User talk:SteveO/Archive 1

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

--Thanks for the welcome. Hi to all.

Lion King

 * Why did you reverse statistical fact on the Dennis Wise Page Lion King 18:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Lion King, I take it you're a Millwall fan? It showed in your edits. That's why I changed some of it. That fact seems irrelevant.


 * By changing it, you diminish the achievment of both Dennis and Millwall. No team has ever played in a final, 25 places below their opponents. Best wishes, Lion King 15:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. Please leave any future messages on my page, not yours.Lion King


 * It's no skin off my rice puddin' son- It's in the Millwall article, so I don't care! Touch that and yer Hovis! Be lucky, Lion King 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How Millwall reached the final is not relevant- they reached it-end of. You are putting this info in to deminish Millwall's achievment, forgeting that by having to play teams from the lower leagues cost us sixteen players from our squad due to being kicked off the park and being suspended for fouls they did not commit, hence the need to take a seventeen year old boy to Cardiff. Please do not put this in again, IT IS IRRELEVANT! Lion King 14:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The article notes that: "Millwall qualified for the final from the lowest league position in the history of the competition, and took to the field in Cardiff 25 league places below their opponents. They were only the 24th team from outside of the top flight to play in the final." which is fine. Adding that they didn't face a team from a higher division adds perspective and is relevant. Wikipedia is not here just to rattle off Millwall F.C.'s achievements while glossing over less favourable facts that "diminish Millwall's achievment." SteveO 15:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Did someone remove your brain and replace it with a peanut? I've told you to leave messages on MY PAGE- who died and made you the football police? Have you ever set foot in ANY ground? I doubt it- you know nothing about Millwall fans do you? And don't tell me why Wikipedia is here, you arrogant little Merchant! Lion King 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Upsest me dear boy? No of course not, just a bit a playfull football banter- you should know that, it's one of The terms and conditions of a season tickect. Lion King 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at what you've kicked off by wanting to put one stupid sentence into the Millwall article you sad geek Lion King 03:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Insult? No, I see it as a statement of fact. Lion King 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Stepping In Here
Guys, guys. Let's chill out and see if we can come to a compromise here. If there are any more reversion after right now, i'll protect the article. Don't make me switch the lights on and off. ;-) karmafist 18:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Millwall
Hi Steve O- You seem to have accidently removed most of the discussion on Talk:Millwall F.C.. It would be best to revert it back, or provide a link to the archived previous comments on that page. I leave it to you to do since it's a fiddly business cutting and pasting comments etc. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Jose Mourinho.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jose Mourinho.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

There is nothing on this website that indicates its images are free use -Nv8200p talk 20:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Soccer-Europe.com images
Yes, unless the claim that these are free use can be verified. I see the template is up for deletion. I am going to ask the guy that created the template if he can verify it. I wish it were true, but I kind of doubt it -Nv8200p talk 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:EPL 26 November Mourinho.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:EPL 26 November Mourinho.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Image is an orphan -Nv8200p talk 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Stuff!
Nice one SteveO! Cheers, Lion King 14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

23rd April
Happy St George's Day, Proud English Person! Best wishes Lion King 19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Steve, I'll delete the jelly beans!

2000-01 in English football
Just thought I'd let you know that a revert you completed several weeks ago on the article was reinstated by AlexWilkes, which I reverted again. He has also done the same with many other "XXXX-XX in English football" articles, which I've also reverted - the most recent one being 2004-05 in English football. So just thought to let you know to keep an eye on his edits. Mark272 20:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Simon Balle
Hi, back on 19 April 2006 you placed an Articles for Deletion notice on this article. However, it looks like you didn't carry out the third stage of the three-stage AfD process; that is, you didn't create a link on Today's AfD Log, so no discussion took place. Given that this all happened some weeks ago, and the article has been edited in the meantime, I took the step of removing the AfD notice and placing a note on the article talk page. You may still want to take the article to AfD, and if so, you will need to go through all three stages this time. Guide to deletion has guidance on the AfD process. Regards, BillC 12:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism
You're welcome. They did it again and left you a mesage this time! mattbr30 16:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
(Barnstar moved)

Fat Frank
Please explain why the nickname "Fat Frank" isn't valid.

