User talk:Jprg1966/Archive 2

Thanks for the Tip

I will make sure not to delete vandalism, as I basically clean up garbage vandalism on pages almost every day. Unless Need for Speed is a sourced movie, I suggest to not tell me I have a "pattern" of deleting content.

Thanks and good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.6.27 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for that mistake. I relied on the other notifications on your talk page as guidance. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Progressive tax

Please review the entire edit history before jumping to conclusions. Yes the edits were ideological vandalism even when multiple sources were provided. 173.74.164.212 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "ideological vandalism." I did look through the edit history, and it appears that you and this editor have been edit warring for weeks. I don't see that you have have made any attempt at dispute resolution on the talk page. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

From WP:vandalism: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." This editor is not vandalizing. You are engaged in a content dispute. There is a process outside of reverting to resolve disputes. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Bug report

Something went wrong [1] with your disambiguation work on Williams Ephs. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I kept getting messages saying that Wikimedia's servers weren't responding. God only knows. Thanks for the heads-up.

Joan Juliet Buck

Thanks for your restorations. Anyway we could ban "173.181.21.2"? "Useful idiot" and comparing Vogue to Stalinist Russia seem extreme. Also, please look at my edit that puts the subject's "controversy" in perspective: the Ann Curry and Barbara Walters comparisons. I could go with another category title but I think it's fair to include since this page seems to invite alot of graffiti. What do you think?--Aichikawa (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits were very helpful. I think the page is OK at this point. I have asked the user not to editorialize on Wikipedia, so hopefully he gets the message now. By all means feel free to monitor the page in the future for vandalism, but it seems stable now. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Kindly explain the deletion of the following sentence in my edit of the page: "The "airbrushing" of the Vogue website in this manner has been compared to the obliteration of executed political figures from official photographs of the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin." This statement is verifibly true. That particular analogy has been drawn by several notable commentators, including Richard Cohen of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/bloom-is-finally-off-the-rose-in-the-desert/2012/06/11/gJQAuvygUV_blog.html) and others, yet for some reason, you have determined that the uncited and completely unverifiable assertion by "Aichikawa" that Buck's Assad piece caused a furor "especially among male journalists" is appropriate. I'm confused. Please enlighten me. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain the distinction between Aichikawa's dozens of edits of the page, most of which have been focused on deleting any facts which may place Buck in disrepute and adding material intended to put things "in perspective" by including references to people and events with no connection to Buck whatsoever, and "editorializing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.21.2 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment specifically on Aichikawa's edits (you'll have to ask him/her what his intentions are), but I will address your question about the "Stalin" sentence. If I recall, that statement was not cited when I deleted it. Without any citation, it was fair game to delete. The fact that you have found someone notable who has made the analogy means you can say that Richard Cohen thinks it is similar to Stalin. Find an appropriate place to re-include it, with the citation and explanation that "Richard Cohen says ..." and maybe leave a note on the talk page explaining why you think it deserves to be there. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Aernout Huijssoon

The page was created in good faith in attempt to create the article and should not have been tagged for speedy deletion. I have removed the speedy deletion template and requested that references be provided and that it be moved to the article space. Thanks. 70.248.176.149 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know there was a template for that move. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no template. You were correct. I created a custom notice using {{mbox}} and manually placed the page into the category requested moves. It was picked up by another editor, who took care of it. Thanks. 70.248.176.149 (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Heads Up

Hi there, just seen the message you left on my talk page and wanted to say thanks for the heads up and reverting the real vandalism. I'm really getting tired of this, some IP pops up every so often and follows me around reverting my edits for no real reason. Always a different IP but I figure is the same person, usually all caps in edit summary. Another editor stepped in an cut off IP and account creation for a month which helped, I see they put a 31 hour block this time which is good for now. Why anyone has problems with cleaning up the MOS in articles is beyond me, my edits are only to improve the articles. By the way the history on my talk page shows that after you left the message, the same IP left a message but signed your name to it, but it was reverted before I seen it. Once again, thanks for the help. Cmr08 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind the part about the talk page, I thought another editor reverted it, but it was you so obviosuly you already know about the IP signing your name. Cmr08 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. He was bugging the hell out of me, too. One more thing to look out for is 116.48.95.243. That's the IP that vandalized your barnstar page. Could be a sock. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the vandalism on the user page until you mentioned it, but I don't think that has anything to do with the others, it's a different IP range. I think that has to do with a couple of very childish vandalism edits I reverted on the Jim Flaherty article. Cmr08 (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gary Barlow

