User talk:Mr.Z-man/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Speedily Deleted

Cool got your point about proving notability...will use more references and details in the future! "arf1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.169.202 (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I left the page for the band alone. If you think the individual members are notable; prove it. Just becasue they were speedy deleted does not mean you can't rewrite them with reliable sources to prove notability. No I don't rate bands, I rate band articles. If Yeti is such a great and notable band, the article sure does not reflect it. Also, just because similar bands have articles does not necessarily automatically prove that Yeti is notable (and again, notice how I left the article alone). "As for John Hassall, he was bassist for The Libertines" - which, combined with the developed nature of the article is the reason I left it to the community to decide. Also note that that article has been tagged as missing sources since October 2006, in violation of Wikipedia's biograpies of living persons policy. Mr.Z-man 12:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedily Deleted.....

Cool now I understand how this thing works! Thanks for the advice Z-man. "Arf1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.169.202 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If they have been in GQ, Vogue, Dazed and Confused, etc., just saying so in the article is more than enough to stop speedy deletion. Proving so with reliable sources (which should be easy since most major magazines have websites) will prevent just about any deletion (copyright violations and spam being exceptions). Also, you don't have to start a new heading each time, you can just click on the [edit] link on the right side of the header and add your new comment to the bottom (indented using colons : ). Mr.Z-man 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

deletion of dfu tag

Greetings,Mr. Z-man, I'm unclear why you deleted the {{tl|dfu}} tag from Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg before the Non-free use rationale was added, but in any case I have now added the information required per WP:NFURG (although I am not the original image uploader). JGHowes talk - 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem with BetacommandBot tagging images incorrectly. The removal of the tag from that image was part of a mass hi-speed rollback by me and a few other admins (asked to help by Betacommand). As there were over 1300 images in all, we did not have the time to check that all the tags really were applied incorrectly. Mr.Z-man 11:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So Confused.

I didn't see that block on 216.124.153.98. *laughs* I'm sorry! :) --Amaraiel 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated abusive vandalism

Blocked. Mr.Z-man 12:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

It was very nice to have you be the first one to welcome me to Wikipedia, and because you are interested in adoptees, I was wondering if you would adopt me. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Park Crawler 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Park Crawler

Thank you! I understand what my position is as an adoptee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Park Crawler (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

HWDEF / Pioneercourthouse

I didn't take notes; as I recall, there was a common page that Pioneercourthouse's latest sock had been editing followed by HWDEF, making similar edits. I will attempt to dig up the info. Usually if it's not self-evident I post it on the talk page or something when I block, but this time I don't see that I did.

HWDEF has been sending repeated messages to unblock-en-l asking for someone to investigate. It's probably a good idea if someone else does; I certainly don't pretend that I never make mistakes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I did the original disruption / personal attacks for the usual 24 hrs, and then extended when I thought that he was a sock of Pioneer. If he's not a sock the original block would have expired days ago. I'm going to keep an eye on him as well, but yes, if he's not Pioneer, then there's no reason to keep him blocked. The disruption and personal attacks were blockable, but only short term blockable, and his emails to unblock-en-l indicated that he understood and would stop the personal attacks and edit warring. Georgewilliamherbert 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Beaconhills histmerge

Just wanted to thank you for performing the histmerge for the Beaconhills College page. Much appreciated! --SRHamilton 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Mr.Z-man 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shiv

Hi Z, I'm not a fan of too much trivia / cultural refs either but the list at shiv is monitored and useful. It was trimmed down from a much bigger list. If you want to trim out a couple more and / or help monitor additions that would be great. Thanks, Deiz talk 04:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I will trim it a bit. I was going to suggest splitting into a new article, but then I realized that would be making a bad thing worse. Mr.Z-man 04:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sweet as. Deiz talk 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected Article (Micheal Bespin)

Good job! I've watched that article be mutilated all day! --Amaraiel 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you for ending this. I was getting frustrated with the childishness. AnnieHall 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP Range

I currently find myself blocked, being grouped within the rather broad 201.9.0.0 range.

Whilst I fully understand and appreciate the reason blocking is an available option to administrators, I would point out that blocking such a large range of users could be considered extreme.

If indeed necessary to stop a rash of vandalism, would a shorter block period not suffice? And if not, then why not block permanently, excluding forever the possible input from valid participants who happen to live in the same IP neighborhood as the offenders?

While my submissions may be few and far between, all have been made as either small grammatical corrections or valid comments. Perhaps relatively "insignificant".

Regardless, I view the prohibition of rights to a large group as a punitive and not protective measure; or is it possible that the errant posters have been so prolific in so broad a range of wikipages and from so broad a range of IPs that this is the only method of "protecting" the pages?

