User talk:Andrew c/archive11

Duplicates
Hi Andrew c. FYI, the following three images are duplicates now, so I plan to delete them, unless you have any objection:Ferrylodge (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Andrew c, thanks for your message. If you go here, you'll see that two of the files you created have already been deleted (i.e. they're now redlinked), and I am simply requesting deletion of the other two as well (plus one other stray file).  The three files that I would like to delete are not linked by any Wikipedia articles, so what's the harm in deleting them?  Otherwise, articles will have to be edited, additional images would have to be uploaded, and other images will have to be deleted.  I really think the simplest thing here would be to just delete these three images.  May I please?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've posted a message for you at your Wikimedia talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for accidental deletions
Andrew, thanks for your diligence on maintaining some of the references that I accidentally deleted. I apologize for my carelessness.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

About "fake move attack"
So I hope you see archive118 again, I reported this attack at WP:AIV 8 times (from 2 December 2007 to 21 December 2007), At the 8th time , some administrator told me to report here.

This guy comes back again today, he uses ip 64.24.84.3 to add information of a fake movie Tom & Jerry: The Great Beginning into Barney Bear, thanks for giving a hand for this.123.193.12.44 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
I responded to you on Quadell's page Thanks, NancyHeise (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Roman Catholic sex abuse cases as a name for a wikipedia article is DISGUSTING discrimination of one group. Would you approve of Jewish sex abuse cases as the name of an article or Moslem sex abuse cases as the name of an article? Or maybe you think that the Catholics are fair game and no other group is? And what if the Catholic abuser converted to another religion? Would he still be listed on the wikipedia or go off the radar because he is not a Catholic? Do Catholic's abuse more than any other group? Why target them unless you have some anti-Catholic agenda?  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for discriminatory hate speech. 10:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin4C (talk • contribs)

Follow up on your suggestion
I have followed up here on your suggestion. Flibirigit (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Andrew c, I like your userpage and we seem to have several interests in common. I hope to see more of your edits in the near future. --Grrrlriot (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of pro-choice for men content
The information that was provided did not present a female vs male position. I take it that you are not familiar with cases from canada, The UK and USA dealing with pro-choice for men. Generally these cases are not at conflict with pro-choice for women.

Even American TV host Dr. Phil on his TV show which aired April 26, 2006, agreed with pro-choice for men and the USA case of Matt Dubay which has been named "Roe v. Wade - for Men"

In Canada, we have a few cases now which are pro-choice for men legal cases. There is one case in Australia heading for the Australian High Court ( Australia's highest court )

Since you apparently don't understand the concepts perhaps you could undo your deletion of the changes I made to make the pro-choice web page less sexist and address both pro-choice for men and pro-choice for women.

Your view seems to be influenced by your lack of knowledge on the subject. I have been quoted by the international press on these matters and have a degree in "women's studies" from the early 70's. Perhaps you should learn more about masculist issues and gender equality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.7.68 (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Since you apparently don't understand the concepts" behind wikipedia, perhaps you would care to read up on policy and guidelines. Try starting at WP:V and WP:CS. You simply can't add large chunks of unsourced claims to articles. The phrase "pro-choice for men" only gets 1,510 google hits. Many of those hits are blogs or internet forums and therefore cannot be used as WP:RS. Because of the this, we need to be extra cautious of WP:WEIGHT issues. I'm not convinced that the term "pro-choice for men" is the actual most common phrase used to describe this movement (or if it is, I'm not convinced it's notable enough). I believe this content may be better suited for the Fathers' rights movement. So please consider all of this, and once you've done that, please find some sources and perhaps make a proposal at Talk:Pro-choice. I'd be glad to help you in any way, and I don't mean any personal offense by the revert. My goal is to make sure that new contributions are up to wikipedia standards. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 14:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know
I've cleaned up most of the stuff regarding those fetal images, but I'd appreciate your input over on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

First Epistle to Timothy article - help
Hi Andrew, would appreciate some help on First Epistle to Timothy. Two problems appear to stand out: TIA, Mercury543210 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) talk page was deleted by User:Misza13, would appreciate some help on restoring this; and
 * 2) there seems to have been a lot of anonymous 'editing'. I've tried to restore but wonder if this article should be given 'Semi-protection' status.