He does not have an OBE. The official announcement is not until Saturday. The cited article only makes reference to the fact he is "tipped" to receive th award. My editing is done to return the article to one of fact by removing hearsay and pure speculation. It is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.36.23 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but next time include that in the edit summary and make sure you delete the whole reference. Otherwise it can look like a disruptive edit. I will remove my level 4 warning. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing a dead link

On the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Rocket there is a link to an article at http://www.roadsters.com/bud/ that has been deleted. I have removed the link to it several times, and it always reappears, possibly because with that link gone, it leaves the References section empty. If possible, please delete the dead link. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.13.157 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. In the future, you can delete dead links in the body text itself — but not the references list. The content that appears in the reference list is generated automatically by the <ref> tags in the body. Happy editing! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and in this case what you can do is add a template to mark it dead. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the ability to remove the dead link to the nonexistent article? How long does this normally take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.13.157 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing links is quite simple. It is just as you had attempted, deleting some text on the page.

The reason why I have not deleted that link and instead marked it dead is that this allows other editors to try to find the information at a different URL (such as right here [2]). This is especially important because this article has no other sources.

Some information, like potentially libelous statements, should be deleted right away. As a general rule, however, it is preferable to repair links than to delete them. Hope this helps! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for the info on viber page , i have removed the accusations , and i also have added another link that confirm the identity of the founder of viber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utlguy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Serious WP:BLP issue

I'm not sure if you realize it but you repeatedly re-inserted a very serious unsourced negative WP:BLP issue on 2012 Quebec student protests. While on first blush, it might appear that you were reverting vandalism, you were in fact perpetuating a very serious issue. Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's a pretty strong source for the usa of Nazi imagery (including a picture). Why do you consider the passage "unsourced"? Achowat (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of the addition is correctly sourced. An individual and his position at the university were named in the addition. The source doesn't support that at all. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah! You're 100% right. However, the wholesale removal of the section would be inappropriate as well (which Jprg reverted). Clears things up, thanks. Achowat (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sort of. It would be better to rip out the whole section than to leave the potentially incorrect (defamatory) sentence in there. Tgeairn finally got it right. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Taking out the whole section was wrong, as was keeping the BLP-vio. All is well now. Achowat (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My main concern at the time was leaving everything intact until some administrative action could be taken to stop the edit warring. The users who were deleting that section were not citing BLP as an issue; they were just deleting the whole thing without explanation. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:69.117.231.219

about this user and his talk page. i have had a think about it and you right. his page seems to be mosty what he edits. so i will let it be. and have asked mike too if he will let it be.

--Iniced (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Was not really a personal attack

Hi fellow editor,

I'm just explaining myself, hope I don't take too much of your time. I admit using the word "ignorant", but it was in context with what I was responding to. There was no personal attack involved, as I don't know the person. All I know is that the removal of citations is going against the guidelines (as per WP:REF — e.g. "editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia"), especially when the editor with seemingly many years' experience seems to stick to a reason not consistent with said guidelines to justify it.

I, as I'm sure many others, find it annoying when people who are doing the right thing go to great lengths to gather the information and work them into citations and in one fell swoop, some other editor (a seasoned one, mind you) comes along and justifies erasing it with his/her preconceived notions of what's right and wrong, without regard to the rules which are available for everyone to follow. This is a blatant act of ignoring, therefore, this veteran editor's act of removing legitimate citations is of an ignorant nature. Should I not have said anything?

Out of curiosity, are you going to tell this editor off for removing citations, or at least for the 'Christ Almighty' remark here which comes dangerously close to what you might reasonably describe as a personal attack? If not, if would seem grossly unfair of you to send me messages but not him/her. Thank you for considering & good day! --203.217.29.182 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First, regarding citations: I understand that it is Wikipedia's policy to have all information be verifiable. However, I don't recall seeing citations in most infoboxes. I don't actually know for sure what the specific policy is, so I'm not going to take a side on that.

