User talk:Warren/0612

Cleanup-spam

My understanding is that, whatever the wording, the purpose of putting the template there in notoriously spam-prone articles is to alert readers and editors to watch out for it and remove it. Daniel Case 06:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Update

Microsoft Update is not the same as Windows Update, nor is it a sequel for. Can you please branch the two articles?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremy.Visser (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

Lead

Thanks for your comments and your last words of advice. I ought to confide in you that usually when I slap a tag on an article I know the metapidians there will be alarmed, but in my view lead paragraphs are getting out of control here on the whole. Very often I don't know enough about the subject to wikify it and am simply prodding the bear out of hibernation kind of thing, not vilifying it. Some editors see no problem with their long intros like you with microsoft, which is OK in this case, but I would say most long intros are not, conformity to WP:LEAD is ignored totally. In fact the WP:LEAD page has very little participance for a guideline page. I encourege you to join our new wikiproject [1] to keep keep an eye on us, we will make mistakes too. Thanks again. FrummerThanThou 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio on History of Microsoft Windows

You said: "If you're going to take it upon yourself to do something like this, then at least have the courtesy to come up with a reasoning that's actually true. Your work with identifying copyvio images has been very helpful, but please be more careful."

When I removed the image from that page, there was not a detailed fair-use rationale for the image's use on History of Microsoft Windows. This may be the case now, I have not checked. --Yamla 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Microsoft

I have started a new discussion about this template on its talk page. As an active contributor to this page, I would ask that you please join in. Thanks a lot, and I look forward to starting to discuss this template with you. --W. Flake ( talk | contribs ) 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We really need ...

...an official-sounding policy-type thing like "Wikipedia is not for something you invented in a forum one day" -- like you said on AFD. Actually we do, it's called WP:NFT. >Radiant< 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warren, Warren

Why have u deleted my earmaster subpage?
I didn't get banned. By the way if you believed that, well you ought to have delete all my subpages as well. -- Walter Humala - Emperor of West Wikipediawanna Talk? 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting fair-use images on user-space articles is specifically disallowed by Wikipedia policy. Also, your block history shows that you were blocked indefinitely at the time of my deleting those pages. -/- Warren 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows XP

I revert your edit of the article back to me, because my edit is not a bully vandalism. I'm just adding the unsigned visual style screenshot in Windows XP. I, not a user vandal, I contribute some Windows-related articles and Kids Next Door-related articles. I hope you enjoy editing in Wikipedia -- also, feel free to comment to me. — Jigs41793 ^Talk 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows Fiji

OK, I protected both versions with a pointer to deletion review if anyone wants to reverse the deletions. Vegaswikian

Lead paragraph

Hi, WP:LEAD is a WP policy, please see the template on the WP:LEAD page, stating This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. Cheers. frummer 15:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines aren't policies. If you're not clear about the difference, read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and have a look at Wikipedia:List of policies and you'll notice that nothing about lead sections, or indeed any part of the manual of style, is listed as official Wikipedia policy. -/- Warren 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I've rephrased the message. Cheers. frummer 20:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP

I agree that the contributor has vandalised some articles in the past, and the screenshot is obviously KND related, but it is also a valid demonstration of the UXTHEME.dll patch to change the Windows interface, and it demonstrates how this can be done with a Vista Basic lookalike skin for XP. Until someone else supplies a screenshot of the same thing without the KND reference, it should stay - it's still related. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And you have proof those IP vandals are the same person? Checkuser-type proof? Blimey, a real crusade... —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the term a crusade rather than The Crusades. As in, "of being a righteous campaign, usually to "root out evil", or to fight for a just cause". I do agree with the sentiment, but I thought the initial action was a bit ruthless. I'll be on my way then. Good luck, soldier! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem

It was no problem at all. I have reverted many user pages in the past. It is one of the things I focus on in recent changes patrol. Have a nice week. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cairo

Just wondering if it should be "1991 to 1996". Gates still mentions Cairo in his talk at the 1996 PDC[2] albeit very briefly, Microsoft still talks about Cairo in its 1996 press releases[3][4] and various other sources are still talking about Cairo in 1996.[5][6] I'm not really aware of any source that says when the Cairo teams at Microsoft really broke up or moved to other projects though, so I'm wondering if you have better sources than me. AlistairMcMillan 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

AAT screenshot

Thanks for clarifying the copyright info on Image:Aat_sample.JPG. I haven't done much with images and am never sure of what licensing to choose :) --Bookgrrl ^holler/looksee 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Windows XP

