User talk:Heimstern/archive 7

List of most expensive comics
You listed this at AfD, because of verifiability issues among other things. I was wondering what your thoughts were about List of most expensive films. To me, the entire list is unverifiable (minus 2 films), because it uses Box Office Mojo who does not cite sources for their budget information. Unlike box office information, production budgets are not always released, and not always accurate. I know they list Superman Returns as $270 million, but I have a source that contains an interview with Bryan Singer citing the budget as $204 million. I've brought it to BOM.com, but they just ignore my emails. Until recently, they had the wrong Spider-Man 3 budget. I've brought the issue up on the talk page before, but other editors believe that we shouldn't use individual sources for the budgets, just BOM.com. What are your thoughts?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian days
Thanks! appreciate it. I think it's a nice gesture, those dedicated days, and helps make this a happier place to work. Enjoy your travels if you're not in town! Antandrus (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I guess this is as good a time as any for me to mention that I have actually left Santa Barbara County indefinitely. Done with studies for now (essentially, I've left academia for reasons with which I will not bore you, sound familiar?), and can't exactly afford to live up there, anyway. Plan to live down south near my relatives in San Bernardino County after travels are over, which won't be for a couple of months. So, I won't be quite as neighborly as before, I guess. But anyway, still have a good Antandrus Day! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment from
Sir: please forgive me if this is not the way to add a comment as I am new to this process. You have protected "Protected United States presidential election, 2008:" today, and I believe that I may be the cause of it. My name is David and I am a registered candidate with the Federal Elections Committee for President in 2008 under the Republican Party. I have added a question to that talk page that I believe needs addressing. Since I have filed with the FEC and have the paperwork and Identification Number to prove it, should I not be included in the Republican Party candidates listing? Thanks for your response which you may post here. David32347
 * Hi there. The reason I protected this article is that there was constant edit warring here, with IPs used by one person adding the name of the candidate and other users removing this name. The three-revert rule prohibits editors from reverting an article more than three times in twenty-four hours, so I protected to stop the IPs from doing so. I do not know if this candidate belongs on the list or not, but I do know edit warring is not acceptable at Wikipedia, so I protected for that reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am learning. The question I ask (since the rules were/are not stated) is What makes a Candidate? I now understand the WP:3RR rule, and I agree with your posts about it. As to the multiple IP addresses, blame that on WildBlue and Microsoft IE-7. Everytime you open a new tab you get a new IP address. David32347
 * I don't know. I don't get involved in articles about politics, so I don't know what counts as notable for Wikipedia in this respect. You can discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
I'm looking for a discussion about the exception of Classical Composers regarding infoboxes but haven't been able to find anything. The closest I've gotten is that the Composer Infobox was deleted and it's use replaced with Template:Infobox musical artist.