Regards

Chrisklinger 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The range was blocked due to long term vandalism to multiple articles. The only other option was to semiprotect all those articles for a very long time, which would prohibit all edits by anonymous and new users on those pages. Also, the range was blocked with the anonymous users only setting and the account creation block disabled. People in that range can still create accounts and those accounts can still be used. Obviously yours can be used as you were able to edit here. Mr.Z-man 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is just not acceptable to block 65536 IP addresses for a month for the sake of a few articles. I have unblocked the 201.9.0.0 range, please avoid making such range blocks in the future. Thanks, Prodego talk 01:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. We've been getting a lot of emails from range block collateral at unblock-en-l, and I was looking at the last 10 when I spotted yours. I think some people don't understand how much they truly are blocking with these range blocks. I've been bothering CSCWEM about his blocks forever, we have received hundreds (literally) of unblock requests from his blocks. While range blocks have their uses, they need to be targeted carefully. Happy editing! Prodego talk 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Death threat

Oops, didn't mean to cut you off there. I think an indef block is appropriate. (That's what we do for legal threats, so shouldn't death threats be as bad or worse?) Anyway, if you think the indef was inappropriate, let me know. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's smart, thanks. For dynamic IPs, I guess there's not much point in blocking very long. (Still, if the user were to do something really stupid and there were police involvement, who knows? You could be shielding Wikipedia from a lawsuit.) Thanks for your diligence. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

Hi There,

I love wikipedia and wouldn't want to do anything considered to be spam. My name is Michael Jensen and I'm the editor of the website AfterElton.com. The only links I add are ones that should be directly relevant to the entries such as an interview with certain folks. Is that not permitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.10.175 (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the venue to be promoting your own website. See WP:SPAM. Celebrities are famous. Lots of websites, magazines, TV shows, newspapers, and radio shows are going to interview them and write about them. Chances are that all of those form of media have a website too, we don't need a link to all of them. Unless your website has some sort of special information that no other site has, please do not keep adding links to your own site into articles. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Archdiocese of Miami

I have removed the threat of legal action you have alerted me to. The material labeled Church Scandals on this page clearly violates Wikipedia's own policies. There is no reason for it to be on the Archdiocese of Miami page other than anti Catholic propaganda which this clearly is. I have asked for an administrator to remove it at least twice, giving clear reasons listing the Wikipolicies it violates; there is clear evidence of a consensus of editors except the one who added the material, that editor's talk page (DominvsVobiscm) clearly identifies him as a vandal, yet, in spite of overwhelming reasons supporting the removal of this material, the material remains. I will not report Wikipedia to the Catholic League but Wikipedia must consider that it is inviting others to do so if it does not follow its own policies and remove this materialNancyHeise 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mr.Z-man 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. WP:AN

Thanks for the notice, Mr.Z-Man. I had noticed the thread shortly ago and have just placed my comments there. Regards, Húsönd 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

John Hassall

Hello, Mr.Z-man, I'm confused as to why you've nominated John Hassall for deletion. You seem to acknowledge that he is a notable musician, so I don't suppose it's a notability issue. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems your nomination was a bit hasty. faithless (speak) 07:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a WP:BLP issue. It was missing sources for months. Mr.Z-man 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarathon

Hi Mr Z-man A heads up on a recent addition to the Ultramarathon page - Ultra running in Africa - this is insulting, has nothing to do with the topic - in my view should be removed Gold Pen 07:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not an expert in the subject. If there is no discussion and no previous edit warring over it, be bold (but give a reason) and remove it. If there is prior discussion or edit warring over it (or you don't want to be bold), bring it up on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I see the vandalism was removed and the item reverts to prior wording. Gold Pen 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

hi Mr Z-man Thanks for the feedback wrt the Rhodes Run image. I must still go over those various criteria again carefully, as I interpreted my initial posting as clearly indicating that I do hold the rights to that image (which I do) - anyway I'll have another look, as from what I can see even if I do claim the rights to the image the person who blocked it previously can do so again .... could be an interesting repetitive circle; but I'll have a look and (if it's ok) come back to you for more advice. Gold Pen 07:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove you have the rights and you license it properly, it should not be deleted. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again- yes, that's my point - although I can claim legitimately that I own the image (as I thought I had done with the license wording I used) it can still be removed - Catch-22; but as I said I'll check the various license wordings, although as I interpret them there is still nothing stopping someone removing image again - or do I then protest as vandalism? Gold Pen 06:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Smartissexy