I did not see that this other editor said "Christ Almighty" — which, while not a personal attack against you, did not conform to the spirit of keeping cool. I will encourage him to engage the issue more constructively. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, please don't label his edits as vandalism. A content dispute is not vandalism. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The policy is "Verifiable, not verified". There is, for instance, no citation for Elizabeth II being the Queen of Great Britain, because it 1. has not been challenged 2. is not likely to be challenged 3. not a contentious 'fact' about a Living or Recently Deceased Person. This is one of those situations where everyone's right and everyone's wrong. Was it necessary to put in those references? No. Was it right to remove them? No. Was it right to put them back? No. I would suggest a solution of going to the Article's talk page and discussing, there, which method would be of most help to the reader. Achowat (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Mike Callton

You are making a mistake.

Yesterday, Rep. Mike Callton waded into a contentious debate in the state of Michigan over a new abortion bill. After speaking out on the floor of the House, a woman represenatative was silenced for saying the word "vagina" - while debating a bill that sough to regulate women's health. In response, Mike Callton said her comments were too offensive to speak around women and that he couldn't repeat what she said in mixed company. This is not an opinion. It does not violate a "neutral point of view." It is a FACT. You can read about it here: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120615/POLITICS02/206150373/Michigan-reps-silenced-use-v-words-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE}}</

Callton's comment was picked up and it spread around the country quickly, being repeated in many large newspapers and on CNN. Again, this is not an opinion and not a point of view, but a FACT.

One of Callton's paid staffers is trying to remove history by taking away any mention of this on his page. Is this what Wiki is about - paid staffers doing the bidding of their bosses to make them look good? I thought Wiki was supposed to support facts and neutrality. Let's have all the facts, then.

Fact: Rep. Mike Callton, even though he holds a degree in biology, thinks women need to be protected from hearing the word "vagina." Please quit working with the paid staffer to rewrite history.

1. Sign your posts. It's Wikipedia convention.

2. Don't accuse me of working for anyone. I have no affiliation with Rep. Callton.

3. The edit in question is not written from a neutral point of view. For one thing, the headline should not be the word "vaginas." Also, this part of the text is completely unsourced: "Despite repeated attempts on the part of Callton's paid staffer to make history go away, the fact remains: Callton, who holds a biology degree, finds the use of a correct medical term to be offensive and something women need to be protected from, even when they, and not Callton, actually have the body part in question."

That looks more like personal essay to me than an encyclopedia entry. I didn't say you couldn't write about this topic, what I said was that this entry did not conform to Wikipedia's policies. Re-write it and do not add the same text. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jprg1966. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Egyptian Revolution of 1952

I put the reason for the removal of the bullet points in the wrong place I guess. See the talk page for that article for the reasons for removal. NPOV and unverifiable claims. 63.115.56.32 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. I'll strike through my warning. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Jprg1966, for all you do on Wikipedia, especially keeping my personal pages vandalism free. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Likewise! Together, we can make Wikipedia better ... or at least increase our edit count. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain yourself

Can you give more of an explanation than "not helpful?" I do not see how this has anything with assuming good faith. This is independent. This is about sort of an intrinsic bias which cannot be controlled, sort of life sexual orientation. Whatever. How did you find my edit? Are you notified anytime a user reverts the closed discussion? I have to apologize and I hope to read an explanation from you, but right now, you seem like your actions were careless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please sign your posts. SineBot has already informed you that this is standard practice on Wikipedia, but you have not heeded this advice. It makes dealing with talk page discussions much easier.

Second, the mere fact that you are accusing me of carelessness before I have a chance to explain myself proves that you are not assuming the good faith intentions of other editors.

Third, I found your edit by perusing the Recent Changes page and noticing that an anonymous editor was adding numerous comments to what was surely a contentious talk page.

Lastly — and to arrive at the main point — your conduct on the talk page was unwarranted. User:Scjessey made a perfectly reasonable comment, to which you replied "it looks like you admit you are extremely biased in editing wikipeida. Can we please have another opinion?" Then, when another editor chimed in, you launched into a long rant, accusing the editors of being biased, having a "poor argument," making a comment on an editor's personal appearance (something I've never encountered before), demanding the editor's qualifications, and then trying to pass it off as a normal comment. Please take a good, long look at WP:CIVIL before you add comments on a talk page again. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation. I am new to wikipedia, but am cautious about the possibility of being pushed around by older users who may own pages. Forgive me, I am still learning. Could you be you mentor, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.93.26 (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that you are willing to learn. I wish I could say I knew enough to be a mentor of sorts, but my own knowledge still has a few gaps. I would certainly be willing to answer specific questions as best I could, which you can leave here on my talk page. You can also learn more about being "adopted" here.

