User talk:Fabricationary/Archive 1

This is an archive of my talk page. If you want to leave me a message, please use my current page. Thanks. Fabricationary 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you!

Many thanks for your support during my RfA – following a 30/0/0 vote I’ve now been made an admin. Do have a Jaffa Cake! Cheers, CLW 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Bach

Hi. Of course Catherine Bach's article deserves a photo, but that one?! A wrinkly old piece of paper signed 'to Cam'? The image was uploaded by User:Videocam whose contribution to Wikipedia has been creating a vanity article about himself, and uploading pictures of himself, his girlfriend, him with celebs, and photos autographed to him. I've proposed the deletion of that picture as part of my second phase of removing his vanity contributions. I'm sure there must be a usable picture of Catherine which is 100 times better than that one. It doesn't do her justice! --kingboyk 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

i'm just finding how to reduce the cycle 6 pic in ANTM, i cant imagine that u would help me to do so , thank you very much!!!--Elevue3 15:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Elevue3[reply]

_ANTM_

Hi there. It has been suggested that the cycles of America's Next Top Model have their own separate sections, as the page is getting rather lengthy. Would love to hear your thoughts on it in the discussion, as you have contributed a lot to this section. Peanutbuttercups 05:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

This is just a happy birthday wish from the Birthday Committee!! Jared W 10:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer Help Request

I've got an active spammer out there I need your help with (lest I violate the 3RR). It's User:162.83.249.36. His contributions are off-topic and designed specifically to include his corporate website. At first I reverted assuming it was your typical hit and run. I also left him a warning. On his second run, I reverted and left explanations on the artice's Talk pages. He's reverted again, and I'm at my 3RR limit, so I thought I'd ask for help. If you would take a moment to review his contributions and give me a recommendation as to course of action, I'd appreciate the learning opportunity. Cheers, Rklawton 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. I hope to return the favor. Rklawton 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, and I'm following your advice. I've also posted a non-template note in his talk page trying to explain the situation. We'll see.

On a related note, I've nominated Business research for deletion. It's a one-line definition and acts as a category for research conducted within specific business functions - each already having its own article. At best, it's a category. With the "Businesses that provide..." section, it's now acting as a SPAM magnet. I'd appreciate your thoughs on the matter. Would it be useful to add the links to the research categories in order to illusrate my point to other reviewers? Rklawton 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Floating but Recurring Holidays

Hello, Fabricationary. I just found out that you have been removing floating holidays from the Days pages (e.g. Memorial Day (last Monday of May in 2006) on May 29.) May I ask why you remove such useful information ? I would understand if it's an Islamic holiday that moves around the Gregorian calendar. For holidays always on a fixed day of a fixed week on a certain month, it's only going to be on one of seven days. I have been putting them in for 2 years and having been quite puzzled when I can't find them afterwards. The plan is to list the years when such a floating but recurring holiday will be on, May 29#Holidays and observances "eventually" (takes time to accumulate) would read:

United States: Memorial Day (last Monday of May in 2006, 20##, 20##, ....)

Ditto for the few days before and after that make up the last week of May. Would you mind not removing them, please ? I actually use them as reference information as I post holidays and observances on the Main Page. -- PFHLai 23:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you are following some wikiguidelines, please direct me that page. Thanks. -- PFHLai 23:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that there's a history of not permitting floating holidays in Days of the Year articles. No doubt there's a much more suitable place for such events. Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year Rklawton 01:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a history of having floating but recurring holidays in the Days of the Year articles. I saw them, find them useful and carried on. Maybe I am just out of the loop, as I don't go to the Pump nor do I use IRC. When was this not permitted ? The only relevant talk I could find was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#First Monday in November, etc. (2004) and then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Holidays and observances - other calendars (last month). Where is the discussion ? -- PFHLai 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's pretty much it. There's another reference later on in the same talk page. Perhaps we should start a discussion. I'm opposed to floating holidays in days of the year articles, but we should discuss that further in the talk page if you like. Rklawton 03:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your talk page, PFHLai. And thanks for your support, Rklawton :). I'm not aware of specific guidelines for this project, so I'm just trying to the best of my ability to make logical edits. Fabricationary 05:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricationary, thanks for your msg on my talkpage. Really, you don't have to apologize for anything. I believe we were both making good-faith edits. So, instead of getting in an edit-war, I felt I should talk to you, let you know why I made such an edit, to understand why you removed it, and hopefully get some consensus on what's best to do regarding the floating holidays.