Hi, here to ask about the block. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, and while there has been some edit warring, I don't see that it has reached the level of disruption which would indicate a need for an indef. It does not appear that anyone has tried to work with this editor to help him or her learn to work better towards consensus and understand our rules. Am I missing something? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See this diff. They are the same person who is behind one of the IPs (an IP who was blocked for breaking 3RR) who was edit warring on the article. History. They [the IP] also blanked Smartissexy's talk page. If it were not for the edit warring and the fact that the IP made edits before and after Smartissexy on Catherine Deneuve I would assume good faith and say that they were logged out for some edits, but anonymous edits before and after logging in? I also have concerns about Alfwine [1] but I decided not to push the issue there. If you want to shorten the block, feel free. Mr.Z-man 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not a sock, that's an IP. There is a huge difference between forgetting to sign in, or losing your login, and having a sock. A sock is specifically a separate registered account. So there is no sockpuppetry.
As the account is so new and there is no sockpuppetry, I am going to shorten the block, with appropriate suggestions to the editor. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a sockpuppet but it is still being used disruptively. Mr.Z-man 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Its a new account, with no warnings, no attempt to explain our policies, with some minor edit warring and one 3RR for which a block was already issued and served. There is plenty of time to not bite, and to see if this editor can learn our policies. I don't know why you're arguing this as disruption, see User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling for some real fun and games, or better yet, see the classic case of User:Jon Awbrey. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The pattern of abuse is obvious: using an IP and 2 account names (smartissexy and alfwine) to evade 3R rule and create a false editor consensus. Also the history of the discussion pages shows repeated attempts to falsify record of warnings (go through history of smartissexy's discussion page) as well as cheap abuse to reasonable and constructive comments:[2] This user doesn't want to edit collegiately, he wants his own way or nothing. 62.64.205.199 11:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that alfwine was even proposed as a sock, except for Z-man's concern above. Do you have a link? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even say I thought they were a sock, I just said I have concerns (at the very least its an SPA). It just seems very suspicious that a user, as their first action would be to revert an article and then go to the talk page and give their reasoning. Mr.Z-man 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Look at the account history: created precisely when Smartissexy(71.227.236.102) is under a cloud for reverting etc. Only two edits made: one to revert! the other to post a discussion page comment supporting smartissexy! [3] 62.64.205.199 11:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
After Edit Conflict, reply to Z-man with comments for 62.64.205.199: I agree, and would support you (Z) in investigating that or asking for a checkuser. However, like Z-man, its not enough data for me to be certain, therefore not enough to block for. In addition, there is the question of whether anyone has informed Smartissexy about sock rules, and whether (if that is indeed a sock) both accounts should be blocked or only the sock, leaving the primary, which would be the usual course of action should the primary promise not to abuse socks anymore. In short, 62.64.205.199, you are assuming bad faith to the point of personal attacks, and actively campaigning to get someone blocked or banned, making accusations of sockpuppetry where there is only some suspicion, not proof, and in general not impressing me with your motives or behavior. If SIS is a sock, it will eventually come out. Meanwhile, try to be civil and work with others. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to improve an article and someone is refusing to edit with others. Wasn't this civil and reasonable? [4] I am told to "get a life". And then told to try to be civil! I am campaigning for some reasonable sanction, or something, to be applied so that editing can go on constructively rather wasting all this time. And in general you are not impressing me with your motives or behavior - if I can say that. 62.64.213.133 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
An IP is not a sockpuppet. It just isn't. It may be that Alfwine is; but that is currently speculation, albeit well-founded. This is a new editor, who did not receive much in the way of a welcome message, or pointers to policy, or warnings about 3RR. In point of fact, he should never have been blocked for 3RR without any warnings at all about it - see the blocking policy. I've left advice and links on his or her page, and hope that this editor will become a valuable contributor, and learn to work with others and not edit war. Currently, he or she is not disrupting a thing. Blocking is preventative, not punitive. My motives are always the same - what is best for Wikipedia, and that includes following policies. Should this editor cause problems in the future, please feel free to let me know, and I will do what I can to remedy the situation, including blocking or seeking community ban if that seems indicated. For now, this particular incident is closed. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aflumpire (talk · contribs)

Hello. That user, whom you blocked for vandalism etc., appears to be honest in his promise to cease disrupting Wikipedia if unblocked. Would you be willing to unblock him with the understanding that the block will be reinstated in the event of any further disruption? Sandstein 06:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have already been unblocked, but yes, that would be fine. Mr.Z-man 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User warnings

Thanks for vandal fighting! Please don't skip templates when warning vandals, though. Jumping from 1 to 4 doesn't help anything. In order to be blocked, users must have the 4 warnings, in most all cases, so it's counter-productive to skip any. Regards, LaraLove 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to have all 4 warnings. They just have to have vandalized past a final warning or their vandalism has to be especially bad. I never use the level 1 warnings unless it is clearly a test edit. Replacing a page with something like "YOUZ ALL SUCK NOOBS!!!!BAN ME" is not a test edit. I warn based on how bad the vandalism is. Mr.Z-man 12:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, you'd need to use vandal1.
WP:AIV states "The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances."
If vandals haven't been adequately warned, (four warnings from my experience), the admins won't block. It sends a weird message when the warnings go from gentle to harsh and either back to gentle or repetitive because the warnings are skipped. Regards, LaraLove 15:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Proper set of warnings does not necessarily mean 4. There is no policy that says vandals are entitled to 4 warnings. The first level assumes good faith, the second has no faith assumption; if somebody repeatedly vandalizes or puts in exceptionally offensive vandalism (racist, sexist, personal attacks etc) we should not "continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." From WP:VAND: There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession. also If the vandal is obvious and persistent, list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism so that an admin can consider whether to block the vandal. Mr.Z-man 15:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen so many reports at AIV get rejected because there weren't four warnings. A couple of mine when I first started vandal fighting, and I've never reported someone that didn't obviously deserve a block. More admins need your pov on the matter. LaraLove 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? I've always thought I was too light on vandals compared to other admins. I've seen a few admins give blocks in places that I decided not to. Usually the only reason reports are turned down is because the vandal has not been active in a while, has not vandalized since getting his last warning, or they were never given a level 4 (or even a level 3) warning. Mr.Z-man 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it was the time frame. I recall the first I reported had made some vandal edits the previous month. He already had two warnings from then. Someone skipped the third and gave him the fourth, so I reported to AIV when he made another vandal edit and it was rejected for not having the full set of warnings. Soon after that, I reported someone that had only the third and fourth warning and that one was rejected as well. They had a lot of vandal edits, but only the two warnings. Since then, I only report if they have the full set. Maybe I should just start going for it and see how it goes now. LaraLove 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardblock removal