Its is almost always chanted in grounds by opposition fans. in fact it is chanted far more than "Lamps".

Niall123 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm
It's a strange one since he isn't vandalising (in the strictest sense), yet is continuously bringing down the quality of articles. I think he genuinely thinks he's helping (although you think he'd get the point after ten reverts). If he doesn't look at his talk page, then it will continue. Anyway, at least there's more than one of us keeping an eye on it. Mark272 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the latest thing going at Football in regions of England. Mark272 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of anything other than perhaps leaving tags on that page might prompt him to try and contact me. Mark272 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Arjen Robben
Are you the Fiver-reading Chelsea-supporting conspiracy theorist, then? ;) — sjorford++ 14:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good thinking, done. — sjorford++ 15:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hinton
SteveO thanks for addition of Personal Information section. Removed Barnet from this as Semi Pro team in those days. Please see link below

http://www.barnetfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/TheProfessionalYearsDetail/0,,10431~600573,00.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danread (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC).

Football player infobox2
Just noticed the infobox you added to Jimmy Greaves, and I thought I'd point out that a different infobox exists for retired players Template:Football player infobox shows a list of the others too. It's simple to change the infobox following retirement by adding "2" to the end of the title line.  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk    18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

why the Chelsea vs MLS is important
it was important because this was a chance for both teams to show what theyve got. the MLS to show that their league can be considered strong and Chelsea to show that they are the best and their new players will work well with the rest of the team. Mourinho also said that this game was important and his players should treat it like a regular premiership fixture. It was also game to show that even though some players didnt show in the world cup(lampard for example), they are still talented. 71.254.210.160

-and a side note, i ment to say "suck it up" not "suck it" in my edit comment. small grammer error, im not that rude ;)


 * but if chelsea had won, would you have allowed the results to be in the article? i know youre a chelsea fan, so atleast be honest =)


 * haha we will just have to see. but to tell you the truth(or if you checked my edit history) you may be able to tell im an Arsenal supporter, and as much as i dont like chelsea, spurs are always the highest on my hate list =) so i can feel your pain haha


 * Sorry to butt in....but this is a non-issue. The only objectives of a pre-season friendly are a) to make sure no-one gets hurt; b) to make a few quid from merchandising. The Special One would rather lose 30-0 to a pub team than have his players go out full tilt and do their hammies before the season even kicks off. Plymouth were recently narrowly beaten by Real Madrid- does this mean that Europe's top clubs will be knocking down Argyle's door to sign their top 'stars'? I think not. Of far more importance for the 'ski is Shevchenko's allegedly horrendous karaeoke performance- I see this as a very bad omen....Badgerpatrol 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Cock
Really good article Steve! Cheers, Lion King 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, you are a really good writer! Right, I'm off down The Den to watch that shower get tonked by Oldham! Be lucky, Lion King 13:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message of support, it certainly worked! I think Spackman will be a good manager, we are starting to play as a team - at last! Good luck against the Mini Mancs! All the best, Lion King 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

CIS National Team
I have a late response for you here. Cheers, -- Palffy 04:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea Notable former players
Oh shit yeah! Sorry mate, i didn't spot the former bit. I was wondering why that kept getting reversed. Never mind. Cheers. Bobbyfletch85 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong person
Hi. It's User:Credema who reverted the vandalism, not me (although I'll help if I see any). I think you clicked the "respond to message" at the bottom of Credema's talk page, which is actually to respond to me. I see how there can be confusion, so I'll try to change the template before I welcome anymore users. You can click here to edit Credema's talk page. Thanks! -- Mar de Sin  Speak up!  20:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Zola number retired?
I am trying to find references for all the players listed on Retired numbers in football (soccer). Gianfranco Zola's 25 at Chelsea is listed, but I can't find anything more substantial than forum posts such as this one. Can you shed any light on the matter? Oldelpaso 14:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

re:vandalism
No problem! Baseball Baby  23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:220.246.167.18
chelski redirects to chelsea FC - what more proof do you want. I think your biased nature is clouding your judgement. This is not what wikipedia is about. Anyone can contribute. You don't own that page. I'm sorry you had to hear this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.167.18 (talk • contribs)