You are right -- specific guidelines are indeed lacking. That's why contributors of these Days pages, like you, Rklawton and me, should be communicating and develop some standards. Please continue to do what you think is right. However, I would like to point out that if I apply your line of thinking in your msg to other holidays, anyone wanting to know the date of a fixed holiday would search for that holiday's page instead of checking the Day's page, too. If this is the basis for determining what information stays on the Days pages, then there's no point having a Holidays & Observances section on the Days pages at all. Same goes for birthdate and deathdates of people, and the various historic events. What will be left ?

Perhaps we should re-think what these Days of the Year pages are for, and decide what would be the best way to package the useful reference materials we have available. I like Rklawton's idea of starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. I'll do so at a later date. 'Coz I have to go off-line soon, and I don't want to start a discussion with too many people and disappear before any conclusion can be made.

You have been doing well for someone "new to working on the Wikicalendar". Keep up the good work, my friend. Take care. You, too, Rklawton. Ciao. -- PFHLai 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive

I am cureently inactive on projects. Once I figure somethin' out, I'll post another message. Eisenhower ▲ ▼ (at war or at peace♥) 00:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about your last reply

I understand your last reply. I'm very sorry about the situation.

Shkarter1985 2:34AM (EDT) May 28, 2006

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Fabricationary! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 06:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harper's Edit

I would like to know your rationale behind your edit of my one word change. I don't think I understand why the edit. The Weekly Standard is labeled neoconservative, and probably rightly so, the National Review is labeled conservative again rightly so, but Harper's nothing. Am I to assume neutrality on Harper's part, no, it is an advocate of liberal, left-leaning policies. Is this seriously in question? Or am I to assume labels for conservative publications are ok, but for liberal outlets they are edited and user labeled vandalist? The NPOV policy at this time to me seems hypocritical.

TM net

Why was the external links + info removed? It's just the facts, maam.

My Userpage

Thanks for the revert. --Maxamegalon2000 01:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well. VegaDark 03:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VP Probs?

Uh-oh, it looks like something went a bit haywire with VandalProof on you today. You created this article: Climb Ev'ry Mountain&oldid=51833511, with the contents "{{db-reason|Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Is this a copyvio as well?}}." Have you been having similar bugs, or was this a one-time thing? AmiDaniel (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another note, you did correctly tag Climb Ev'ry Mountain. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I will always obay wikipedia and it's administrators. I don't think i'm the wikipedian of choice. Have you get any wikipedia advice that you want to share? Sonic 14:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for helping to suppress the satanic vandalism done to the Blavatsky article. As an occational peruser of Wikipedia it is heartening, even inspiring, to see that dedicated users such as yourself are succeeding in keeping the encyclopedia safe from wingnuts.

Another case of vandalism from the same IP address, corrected within 10 minutes by Zahid Abdassabur,: "Weird Al" Yankovic [vandalized on 19 May] "His lyrics depend largely on the satirizing of popular culture . . . " was changed to "[h]is lyrics depend largely on the defacing of pop culture . . . ". Ironic, isn't it?

Popup Error

Hello. You just messaged me telling me basically that I vandalized the April 19 Article. Well, you see it was a mistake. I was using the anti-vandal tool, and it showed the vandalism in the "show details" window, but when I went to use the popups to revert it, someone must have already reverted in the brief moment. Thusly, I was reverting the vandalized article back to the vandalized edit. I apologize for the mistake, I will watch the reverts using popups more carefully. --Zouf 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I just removed the warning :). Fabricationary 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log the mistake in vandalproof. The edit number is commented out in the warning you gave --mboverload @ 03:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Image:VANBanner.jpg for speedy deletion with the reason "Wikipedia is not a file-hosting service. Article to which this was posted will likely be speedied". However, "Wikipedia is not a file-hosting service. Article to which this was posted will likely be speedied" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use WP:IFD if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 10 births

I see that for some bizarre reason you've removed my addition of David Platt's birthday on this day on the grounds that it is 'non-notable'. Perhaps you'd care to look at the David Platt page to determine just how non-notable this person is. He's only one of the most important footballers of modern times!