 * Andrew, many thanks for restoring the talk page. I notice that an (the same?) anonymous editor has struck again, giving a very definite spin on the whole article. I would appreciate your review and views on what has been done. I am tempted to revert the edits as trying to unpick them would prove more difficult than rewriting from scratch but I'd value your opinion first. Mercury543210 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also done some work on Titus. I've also edited some bit's you've done so you might want a quick look. Especially appreciate your thoughts on new section headings - seem more balanced to me. I expect Johnson, Witherington et al think of themselves as 'critical scholars'. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have now restored some 'balance' to the page. Hope you agree. I would also ask for 'Semi-protection' status as it does seem to be subject to anonymous 'editing' with deletion of referenced material etc. Mercury543210 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!


FLc is wishing you a Happy Valentine's Day! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the love by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

about the deletion
Hello. Ok the deletion in Mar article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey why the deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASEOR2 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you picking on me4?
That comment on my Discussion page is extremely rude. If that is how you talk to people because "its not what you believe in" is wrong and I am quite upset now. If this is how you treat fellow wikipedian's who try and make a difference then your attitude is wrong.--PoliceCameraActionFan (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lock graphic
Again, I want to say thanks for making the lock graphic. Cheers.  m ir a nd a   17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

race for life
Thanks for picking up and remedying my accidental chaos - trying to do things too quickly and not checking the results! Must have left my finger on the mouse a fraction too long! Thanks. PamD (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Article about The Foreshadowing
Hi Andrew c

I just wanted to ask you if there could be a possibility to have my article about The Foreshadowing undeleted. The reason why I ask it come from the fact I'm not an expert and it was the first time i wrote an article on wikipedia, so I surely made some mistakes. There are two things I still haven't understood about wikipedia: 1)my article is based on several interviews and reviews about the band I read from several webzine or myspace. I read somewhere that before creating an article I should provide references to reliable sources, but I don't know how the proceed works. Can you eplain it to me please? 2) same goes by the picture. I mean, I don't know the proceed to license an image under the GFDL, i read it but I don't find it clear. Naturally I have no problems in inserting the image because I was given the permission by Alessandro, who's The Foreshadowing guitar player and close friend of mine. Thanks a lot Howitzer666Howitzer666 (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Weird edit
Ooops, thanks for catching that. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Pleasure seeing you again, take care :)  delldot   talk  00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cemal Gursel
The administrator who placed the tags is active and on-board today. And yet, I see no work coming from him other than the passive aggressive delay with your collaboration. Please see the following as well and some other images that administrator has removed such tags himself without legitimate basis contrary to what you defend. Can you clarify specific issues with these image tags today before any damaga is done to the photos and the article which will not be well tolerated. Thanks. Leblebi (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Should not there be an explanation as to what the concern was in a valid way before putting a PUI (whatever that stands for)and reassuring that this was not used as an excuse to abuse the article and its contributors by misusing administrator privileges? I much appreciate your statement "I'll investigate further into this matter to see if and how these images may be problematic. " and will look forward to your further guidance but I am sure you have noticed that not only the discussion tag but whole discussion board with legitimate concerns expressed therein was erased by that administrator before. As far as I see it is immediately obvious that there has never been any problem with these images and copyright clarifications until deliberate oppositional defiant targeting by certain parties who even erased a legitimate sound file from this article. Where would be an appropirate forum to notify and complain about administrator abuse in Wiki?"

It appears that no one other than Ricky81682 is interested in that ‘discussion’ initiated by him at that page you are referring to (/* WP:PUI */ ). In terms of specific questions you ask:

Image:ArmyGames.jpg clearly indicated “From his family album and personal collection” and it is also a government photo declared heritage. There should be no problem there. Making fair use claims does not negate against public domain. It seems extra but does not make abuse by an administrator OK.

Image:WithACadet.jpg indicates the same “From his family album and personal collection” as to the ownership of the copyright and further fair use statements are provided, which do not again negate against the image legitimacy.

