User talk:Canterbury Tail/Archive 5

StarTrek-Online

I would like to know your resoning for the removal of the "see also" link in that list for Startrek online. The shown link that leads to another wiki is basicly a startrek online game that has already been done, but the story line and the names of most ingame objects have been changed to avoid copyright infringment. Other than that, its basicly a STO thats already up and running. Would it not be considered a fan site since a large number of the people who play it enjoy startrek as well? And they make constant refrences to it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.92.91 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It has nothing to do with Star Trek Online and hence shouldn't be included. It's completely incorrect to put it in the external links. ALso the site doesn't work anyway. Ben W Bell talk 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site should work perfectly as far as i know unless they ran out of money to keep it going. can't it be considered a substitute for STO untill its release? I mean alot of the games you look up on wiki has a "similar games" list. this is an exeption? www.castlethornsoftware.com is there homepage, is that the link that was used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.92.91 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESADE university faculties

Before deleting pages, can you please point out what part of a page needs to be rewritten? Much of the information coming from the website quoted in the deletion is publicaly available, and can be easily enreached to make it unique to wikipedia... AS LONG YOU AS YOU GIVE THE CONTRIBUTOR ADVANCE WARNINGS!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ESADEbrigade (talk • contribs) 21:14:34, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Information that is obviously a copyright violation should immediately be removed from Wikipedia. Just because information is publicly available doesn't mean it can be copied and pasted wholesale into Wikipedia, as most of that page had been. Ben W Bell talk 06:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Auto Trust

At least let the community judge it for a few hours and then delete it. America Online has an article so why not any joe schmoe LLC? If it morphs into something else fine. It's not controllable if it is on wikipedia anyway. -- Alaskaautotrust/^talk 16:23, 9, August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ben. Thanks for the quick cleanup of the vandalism on my user page. It is much appreciated. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield

Hello, Ben. I strongly wish to post the trailer for the Cloverfield film. I have many links, so why can't i do it? Paramount can't take down all trailers. I want to show people the trailer.

No problems. Ben W Bell talk 14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in your User pages

Oh sure no problem!--Huaiwei 09:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield

Hello, Ben. I strongly wish to post the trailer for the Cloverfield film. I have many links, so why can't i do it? Paramount can't take down all trailers. I want to show people the trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.65.252 (talk • contribs)

You cannot do it because it's illegal. Simple. And illegal is against Wikipedia policies. Ben W Bell talk 09:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can it be illegal. It was taken by a friend of mine, and it's my material. It can't be illegal since its my own copyright. It doesnt belong to anyone else except to me and friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.65.252 (talk • contribs)

Um no, you illegally copied a film. Someone else's copyright. It's illegal, it's called piracy. Ben W Bell talk 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrabeater query

Hi. The image is from [1] and is copyrighted and will soon be deleted. Thanks for catching it. Mark83 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. (Even if it was slightly more inventive than the standard vandalism out there.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I admit yes it was more inventive than normal, but it was still vandalism. I'm always wary of anyone editing anothers user page and usually check. Plus he was a vandal anyway. Ben W Bell talk 07:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too

Thanks for helping me out, quick too. Take care. --Bongwarrior 08:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Take care. Ben W Bell talk 08:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:3RR warning

Alas it is difficult to stick to such rules when you are right and others are wrong. Traditional unionist 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't see your first comment on my talk page. There is no such thing as City of Derry County Grand Lodge, and it is wrong to suggest in the article that there is. We are referring to that body, not to the city directly. The comparison is that there is no such thing as the Londonderry Board of the GAA or the South Londonderry Brigade of the IRA.Traditional unionist 22:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness

Thanks for undoing, my edits to RoI talk, was gonna do that myself, 86.12.249.63 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I blew my top

Im just sensitive to people messing w/my homepage.DhZZZWhy!!!?? 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you shouldn't vandalise then should you. Ben W Bell talk 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derry I posted the link at the top of the external link list. I have read the external link guidelines and although I have google ads on the site its primarily rich in content. The balance of ads versus content is very much in favour of the content. Take a look yourself you will see this is the case. There is no reason why this site shoud be excluded from the external link section. JimBob

Dialling Codes

Thanks for your comment. It is common misconception that the codes for various towns in Northern Ireland is something other than 028. This misconception even extends to such organisations as BT, who should know better.