Please leave it in. Thank you! Martyn Smith 20:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, understood (see my discussion page if you want to read it). Sorry about the rather ratty tone of the above! Regards Martyn Smith 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi wong

I've removed your speedy deletion tag from the Tobi wong article. Even though it is a recreation of a deleted article, as it stands it includes sources that assert notability so the article would now not be a candidate for speedy deletion. If you still believe the article should be deleted, please use the Prod or AfD process instead. Thanks, Gwernol 14:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all the work you do in keeping the calendar pages tidy. Joyous!

Thank you...

...for my first barnstar. Some user names I cringe to see behind new edits, but never yours. Cheers, Rklawton 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konoor

Hi, please don't make up new criteria for speedy deletion. While it may be true that "Wikipedia is not a geneology site" that i not grounds for speedy deletion. The valid criteria for speedy deletion are here. Thanks, Gwernol 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the Speedy Deletion process. Articles may only be speedy deleted if they contain such an obvious flaw that the admin can decide to delete them after only reading the article. If the admin needs to consult other sources - for example Google - then an article should not be speedied. The reasoning behind this is based on assume good faith: we want good articles added to Wikipedia. If an article is poorly written but about a subject that could be worthly of an article we should give the author (and other editors) time to improve it in preference to blindly deleting it. That's why Prod and AfD have several days built into them in which the article can be improved and/or justified.

Notability cannot be judged from the article alone. It needs additional research. Notability cannot therefore be a grounds for speedy deletion. An article that completely lacks any claim to notability (CSD:A7) can be a speedy criteria because an admin can see this immediately from the article alone.

Konoor is a reasonably good example of this. It is not clear whether this subject is notable or not, and there is no way to determine this from the text of the article. I, or another admin would have to spend considerable time researching this. The author has signalled his intention to improve the article. The article has in fact been improved since I removed the speedy tag. It still needs work, but its quite possible that an informative article will come out of this and improve the encyclopedia. We will also have managed to not turn away another editor and contributor.

If you believe an article is non-notable then please user Prod or AfD instead. I'm not a VandelProof user myself, but I suspect it can automate those tags as well as the db-reason tag.

Thanks, Gwernol 13:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 4th and swimming

Hello,

I shall refer to your original message.

I notice you keep adding an event about a British man swimming the English channel to July 4.

He's a British BAFTA winning and Royal Television Society Award winning actor and representative of the large UK charity Comic Relief, so he's not just a "British man".

Thousands have swum the English channel

Fewer people have successfully swum the Channel than climbed Mount Everest, the success rate for the swim is apparently something like 10% according to various news websites and Channel swimming clubs. He also swam it in 10 hours 30 seconds which is better than some professional swimmers.

As with all these things I agree they are subjective, to a lot of British people it is a newsworthy event and quite possibly to those who follow this actor world-wide. Others would appear to agree with me.

Many thanks.

Objectivo Help

Objectivo 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC) hello, yes i would like your help with Objectivo. I would greatly appreciate it. You are so helpful as to show me the correct way to post. thank you.[reply]

Barnstar.

I decided to award you this pretty star because you always work with vandalfighting as much as regular administrator. This pretty star is for you.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hi, Fabricationary, I would award this pretty star for your hard work on Vandal fighting, thanks for revert all vandals in each article, user's page(included talk page), Maybe somebody would nominate you for admin. Also, Always assuming good faith. ~Daniel~ ☎ 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*~Daniel~* ☎ 22:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squad Articles

I got your message regarding the articles. I will add information to them all very soon.