I'm a fan of infoboxes and just figured it could be a useful display of information. Hewinsj 15:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I took a look at the Classical music project and noticed that there is some disagreement about their use in the talk page. I also noticed the proposal here and thought it has possibilities, but whether or not to implement it will probably be up to your group. Hewinsj 15:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally against infoboxes in classical music articles, mind you, it's just that most existing infoboxes contain information that is ill-suited to classical music. Most classical music editors seem to agree they aren't appropriate (but that doesn't mean there's been no controversy on the matter!) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR backlog
Thank you for dealing with the 3RR backlog. Perspicacite 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sometimes that happens (the 3RR board is not the most pleasant part of the Pedia, so it's not necessarily where people want to spend their time). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block of User:Stubacca
While I agree that this breach of 3RR merits a block, I have some sympathy as the user was right (as far as I can see) on the categories issue. I think on these kind of disputes there are almost always two sides. I have therefore warned User:Brixton Busters, who, while technically not in breach of 3RR, also edit-warred on the category. Would you consider shortening the block if Stubacca was to promise not to do it again? This is his first ever block and I feel sure he has learned his lesson. I intend to decline his unblock request meantime (unless someone has beaten me to it!) Best wishes, --John 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm always willing to undo a first-time 3RR block if the user says he/she won't do it again. I'm going to AFK very soon, so if Stubacca agrees not to continue, you may need to unblock yourself; that's totally fine. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your block of Vitalmove
I've undone it. The article where the 3RR occurred had already been protected for about 12 hours when you blocked this user, and the user had been engaging in discussion. The block, therefore, would be purely punitive, and would actually hamper discussion. Mango juice talk 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't notice it was protected; if I had I wouldn't have blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for unblocking me. I think also know that I posted my version of the situation at WP:ANI under the same thread (though I am tempted to start a separate one regarding the actions of OWB and SS)  New England  13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks x 2
Thanks for pointing out the WP:BLP vs WP:POV policy difference in the block summary. I never would have violated 3RR if someone had taken the time to do this instead of name calling and making accusations about my edits. Anyway, live and learn, thanks. --Theblog 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, as long as you learn from it, you should do OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahaha Danone joint venture
I just created this article on this very topical subject. The subject matter would make for a good featured article, so I am hoping to enlist your help to get it there qualitatively. Ohconfucius 02:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New England
You recently unblocked New England. I think you should consider re-blocking for the comments he left here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_live-action_TV_series&diff=prev&oldid=145166872 Kelpin 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * New England says it was a mistake with using popups that caused him to revert to a vandalized version of the page. I see no reason not to believe him, since he has no history of vandalism. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry my mistake. Kelpin 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears New England is having more problems using pop ups http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FTomStar81&diff=145391362&oldid=145390914- I've never used them perhaps you could give him some advice? Kelpin 07:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tennis problems
We have a bit of a problem here with your 3rr in 24 hours. I want to make sure you looked completely over the article because if you check the last 3-4 days I have not violated the 3RR. I was careful not to do it. Edit war yes, guilty, because the consensus seems not to care one way or the other and I don't know why. I was about to call in a mediator and I may do so anyways. But if calling someone a nutball is a personal attack that's pretty thin considering what I see in many article problems. I can certainly keep the reverts down until a mediator fixes this thing but you know as well as I that around the time of a major event like Wimbledon that the the tennis pages take a big hit. I wish there was some auto lock on these wikis for several weeks after a big event to keep this to a minumum. Fyunck(click) 08:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you violated 3RR; however, I saw you were close to it. That's why I gave you that note. Also don't forget it's a bad idea to edit war at all, even if you don't violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Checking my record you'll find I've made numerous contributions in many Wiki fields (see my 'contributions' page...literally thousands), not just tennis. This person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fyunck%28click%29, insists on discounting French tennis championships before 1925, despite the fact they are counted by sources such as the World Almanac, the Encyclopedia Britannica, ESPN, and even the official Roland Garros site:

http://2007.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/pastwinners.html

Mr. Fyunck(click) basically has self-defined himself as a tennis-page 'squatter,' to enforce his will upon the pages (as he himself notes, few if anyone else seems to care). I have pointed out numerous flaws in his argument: that he is ignoring the facts that pre-1968 teournaments were limited to 'amateurs' only; that all the tournaments pre-1922 used the 'challenge-round' system; that others besides the French were also 'exclusive' (i.e. only allowing persons of that nation to participate; this is stated in the U.S. Open history page, for example). Yet, for reasons not entirely clear, this person has decided to 'grey out' and undo the numerous edit-work necessary for making the 1891-1924 French title holders concurrent and consistent with the other three. Trying to move forward is like trying to build in a war zone: what's the point of construction when others are demolishing your work? I was doing something as simple as numbering the un-numbered championships to make them comply with the others. We already have a notation there in 1925 to make this man happy, yet nothing seems to get him from dictating, rather than negotiating. A true newspaper tells both sides of the story and lets the reader decide. Wikipedia, as well, should do the same. Telling only one side of the story in order to satisfy one person...one, mind you...is simply unacceptable.

Sincerely, Robert Young

P.S.