Thanks for removing the block that was keeping me out yesterday, Mr Z-man. Can you tell me why being logged in didn't get me around what I assume was a complete block of all editing originating from that IP?

Also, in case you're interested, your user page has a bunch of section edit links riding over the Finished projects/Other section (when I look at it in Firefox 2; when I looked at it in IE, there were no edit links anywhere on the page). I can post a screenshot here if you like. -Eric (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the IP was blocked with the "anon. only" setting turned off, which would block the IP and anyone using it. I know the problem with my userpage, I'm still working that one out (its just sort of at the bottom of my to-do list). Mr.Z-man 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense--I had an aha moment just now at the desk of a colleague who was not logged in; the block displayed with the "anon only" text this time. Thanks again! -Eric (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.Z-man#Hello_Mr._Z-man

Interesting to read your reply and CZmarlin's reply to this individual's questions. Each of you is saying the other one is responsible for the deletion/reverting back to the stub form of the article. So what is it?

Daniel Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.150.55 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I brought it to the stub form as opposed to deleting it as spam. See here. I don't see where CZmarlin claims to have done this, in fact he says "It was another editor (Mr.Z-man) that decided to remove the edits that were at fault on 22:31, 21 August 2007. It was their decision to trim back the article to just the basic facts." Also, as you seem to work for Discount Tire (its where your IP address resolves to), you may want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline before making further edits to the article. Mr.Z-man 01:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Touching base

How are things going with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture? Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Be well! Vassyana 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Its actually been inactive for a while now. I think one or both parties may no longer be interested in mediation. There has been almost no discussion. I'm debating whether or not to close the case (nothing was really resolved).
No problem. Thanks for the update. :) Vassyana 23:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:81.0.68.145

- So a while ago I reported this I.P. for off-topic discussion on article discussion pages. This time he's done it again: [5], [6], and finally here [7] . What do you recommend? Another warning? Take care, ScarianTalk 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Warned again. I'm really hesitant to block for this, but it is borderline disruptive. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, of course. Thanks for warning again. I guess he is a sufferer of that I.P. bug that can't pick up messages. I suppose all that we can do is just revert his topic posts hoping [long-shot] that he'll notice and pack it in. Thanks again. ScarianTalk 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mordred

I was wondering why you deleted the article I made about the band Mordred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthodox41 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The article failed the WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion criteria. All it said was that Mordred was a Thrash metal band from San Francisco. It gave no indication of notability. There was no chart listing, no concert ticket sales info, no album sales info, no reviews. There was nothing that distinguished it from other bands. You said on the talk page that the German Wikipedia had an article for it. I can't read German to tell if their article is better, but it looks about the same. The German Wikipedia is editable by all as well, so it is not a reliable source or an indicator of notability. They most likely have different standards and it is possible that that article fails their standards and no one has yet caught it. If the band is in fact notable, and you can establish that with reliable sources, feel free to recreate the article. Mr.Z-man 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AAAAA

Though I cannot see what the content of this article was, I think you went a bit quickly to delete it. The "Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique" is really notorious in France (the corresponding article on :fr gives quite a number of details) and all but a joke.

Its label is often seen on menus in French restaurants with no special explanations : for a Frenchman (at least a reasonably affluent one visiting upper-range restaurants) the label is well-known (a random example on this page - as you can note, no explanation was deemed as necessary by the advertisment writer). This article should not have been deleted, and certainly should not have been speedy deleted, and I come to your Talk page to beg for its reinstalment. Thanks for your attention. French Tourist 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I could tell it was not a joke and I was aware of the French article. However, different Wikipedias have different policies and an article on one does not guarantee an article on every other. The French one is quite well developed. However, the article here provided 2 sentences of content. One saying what AAAAA stood for and then "This is a society of lovers of authentic andouillettes, a sausage made from pig stomach or intestine.[8]" It then provided a link to a forum about tripe sausage. This is not enough for an article here. If you want to rewrite the article so it fits en.Wikipedia's notability guideline and has some reliable sources, feel free to do so. (but please give it a title of "Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique", not "AAAAA".) A translation of the French article may be adequate. Mr.Z-man 23:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I discovered the subtleties of "A7" speedy deletion rules... I don't intend to ask for a review of your wise conclusion (and not to write an article either, my English is not good enough and I am not especially interested in andouillettes - I had happened to discover this speedy deletion by a visit at RfD. Best regards. French Tourist 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sri Lankan Conflict

