User talk:Kendrick7/Archive/7

AfD nomination of Edith Macefield
I have nominated Edith Macefield, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Edith Macefield. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Madcoverboy (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Willie McGee
Do you really think Willie McGee (convict) is as likely a search target as the baseball player? I'd need to see some evidence of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I wouldn't make a fuss but this baseball player was quite well-known. He was a key component in four World Series, played in four All-Star Games, won a Most Valuable Player Award, a Rookie of the Year Award, three Gold Glove Awards and two batting titles.  He was a baseball fixture in the 1980s.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. --Wiendietry (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

User:Orangemarlin RFAR
Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Requests_for_arbitration. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Uh, hang on, I'm busy right now. I'll get back to you in a minute about that. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT
You're engaging in disruption to make a point and making incivil comments regarding the ban of User:Giovanni33. Please take a break. Jehochman Talk 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop this now. You are risking a block. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Risking a block? Give me a break. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is risking a block. Reverting once a day is not a right. Kendrick, you're not the United Nations. Let the community sort this out. If the indefinite block is removed, the log will be removed. If it is endorsed then it will be kept. If you keep reverting then it will show your contributions to the project are based on POV rather than content. I hope it doesn't come to that. Find something constructive to do. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism. It may be WP:POINT.  Please read WP:SPIDER, Kendrick7. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you going to warn me over, Kendrick? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Belt
Sorry for the late reply, I've only just got back after a period away. The only thing about the Little Belt once you'd created the article was that it didn't qualify for a DYK, so I expanded it. It wasn't my intention to cut you out, it just didn't cross my mind to do a dual nomination, I don't think I've ever really done anything other than self nominations, so I wasn't sure what the criteria were. Hope you don't bear any ill will, and please feel more than free to continue writing ship stubs! Benea (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

lightbot
Please note that trivial linking is strongly discouraged on WP. Date autoformatting is no longer encouraged. There are very good reasons for this. Tony  (talk)  04:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, here we're going to have to disagree, I fear, but I'm nevertheless keen to persuade you that linking single years went out of favour some time ago at WP. It's fine for any user to key a year into the search box (four taps: tap tap tap tap, easy) to save the disadvantages of:
 * link clutter (not to be taken lightly, as it contributes to reducing readability and the visual quality of the page)
 * the dilution of high-value links
 * issues with "easter-egg" links.

I appreciate that people who've invested time in writing year pages want high "what links here" counts, but that's not a priority for the project—certainly not since a more disciplined approach to linking has evolved over the past couple of years. I'm interested to hear your argument that saving three keystrokes for the rare person among our readers at large (not you, but visitors) who wants to browse off-topic is worth the bright-blue-splotching of every year. This would be a hard argument to mount, and harder to win, I feel. Tony  (talk)  04:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice
It won't be placed by me, but if you keep battling at List of banned users you may get a long block. See my comment. I hope you will see the benefit in walking away from this now. If Giovanni doesn't sock, there is a chance he can return here after one year. Your battling now won't change anything, but it may create a bad memory for people which could make it harder to get him unbanned. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Spend your efforts on somebody who deserves them. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33. Jehochman Talk 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of...
This not about a crime, it is about rhetoric. But for now, your edit-warring has been successful. I am going to wait for the end of the AfD and see what happens. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see it has been move-protected anyway, and shortly after you moved it. What a surprise. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Duty, Honor, Country
A tag has been placed on Duty, Honor, Country, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —— Mr. E. Sánchez  Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Evidence of burden
Evidence of burden, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Evidence of burden and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Evidence of burden during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved your essay to your own userspace by consensus of the aforementioned MFD, and have also made it clear that there is no consensus supporting your essay.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proposed bailout of United States financial system
You will find that the bill the Senate votes on is an amendment to a bill that House has passed along to the Senate. I suggest you get a cite that this is actually a new bill, and remove your text until you've confirmed your addition is relevant. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of bills get new numbers, by being thrown onto some other bill by amendment by substitution. The Library of Congress THOMAS is the definitive record for bill history, Perhaps the genetic bill had that happen to it too. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You will not override consenus at WP:Manual of style (dates and numbers)
The consensus that date autoformatting and the associated indiscriminate wikilinking of dates is clear. Your to override the consensus is not helpful. I am fully prepared to ask the larger Wikipedia community to prevent this consensus from being overridden. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Barney Frank
Nice add on Frank's defense of his housing policy positions. I'm always pleased when peeps add good sourced information for their own case, rather than deleting the information they don't like that's already there. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