 * The other point I was trying to make obvious was that regardless of all their accolades, they are still lacking the biggest one of them all. I think it's more relevant with chelski to mention this because that is their main objective having spent so much money in the transfer market recently. A good anology would be to mention that a great recording artist, having sold millions of records worldwide, never got obtained a number 1 single. Do you not think that is a valid point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.167.18 (talk • contribs)


 * PS. Can I edit all the profiles of all the managers not to have won such trophies to include the prefix unsuccessful before their name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.167.18 (talk • contribs)

OK Jose. Seriously though, I think you have become obsessed with dictating what stays and what doesn't on the Chelski page. You need to let go.


 * The fact that chelsea FC wanted to trademark and market the term chelski should end this argument. I can't seem to win regardless of the facts. It's clearly a no-win situation for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.167.18 (talk • contribs)


 * And if you must insist on censoring "pejarotive" statements/nicknames etc than i suggest you delete articles nigger, honky, and last but not least paki


 * straw clutching? not at all. you earlier stated that it is generally accepted for negative statements to be omitted from wikipedia. Yet I have just shown that to be false and you just replied with something along the lines of ...."Errrh yeh but it's one rule for chelsea FC and another for everything else"

I will try to refrain from making the the chelski change in future.

The Abuse
I hope you do enjoy the abuses you have been receiving because you truly deserves it. You know you are a son of a xxxxx, disguested by many for your dictatorship on articles. Just like what this guy 220.246.167.18 above had to say about your conduct in Wikipedia. This guy even asked for your permission for editing something, and your approval for publishing, which is utter ridiculous. I finally found someone who have reached an agreement on one thing: that is, you are a dictator and a bully here and creating hostility in Wikipedia. That is the very reason why we have to get rid of you, just for the good of Wikipedia and for other contributors, who genuinely wants to improve qualities of articles. You are the one who is not listening and do it your own way, making edition on your own preferences and acts as if you owns and rules wikipedia. I think we are all frustrated and angry to have someone like you here messing around and could someone please banning this sxxm from interfering others making constructive contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.137.199 (talk • contribs)


 * Actually we were discussing a content dispute. That's what people do here. You know like I tried to do with you, only you were too busy spouting jibberish and insulting me. You would do well to learn from the above user. SteveO 12:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Was it a discussion? I think to be more appropriate that was an accusation from that guy about you being a dictator and he was right about you.

And I quote "Can I edit..........?" to ask for your permission before editing an article is absolute ridiculous. Who the fuck do you think you are?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.194.163 (talk • contribs)


 * I attempted to discuss. You chose not to. Not once were you able to put forward any sort of coherent argument about why your version should stay. You just kept rambling on about not negotiating with terrorists and being a victim. Who am I? I'm the one who moved on. Who are you? You're the one who can't stand me, yet bizarrely seems desperate to keep talking to me. SteveO 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better leave it for yourself to learn how to mind your own business rather than telling others what to do and I don't need you sending me those stuff telling me what to do. We are not here to comply to you, are we? We don't have to listen to you, do we? We don't need your approval before making edition, do we? And you are not the chief editor of all articles in Wikipedia, are you? So, you just get on with your own business without interfering other people's contribution while we get mind our own business. And if you want a sense of satisfaction about your contribution and a sense of authority that everybody has to listen to you about the contents and have to comply to you, then you got the wrong place. Maybe you should find a job in newspaper editiorial job or something, got it! Just don't touch others. Mind your own fucking business!! By the way, you are nobody here in Wikipedia. Stop being authoritative!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.194.163 (talk • contribs)

There you go again. The irony of telling me to mind my own business whilst continually leaving messages for me or vandalising my user or talk pages seems to be lost on you. SteveO 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already warned you. Just mind your business when making your own contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.194.163 (talk • contribs)


 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.


