User talk:JBW

Tionna T. Smalls

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

Replied.

shlomit lir

I have noticed you erased the eatery on Shlomit Lir - can you explain why as she is an acclaimed writer an editor and curator with articles on her in different languages including Italian, Spanish, Chinese as well as English. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.119.63 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The article had been proposed for deletion for a week, and the proposal had not been challenged. However, I will take your message as a belated challenge to the deletion proposal, and restore the article. The proposal said that Shlomit Lir was not notable, so you may like to consider the relevant guidelines to make sure that you can show evidence of notability, to avoid another deletion. The most relevant guidelines are, I think, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

James, can you please undelete the talk page too, and ensure that it has the appropriate WikiProject tags on it. Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding about the talk page, which I had missed. I have now restored it. It has a WikiProject Biography template. I am not sure if any more are appropriate, but if you know of any then please add them. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mario Pezzi II

Yes, look at this: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Pezzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutrupe (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (JEB Foundation)

Dear James,

Thanks a lot for your message and concern. Indeed I am part of the Foundation's team and it is in agreement with all of us, that the page has been created. So we assure that there is no conflict of interest. On the other hand our goal is not to promote the foundation through Wikipedia (your guidelines are pretty clear on this issue). We would like to add the page, since the one on René Berger exists on the English version of Wikipedia (matter of relevance). The official website is also French-English, and we get a great deal of requests from art amateurs of professionals throughout the world (proven by statitics and external/academic participations). Finally, French may not be the easiest language for all interested individuals, so an entry on the English Wikipedia would be most welcome! Should there be any disapprouval or suggestions, your remarks will be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards, Aline Debusigne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aline Debusigne (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Review for Seleukosa

Thank you JamesB for your immediate review to my appeal.[[1]] I apologize if I came out with an angry tone but I was quite frustrated at that time. I do take much care to be extremely civilized and especially not to insult anyone even if I receive insults.Thank you again for your effort.Seleukosa (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JB for your reply. Of course I’ve realized that your comment was not meant to be critical. Actually I found it quite helpful. I only wanted to point out that frustration might cloud a person and can be carried away, it happens and probably gave the angry tone to my appeal; thank God I manage to remain civilized most of the times.

May I also ask what should be done with this page [[2]]. I know that you unblocked me because of doubt and I really appreciated it (especially I thank you because you actually bother to check my history in wikipedia) but here this page still condemns me as the creator of this sockpuppet (if this guy is a sockppupet after all,).Is there something else I should do? I haven’t faced such situation before and I don’t really know what to do. If FuterePerfect hasn’t helped me, I probably wouldn’t have been able to present my case sufficient enough. Sometimes it’s becoming impossible to prove that you are not an elephant! Thank you again for your time. RegardsSeleukosa (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the notice on the page you refer to, so that the sockpuppetry is merely stated to be a suspicion of "an editor", rather than a fact. Would you be willing to settle for that? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you BJ for your fast reply and action (really fast!!). If it is possible I would personally prefer to see something like “this user is suspected to be a sockpuppet”. I don’t like to see anything that associates him/she with me. I value my reputation as a wikipedian editor and this is why I defend my self so much. However if you advise me to settle and accept it as you have change it, I would accept your advise. I don’t want to keep arguing about it. Already you have done enough. Thank you again for your time and efforts. RegardsSeleukosa (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the user page notice and placed a block notice (which does not mention any name) on the user talk page instead. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your quick and efficient actions. Far better than before. RegardsSeleukosa (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk was not moved (swapped)

Hi, some months ago you moved Mathematical alphanumeric symbols Unicode block to Mathematical alphanumeric symbols (actually, swapped it with a redirect). See log and history. The old Talk:Mathematical alphanumeric symbols Unicode block was not moved to Talk:Mathematical alphanumeric symbols. Could you do that, or is there a prevention somehow? Should I improve WLH first? Btw, a future move is discussed re these pages here. -DePiep (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now moved the talk page. I have no idea why it wasn't moved before: normally by default a talk page is moved along with the article. Perhaps I accidentally unchecked "Move associated talk page". Anyway, thanks for prompting me to correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thx for explaining, no issue. -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI question

I saw you recently blocked 2.97.73.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of Alacante45 (talk · contribs) (aka Unclebert11/ Whistleblowerrrr). AFAICS 86.173.33.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Oracle Orb (talk · contribs) are also socks of his. Do you want to take a look, or should I raise this as a fresh SPI case? Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is 100% obvious that these are the same person. 86.173.33.234 even says so in this edit. I have indef-blocked Alacante45 and Oracle Orb, and blocked 86.173.33.234 for a while. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Andy14and16