I went to the template you said was deleted, and it said "Use The Raven's Apprentice userbox instead" (or something like that). I checked the userboxes he/she had, and I didn't know that he/she had a Windows XP box. Sorry! HyperSonicBoom 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What does "db-repost" mean anyway? HyperSonicBoom 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

We've had our squabbles over Category:Windows, but it would seem we're on the same page here. Please check out WP:∫ sometime, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. I was wondering if you had any interest in being an administrator on the English Wikipedia. If so let me know and I'll fill out what's neessary and nominate you. Or if you don't want to be an admin let me know too so I don't waste your time. --Wizardman 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bye

I've left wikipedia. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

windows 1.0 - apple

i know what you're talking about (this "my opinion" with MS windows and Mac OS) - but this thing about "copying" mac os is noted in Apple Computer too and I think it's important enough to be in Windows article. Or delete it from Apple Computer article too. --Running 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. -/- Warren 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Back for good

Thank goodness my life has calmed down. I am now back to editing Wikipedia. Take a look at my recent contributions to the Windows 2000 article. Hope you like them. Drop by my talk page and tell me what you think. Hope to hear from you soon. Jdlowery 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your idea to merge the Service Packs and Lifecycle sections of the Windows 2000 article is a good idea. Do you think that I should do this now, or put it up for discussion on the Windows 2000 talk page? Please respond on my talk page. I just wanted to be sure I am taking the right action. Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support at Unused highway. The page now looks ungodly awful with all the sources, but it's what the pharaoh ordered :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WHS

FWIW, I've posted some answers to some common questions about Windows Home Server to the discussion thread on my Channel9 video http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=270965.

Please feel free to utilize these to expand the WHS article as you see fit.

Charlie Kindel General Manager, Windows Home Server

Suggest you reconsider

this. You folks were sniffing up the wrong tree. Best regards // FrankB 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding this comment (And I will revert all your changes until you obtain the necessary consensus. Quit wasting your time with this bullshit.), please be more civil towards other editors, regardless of whether you agree with their edits. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like a little civility. My edit was done in good faith, I believe it has some merit. Your response of ... oh, and blaming vista for people buying computers is stupid http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=110256152 I'm adding a discussion to the Vista talk page peterl 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship

Declined?

Why you declined to become a Wikipedia Administrator? So when you become an administrator? Jigs41793 ^Talk 13:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shared Source

Hi.. I find that Shared source article seems to be inaccurate, misleading and bias. It would be great if you can help take a look at it. One issue for an example such as "none of the license programs allows for commercial use of modified code." Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk - 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to say hi. I really like your butwhy article. Very interesting. I really feel a lot of wikipedia articles are not having neutral tones with many Microsoft-related articles and I have to say I feel less of the Wikipedia as a whole because of this. It is just frustrated to see how open-source minded people turned out to be so "closed" on it while on another hand Microsoft seems to be "more open" --Jutiphan | Talk - 06:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to have been a part in the ongoing march towards higher quality in the Windows-related articles (and OS X, to an extent), but there's still so much to be done! Don't let the state of some of the articles get you down... evenness of tone is an extremely difficult thing to accomplish, because almost everyone who comes to Wikipedia to edit has pre-programmed opinions that affect the tone of their contributions. One thing I've noticed, though, is that once a degree of evenness and quality is attained in an article, it becomes pretty resistant to attempts by zealots to subvert it into something ugly and POV-laden. We can accomplish this high quality across the whole spectrum of operating system articles, even if it takes a few more years. We're not in a big hurry. :-)

I'll have a look at Shared source sometime soon, but I really know very little of the details of Microsoft's shared source licenses. I'll have to do some research. -/- Warren 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I may just as well try to fix it myself --Jutiphan | Talk - 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

John Rizzo/eWeek

Apple are paying people to write positive articles? AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Windows Embedded CE 6.0 Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Embedded CE 6.0 Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage - I really appreciate it. I don't know why it's my userpage has been the target of vandalism lately. —Remember the dot (t) 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: jj0909jj

Ahh, so it seems. Guess I'm too jaded by "lol penis" style vandalism. Sorry I wasn't available to respond, but good to hear you got it taken care of. Thanks! Luna Santin 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Microsoft Windows Mobile logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Microsoft Windows Mobile logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OOXML

Check the history, it's HAl that is trying to modify the lead not me. You and Hal can now work it our between yourselves. Charles Esson 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What if we stopped at:

Office Open XML has been the subject of considerable controversy in the computing industry. [citation needed]

