them. However, blanking pages, doing huge cut-paste content moves, and the like, are not going to work.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED

If I'd known there was an RfD (I just found out about it now), I'd have put in my comments over there; I'm not sure why people have their knickers in a knot over it. Everyone knows that Plaxico Burress shot himself in a fantastically stupid manner, why the rush to protect "his privacy"? Am I the only one finding BLP very toxic? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

TA!

=jus2muchtypin4me:(-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)