Perhaps the absurdity of the abusive admin interaction becomes most obvious at the Image:Harb&istiklalmedal.JPG and all of its history with appropriate tags.

Please remove the tags that you protect or have an administrator remove it as Ricky81682 appears to be hiding in silence.

The following two images were processed by that administrator Ricky81682 with no appropriate license assurances and the questioning tags were vandalized by him while he abuses other article images with fictitious concerns and failing to rectify his mistakes despite good faith discussion attempts. More interestingly, he adds fictitous licenses at images put in wiki by other users in those specific images. Than he goes and removes PUI tags while he puts same tags in other’s work to damage. See below:

Image:Image-TJC Logo.jpg • (cur) (last)   01:43, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) m (757 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.184.9.231 (talk) to last version by Ricky81682) (undo) • (cur) (last)   01:32, 19 February 2008 71.184.9.231 (Talk) (1,134 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (last)   01:31, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (757 bytes) (license) (undo)

India Sex.jpg 01:30, 19 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:India Sex.jpg • (cur) (last)   01:40, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) m (390 bytes) (Reverted edits by 71.184.9.231 (talk) to last version by Ricky81682) (undo) • (cur) (last)   01:30, 19 February 2008 71.184.9.231 (Talk) (768 bytes) (undo) • (cur) (last)   01:22, 19 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (390 bytes) (added license) (undo)

The same administrator Ricky81682 covered up the following vandalized sound file despite appropriate copyright tags at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg. 14:15, 16 February 2008 Rettetast (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:CemalGursel1963.ogg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G12), was a blatant copyright infringement. using TW) 14:15, 16 February 2008 (hist) (diff) Cemal Gürsel‎ (Removing instance of image CemalGursel1963.ogg that has been speedily deleted per (CSD G12); using TW) He erased all goodfaith discussion attempts at the above sound page including all of its log files to prevent traceability and responsibility. Leblebi (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Colleenthegreat
FYI Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New User
I'm new to wikipedia, and very interested in adding to the Jesus article, which is semi-protected. Could someone get back to me with some basic advice? I have some fascinating material. Sahansdal (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the amendment!
Thanks Andrew c for that comment.

It seems that I'm not really clear of the image tag policy and such. So far, images I download always listed for deletion. If it's possible, could you give me some ways and tips to upload image and give it's license.

Once again, Thank you for the amendment.

Muhammad Hanif (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply
Just wanted to thank you for your reply at my talk page. It's good stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a particular issue that I'd like you to comment on, here, and another immediately after it, here, and then the next one here. I hope this won't be considered canvassing, but your reply at my talk page said "If you have a specific situation you'd like me to consider or comment on, I'd be glad to look into that."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DoD photo cleanup
Hi, please overwrite this over the original so we can close this, thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kintetsubuffalo
Hi Andrew, long time no see! Is it worth asking this guy not to use rollback to remove perfectly sensible posts like yours & mine (& others) from his talk page? Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I got it, I don't need anyone's whining on my talk page for just asking a simple favor. It's my talkpage, not an article or a public forum. You both need to learn what is your business and what is not. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, going to live in Japan (my talk). Well no need of good manners there ..... Thanks anyway, how are you keeping?  Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't bothered by St Joseph at all, really. I've been rather alarmed to find recently that I may have to return there at some point, as there seems to be a Western/Orthodox difference over the Marriage of the Virgin - to the Orthodox apparently the "entrusting" of Mary to Joseph as guardian. i haven't got to the bottom of this yet.  Keep up the good work (without adding extra stress)! Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DC Meetup on May 17th
Your help is needed in planning Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fetus page
Andrew, I liked your edit regarding the 8 week vs. 9 week situation.

I also want to respond to your question regarding this subject: Condition at the beginning of fetal stage - the diff under argument is here:

I want to respond to this on your talk page first because I don't want to get into yet another endless argument. But, I do want to give you some background as to what happened from my point of view, and get your thoughts.