Waya5 7:12, 7 July 2006

Poppelt

Hi there: further to your warning to this user, posted on his talk page, he just removed another speedy delete notice (which I added) from an article some 39 bytes long called Paul Poppelt. I have now added a db-repost note.--Anthony.bradbury 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. P.S. love your userpage; I would give my right arm to be ambidextrous.--Anthony.bradbury 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Fields

Hello, I wanted to draw your attention back to this, since I think you may be an administrator. An IP Address added this back into Auburn University and I can't find any reference to the person on the Auburn or Tulane official websites or anywhere in the world for that matter using a Yahoo search. I think that this person may not even exist and that this article may be a hoax. What should be done about this? --Brian G 11:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echelon

You're welcome. That user is obviously a trouble maker. I've blocked him for 24 hours. If he returns and takes up where he left off, I'll be happy to extend that block. Best, Gwernol 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise: you're welcome. And thank you for your persistent work on cleaning vanity and crud out of the calendar pages: it seems that every time I check my related-changes-to-all-calendar-dates page, you've already been there and done it. :-) Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks

No probs. Cheers TigerShark 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy/Andrew/John Rigney

You are right it doesn't look like he has the notability needed from IMDB. It had me a little confused. I moved one of them and decided the other had to go so I put delete/reason on it. Possibly a whole lot of vanity going on there. You said there are more I will help tag if you aren't finished. Lead me to them.--John Lake 03:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of Vandal Proof

Please do not use vandal proof for reverting good faith edits. You even stated that you assumed good faith on my talk page, therefore, you need a reason to delete. Using Vandal Proof instead leaves no reason in the edit summary. Thanks, Ansell 08:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

"Your removal of speedy delete tags" on Ansell's talk page

FYI, I saw your running discussion with Ansell and chipped in with my own 2 cents worth of opinion.

--A. B. 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HYPOCRITE

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if ever) censorship is necessary; Canadian law places the burden upon the individual to demonstrate how the speech benefits the public (e.g. hate speech is illegal); and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom outside specific circumstances in which it prescribes censorship (e.g. to protect national security). In most all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

Sprint Nextel

Fabricationary, SDC keeps restoring the Sprint privacy info. Can you please take care of this. People are free to post all kinds of things, but I don't see how posting that info is going to help anyone out by hackers and thief's. None of the other profiles list that type of content, because it will only hurt people. Please help me out. I have no idea how to report someone.

68.19.231.39 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Joilee[reply]

thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! Much appreciated. -/- Warren 01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie-G

The article, Eddie-G was already prodded and deprodded. Per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, prod tags aren't to be added back if removed by someone. I removed the prod tag, and since I think this article should be deleted, I'm putting it up for AfD Kevin_b_er 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I just wanted to say thank you for reverting User talk:64.230.36.153, his vandalism on mine and other user talk pages must be documented. I issued him a yellow card for his vandilsm. Pete Peters 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me also! --Fang Aili ^talk 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 9 additions

Why do you keep reverting my changes to August 9th? Are there special requirements for "Day of" entries that I am not aware of?

Thanks for the link to the Notability page, that answers my question.

Hupda page

would you like me to take this over as i am a fluent native portuguese speaker and native english speaker too? Please let me know if this is ok with you? Kyrian 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-do you have the original anywhere? [would like to read the whole article :-) Kyrian 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out with vandals on my user page

I appreciate it =) Bwithh 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on The Sims 2

Regarding this revert [1]. This discussion was had here Talk:The_Sims_2#Editions_of_the_game, the decision was this was not an EA acknowledged edition of the game and it should be taken out. If you had a different opinion it would be better to make it known there rather than revert without an explanation.--Crossmr 04:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nope. Just a promotional pack Pizza hut or some place put together to sell with pizza (expensive pizza I'm guessing too). --Crossmr 04:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese measures.......