 * Wise words. Perhaps you should bear them in mind the next time you make a contribution to Wikipedia. SteveO 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It was only because you were the one who insisted your version to stay I did not see any necessity to have discussion with you and as I have said many many times, we are NOT chief ed here. There is no chief ed here. There is no censorship here whatsoever. You are NOT here to approval articles and we do NOT need your permission and yes, you idiot, should bear in mind about this. You do NOT rule above anyone here! Got it! I have given you so many chances but it does't seem everything will be fine so you will see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.194.163 (talk • contribs)


 * So I have no authority and am not the chief ed, but you have the authority to give me chances. Are you the chief ed? SteveO 17:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't even know what you are talking about!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.194.163 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm in good company then!!! SteveO 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The final words I have to say here and let people who has the chance to read this is that, you are just super destructive to Wikipedia and stop people from making contributions. You are just very evil. I know you won't admit it but that's who you are! I am sorry for your parents, brothers and sisters and friends. Wikipedia would be a better place without people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.194.163 (talk • contribs)

Thank you. The feeling is reciprocated. Nevertheless, its been a rewarding experience. I look forward to the next installment. SteveO 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Eddie McCreadie
Hi SteveO. Seeing your Eddie McCreadie article reminded me of a summer a long way back in my youth. I lived in Whitton (Middlesex) at the time, and Eddie lived just around the corner. Having nothing better to do one afternoon during the school holidays, my friends and I knocked on his door and we were all invited in by his wife. Eddie graciously signed our autograph books while his wife made us all cold drinks. I think the team must have trained at Stamford Bridge then because we would also travel there (close season) and wait to collect autographs as the players came out. I had most of the Bobby Tambling era team. Along with my John Lennon, The Rolling Stones, The Who & Rod Stewart autographs, they’re all lost now! Never mind, I’ve got the memories. BTW, I now live not that far from John Terry, do you think his wife would invite me in?--Patthedog 14:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1965 League Cup Final
Well I'm not to sure of the actual teams, I was only born in 1983. I would side with soccerbase as I when I've used it it's alway been accruate. Did have a book about 10 years ago on the history of the club but lost it and that had the line up I think. Jimmmmmmmmm 09:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Weasly/Unsourced para' in Chelsea F.C article
It's not 'weasly' to say that Chelsea fans are regarded as 'glory hunters' by rivals. It's true. The source? Wikipedia's own article on glory hunters. There was no reason to remove that paragraph. Are you sure your definition of 'weasel words' is the same as Wikipedia's? If I'd have stated it as fact - Chelsea fans are glory hunters, that would have been POV, but as I stated it as being an opinion of rival supporters - Many rival supporters accuse Chelsea fans as being glory hunters - that's 'weasly' and worthy of removal. As for sources, go to any other Premiership team's website. There are probably a whole host of impartial sources stating that fans of Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs, West Ham etc see Chelsea fans in this way.

If you thought it lacked sources and was 'weasel worded', why didn't you simply change it so it had sources and wasn't, rather than removing it? --Stevefarrell 15:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dignity
Now don't get me wrong - there's no shame in being a self-loathing Chelsea supporter. There really isn't. But I wonder - why not pick a decent side? One with an actual history and without a moaning manager with a stupid haircut, what's his name? Are you Zola? Didn't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.218.151.198 (talk • contribs)
 * All of which begs several points:

SteveO 11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The amount of time you devote to making contact with this self-loathing Chelsea supporter has led me to conclude that you're slightly envious of him (or his team).
 * 2) Clearly, you have very little grasp of what history is.
 * 3) Which shade of red does your team wear? I already have a good idea, but I'm keen to see if you'll admit it.