Apologies if the following sounds patronising, but I want to explain the background to all of this.

In 2000, the codes for various places in the UK were changed. London, which had previously been under (0171) and (0181) became reunited as (020). A similar misconception here exists where people often quote the codes as being (0208) or (0207) or the 'new' (0203).

Nowhere was the change as geographically widespread as in Northern Ireland, where every code was changed to (028) and every subscriber number had 2 or 3 digits added to the start to make it 8 digits.

As I'm sure you know, you need not dial the 028 STD code if you are ringing from, say Belfast to Enniskillen, just the 8-digit number. You must, however dial that same 8-digit number even if you are in Enniskillen.

Looking at Erroneous_UK_telephone_codes , you'll see some more background to this, and if you look at [2] on the Ofcom site, you'll see that the 028 area code applies to all numbers in Northern Ireland. The starting two digits of each area area listed for convenience, but these are not 'codes', they are the inital two digits of the number. You'll notice that for Belfast, 90 and 95 are listed, as Belfast numbers are starting to be allocated with 95 as the initial two digits.

It is vital that Wikipedia gets this correct, given that there is already public confusion on this.

NotMuchToSay 18:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As someone who used to work in the telecoms industry, I have a unhealthy interest in this subject! You may also find more info at the uk.telecom usenet group - look in particular back to 1999/2000 when these changes came in.NotMuchToSay 18:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I apologise for the inconvenience and retract my comments as incorrect. I have also replied on the Northern Ireland talky area type thingy. Ben W Bell talk 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

I noticed that you changed spelled to spelt on Etobicoke, Ontario. "Spelled" is a perfectly acceptable spelling of the word, and so it would be a "variety of English" issue, and so it is against policy to change the spelling from that which it originally was unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Lexicon (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "spelled" as it just didn't seen to read right to my mind when I went over it. I went over it a few times and couldn't get it to gell in my mind. Fair point on the "aging" changes though, just my Canadian dictionary didn't like it and I was unsure. Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: English

Ben as per your email the other day regarding your correction of the nationality of actors from the reimagined series of Battlestar Galactica there are many people in England that do not wish to be called "British".

James Callis and Jamie Bamber are both from London (Including Bambers wife)which is in England - not Scotland, Wales or Ireland, if you asked them if they were English or British and they were not explaining to an American what do you think there answer would be?

The 2001 census that was conducted found that apart from the number of Jedi's in the country a growing number of people stated that they were English and not British when they were to answer the box for ethnic origin - This against the instruction that you could not put english as you nationality.

There is a growing call for people to be allowed to call themselves English and it is becoming more apparent:

The English rugby team won the world cup - There are also Welsh, Scottish and Irish teams but no British one.

The DVLA now allows the cross of St George on number plates where previously you could have the welsh dragon, St Andrews cross or the Union Flag until the English people campaigned and the DVLA relented.

When Cunard launch the QE2 in the late 60's she was supposed to be called the Queen Elizabeth as a replacement for the 1930 ship that was being retired but her majesty Queen Elizabeth the second named the new ship "Queen Elizabeth the second" - which was not the name in the envelope she was given. so Cunard had to change the traditional "II" to a arabic "2" as her majesty is not the second Queen Elizabeth of Scotland and the Scots would take offence to the name and new ship that they had built.

Even my local church flies the flag of St George and not the Union Flag!

Your webpage on Wikipedia also states that you yourself are from Northern Ireland and class yourself as British, but in your home region a majority of the locals do not class themselves as British and call themselves Irish.

Being British is becoming a thing of the past as devolution is beginning the Scottish and Welsh parliments are growing and the people of these areas want there local identities back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Msa1701 (talk • contribs).