Hi Zman, You recently protected the above mentioned, template due to some edit war going on in the template, the conflict was based on the national flag of Sri Lanka that was on the template. The user who requested the protection, made the request after the template was altered to their desired look (which is without the flag). The national flag of Sri Lanka had been on the template since the day it was created, I can attest to this as the creator of the template. There was never consensus to remove the image and I don't see any effort put towards fair and meaningful consensus building, the participation was only by four users, two opposing the image and two endorsing it. The Sri Lankan conflict template is a very important template that covers many articles which are highly contentious. I kindly request you to reconsider the protection of the template or restore the image as it was until consensus is built. Thanks in advance NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing it now would be continuing the edit war as a proxy. Admins protect in whatever the current version is when they get there, which is always the Wrong version for someone. From what you say, there is no consensus to have no image, but it also sounds like there is no longer consensus to restore the image either. Mr.Z-man 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article Pingfu

If Pingfu can be deleted for blatant advertising, why isnt HTTP-Tunnel, the company deleted for the same reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not about the content, it is about the way it is written. HTTP tunnel (software) (which does need some work) is written neutrally and describes why they are used and how they work. PingFu on the other hand, while it did describe the software, described why the software should be used, which is not allowed. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That still doesnt answer the question. The article HTTP-Tunnel(company) is written with exactly the same problems that you are talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't and its not really possible for it to be. HTTP tunnel (software) is about a "technique by which communications performed using various network protocols are encapsulated using the HTTP protocol" -ie. something that can be done with software. PingFu is software. HTTP tunnel explains what an HTTP tunnel is. PingFu explained what PingFu does and why people should use it. Description=good, suggestion=bad. Feel free to rewrite it neutrally with facts from reliable sources other than the company website. Mr.Z-man 18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote - from HTTP Tunnel, a company page (Isnt this talking about why people should use it???? )

These are some common reasons for using HTTP-Tunnel: 

   * Need to bypass any firewall
   * Need secure internet browsing
   * Need to use favorite programs with out being monitored by work, school, ISP or government.
   * Extra security for online transactions
   * Encrypt Internet traffic.
   * Need to play online games
   * Visit sites that you were previously blocked from accessing
   * Prevent 3rd party monitoring or regulation of your Internet browsing and downloads
   * Use your favorite applications previously blocked
   * Hide your IP address

Unquote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby (talk • contribs) 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Lost your voice? Nickolas Nickleby 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Nickolas

Sorry, I just now realized you were not referring to HTTP tunnel (software) (which I've been referencing) but rather HTTP-Tunnel. Yes, there is a lot of promotional-looking material in it. I've tagged the page for deletion. If no one contests it, it will be deleted in 5 days. If someone does contest it without improving it, it will be nominated for WP:AFD. Mr.Z-man 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it - glad the confusion has been sorted out no thanks to me Nickolas Nickleby 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Nickolas

Question...

I saw that you removed the page "Avalia". Would there be a way for me to view the page before it was deleted? I know some people in the band, and I know who created the page, so I have in interest in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallaway6554 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you specify and authenticate an email address in your preferences, I can email you a copy of the text. Note that if you know people in the band, you may have a conflict of interest and the article needs to assert (and preferably prove) notability if it to be recreated. Mr.Z-man 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallaway6554 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

For taking care of that Seattle reign history move so quickly! I gave the editor a few days to post it, but I also didn't want to wait too long, so I hope I was not hasty in reporting it. I've spoken to the editor, who realizes the mistake and has promised he'll remember for the future. Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 13:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, easy ones like that are no problem, just report as you find them. Mr.Z-man 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Llama

Hello, thank you for placing the semi-protect tag on the Llama article. It is a favorite among anon-IPs and kids to vandalize. BTW - I tried to use your "leave a comment" button and I probably created a wierd looking comment or article within WP. This comment was made by editing this page. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

About User:86.31.144.104

I noticed you warned User:86.31.144.104 for vandalism for that supposed malicious undo that they did, however, I couldn't help but notice that they might have tried to redo to this edit, instead of having malicious desires to redo a vandalized version of the page. Please think about this, being a former anon myself, I hate to see an anon's good intentions (if they were good) go to waste. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Its possible, but as they already had one warning for vandalism on the same page, I assumed it was vandalism. Mr.Z-man 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bald Eagle

I did not vandalise Bald Eagle. My edit was perfectly in order. Please check before making accusations. Thanks. 86.31.144.104 19:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please check the page and the diff to make sure what you are reverting to is good. This is not good and is considered vandalism. If you were trying to be helpful, please be more careful in the future when reverting. Mr.Z-man 19:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Someone else had added the rubbish between my edits and reverts, so it got carried forward. Hopefully it's getting sorted out. The problem stems from another anon reverting my original, and perfectly valid, uncontentious edit. 86.31.144.104 19:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Again...