Please note that I do gerontology consulting work for many esteemed organizations, such as Guinness World Records, the Social Security Administration, the Max Planck Institute (Rostock, Germany), etc. For Mr. Fyunck(click) to suggest that I am a 'nutball' or, worse, simply a fly-by-night tennis waif that knows nothing of the game, is the height of arrogance. Wikipedia is not a cyber-squatting site; finding a page before someone else does, does not make one inherently the 'owner' of that page. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit.' It should reflect the world consensus, and not cater to one viewpoint when many are in play.Ryoung122 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking any side in this dispute, just warning those involved not to edit war (I don't know enough about the content to make a judgment call, anyway). Dispute resolution is one way to solve this problem (you can use some of these methods to determine consensus). Just don't edit war. That's all I'm saying. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * oky doky. I have asked all people involved in the mens and womens slam title articles to put forth their opinions to come to some sort of a consensus. One person asked me to also ask for input at wikiproject tennis (WPT:TENNIS), which I have also done. I have ignored any insults mr RYoung has posted in his reverts and have tried to call him Ryoung or Mr Ryoung in all my replies to others. I have agreed to "his request" to either ungrey or italicize the problem area as long as that's the end of his editing the critical section. He does continue to change the critical section so I have greyed in back again while waiting for some sort of consensus among our tennis writing peers. Most seem to be looky-loos right now so it'll probably be slow going. I'm just hoping to hold the page as it was before this whole thing started until we get some resonable replies to see what most everyone thinks is best for the tennis sections. Thanks for your help, it has helped me keep my cool. Fyunck(click) 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DavidRFLA
You may remember, a few months ago, you gave him a 24h ban for 3RR. He then posted on his page that he'd "come back and mess with" both the pages I maintain and you maintain. Well, it appears he's finally made his way back. Here's the diffs for his latest edits to New England Patriots: (he added the entire Buccaneers roster to the Patriots page - it has to be him). I semi-protected the page just to stop him. If you have any problems with that, just let me know. I could barely keep up with reverting his edits, so I'll take it down in a few minutes and see if he comes back. Pats1 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edits like this are simple vandalism, so you can use WP:AIV in the future. One note: you say you semi-protected the page, but this is not the case. Only admins can protect pages (adding a protection template, as you did, does not semi-protect the article). If you think an article should be semi-protected, you can make a request at WP:RFPP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Fyunck(click) created a sockpuppet
[edit] Dispute Resolution, please I ask that the two of you (Fyunck(click) and Ryoung122) take steps towards dispute resolution and cease your current edit warring at List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions and List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions. I am sure a sensible solution can be found. --健次(derumi)talk 20:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. I also warn you that if you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for this reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Notably, Fyunclick has changed his identity to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreepRipper

Started on July 19 2007. This level of scorched-Earth attack just shows that he is unwilling to negotiate or respect the idea of compromise/discussion.Ryoung122 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're convinced this is a sockpuppet and that it's being used abusively, you can make a suspected sockpuppet report or a request for Checkuser. I don't really think I can help right now (I haven't time to check the contribs closely enough to determine if the sockpuppetry is obvious). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Scepticism is allright
But here's some valid points. Cheers, RCS 09:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears another admins closed that report as no violation. I personally don't know if it was one, but at any rate it's a bit too old to process now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

3rr issue
 but, he distruptive edit to same word. if we do not ban his action, then he revert continually. i will revert his edit continually, too. distruptive edit war happen. check it. "who is the neutal point of edit". he continually fase edit, Bason1(my another id) edited dokdo/liancourt rock/takeshima same use. also, obey alphabetical order, dokdo's "d" is ahead of takeshima's "t". very neutal edit. but he is not.actually, that island governed by korea. but he delete dokdo. and claim japan's island. he edited non-neutrallyBason0 04:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh and I Thought...
Heh, and I thought I didn't have patience for talk page trolls...thanks anyway, seems a block was eminently approaching anyway!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. The not-so-thinly veiled refs to the Communism vandal and Mr. Pelican Whatsit were what did it for me and let me know he was here only to troll. But then, it's not like that IP made any edits that weren't some form of trolling (and his comment on your talk page was blatantly uncalled-for), so I saw no reason to hesitate. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You might get a kick out of this unblock request. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, what noble intentions, he sure shows it in his brilliant prose and critical commentary at both my page and Pan Dan's...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

how-to cow tipping
[I hope I'm replying to your recent edit the correct way.. i'm noob] You recently deleted some content I added to the section on cow-tipping stating as a reason that "how-to" guides are not appropriate content. Seems weird to me, but hey! Nevertheless, I don't think it is against any of the 5 pillars, or subsequent policies guidelines...

If you had read the content, you would see that it is directly relevant to the subject matter, written in a manner so as not to directly offend the supporters of the urban legend philosophy. I request that you reconsider your hasty decision.
 * Well, first off, I did read the content, and it wasn't a hasty decision. Secondly, here's the policy I based my decision off of (in retrospect, I should have linked this, oh well): What Wikipedia is not. If you feel my decision isn't in accordance with policy, you can certainly revert me, but I strongly suspect others will agree with my decision and continue to remove that info. Hope that clears things up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanx for the clarification. Am I permitted to rewrite that added content as a non-howto?  Also, how do I sign my name?
 * Well, I don't know exactly how you would add it not as how-to content, but you can certainly try. You can sign your name by writing four tildes like this: ~ . That produces a signature and timestamp. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Homestar Runner
Do you have anything more that you want to add to the discussion? I believe that you said you wanted to make a case or something if they are going to be merged. If not, I'll probably redirect those soon. TTN 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any consensus to make that merge, so I'm not exactly sure what makes you ready to do it now. Yes, I'll be wanting to make some more comments, but I'm currently kind of busy and stressed out due to real-life concerns, so it may take some time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three out of five is enough in this case, especially when one is an anon with a very loose understand as to how this site works. But I guess that doesn't matter, as waiting for you is fine. TTN 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Harper Lee
Hi, it seems our RPP patrols crossed. I just semi'd the article for 3 days, since I saw one occurrence of vandalism from a new user. Shall I unprotect it? PeaceNT 07:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that happens sometimes. You can just leave it; 3 days isn't much. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome, Heimstern. My trip was pretty good. :) How was your trip to China? Nishkid64 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Really awesome. I loved Guangzhou, where I spent my summer. Hope to be back there soon. Oh, and Wikipedia isn't blocked there anymore (except a few articles). It was a great time! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