And what does it say on the passport? British. No such thing as English, Welsh or Scottish citizenship, just British. Ben W Bell talk 11:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with devolution, how long will that last? The English conquests of the past centuries are gradually being undone, the suppressed nations freed; why should we Celts begrudge the descendants of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes the right to claim their proper name of English? --Orange Mike 13:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC) (32-county Protestant republican)[reply]

People can identify themselves as whatever they want, but there is no such thing as English, welsh or Scottish citizenship which is what this was about. The people mentioned are British Citizens, not English, not Welsh. They can self identify as whatever they like, but they're still British citizens and that is their international official nationality. Especially since the section this was about is discussing what passports and citizenships the actors possessed. Ben W Bell talk 13:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken; but how long do you think it will be before there will be separate Scots, etc. passports under a common EU authority? I know, I know... speculation at best. --Orange Mike 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE British: The correct title for the UK is: The United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland, Which states there are Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Which means that according to the title they are two separate countries (even though as you state all the passports state British) so that would make you Irish by birth and not British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msa1701 (talk • contribs)

Well Northern Ireland is not a country, and neither is Great Britain so there goes that theory. And being born in Northern Ireland you are a British citizen, not an Irish citizen. It's really quite simple. Someone born in Scotland may refer to themselves as Scottish but they are a British citizen, same as Northern Ireland, Wales and England. No such thing as citizens of any of the smaller parts of the UK. Ben W Bell talk 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not ignore that the word "country" has many meanings, and by many of them, including ones used by the UK government, Scotland and Northern Ireland are indeed countries. But of course that's entirely different from being sovereign states. And don't confuse citizenship with nationality (or the different meanings of nationality with each other). People from the UK should be called "citizens of the UK", but by luck of the language, are also called "British citizens", even though some of them do not come from Great Britain (and so should not be considered "British"), and while in international law there may be no such thing as Scottish nationality, (they're all UK nationals) there most certainly is a Scottish national identity, and therefore, socially, there's a Scottish nationality. Lexicon (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well said Lexicon but if there is no such thing as Scottish nationality according to Ben - Why is Scottish Law practiced in Scotland, which does not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msa1701 (talk • contribs)

MSA1701 can you please sign your talk comments using ~~~~. Scottish Law is practised in Scotland because it is set in Scotland and Scotland has the ability to set its own laws. Local councils have the power to set their own bylaws that influence local laws so I'm not sure what your point is. Anyway my talk page isn't a branch of the local debating society and these little tangents interesting as they may be have nothing to do with the crux of the matter. This point arose over the passport nationality of an actor and the alteration of his description from British to English. As soon as England issues their own passports stating that the holder is English then it can be changed, but all citizens of the UK are British Citizens, not English citizens, not Scottish citizens, not even UK citizens but British citizens under the clear description of the passport nationality and the law. Ben W Bell talk 15:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From one who is English!

Ben, I have been watching your wikipage for a while now and decided to register today and sign up to this discussion, i have been reading the discussions about British nationality.

I was born in London and have lived there all my life (30+ years)and i do not class my self as British as i live in England, Please do not take offence or treat it as a ethnic slur when i say that when i looked at your webpage and it mentions that you are from Northern Ireland and i would also agree that an Englishman would class you as an Irishman or Northern Irish and would not class you as British.

So i can see where the whole thing about being English and not British comes from.

I am also an aircraft engineer and have worked on the S-76 helicopter so i will be watching your page on the aircraft type to see how it evolves - good luck!

Regards

Flexcoupling

How people define and label themselves and others isn't the point of the debate though, the point of the debate was legal nationality and that on passports which is simply British for everyone born in the UK. Ben W Bell talk 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Translation

Most airports are named after the region in which they are situated, and this is the case with Belfast City Airport. The name Belfast means nothing and is derived from the Irish Béal Feirste, so Béal Feirste or Chathair Bhéal Feirste is actually the original native name for the region, not Belfast or Belfast City, so please don't tell me I'm providing nothing more than a meaningless translation which could be provided in any language. Bare in mind also that there are gaeltachaí(Irish-only areas) in Belfast and Irish is very much a living language in the region, and while other languages other than English may be spoken in Belfast also, none of them are native to the region. As such I have put back in the translation to the main article, I suggest you get your facts straight in future when talking about native names before making such ignorant statements. 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (by 89.100.8.101)

Yes that is all very true, however Belfast City Airport doesn't have a native Irish name. It never existed in a native name form. Yes some Irish is spoken in Belfast yes, but we're not talking about the city of Belfast, we're talking about a modern airport built after the city was renamed Belfast. Belfast City Airport is the native local name of the airport, not any subsequent Irish translation which is solely that a translation not the local name. Belfast City Airport does not operate with any native Irish name. Having the Irish for various towns and villages in NI is perfectly fine as most of the modern names came from an alteration of the original local Irish names, but the airport doesn't come under this. Ben W Bell talk 07:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F. Thank you. Delivered on behalf of user:xaosflux 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRMovie.com

I added a line about the fact that this site is no longer useful for news (it has not been updated since April 2006) but my line was removed. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.227.38.93 (talk • contribs).