They are admitting to socking, promising not to do it again, and have already been blocked for several months. I'm thinking unblock, but technically you blocked them last so I'm checking in with you first. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think under the circumstances unblocking is reasonable. Please go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be busy on other things, I will unblock myself. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was waiting for User:MuZemike to chime in, but since he has edited his talk page twice but still not responded to my message it looks like he doesn't have any strong opinions on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read that I was going to consult MuZemike before taking action. However, MuZemike has now gone offline without responding to your message, so "he doesn't have any strong opinions on the matter" is probably right. However, I will not unblock just at the moment. If you want to that is fine, or we could wait a bit longer to give MuZemike another chance to respond. I don't feel very strongly one way or t'other. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage! Trust me, that idiot will ned up on LTA befoe long. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 05:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Middle schools and huggle

I don't know if the recent, persistent account was related to the middle school page. It may be. There are a few accounts on there with some curious histories, including one that looks squeaky clean but has made maybe 20 edits over 2 years, about a quarter of those to the middle school article. I don't have the motivation right now to get into it (I'm burnt out on a few other SPI things I dealt with last month), but thanks for handling that. I actually used huggle regularly for quite a while but recently took a break for a few months while I was transforming most of my computers around. Now I'm back, from time to time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In this kind of situation, where vandalism has gone undetected for a while, it can take for ever searching through huge numbers of edits to find what has been going on. Often this means you have the option of either spending far more time on one article than is reasonable, or else settling for a very inadequate job, with bits of vandalism missed, and constructive edits inadvertently reverted along with vandalism. (I have found an example of the latter in this article.) Well, we just have to do what we can, and remember that, even if the job we do is far from perfect, we have left the encyclopaedia a little better than it would otherwise have been. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about a deleted article

Hello, I was working on some research and found that you just recently deleted something that I felt was very helpful. It was an article called "To Shin Do". The reasons for the deletion said (this is an article without independent sources that fails to say why this is a notable martial art). I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I would like to try to help get something on Wikipedia about this martial arts. It's become a very popular form of martial arts in America. So I want to help find sources so the topic can be added to Wikipedia. Can you give me a couple examples of what types of sources would be helpful to include? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmonie (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I can find no trace of a deleted article with the title To Shin Do. Perhaps you have made a mistake in the title.
2. If I did delete an article with the words you quote in the deletion log then they will not have been my words. It will have been an article which was proposed for deletion, and the wording will have been those of the person making the proposal. Anyone could then have contested that proposal. After a week in which nobody had contested the proposal, I will have had a look over the article to check that the proposal was not an unreasonable one, and, provided it wasn't, I will have deleted it.
3. I can't comment on the particular article you are referring to, as I don't know what article it was, but I do remember deleting a number of articles on the general topic. As far as I recall none of them showed that their particular sub-branch of martial arts was significant. Some or all of them appeared to be about minor fringe branches of schools of martial arts, and it had been suggested for some or all of them that the articles were written by people involved in order to promote their fringe schools. What I saw, both in the articles and in quick web searches, was entirely consistent with that suggestion. As I have already indicated, I am not able to say whether that was the case with the article you have in mind.
4. For an indication as to what sort of evidence of notability is required for a Wikipedia article, see the notability guidelines and the guideline on reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Checked JamesBWatson (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Taztouzi is back again

This time using the name Agenceluxe. He's edited Mister World 2010[3], Manhunt International 2010[4], Mister International 2010 [5], and Mohammed Al Maiman, which he created without misinformation and then changed after a couple of weeks [6]. John KB submitted the SPI request:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agenceluxe I'm assuming I can't tag the Al Maiman article for speedy deletion until Agenceluxe is officially declared a sock. Susfele (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me?!!1!

That's the second tab I've had to close because you've finished something I've started! At this rate I'll be able to down tools and relax ;-) TFOWR 09:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a question of "great minds think alike", I reckon. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dialog Axiata

Thanks for doing the merge & move along with the deletions. Top Jim (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your intervention. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of a page?

Hello James.

• 13:25, October 11, 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Robert J Rubinstein" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I Created the page Robert J Rubinstein, and seen that it has been deleted as it is seen as SPAM. Robert J Rubinstein's organization is a non profit organization. He organizes conferences around the world speaking about Sustainability. He has became world famous teaching people on this subject.