[9] - Non-article improvement related discussion from him again. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Sorry to disturb you. ScarianTalk 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Crosstown

I am creating a wikipage on the Oklahoma City Crosstown for a class project. I noticed that you have locked it for editing. If you have any comments or suggestions I would appreciate them.

Gouldie64 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Crosstown

I see LOTS of typos, grammatical errors, etc... I would appreciate the opportunity to correct these. I'll check back in the morning and see if you are still editing.

-Gouldie

68.227.103.67 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock?

You sure about the unblock of Shawnpoo (talk · contribs)? The rationale for unblocking was extremely weak, and from the username to contributions I fail to see what this editor adds to Wikipedia... Deiz talk 06:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that all of their contribs before Sept. 27 did not appear to be vandalism; it was not a vandalism only account and it fit with their reason for unblocking. If that really is the reason there was vandalism from that account, it would be impossible to give a better reason without lying. His talk page is on my watchlist and I will reblock if there is any more vandalism. Mr.Z-man 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My humps

I'm sorry sir, but the including of the My Farts parody from YouTube is not considered vandalism. Do not remove it from the article. If the Oops! I did it again article could have a similar parody, I don't see why this can't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The fifth burning bush (talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It can't be included because it is just a YouTube video. There are probably hundreds of similar videos. Its not vandalism, but it does not belong in the article. There's a huge difference between parodies on television or by real music artists and videos on the internet. Just because it is in one article does not mean it should be in another, it means it should be kept out of both. Mr.Z-man 14:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tales of Phantasia

On August 4th, you protected "Tales of Phantasia" due to one user's multiple vandalism of it over the course of the previous day. The user has since moved on, and the 'edit war' was simply other users reverting the page. I don't feel it needs to remain protected. --Unnatural20 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. But the edit war I was referring to was not the vandalism reversion, but rather edits like this. Mr.Z-man 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Shawnpoo

Hello!

I wouldn't be surprised that User:Lordofwar. It is okay to give Shawnpoo a chance, since Lordofwar is the main responsible of the problems. I've blocked Lordofwar indefinitely for his troubles since he may be the one who did this edit under the Shawnpoo account in the Hong Kong article (not to mention the creation of this now salted article and since he uploaded thisJForget 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that image (unfortunately) and deleted it. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Automatic

the free use image available is from 2005 and is far to dated, there is not real reason to keep removing these images, they have all been released for public use by the band, and there is no reason they should not be in the article. Why would there be an option on wikipedia to upload images if they didn't want people to, by being one of the many wikipedians that constantly go through articles removing images your ultimately just adding to how bad wikipedia is coming through over obsessed users, i am sorry that this isn't exactly a nice way to put it but i think it is stupid how the guidelines for images have always been the same but users keep changing there interpretation of it. I know ultimately i will loose this argument but still. (LemonLemonLemons 15:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Allright, sorry.

Okay. I will only use proper english from now on. But I am just a kid so I may not know how to spell some words. --Mr. Comedian 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandgrawper

Can I make a suggestion? Do you think move protecting the same pages that this editor is notorius for moving (i.e. World Wrestling Entertainment, World Wrestling Entertainment roster, Playstation 3, etc.) are worth it if it drives him away from page moving? I honestly don't think any conflicts can arise from doing so and most of the pages he is moving are long established under the name they are currently under. — Moe ε 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It could help. I'll put a few weeks of move protection on some. Hopefully it will be a deterrent and he won't just go to other articles. Since there is no conceivable reason why they should be moved, it won't hurt. Mr.Z-man 03:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Good deal. I'll let you know if there are some repeat targets if he starts moving again. — Moe ε 03:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done Rubeus Hagrid, PlayStation 2, World Wrestling Entertainment, and Hermione Granger. PlayStation 3 and World War II were move protected by other admins. Mr.Z-man 03:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've complied a list of page moves he performed at User:Moe Epsilon/Grawp. I believe protecting World Wrestling Entertainment roster‎ (moved 5 times), Anarchism (moved 5 times) and 2006 FIFA World Cup‎ (moved 4 times) would be beneficial as these are the most suspect targets for him. — Moe ε 04:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, didn't realize World Wrestling Entertainment roster‎ was already move protected as well. Thanks for all you're help. — Moe ε 04:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, those three are now move protected, I'll look over the rest of the list a little more later; my internet connection is acting up now. I know at least one admin is watching the move logs now after the last incident and it the page moves made an alert on the vandalism IRC channel as well. I also plan to look at the user creation logs; to move pages accounts have to be 4 days old. Mr.Z-man 04:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