Hi: I have, of course, not interfered with your tag; you have been here much longer than I have. But can it really be a copyvio? the English is awful, and surely that would not be so in a website? Not criticising, just asking for my own wiki education.--Anthony.bradbury 22:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say again; I was not criticising, just asking. The English is appalling, and the user has added a large number of articles on similar topics, and with similar linguistic skill; you might like to call them up for inspection. I put a note on his talk page suggesting that he ask a native-English speaker to help him. I hope that won't be seen as racist, because I'm not.--Anthony.bradbury 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You revertion to the hair article

Everyone knows italians are furry. Please revert your revert. Cuzandor 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be an exception then because every italo-descendent I know is furry. And they call black people monkeys! But I don't know how I could put the italic furryness in that article Cuzandor 01:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rvv

Thanks for the rvv on my userpage. Mak (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

No Problem :) °≈§→ Robom æ yhem: T/←§≈° 05:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.129.28.54

Why are you such a fucking wiki-nazi? bullies getting the best of you during recess and now yu're striking back at them? way to stick it to the man you fucking lametard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.28.54 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Reported. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, misread the warning dates. Leaving it up there anyway. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tovbin

You have reversed my edits for December 20 and August 3. Wikipedia's policy will have to be a lot better defined for me to agree with the reversals. My information is verifiable, neutral, and it is not original. Although, neither members of my family nor myself are Notable in the Wikipedia sense, there is really no prohibition against people entering their own birthdays. Please note, that I did not try and write an article about myself. (by User:139.169.116.221)

Putting birthdays in

Maybe the above is not such a bad idea. It will certainly create more interest in the project from parts not even considered before. More users is better. If there is a defined policy, that would "take care" of any abuse (I realize this is not really true but any project like this is a lot of work to maintain anyway). It would also make Wikipedia a unique record of humanity. (by User:139.169.116.221)

It would make the date articles unreadable not to mention unverifiable. Rklawton 05:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status of religious freedom in Canada

Thanks for your thoughts on the deletion request yesterday. Re your comments, were they based on an assumption that religious freedom in Canada is roughly equitable to that of the U.S.? If so, I'd ask whether you think the fact patterns surrounding Peter and Murray Corren or Chris Kempling could happen in the U.S. Personally, I'd say they could not. Can you imagine all religious schools in an entire state in the U.S. having their curriculum dictated as per the first example story? All I'm trying to say is, don't assume Canada the U.S. are necessarily the same with respect to this topic. Thanks again for you input. Deet 03:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lyrics

Are you sure that lyrics are a copyright violation. If so they must be removed from My Favorite Things (song). Jon513 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Oops! I thought all years were supposed to be linked. Treebark (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Loser

Quit shilling for that rightwing troll |Korny O'Near|. And quit threatening me with saying you'll ban me. You're nothing but another rightwing troll here who has no power but to smear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.73.183 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates

Why do you keep deleting my addition in the bill gates page?

-Malik1

Vandalism

I am sorry.

November 9

According to you, "football games not notable on a global scale." That's fine if that's the policy of the project. But there is an entry on a professional wrestling match (see 1997 on the November 9 page) that you don't seem concerned with. I can't imagine that being notable on a global scale either. I still think that both the football fact and the wrestling fact should be included on the page. Please explain yourself. Thanks. Seancp 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts using VP--please fix

I hope this doesn't come across as snippy, but whatever happened to assuming good faith when it comes to reverting edits? The addition of Robert Lee Brewer to the births section of July 18 was not vandalism, but meant entirely in good faith. If he is not as notable as WP would like, then you delete the edit and leave a message either on the talk page of the article or on the talk page of the editor. Automatically pegging a person as a vandal when in fact, they were not, not only hurts the editor's reputation from the start, but it hurts yours as well--people will stop trusting your judgement, plus you're directly going against WP policy regarding such things. Please delete the rv from VP immediately and leave a message on a talk page explaining why you deleted the entry so new editors can learn for the future, not give up entirely on editing all because you were too hasty in your judgement. Thank you in advance for repairing this. ScreaminEagle 21:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages needing translation

Thanks for your help with translating Fusagusagá. I've volunteered to translate the enitre Spanish article later, but now, as I am you sure you know, I am quite busy. Thanks for your vote, by the way. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 04:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]