Please advise

Regards,

Stephen Cassidy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen j Cassidy (talk • contribs) 12:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether Rubinstein's organisation is a non profit organisation or not is irrelevant. The article was unambiguous promotion of him and his work, and Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that one or both of the following applies: (1) You are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. "Robert has been able to make significant breakthrough with respect to consciousness raising", for example, is at best an expression of personal opinion, and at worst an attempt to promote. (2) You work in advertising, marketing, or "public relations", and are so used to marketing prose that you have become desensitised to it, and are unaware of it. If neither of those two applies then I can only suggest that editing Wikipedia articles is not going to be your forte, as you lack the ability to take an objective view. As for "He has became world famous", if you can provide reliable sources independent of Rubinstein which give significant coverage of him, then a Wikipedia article on him will be fine (though not, of course, if it is written in a promotional manner). However, I have searched, and failed to find any such sources. I also see that you have re-created the article, and it has been deleted again, this time because another administrator determined that it was a copyright infringement. I recommend being more careful: if you continue this way you may eventually be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon Sea Article deletion

13:24, 11 October 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Dungeon Sea Online" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Why did you delete the page?

Which part of it was advertising? I fixed the article and it was still deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanm07 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly written to promote its subject. It contained such language as "DSO has an excellent high standard of support with all problems being resolved within a month". It was largely written in the first person (e.g. "our website"). It gave detailed information clearly aimed at people who would go on to use "Dungeon Sea Online", not at people wishing simply to read an objective account in an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that this article was promotional, then my guess is that you are closely involved with the subject, so much so that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read it after we made the edits you would have saw that we rewrote that section and removed most of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanm07 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment was based purely on the final version, immediately before deletion. I had a copy of it in front of me as I wrote the above comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The final version (which I only read after it was deleted) still included references to "our website": Players who use a "Proxy" to access our website, forum or game will be automatically banned if caught. TFOWR 13:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a copy of the rules from the game..

Are we allowed to rewrite the article from scratch? Seanm07 (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but before you do so you should be aware of some of Wikipedia's guidelines, otherwise you may find yourself spending time writing the article again, only to see it deleted again, which will no doubt be very frustrating. It is not clear to me that the subject Wikipedia's notability criteria. Check the notability guidelines before doing anything else. If the subject does not satisfy those guidelines then you will be better off forgetting it, and spending your time on something else. If, however, you decide it does satisfy the notability guidelines then check the guideline on reliable sources to see what evidence you need to show that it does. Also, including copies of information from elsewhere (such as the rules of the game) almost certainly means a copyright infringement, which could be enough to get the article deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB & WP:RED

Regarding this edit and the associated comment, Removing entries not linking to articles, please read WP:MOSDAB & WP:RED.

As it happens, you have done the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.

Please note that in certain circumstances it is not only acceptable, but it is encouraged to place red links.

If you want more information, please feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that full well. However, "Removing entries not linking to articles" is quicker to type than "Removing entries not linking to articles and for which none of the recognised exceptions which might justify their inclusion apply" (or something equivalent). JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

True. But had you done so, I wouldn't be wasting both my time and yours. C'est la vie. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

General question

hello, i am just wondering why a few things i have updated have been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymington2010 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Jason Brookes and Alex Easton.. If so, the reason, as stated in the deletion log, is that they did not "not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Have a look WP:GNG and WP:BIO to see what is required. The messages placed on your talk page by the editors who tagged the articles for deletion also give more information. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my WP page "Ken Costello"

Hello James, I am trying in vain to upload a perfectly honest and verified article regarding the life and times of a fairly well known British motor racing engineer called Ken Costello. Everytime I have tried to do this, someone takes it off WikiPedia stating it is advertising (what, I have no idea - they wont tell me), its "unambiguous" (meaning?) and now yourself telling me I might be blocked from ever uploading anything to WP again.

I find this rather unfiar. Ken Costello is a friend of mine of 5 years and well desrives his place in WP as an old, but very well respected man. The gentleman who wrote the article for me to upload is in fact a well known television journalist and has known Ken for over 40 years. There is NOTHING in the article that is contentious - everything is correct and verifiable.

I have one last copy of the text, heavily edited and with anything even REMOTELY looking like advertising (which it never was), or violating copyright (which it never was) has been removed.

I would appreciate if you let this version go live and you take the controls of editing it.

Be very pleased to hear from you soon

Kind regards Lawrence Wood.