I edited my user page, how do I add contents to it? Agtaz 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean a table of contents, either create a few more section headers or add __FORCETOC__ to the top of the page. Mr.Z-man 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Agtax *Callin' pin* | *Contributions* 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

128.112.139.195

Hi. Could you take a look at User talk:128.112.139.195? looks like a range block with some collateral damage. Sandstein 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked the range. Mr.Z-man 22:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ney article

I don't really have an interest in the Ney article, I found it while on anti-vandal patrol and noticed quite a few violations of WP:BLP which needed to be removed immediately. And wow, I didn't realize we could override WP:3RR and institute a 1RR rule for an entire article. That's pretty cool! As you pointed out, I didn't think the limited edit warring warranted either protection or a block - but your solution to limit the article to 1RR sounds good to me. I attempted to locate an editor who spoke French to take a look at the article because all the references were in that language. In any case, I'll leave the article in your capable hands, but let me know if I can be of any assistance! Dreadstar † 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jean-Paul Ney

Thanks for your message. I have no personal stake in the article, and have no opinion one way or the other on this individual. I only happened to notice the changes when I was looking at the Recent changes page, and decided to take a look. All I am saying is that I have no personal or ideological axe to grind. I just want to see the article improved---which is to say, I want to see it turned into a real article with properly-cited information. Thanks for taking on the issue. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable working on this article . Additions are still being made that reference personal websites/blogs, and actually unless some of this material is translated by a good translator, and or if the books have not been read and referenced somewhere there is no way of telling if allegations are true. Is there a troll at work here? I do not consider myself to be a particularly experienced editor in terms of this kind of thing, so I am not really going to be able to much with this article. Just thought I'd mention concerns.(olive 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
The best solution would be to bring it up on the talk page for discussion. Mr.Z-man 23:54, 1 October 2007(UTC)
Thanks very much for reply - A good and obvious solution somewhat complicated by editors who don't sign, whose English is probably a second language, and so difficult to know who they are addressing. At any rate have to move on .... just got involved to edit syntax but very busy.Best wishes.(olive 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Grawp moving

The following articles probably need to be protected from Grawp moves: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (3), United Kingdom‎ (2) and Lord Voldemort‎ (2). Most of the articles he's ever moved so far are now protected from moving except ones he hit sporadically. — Moe ε 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Crapware.jpg

How is this image not fair use? It is low-res, it illustrates the subject in question (Crapware), and no free alternatives exist.SteveSims 01:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DollyD 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My Block Log

Hi Z-man, Could you kindly leave a comment on my block log saying it was a mistake as per WP:BP#Recording_in_the_block_log, I know you have apologized in my talk page and it is recorded in the ANI discussion as well, but just in case, could you also leave a comment. Thanks NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to trouble you with this, what are the implications of a dummy block? if thats normally done I don't mind as long as it records the event. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 13:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate, please go ahead and do it. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing backlinks

Please do not make edits like [10]. The article was deleted because it consisted of nothing but an infobox, not because it's not a worthy subject. --NE2 06:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The page I deleted was a redirect to a page that did not exist. If people checked why the target to every broken redirect was deleted and then checked every backlink to make sure it was not appropriate, it would take days to delete all the hundreds of broken redirects. If an article can be written on the subject, feel free to re add the link. Mr.Z-man 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldn't remove backlinks if you're not sure if they should exist. --NE2 00:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I adjusted my settings for Twinkle not to remove links for R1. Mr.Z-man 01:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --NE2 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for catching the image vandalism on my talk page, I was busy reverting all the other instances, lol. I appreciate your quick response! Ariel♥Gold 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

adopt me

can you adopt me

Dillio411 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki interface

Z-man, sorry to bother you, but you seem smart on the MediaWiki interface...where would I go to suggest that the Wikipedia upload wizard automatically include a blank {{Information}} template in the upload wizard, the way that the Commons upload wizard does? I think this will cut down on some of our image copyright problems. Thanks for any guidance you can point to! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That is accomplished using commons:MediaWiki:Upload.js. I'm told (and found through testing) that one would need to do more than just copy it to a MediaWiki page of the same name here. You'd need someone more familiar with JavaScript and our upload system (preferably the commons upload system too). You might want to ask on WP:VPT and perhaps somewhere on commons too. Mr.Z-man 20:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Lowering standards

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, you hit the nail right on the head. I had just finished posting a smiliar comment when yours came across. Glad to know I'm not off in left field here. Thanks. /Blaxthos 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Barnstar Page to hard or to easy

Can you find my Hidden Barnstar Page??--Dillio411 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Echo 429 Productions