Because that information isn't really of any used. It's still a fan site and such commentary isn't needed. Oh and please sign your comments. Ben W Bell talk 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is from that guy who's been going around wikipedia reclaiming any page that was formaly classed as british as irish and my work seemed to be coming along nicly too, untill you posted me a response claiming I wasn't upholding a neutral point of view, well let me ask you this, can ANYONE truly maintain such a thing when refering to something classed under a different definition depending on their personal opinion? (Not their passport) Anything relating to northern Ireland can be defined as either irish or british. I see myself as irish and would still see myself as irish if I ever moved to Britan and took on british citizenship, so don't bash people like me around for making a view evident, you made yours more than evident to me when you told me to stop calling BRITISH (i.e. northern irish) films irish. Hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknolyze (talk • contribs) 20:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

A film made by a production company based in London is a British film. Doesn't matter where it is filmed, it is the company that makes a film that defines the films nationality as accepted by all the film institutes. Ben W Bell talk 12:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing 101

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwashing 101 (2nd nomination). - Crockspot 05:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh

Hi. I'm trying to get some constructive discussion going on over at Talk:Lough Neagh. As an editor that has been involved in discussion to date, would you be interested in taking a look and giving your thoughts? I'll be reminding all of the editors that I'm inviting to remember to keep it cool, and assume good faith. I'm sure that if all editors work together here, we'll have this one nutted out in next to no time. Mark Chovain 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:451px-Helmcken Falls 2006 Ben W Bell.jpg

This image may be deleted from Commons. Please see the notification on my talk page there (same user name) and the banner on the image. I may be the cause of the problem. See my note here explaining. Somehow it looks like your licensing of the image has been lost. Not sure what I did wrong, but I have a sinking feeling .. . . --KenWalker | Talk 23:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that there is no challenge to the licence here on Wikipedia, it is only on Commons. Noting that, it makes me remember how this started. I uploaded the image to commons but I must not have correctly described the GFDL licence you issued when you uploaded it. I have asked on Commons for help about how to sort this out, but in the meantime, I thought I ought to let you know that my muddling doesn't seem to be risking the deletion of your image from Wikipedia. I will do my best to keep it from being deleted from Commons as well. Sorry for the confusion. --KenWalker | Talk 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users removing warnings

I noticed you left a couple of warnings at User talk:Lassie2501 because she removed some warnings from her talk page. The guideline regarding user pages and warnings says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." I thought you might want to know. It also seems from her talk page that she's quite young so maybe a gentle approach is worth considering. I do see that she has made numerous errors but I don't think they are intentional disruptions. Have a great day. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 15:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan site removed from Star Trek Online

I would like to first establish that I am a fifty year old man, and not some kid who is out to promote his site. I added a link in the Star Trek Online section under "Communities" pointing to a fan site. Although I understand you fell that the link is "mainly intended to promote a website," I am wondering how it is any different than the other links that are allowed. The site [3] is no different than the other sites listed, yet those are allowed. I would appreciate some clarification. - Hal_Courtney, 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal of the week?