PS: My website, www.mgcostello.com, will verify Ken's history and the nature of the cars he built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolwood (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The last version of the article was clearly very closely modelled on http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/Ken-Costello-MGB-V8-1.htm. That page carries the notice "© 2010 British V8™ All rights reserved". If, contrary to that notice, the copyright owner has in fact released copyright, the message on your talk page tells you what to do about it. I was not the administrator who deleted the first version as promotional, but I have seen it, and I do agree with the admin who did so. The article recounted in glowing terms how wonderful Costello was. It was not written in the detached, objective, tone that is suitable for an encyclopaedia article. If you sincerely can't see that, then probably you are so closely involved with the subject that you are unable to stand back and see it from an objective view. This is one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages editing on a subject to which you have a personal connection. The fact that you describe yourself as a friend of Costello, and say that the article was written for you someone else who knows Costello tends to confirm this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Userspace drafts

Hi. You didn't need to add NOINDEX to the Bitcoin draft article - the {{userspace draft}} template does that automatically. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Milky Waif

Could you please reduce the protection of The Milky Waif to semi, I think that you meant it. Thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you protect Pup on a Picnic, per before. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks for pointing them out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not attempt to unblock CU-blocked ranges

From what I can see from your block log and User talk:71.178.49.227, it looks as though you attempted to unblock half of a range blocked by User:MuZemike with the {{checkuserblock}} template. Do not, ever, attempt to unblock these ranges without first consulting a checkuser. Fortunately what you attempted to do isn't technically possible, so nothing happened, but if you had managed to undo that block, you could have allowed a serial sockpuppeteer to continue to target the project after we'd already attempted to stop them. The block message provided clear instructions for how users on that range should proceed - requesting an account. This allows checkusers to verify that an account does not belong to the socker before it's created, and the proper response there would have been to refer the user to ACC. Please do not attempt to unblock these ranges again! Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I blocked 71.178.0.0/17 at 10:21, 23 September 2010, and unblocked the same range at 19:33, 30 September 2010. MuZemike's range block on 71.178.0.0/16 was at 22:09, 8 October 2010, 8 days after my unblock. The IP made 6 edits after my unblock and before MuZemike's range block, indicating that my unblock had succeeded. The message I posted to the IP's talk page stated that I was undoing a block I had imposed myself.JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see - I'm very sorry, I completely misread things. Sorry for the brusque comments. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, I am as guilty as anyone of sometimes acting without checking every detail of the relevant history: there is a limit to how much checking it is reasonable to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry

hey i'm sorry, but why did you revert my edit to the soy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whommighter (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A little help

Hi

Thank you for telling me. So then how can I do that as I did with Cambodia to KOC without having to be reverted back by you or someone else?

Answered on user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you for your explanation. I am aware now. If not too much, I'll be contacting you for further instructions on Wikipedia.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaramayana (talk • contribs) 09:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel welcome to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Related to this, there's another bit of copy-and-pasting that I'm about to fix up: Angkor Youth Orchestra and Angkor National Youth Orchestra. I've never done this before but it looks easy enough. It would be useful, though, if you were able to check over my post-merge work to make sure I've not messed it up...? TFOWR 10:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The ones I dealt with for this user were quite straightforward, and I decided that just delete and restore the original version was enough. More complex cases, where history merging is needed, can be confusing and error prone, but if you are really careful and don't be tempted to rush then it should be OK. Drop me a message here when you've done it, and I'll have a look. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Since it's the first time I want to take my time and get it right. I'll grab a coffee and do some re-reading first. TFOWR 10:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that all seemed very straightforward! Angkor National Youth Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have the complete history. Thanks for providing me with a "security blanket" ;-) TFOWR 10:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, as far as I can see. A good job done. I suppose the next thing should be to improve the English. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There are some stray refs, too. When I get some time I'll go through it and stick the refs where they belong, and copy-edit it. I'm wary of doing too much - I got myself in this mess by copy-editing down to a minimal stub...! TFOWR 11:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing of the article to improve its English. However, I am always wary of doing much of this, for several reasons, including the risk of inadvertently changing the meaning. I feel confident in changing "It is supervised by two musician" by simply adding an "s" at the end, but less sure about "the first establishment of any trace of orchestral classical music". What exactly does it mean? I have written something in coherent English which is probably close in meaning to what the original author intended, but in the past I have had experiences where my attempts have inadvertently changed the meaning to something which is simply wrong. Consequently I tend to make fairly minimal edits in cases of this kind. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi James!
Thank you for the quick revert on my talk page. Though the blocked user was referring to the wrong revert, they inadvertently made a good point. Though I can translate an article in a language I've never studied, I really did struggle with senior high level maths... :-)
Thanks again, --Shirt58 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the user did make a good point. Their understanding of mathematics is wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for that. Me not grok strange language with funny counting squiggles. Thanks again. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at January's talk page.
Message added 11:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you James

Cheers for cleaning up all of my messes at the ArbCom election pages; may your trigger finger be ever itchy and your aim true! Skomorokh 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page

The page you deleted in relation to Liam Mcdermott that was created by me had no venom in it. Liam McDermott is one of my closest friends and he loved the page! I beg that you will restore it so we can both keep adding to it i.e. Liam Mc Dermott an me!