Windows Vista screenshots

Hey Warren, I just wanted to know your opinion... Long Zheng has pointed me to Window Clippings, and it provides a nice screenshot effect, as seen here. Do you want me to re-upload some of my Windows Vista screenshots with the same effect? — Alex ^(T|C|E) 05:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, neat! I like it... it's always bugged me a bit from a purely aesthetic view that we're showing arbitrary desktop backgrounds through some of the glass effect screenshots. I'm not dealing much with screenshots these days, though; User:Themodernizer has been doing a lot of awesome work in getting all the images up to RTM + Glass level, with good names too, so you should confer with him on it. I'm sure he'll like it. :-) -/- Warren 05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Such screenshots are better from an aesthetic point of view, in my opinion. I believe that it would be preferable to have all Windows Vista screenshots taken using such a method. Themodernizer 21:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Windows virtual memory

I can't understand your removal. If you feel that the sentence is not correct please re-edit it. Dr. Who 10:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows WikiProject

Hey Warrens, I have just recently joind the Microsoft Windows WikiProject, in order to better serve the team of people working on these articles. I would like to know more about how to contribute within the WikiProject group. Please give me more info on my talk page about getting started. Thank you. Jdlowery 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ReadyBoost

Hi Warren, I was wondering why you removed a link from the ReadyBoost page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost ? The link in question was/is

• Vista ReadyBoost - Description and help in using readyboost, the Windows Vista feature that allows flash storage to be used for virtual memory.

This page fits the with 'other links' catagory. It is not a Microsoft site, the page itself has correct information on ReadyBoost with much more detail that the existing links on the page. All the information is correct and can be a good primer for users wanting to know about ReadyBoost. The page has no spam links or badware. Please consider reinstating this site. Thanks in advance, Darrell (just a user that has not opened an account here) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.199.116.5 (talk) 3:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vista SP1

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You recently deleted the article about Windows Vista Service Pack 1 with the comment "redirecting to Windows Vista. we don't have articles about service packs." Could you please show me the policy or discussion that supports this statement? Windows Vista is such a broad subject that it has many related articles, so I think having an article on SP1 is appropriate. At the very least, this content should have been merged into the main Windows Vista article. —Remember the dot (t) 05:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just about everything related to Service Pack 1 is crystal balling at this point. No reliable sources were used for actual information about it... how could we? There is no reliable information about it, just a couple of bloggers with their anonymous "connections" and a great big echo chamber that repeats what those bloggers say. Windows "Fiji" has been salted against re-creatinon for the same reason. The closest thing we've got to a decent source of information about Vista Service Pack 1 is an article on bink.nu, which specifically states that information about the service pack is given out under NDA. Wikipedia really shouldn't be publishing information that was obtained under NDA; the last thing Wikimedia Foundation needs is to run afoul of Microsoft's legal department.

One other piece of information it says is that it's a "standard service pack" containing fixes. Have a look around the operating system articles on the encyclopedia; we have -never- had an article on any service pack or similarily-scoped software update for any operating system -- not for Linux, not for OS X, and not for Windows. There's no good reason to start now. A couple of sentences in Windows Vista will suffice. -/- Warren 08:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that most of the information about Vista Service Pack 1 is unreliable but I see no reason why we cannot have an article on Vista SP1 in the future when we do have significant information. Just because wikipedia hasn't had such articles before doesn't mean it cannot in the future. Vista SP1 is significant because a large number of users and most corporate entities are waiting for it before they move to Vista and need the information. Windows Vista article itself is bloated enough and doesn't need to be expanded further with extensive article on SP1. SP1 will require a separate article atleast in the future. And oh yeah, by vandal edit I didn't mean you but the guy with IP 200.85.60.26. Sci13960 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you're going to have a tough time proving authoritatively that "most corporate entities are waiting for it". That's a matter of opinion, and it gets repeated a lot by amateur commentators, but it's extremely rare that major companies themselves say this in a place that Wikipedia could quote them from. There are a lot of reasons why companies take a while to migrate to newer operating systems... service packs are only one aspect. IT and help-desk training, hardware upgrades, application compatibility testing, availability of drivers for printers, scanners, and other devices, corporate financial considerations, and sometimes plain ole' incompetence are the major factors for larger companies.

You're really trying to overstate the importance of Vista Service Pack 1 here... from all available descriptions, it sounds like it's going to be about as important as Windows 2000 Service Pack 1, which came about half a year after Windows 2000's release and fixed a bunch of problems (including one which I'd personally reported to Microsoft ;-) ), but it wasn't considered a huge milestone.