U.S. Treasury as a source
I thought it would interest you that the United States Treasury Press Room provides an early and reliable set of information that the journals often do not, whether for TARP, or other information or associated regulatory activities. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually like the liquidity injection/equity plan, though, which, aside from making way more sense than the "troubled assets" plan, shows how prescient I was about where this was going. -- Kendrick7talk 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that Paulson was against equity until the last week or so, and his original plan did not contemplate equity. Not to mention that he and his associates realized too late the gigantic mistake made in not supporting Lehmen Brothers: only after rescuing of AIG with the credit facility, (and 80% equity /warrant stake via the Federal Reserve Bank) and the complete drying up of the commercial paper markets after many institutions and money markets  lost money on overnight commercial paper. Paulson, a conservative on several different dimensions, has been moved by events, terror, and Bernanke, the scholar of the Depression, not by his own views. Witness the outrageous and dead on arrival "unreviewable by courts" clause in his original proposal.  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd
FYI, you may be interested to see that Ashley Todd was speedily deleted using CSD:G10 as the justification: "exists primarily to disparage its subject." I happen to disagree with this decision as the article was neutral and nothing on the AfD page implied it as an "attack" page, and content that this is out of process. I encourage you to chime in if you have an opinion either way at User_talk:Orderinchaos. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution
Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a users talk page please remember to substitute it. If you need more details, help or wish to reply to this message please contact me on my talk page. Thanks  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 14:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your actions on Brandt
No, I'm requesting that you look before you leap. There was a huge to-do about adding that name int he past, a person who will not ever have an article about him again in WP before. So before you get consensus for adding that information, I really suggest you seek, and get consensus. SirFozzie (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In view of the consensus to ignore all that stuff about notability derived from reliable sources, do you have anything additional to add? No sense in tipping your hand before doing anything big of course. -- Nevard 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly does that mean, John Nevard? If we don't currently, and are not likely to ever again, have an article on some topic, it's not needed on a disambiguation page. Edit warring about it is not likely to be well received either. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Claiming that there will "not ever" be an article on somebody (like SirFozzie did above) doesn't do much to convince me... people were also loudly proclaiming that there'd never be an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica or Wikipedia Review, but there they are. Out in the real world (some of us go there occasionally), remember the old Southern politicians who proclaimed "Segregation Forever!" just a couple of years before Jim Crow collapsed?  The modern-day politicians who scream that there will never be gay marriage in their state are probably just as wrong.  Proclaiming that anything will never, ever happen is more chest-pounding than reality.  Your "not likely to ever again" is milder, and hence more factually accurate. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OLC
Hey, how did you know about this? []

I'm wondering because I live near that church. 68.46.139.114 (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism
Hey, sorry to see Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism being redirected. I hope all of the content you provided in the terrorism article will be used in the new article. At least everyone has a clear record of the page history, which wouldn't have been available otherwise. I guess we need to keep in mind that the real intent of splitting articles means taking the section away from a popular page with a lot of advocates, leading it down a dark hallway, and then killing it. It is no surprise who the nominator was, the same editor who opposes the existence of the terrorism page too. travb (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that. The content that was worked on and expanded on that article should now be put back (perhaps in a shortened version), to the main US Terrorism article. Currently there is only a sentence. I take it someone has access to all that content from the now deleted spin-off article to work with back to the main US terrorism article?76.14.42.200 (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * RE: WP:PRESERVE: oh i love it! That is a wonderful acronym to use in deletion debates! Thank you so much! And it is a POLICY page.
 * Have anymore good acronyms? travb (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I respond to your message User_talk:Inclusionist. thanks again. travb (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your email is not active :( travb (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You?
You are the editor who nominated the infamous Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Noah for deletion? You seem to have made a 100% about face since then. My Machevelian side wonders whether you are Timothy Noah, and you created the deletion so you could write an article about it, and in your heart you have always been an inclusionist. Interesting. travb (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your lucky you were not booted for WP:POINT. travb (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

travb (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cites
No I was just tidying up, removing "ibid" and I noticed a duplicate cite, so I sorted the names out as well. I tried to imbue a little more meaning. Rich Farmbrough, 03:43 19 January 2009 (UTC).

User talk:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs
Could you explain your statement here? I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar! Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for fixing the link I gave in the RfArb. I didn't put my brain in gear and substituted the underscores for readability as if it were an internal link - forgetting that diffs are urls. You have my permission to fix any and all of my slipshot work! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scanner"
Anyone who quotes PKD in an administrative dispute is alright with me. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Stranger Originated Life Insurance
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Stranger Originated Life Insurance, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Stranger Originated Life Insurance is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Stranger Originated Life Insurance, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your support of Notability
I used your support of notability as the reason why this was a really stupid move by the creator of this RfC (whose views I support). If even respected liberal Kendrick7 supports notability, this RfC is doomed to only strengthen notability.

A kind of lithmus test of suicidal actions. (travb) Ikip (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why you should not support nobility:


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Edith Macefield, Not signing a contract is not a cause for notability, recentism & media circus Madcoverboy (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Pentagon message machine
 * Delete This is basically just a cheap shot at the Pentagon. If it is really notable it could easily be included in another article on the Pentagon and doesn't need its own article here. Blahblah5555 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This subject needs more than one New York Times article before it can be considered notable enough for its own article. Until then, we can merge the contents elsewhere.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobility is the number one reason why articles are deleted. Articles for deletion effect new editors the most. Ikip (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding year links
Hi Kendrick. I'm sure you're aware of this. I wonder if you could hold off on adding multiple year links until this matter is decided by arbcom? Thanks, --John (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the injunction says "dates" not "years." I'm only fixing articles linked from WP:MAIN or a link away from an article linked on Main or or one that will be within the next 48 hours. It's hardly "en mass." -- Kendrick7talk 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a judgment call exactly what en masse means. You edited an article on my watchlist and I noticed you were doing a bunch. I thought I would just ask you nicely to stop. Why's it so important for these articles to have year links? --John (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I might have gotten a little carried away. I was just going to do historical articles on the main page, but thought I might as well do articles linked to from 11 February. Then I did the 12th and the 13th.... I'm done for now anyway. -- Kendrick7talk 22:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. --John (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted your addition of year links on Abraham Lincoln. Consensus is clear that dates should not be linked, and that years should be linked sparingly. Sparingly hasn't been defined yet; until it is, please refrain from "fixing" more articles. 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff Sabateurs
You have 2 sabateurs banded together (who are obviously anti-semites) over one little word, "Jew". Hmn. What would you do if they said "muslim" ? it is irrelevant and the talk page makes no resolution or compromise over a period of weeks. If you are so inclined, please move forward and block these two pre"jud"iced jerks. i am responding not initiating. they continue to revert the original statement from weeks ago. thanx.

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What's notable in the future?
As a member of the WikiProject Years, could you please contribute to this discussion? Thank you. ––bender235 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:LINKLOVE
I wasn't aware that the website whose link you just removed from the index was known for being involved in "attack or harassment". Could you point me to some documentation about such problems? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Years link
Ciao! I've removed your year linkings to Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor as it has been recently decided to avoid over-link the pages with links for each year (it should be the same in the whole article text). Anyway thanks and good work!! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Check WP:Manual of Style. Ciao and good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, could you stop adding year links for now while the arbitration case is going on? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

courtesy notification
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement Tony   (talk)  03:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kendrick7, I'm a fan of date autoformatting/autolinking too, but please refrain from making any edits to dates, while the ArbCom case is ongoing (or more properly, while the associated injunction is in place.) It's only fair, if we expect other people to abide by the injunction as well. Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Hi Kendrick7, I am going to be honest here. I have been asked to look into your recent date linking at AE as a matter of fairness. You do appear to have violated the injunction (at least, from my interpretation of it). The one edit that did leave me wondering though was this simply because of the edit summary. Do years count as dates? Being that I considered them dates when I blocked Colonies Chris I must apply the same standards to you, and if they are not dates then what are they? That said, I think it could use some clarification on the part of ArbCom.

As for your actions, like I said above I feel you have violated the injunction. Because I was slow to respond to peoples concerns, and was not made aware of this until you had stopped linking dates a block would be viewed as purely punitive here, and as such I ask that you consider this a stern warning. Had I come across your edits while you were making them, you would have been blocked. So please, for the sake of calm stop linking dates until the Arbitration case is over. Thanks, Tiptoety  talk 23:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits like this do not help your cause, but I will not revert. The least you could have done is provide a proper edit summary. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note
Hi Kendrick, as suggested by a Committee member, just want to bring this to your attention, as it was mainly your edits that were reverted.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar
That was not spam, an actual study commissioned by VC's concerned that investing in Wikipedia is not valued added. You have violated Wikipedia policy and your deletion has no merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.47.227 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Please note that I have filed a complaint about your behaviour earlier today at WP:LINKING. . Tony   (talk)  07:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment is totally unacceptable, whatever the context. I have no interest in the delinking debate, but if you continue in this manner you will be blocked. Raven4x4x (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely stop taking the bait put out by the obvious trolls. Better to just politely point out the errors in their arguments or, my approach lately, ignore them. I'd hate to see someone with as sensible a view as yours chased off simply because you lost your cool. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request
Please don't summarily dismiss clearly non-vandalistic edits with "rvv" as you did here, no matter how strongly you disagree. It is discourteous and only likely to further inflame an already tense dispute. CIreland (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR
I have reported your four reverts over the past 24 hours at WP:LINKING, on top of your warning above by an admin about abusive behaviour towards editors on the talk page. Please calm down. Take a few days off? I am sorry to see your anger, but you should do your utmost not to project it onto the regulars. Tony  (talk)  15:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I seriously suggest you look up the word retarded in the dictionary. It is extremely childish to start calling people in a supposedly intelligent community that they are retarded or to insult the intergrity of somebody's parents. You need to take a long hard look at yourself mate as that kind of behviour however much you may have thought something they did stupid is totally out of order. Many people leave wikipedia because of such treatment. You should be ashamed of yourself. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the above, I agree that your comment was completely unacceptable, and have therefore blocked you.

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Unblock request

 * (Actually, you're not quite unblocked yet, but should be shortly (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents). Black Kite 09:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

G'day :-)
Well I swung by here for a quiet chat and see that you've been sailing through waters a bit more lumpy than usual! Hopefully you're not to pissed off or in too much trouble or anything - although I'd certainly pop up at a requests for arbitration/Kendrick7 ;-)

I'm interested by some of your comments about flagged revisions - particularly in regard to legal liability, so wanted to pick your brains a bit - got any time and interest? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your loss
My regrets, and I hope you have been through the worst of it. Tony  (talk)  15:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My condolences. I hope you can recover soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)