My edits were done because two paragraphs next to each other conflicted. It isn't entirely apparent at first in the diffs, but one paragraph titled "8 weeks (condition at start of fetal stage)," and a second paragraph right below it titled "8 to 15 weeks" had basically the same information - only the information in the first paragraph was taken out of context, while the information in the second paragraph was into context. In essence, the first paragraph (under the title "8 weeks (condition at start of fetal stage)") became a place for Ferrylodge to highlight information he felt was important - especially medical studies taken out of context. For example, one of the sentences said "In addition to sideward bendings of the head, complex and generalized movements occur, with movements and startles that involve the whole body." Out of context, this sentence makes it seem as though an 8-week-old zygote has control over motor function. This couldn't be further from the truth as noted in sources in the second paragraph (under the title "8 to 15 weeks"). So, essentially, I combined the information in both paragraphs, putting like information together.

I would be happy to post the above paragraph to the article's discussion page. I just thought I'd post it here first because it is obviously polemic by making a statement about the bad-faith edits of Ferrylodge - which may or may not be fair. Any feedback would be welcomed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK update
Is overdue, been 8 hrs since last one. Mjroots (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish
I did not add category without source, I categorize Jessalyn Gilsig, Alain Chabat and Cedric Klapisch, when a cedric klapisch see on the french wikipedia, it is said that he's born in a Jewish family, why threaten blockage while I was no vandalism.--SamuelM555 (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree that, but he said openly on a French television channel that he was a Jew, now if there must be a written source, I wil find it. In any case, I would certainly not trying to do vandalism at the site. Greetings --SamuelM555 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lise Simms and the others
I just protected Lise Simms, A. J. Langer, Devon Odessa, Jordana Spiro, Abigail Spencer and Sandy Robson. I really don't feel like another round of the overlinking vandal. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * and Chiara Zanni. All for a month. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Crucifixion eclipse
Thank you for correcting the recent adjustments to this article. Tcisco (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Christadelphians
I discovered this group put the oddest references back to their main page in several other wikipedia articles, which I'd fixed previously. When I googled them, I found a lot of references to them being a cult. I do have a personal pet-peeve about various groups I've seen exploiting Wikipedia for reasons of religion, politics, fanboyism, and even the odd porn site ad. So I decided to do a thorough search for the keyword, and found them linking back to their main page in quite a few pages that didn't seem to add anything. I probably should have posted a question in the talk section asking if anyone else has heard of them. I just didn't think they were relevant, or that anyone would care (and religious articles are already so terrible long as everyone tries to get their say.) I'll review and see if we can keep things concise without minimizing their content too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjh3000 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources at STI
Hi. This is only to advise you that i have just sourced this Cibao International Airport, with all the refferences and sources that it was needed. I remove the tag of ``unreffered`` that somebody adds to the article, because it is not nessesary any more. have a nice night. Lacreta (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thérèse de Lisieux
I question whether the link you deleted fits more in the "spam" category than it does in the "legitimate" category. The website certainly appears to be a link to a real parish. Granted there are a couple of small ad links at the top, but lots of external links in Wikipedia have those. But you may have reasons for deleting it that I am not aware of. I'm interest in you opinion. Note that I had nothing to do with adding the link. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the most part I agree with you, and I would not revert your edit. I am concerned, however, that all of the links in the article to parishes are "about a church, while the wikipedia article is about a person". Should all of them be deleted? If there was an article or list called "Parishes named for St. Thérèse de Lisieux", the links could be moved there. I personally think the other links are OK, and I agree with your other criteria for removing the link we are discussing. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

STI
Hey, i toke your example and i tried to do the best sourcing an cleaning up the article. I have not finish to sourced at all yet, i'll finish by today adding refferences to sentences that i know there is a source or other citation in other website. Thanks for your help. Have a nice day!! Lacreta (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jesus H. Christ
An editor has nominated Jesus H. Christ, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC
Would you please take a look at WP:Requests for comment/89.242.164.114 and sign it if you agree? thanks. Tb (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

reorg of AMH
You rightly said that Abortion and mental health is a mess. Do you have any thoughts about the structure a reorg should take? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

History of County Wexford
Am sorting this out. Have removed many links. Now working on dates. Thanks for your help and suggestions Can you please have a look at the "References & Footnotes" section to see if the format is ok. Thanks. Dneale52 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi i posted a reply to your concerns on the relevant talk page. Realist2 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made a lot of changes, especially rearranging References and Footnotes, and adding references to some sections. Can you have a look when you get a chance, please, and tell me what more needs doing (to History of County Wexford page).