Have a look at Windows 2000 and Windows XP, both of which are Featured Articles -- in other words, they're considered some of Wikipedia's very best work. They cover their respective service packs in their entirety within the article itself, and it reads quite nicely, without getting into a lot of unnecessary detail. This works out pretty well, and if a reader is interested in more detail, we can help them find it on other web sites through good referencing. Wikipedia isn't the Internet -- we don't need to publish everything.

I realise you're new to Wikipedia, and you'd like to have something to write about, but there's a lot of weight behind the status quo on this particular issue. A careful balance has been struck between providing a decent amount of detail, but not simnply replicating every tiny little piece of information people have cobbled together, where it's hard to distinguish between actual fact and pure speculation. We don't report on every little piece of criticism about Windows Vista for the same reason. There's so much to work on without getting into speculatiion or blogger bingo. User Account Control is way too short, for example. We need an article on Windows Deployment Services. Protected Video Path could be fleshed out better. Digital Rights Management in Windows Vista might be an interesting topic to tackle. -/- Warren 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Windows Vista 5365 Notification Balloon.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Vista 5365 Notification Balloon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Windows Aero Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Aero Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Its been long since our last conversation. I was hibernating for a bit. :) Anyways, hows things going? I see a lot of work has gone into taming the Features new to Windows Vista article. Good job on that, you and other editors! I think I am back to contributing significantly once more. If there is any article that can immediately do with my attention, just lemme know. :) Regards, --soum^সৌমোyasch 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough...

Yup. Concur... ww 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

good to see you too :D

Yeah I'm working like crazy now so not much wikipedia time but I'm amazed and glad you're still around :D RN 07:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

What's neutral about the following erroneous opinion. And what's factual about 'in mind' 'less important'

"Windows NT]] and its successors .. was not designed for Internet security in mind as much since, when it was first developed, the Internet was less important.

Show me any historical citation where it says this. Did NT come with a TCP/IP stack, was it sold as a medium range server, yes or no !!

'until Windows Server 2003 most versions of Windows NT were shipped with important security features disabled by default.

You're kidding, produce any objective citation, if you don't mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs).

Comments removed.

I'm not interested in a lengthy and boring debate about Windows on my talk page, thank you. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a discussion forum -- go find an Internet forum or write a blog if you want to write about that. Here's the deal: poorly-written text gets removed from the encyclopedia, because we aim for high quality prose. Also, stating that Bill Gates thinks that Windows NT is a good server product, without any security-related context about it, doesn't have any place in the "Security" section of a Wikipedia article. -/- Warren 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Further comments from User:Emacsuser removed.

Emacsuser, please use the article talk pages to discuss changes to articles. My talk page is not the place for it, since it excludes everybody else who wishes to discuss the matter. -/- Warren 22:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse Me ..

I thought this was the place to discuss changes. I hadn't realised there was a talk page for the article. And besides which, no one uses a colon (:) in the body of a paragraph. Do you have an email address where I can lambaste you in private .. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_%28punctuation%29

emacsuser 12:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

MiB Police

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#my_edits_keep_going_away http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarenne#I_am_not_a_vandal

hi, take a look at the above pages. it appears to me the MiB police are unstoppable with a blessing from the Wikipedia admins. I think it is a sad day. Rman2000 20:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ps and now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Binary_prefixes

Hello; I backed out of that binary prefix dispute mainly because I can't be bothered spending a lot of time on something that's always going to be divisive but ultimately trivial, compared with other more important work we need to do around the encyclopedia. Yeah, I know it sucks when it doesn't go the way you think it should... but give it some thought. User:Sarenne's lasting claim to fame here is getting in endless arguments over binary prefixes.... what a laughably useless waste of time! If you keep the WP:FIVE pillars in mind, find something really cool and interesting to write about, and leave those people behind, you'll find you'll have a much better time here. -/- Warren 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK: I hear the wise words and think you are right. It is partly the stupidity of the User:Sarenne position; but it is also the lasting damage to Wikipedia that is possible. What if there were thousands of User:Sarennes doing the same thing in different areas? It is automated censorship and I think that is something to worry about. But, I really do hear you...Thanks so very much for listening. Rman2000 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft

Hi. Sorry about my edit, I didn't realise a wider discussion was ongoing - I've explained fully at Talk:Microsoft and also gave my views on the split. Best regards, Mark83 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And good work on Vista!!! Don't ever get too hooked or stressed out at this place though its highly synthetic (the recent Essjay stuff was very dissapointing as I know the guy when I first came on - proves some things about the Internet :D) RN 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)