Chelsea F.C. records
Steve0 this is a better website reference for the records CFC broke in 2004/05 season. Can you add it cos the page is protected. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/football/teams/c/chelsea/4545045.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.81.152 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

thank you
thank you for changing OFAH into a disambiguation page.

--Jadger 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Statto74
Can you advise me why you reverted my edit about the quote about Glenn Hoddle finding god?

If Bob Wilson made that comment he did so on the Jasper Carrot show, in a brummie accent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto74 (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry I don't have any proof other than remembering watching the show, just out of curiousity do you have a source for Bob Wilson saying it? Just can't see it being the type of quote he'd have ever made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto74 (talk • contribs)


 * I just googled that quote and every source says it was Bob Davies i.e. Jasper Carrott! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto74 (talk • contribs)

Cheers for your advice. Statto74 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just asking
Hey SteveO. Um, well, regarding my edit to the Didier Drogba page, I'm sorry. I did not know that you were only supposed to count league games in the infobox. I just wanted to ask you. What you mean by league games is EPL games only, right? P.S. - Sorry bout just now, I wrote the message in my bro's acc. -- Hariharan91 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Hi SteveO

You have tagged a couple of my pictures which I have put onto the Chelsea FC page as improperly licensed. I don't understand why, so perhaps you could explain or suggest the correct license for them. Lordprice 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of these images are from my collection and commercial picture library (and I assume both of interest to those reading the article). The earlier one is undoubtedly well out of copyright, the copyright-holder of the 1955 shot is untraceable; both are therefore entirely usable. If anyone wanted to use them for a commercial purpose or wanted a print then I would charge for supplying a scan or print of suitable quality, but I am happy to make them freely available on Wikipedia as uploaded. You obviously think that I have given them the wrong license tag - in which case please advise what you consider to be the correct one. I cannot work out how to say what I have just said on the 'dodgy image' page so if you can tell me how to contibute to the discussion there I would be most grateful.Lordprice 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comments. I have explained the situation on the 'possibly unfree image' page and hope that is sufficient to satisfy you. The copyright status of these old images is a grey area and not nearly as simple as much comment, including that on Wikipedia, would have the lay observer believe. Interestingly 'your' image is demonstrably not the same as 'my' image. It was undoubtedly taken at the same time, and possibly by the same photographer, although that is unlikely, but is not the same photograph - look closely at the figures and you will see that they are not the same shot.Lordprice 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Carefree (football)
I accidentally stumbled upon Carefree (football) while vandal hunting and noticed the edit history is one huge revert war going back and forth between a version with and without adaptations. I have a hard time determinating which version should be the correct one and what should be the best course of action in this case. I've seen you reverting a lot in the edit history so maybe you can give a hand on the acticle's talk page?  Intinn Talk! 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

?
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please bear in mind that all contributions must by cited with reliable sources and conform to a neutral point of view. Thank you. SteveO Unbelieveable...talk about neutral point of view...how wasn't it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weareqpr (talk • contribs)

Striking my comments
Please don't strike my comments, as you did on Featured article candidates/Chelsea F.C.. I truly find that unacceptable. I prefer to change my own comments after I decide for myself that it is warranted. Thanks, Jeffpw 21:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.
While proofing the Chelsea F.C. article for the FAC I found the references were a bit over-egged - you don't need to give the Glanvill Biography book a full reference each time - an abbreviated one is fine after the first one. Also multiple citations of the same reference can be made using  without the need to repeat all the gory details via. Oh, and cite book has a  attribute, which is handy. Thought I'd let you know so that editing is easier for you in future.

Anyway, the Chelsea article is very good, and just needs a few uncontroversial (I hope) tweaks (which I'll do as I'm feeling particularly bold) before I'll recommend it become an FA. Qwghlm 18:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Only fools DVD.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Only fools DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)