Dneale52 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

History of County Wexford - Page Vandalized
The page appears to have been Vandalized since my last note. One version of the page appears when I am logged in and another when I am not. Have a look anyhow and see if the tag can be removed. Thanks.

I had removed all, or nearly all, of the unnecesary links. All Sources had been arranged in alphabetical order, and ISBN no.s provided where available. Many additional Sources were listed. Many additional references had been provided. Some changes had been made to wording of certain sections. I also added an image of 'Vinegar Hill' (this is a way to recognize the correct version of the page if you are checking it). I am leaving the page for now, as I had put a lot of work into it, but now am unsure if my edits are being saved. Dneale52 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For your eyes only (well not quite)
See here. It shows
 * The advise of the other reviewer
 * Lyrl on my talk page
 * Me on lyrl's talk page

I have also added a further message on the relevant talk page. Realist2 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus.jpg
I've run into a similar problem before and I know how to work around it - what is the timestamp of the version that needs to be deleted? —Random832 (contribs) 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind it's apparently already been dealt with by User:Voice of All. —Random832 (contribs) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposal
Hi Andrew,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here.

I think this is important given the current waves of secular attacks on all religions. Thanks in advance.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Chicago street gangs
Another editor has added the  template to the article List of Chicago street gangs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

/
Haga lo que a usted le de su santa gana con esa imagen, para que usted me pregunta de eso si ya borro el articulo??? borrela o haga lo que usted quiera con ella, ya no me importa!! La verdad es que yo pense que usted era una muy buena persona a la cual dirigirse para algun consejo, pero parece que usted nada mas esta para quitar y deshacer el esfuerzo que ha empeñado otro en algun articulo. Se le agradece su colaboracion, que para nada me sirvio. ChezSant (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

i know that wikipedia is in spanish too! and, sorry if you want to know what do i wrote abobe, go to a freeonline translator and translate it as i do. ChezSant (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Revelation dismissal
Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  06:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

a new article for DYK
Hello, Andrew, there is a new article on a Chinese athlete Jin Jing. We want to push this article onto the "Did you know" on the main page. Could you give us some comments on the talk page of that article? How should we improve that article? If it's a good one, could you please help us put this article onto the "Did you know"? The question could be '[Jin Jing|Who] is called the "Smiling Angel in Wheelchair" by Chinese people?' Thanks!--Supportjinjing (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus on the Family cv
Hi, I see you recently found and removed a Copy vio from this article. FWIW, I went back and took a look at the article history and found that the material in question was added by IP72.16.221.126 on November 72007. Although it doesn't appear that he's made any contribs since, I dropped him a cv warning at User talk:72.16.221.126 anyway. Cheers,  JGHowes talk  -  21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Isaiah 53
Thanks for the information. When do the reverts expire?

Danny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyza1981 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that... The last comment in the talk dialog, aside from mine is dated: 207.239.111.117 12:51, 21 August 2007 It wasn't clear to me that the page was under discussion, and that people were changing it, and fixing it.

Anyway, I have posted my proposal on the talk page....

I'm learning all the time here. It takes some getting used to. This page is one of the few I've been involved in a major edit.

Thanks for the help though. Dannyza1981 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi, I need help from an admin.

The 30 March 2008 I've tagged this image as NowCommons, after moved it on commons. The image, but yesterday it has been deleted on commons too. I suppose that it must be recovered, but I don't know where to ask for this. Could you do it? Bye  J  alo   11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a misunderstanding, sorry. I agree with commons deletion. I've tagged en.wiki image as nowcommons, and so it was deleted and you lost it (it's not present on en.wiki neither on commons).
 * I was meaning that you can recover it on en.wiki, if it is acceptable for you (I don't know american copyright laws). Bye and thanks.  J  alo   15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)