Early transgressions will not be held against you if you learn from them. Live by Wikipedia's Five pillars and you'll be on a good path. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions! SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're very kind, and a stalwart in the vandal fight as well. I look forward to more edit conflicts where you have beaten me to reverting bad edits. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Jamie Burke

Your attempt to clean up the Jamie Burke article broke every citation template on the page. Please take more care with your edits, and check after you've made them to make sure you haven't broken anything. Thanks. — Paul A (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what I did wrong. It was an error I made with the advanced editing toolbox. I'll try again. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Jprg1966/Archive 2. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.

This task force is still in a development stage and your assistance would be appreciated. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for joining! I believe that at the present, there is a request on the task force talk page to set up an article alert. I am not sure how to do that and I'm also creating a different page at the moment, so if you'd like to look into that, feel free! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is my first one, so hopefully it works out. You can find it here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I notified the task force member that made the request. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

punjabi hindu

i have not deleted or made any unconstructive changes..all i did was made a request for some citation ,with the size of the article and much content highly disputable ,u should acknowledge that adding refrences is fair enough..there is only one refrence added that too leads to a government website that shows 1961 religion census for the district of amritsar....however this is cited for a statement that doesnt even mention amritsar district ,on the other hand some other districts are mentioned with exagerated figures...lots of hate and inflamatory statements towards the end without any refrence..so please either add refrences or dont bother bugging me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.181.184 (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanking out sections of an article and then marking everything with {{citation needed}} is not constructive editing. Take it from me and the two other editors who have reverted your edits. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had just started fill in in the report form. Callanecc (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Jprg1966/Archive 2. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! v/r - TP 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Elko Micropolitan Area

You reverted my changes to this page, but you did this in error. I changed the acronym USA to µSA, which is the correct acronym for a United States Micropolitan Statistical Area. Please reinstate my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.25.11 (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not know that. I will change it back. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --147.222.25.11 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(Comment left without creating a section)

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU???? You need to go look up the definition of the word truth and basketball and the revert my edit. I'll sue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.236.34.56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This legal threat will not help your case. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.236.34.56 (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved from top of page

Dear god of all knowledge....1966 Please dial down your arrogance just a tad. I have posted FACT based information AND sourced with local news articles. Just becuase you do not agree with a FACT does not mean they are not facts. Please undo this post here ASAP. I am just making a point that it might be POSSIBLE that you could be wrong in some cases. STXTruth — Preceding unsigned comment added by STXTruth (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted him too. How come I didn't get one of these? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that most editors will agree that Jim1138 and I were justified in reverting your edits. Nowhere did either of us say what you posted was a hoax. What we said is that your edits did not conform to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. You also did not format your edit correctly or use proper grammar when editing. That's three legitimate reasons your edits were reverted. Your comment was also not as civil as it should have been. A much more productive way to phrase your concerns would have been: "Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit as not being 'NPOV'. I'm not sure what that means, but I was just trying to add something useful to the article. Can you explain why my edit was deleted?" --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 08:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies to both of you as you are both correct as to my incorrectness. I am new to your format and the subject matter we are reffering to is personal and that was obviously reflected in my writting of the article and facts. Thanks you both for all your work. I will do better in the future. Newbee STXtruth STXTruth (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. Your humility has already put you on the path to more constructive editing. Keep in mind in the future that most editors use Wikipedia with good intentions, and that it is easy to address any mistakes they make. In the meantime, feel free to consult New contributors' help page if you have questions. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Be sure you are not using the rollback tool for NPOV edits. NPOV does not constitute vandalism.--v/r - TP 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the distinction between NPOV and vandalism, which is why I (using HG) marked it as NPOV in my edit summary, as opposed to "unconstructive editing," and used the level 1 NPOV warning on the above user. Is that not kosher? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Odom

Although I agree with your actions, I hope you at least see the irony in this edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that it's hard to make the prevention of edit warring not look like edit warring sometimes. This was my second revert, and I had already left a verbal warning on his page before it. Would you suggest I use a different summary next time? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the latest on his talk page, just let me know if he starts up again when the block expires. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jprg1966. You have new messages at Jorgath's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Thanks, for replying to the message left on my talk page. Feel free to do so whenever you want :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)