You certainly seem to attract a more colo[u]rful class of vandal (but no more literate) than I do! --Orange Mike 16:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I always do strive for the best. Ben W Bell talk 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NI Infobox idea

I'd like to invite you to comment on my thoughts behind a specific set of NI infoboxes. I'm just mulling the idea over on my talk page. Thanks. --Blowdart 12:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saied and Firey Brothers Music Company

Just curious, why were my recent articles deleted? I was creating a stub article for me to start contributing to. I was going to start work on businesses that do not have articles for Tulsa, OK. Please inform me on what my next course of action should be. Thanks! ----Μ79_Šp€çíá∫íš†^{tell me about it} 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, it is an encyclopaedia. The articles you created were just shops in Tulsa, or no notability of significance. As a result they are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please read WP:Notability. As it stood those articles were assumed to be solely existing as advertising for non-notable companies. Ben W Bell talk 19:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The music companies that I mentioned are notable, I just did not get that information yet. I was planning on doing research later today in order to achiece notability. Famous musicians from Northeast Oklahoma, such as Garth Brooks, still frequently buy guitars from Firey Brothers and are played in many of his concerts, recording, etc. I do not have verifiable sources yet, so, I guess I will create it on my user page... Thank you for citing that the article was not notable. I will be sure to remember that the next time I create an article. ----Μ79_Šp€çíá∫íš†^{tell me about it} 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you are creating articles like that in the future it is best to get them up with more detail and references proving they are notable straight off the bat. As they were they would have been instantly removed by any of hundreds of admins as advertising for non-notable companies. You need to be careful as what is deemed to be advertising spam is eligible for instant kill on sight under speedy criteria. So if they are notable you need to say so straight off or they may well suffer the same fate. I do realise this can be an issue, but there are just too many companies out there that want an article on Wikipedia and aren't deserving of it and Wikipedia gets spammed by thousands of such each and every day. As you say build them in your own user space and then move them to the main namespace. Good luck. Ben W Bell talk 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lough Neagh in the British Isles or not.

Hello - I see you've participated in the TalkPage discussion at Lough Neagh. I have created a table of the different contributors and their views/arguments about the geographical description to be applied. I am proposing that, if there is a clear consensus then the article is modified to reflect the consensus amongst editors. I am notifying each of the people I've identified as having been interested of this fresh opportunity to reach a consensus and settle this matter. Wikipedia has a policy on canvassing, please do not breach it with actions that are, or could be seen as being, partisan. PR^talk 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMOS

Thanks Ben. Bet my watchlist is bigger than yours!! (Sarah777 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

linkaddition

Hello, I've stopped doing this in April 2007. Could your remove your comment from mytalk page please. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Range (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your reply and edit of mytalk page... Range 12:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to reply to, the warning was valid. Ben W Bell talk 13:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British-Irish Isles

I left a message for you on Neagh. I honestly think that "British-Irish" is a way forward on this, rather than getting stuck in it is/it isn't debates on "British Isles." I'd also point to the fact that the true Irish nationalist POV (that any mention of Great Britain as a geographic frame for an lough on Ireland is irrelevant i.e. the frame is Ireland, then Europe, with no such thing as the British Isles) has never seriously been pushed, and in fact has really just been put aside for the sake of collaboration. The issue really is just the name. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment

No, it wasn't aimed at you! My goodness! However, it was aimed at the editor who's talk page it is on, and the person who said, "Ben - the reason I did that is because people like you insist on trying to have your own opinion imposed on the rest of us" as I recognise them as a being an editor I encountered earlier this year. Sorry about the confusion - Alison ^❤ 12:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

I still haven't been able to find where this consensus you speak of was reached. Your current linking is providing the reader with the unexpected. If a reader clicks on Ireland, why on earth would you want to send them to Republic of Ireland? You state that "All location and town articles on Wikipedia link to the political state/country/nation that the town or location is in." Yet when I visit the Essex page, I'm told it's in the country of England, rather than (as you seem to be telling me) the United (sic) Kingdom. As the subject matter here is apolitical, I see no need to insist upon a political rather than a geographical location.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct JPOV edit

JPOV edit. [4] previous edit. [5] i revert it only previous edit. i did not edit by myself. i revert from old edit. this change [6] lack of "fact" JPOV edit without consensus. so, I remove it this JPOV edit. also, according to Japanese invasions of Korea, japanese samurai casualties(killed -death rate by korean soldier-) much more. so, this edit[7] is not based "fact". remove or modify is better. Replayamong23 09:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you just said or what you are trying to say. Ben W Bell talk 12:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your great work on Wikipedia

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your great work on preventing vandalism in Wikipedia. Always when i try to revert some vandalism, you have already done that. Keep up the good work! Ilyushka88 15:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]