Mr.Z-man i would like you to un-delet this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_429_productions because it is a wiki for a productions company. if you decide to keep it deleted you would have to delet every productions companys wiki to be fair. thank you and good day sir. Superfryman 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be fair. Companies such as Paramount Pictures are a lot more notable. Please see WP:CSD#A7, the article you wrote did not assert why it was notable. See also WP:NOT, WP:NFT, WP:CORP, and WP:NFT, which all seem to apply in this case. Persistently recreating it won't help either. Mr.Z-man 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I see were you are coming from but please keep it's wiki up. I am asking you in the kindest way to let it stay up. it is currently in the process of being a offical USA company and then calling it a group would be defunct. also paramont is a studio not a production company (at least i think so) Superfryman 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it fails too many policies for me to undelete it. If you want to continue to try to undelete it, you will have to state your case at deletion review. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

what policies is it failing? also can I just remake the page? Superfryman 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion A7 and most likely What Wikipedia is not. It also fails the notability guideline for companies. If you can be sure it is inline with policies (also including Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and Reliable sources) you can recreate it. Also, if you worked for the company, you may want to review the conflict of interest guideline as well. Mr.Z-man 23:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

mr.ziman what you said on my talk page sounded like a threat. i am not so shore if you care on whom i am. i can be a good allie and a powerful enemy. i will go through the deletion prosses thingy but be wared if you ever theraten me again you will be very sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfryman (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care who you are. If you continue to blatantly violate policy after being warned to stop, I or any other admin would be well within our rights to block you. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ok, i feel as though it was not given a fair chance though just because you do not know about us does not mean we are not important Superfryman 02:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Echo 429 productions. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Superfryman 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC) here is a list of 63 people who say Echo 429 productions does in fact exist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig1.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig2.jpg Superfryman 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I too would also like to know for what specific reasons did our page not meet the guidelines. I'm part of echo429 and was there when we managed to get those 60 signatures in one lunch period, that's not small accomplishment at our school. I agree with staerblader that if you are to delete our production's wiki, you might as well be fair to delete all the others. does that seem like a good idea? sincerely viper1213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper1213 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It failed multiple guidelines and policies. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. A company made up by a few school friends, especially one that was created this year and has yet to produce anything, is not notable and can in no way be compared to major Hollywood production companies. Signatures of 60 people from 1 school is not even close to an assertion of notability, let alone proof of notability. For a company to have an article here, there must be reliable secondary sources to prove notability. From looking on Google, I can't even find proof that it exists. The only Google results are mentions here and on sites that mirror Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Raja

Please take a look at the comments by this user regarding my block at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Netmonger/UserBoxes/Terrorism, your comments there is much appreciated. NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Z-man, I was asked to intervene and noticed your previous involvement in the matter and thought you might be best to know what's going on and how to handle it. Let me know if you need my assistance, though...I'm always happy to give a shot at mediation.... Dreadstar † 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not stay involved in this. Mr.Z-man 14:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I totally and completely understand.... Dreadstar † 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested, [11]. Dreadstar † 19:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ack! Never mind!. Nice rant..one I can agree with..;) Dreadstar † 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

About the sexual harassment incident

Mr. Z-man, thanks for setting me straight. Bwjs 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the speedy handling of my un-autoblock request. Mael-Num 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Vandal

So your message you posted me there might be one problem . My ISP changes my ip address on a regular basis which i think i would be a problem . Richardson j 22:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Feast of Fools (podcast)

Hi Mr.Z-man. You deleted Feast of Fools (podcast) September 30, 2007 per AfD. I worked with another editor to reference the article in his user space. With substantial new information added to the article, I restored it to Feast of Fools (podcast). If you have any objections, please let me know. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Far better now! Mr.Z-man 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

Regarding your recent edits to the article on Edgar Allan Poe... you're my hero! Thanks for putting in all those citations, fixing up language, etc. It was a daunting task I had been (admittedly) avoiding for quite some time now! --Midnightdreary 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007 newsletter for WikiProject Abandoned Articles

Welcome

The WikiProject welcomes two new members in the past three months:

Progress

The WikiProject is now halfway done, numerically, with the 1000 articles identified in December 2006. The first (oldest) 500 articles have been claimed, reviewed, and (when needed, which was almost all cases) improved. Moreover, given the passage of time, many of articles 501 through 1000 have been worked on by other editors (it's ten months since that list was generated). So reviewing the second half of the 1000 articles should be easier.

A slightly different approach

Section 6 (articles 501 through 600 on the list) has been organized differently than the previous five sections. First, blocks are (roughly) five articles each, rather than 10, making it easier for you to claim and finish a block. Second, perhaps more importantly, each block consists of similar pages; if you're interested in fixing disambiguation pages, there are blocks of those; if you're interested in articles (which is what the project originally started out being), there are blocks of those; and there is one block of lists and one of redirects (mostly redirects to articles). So, fewer surprises this time when you claim a block.

In addition, since the project now has 25 active members (though some are likely inactive), having more blocks will make it easier to spread the editing around.

Inactivating your membership

If you received this newsletter on your user talk page and don't want to receive such postings in the future, please move your name, in the participants section of the WikiProject, to the "Inactive" subsection.

About this newsletter

This newsletter is being delivered by Anibot; it was written by John Broughton. Please post any comments about it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles, in a section separate from the newsletter itself.
Delivered by Anibot 00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr.Z-man/Archive_3&oldid=1147975468"