as the report by Mr. Neutron to my 3 revert rule violation
I thought I will leave this here as well, as Mr. Neutron immediately undoes all the talk I leave on his and other pages. Please contact me for any further information.

-- response by capricornis -- I might be new to wikipedia, and have not engaged in as many wars as Mr. Neutron, so I don't know how to abuse the system as well as he does, but I can read the rules well, and I have not broken any of them. I changed a blurb, not an article,, which originally contained very little information about the actual event, into a well-written, relevant piece of information, which takes no sides, while the original Mr. Neutron's article seems to have been more concerned about proving 'Bulgarianism' than talking about the event itself. The note on the flag and the flag itself I removed because nowhere it is shown how that image relates to the event, except in the caption, which could have been anything.

I have repeatedly tried to talk sense with Mr.Neutron, but he has refused any communication, to the extent that he immediately undoes any talks I leave on his personal talk page (check his history)

I am open to constructive discussion and consensus.

thank you

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornis (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 August 2007

Problem with Workers World Party article
Several people with obvious POVs (or one person with a few sockpuppets) are engaging in what I would call "POV-by-omission" by preventing me from including factual information (which is sourced by a reference already cited in the article) that is unflattering to the WWP. One of the users (or "the" user, as the case may be) tried to antagonize me by leaving a personal attack on my talk page, accusing me of "right-wing thuggery." Someone who is not a committed Marxist-Leninist needs to intercede to prevent this from happening. If you're wondering why decent people like me wind up violating the Three Revert Rule, its because of stuff like this. - Skaraoke 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like this is a matter for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Xenophrenic
I unblocked this user, I got played in a similar incident betweend Xenophrenic and TDC where I was directed to an arbcom case and as such I extended the block. I then reviewed the Arbcom conditions and found that Xenophrenic was subject to a 12 month probation which had already expired. I have on a occassions referred potential admins to look at the relationships between these two editors its good one to help them explore. Gnangarra 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gnangarra, you reviewed the ArbCom case and found nothing involving Xenophrenic.  If I had been a party to that case, you are correct in noting that the sanctions had expired. Xenophrenic 08:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, I think the unblock is a mistake. Regardless of how long it's been since the Arbcom case, it demonstrates that the user has a history of edit warring and is still continuing in this vein. In cases like that, longer, truly preventative (a short block does next to nothing to prevent long-term edit warriors from edit wars) is appropriate. At any rate, I will not be making any changes to Xenophrenic's block, though I will be unblocking TDC. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing an incorrectly applied block is never a mistake. You were mistaken to interpret my removal of blatant sourcing violations from a WP:BLP as edit warring.   You were also mistaken when you extended a block, saying "previous block failed to take into account checkuser evidence that this is an ArbCom-sanctioned user."  Please show me this checkuser evidence, and please direct me to this ArbCom of which I'm a party.  Respectfully (but still fuming over the personal attacks above), Xenophrenic 08:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This case and directly related ArbCom case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify something: I am not saying you are currently sanctioned by ArbCom; however, I am saying that you have been sanctioned in the past for edit warring by ArbCom. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify something, too: You have provided a link to a checkuser that does not "Confirm" I was in an arbcom; does show that I "Likely" use the same Internet Provider as someone in the ArbCom; accuses me of being User:Reddi; and has a statement from me indicating a mistake has been made.  I'm still waiting for the checkuser evidence.  You see the problem here.  You have email, by the way. Xenophrenic 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust Jpgordon's judgment, who determined it was likely you were the same as the anonymous user. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with Jpgordon's judgement; he looked at whatever info was available to him and made the determination of only "likely." It shows a total lack of judgement, on the other hand, to take that same info and act upon it as if it read "confirmed."  Let's hope it is an isolated incident, and not something that demonstrates a history requiring more preventative measures.  Xenophrenic 06:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A "likely" reading is enough to act on, and has always been treated as such. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)