User talk:TracyMcClark/Archive 2

User talk:Jtodesdude
Hi Toddy. I just re-formatted the users talk page to separate your edit and the "April 2009, warning" section. His/her first two edits where clearly "joke edits" (assuming at least some good fait) and therefore I gave the editor just a low level warning. BTW, this is the link s/he added twice: [3]. Just an innocent mistake by the editor? I don't think so :) . Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the reason I wrote what I did in User talk:Jtodesdude was because another low level warning would have been ineffective, but writing to him and explaining properly might persuade him to behave better. I thought that since my reason for deleting his text was probably unobvious to someone not used to citations it was worth explaining nicely.

The first wikipedia edit I ever did was to create a new page about a 'model'. I wrote it because the model in question asked me to write it. Unfortunately she was not deemed notable and the page was deleted within 36 hours (which b.t.w. was the right thing to happen). But the person who marked the page for deletion handled the matter well, explaining what he was doing and why, and what I must do if I have legitimate reasons for wanting the page kept. Because he handled it well, I did not feel bad about my page being deleted, even though I had spent most of a day learning about how Wikipedia before I created it.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues with editing: George Bush
Sorry about that. My sister wanted me to edit something to prove to her class that wikipedia was editable. She had to pick a protected artice of all things, too. Usually if I edit something that I'm unsure of, I typically use atleast some sources to back up what I'm saying. Although that still gets considered disruptive, sometimes.Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You should restrain yourself from such editing in any case. WP is not here for you to proof a point to your sister (if I can believe you which takes quite some good faith from my side).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And these unreferenced edits make me loose any good faith in you as an editor. Go play somewhere else.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of Talk:Pickup truck‎
Could you explain why you blanked Talk:Pickup truck‎ ? I can't see any obvious reason why it should have been blanked, you left no comment on why and I can see plenty of reasons why it should remain. Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check the edit hystory and you'll see that I reversed to the last good version after some IP vandalism. Did I made some technical mistake? I guess not but of course it is possible. But I did not blank anything (unless it was blanked before). Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seems like you are correct. In my defence, when I compared your version to the previous version it showed a massive list of deletions. I'm not sure why it showed me this (and continues to show me this for your versions) but the actual page is correct. A bit baffling but I'm sorry for the aggravation caused. Stepho-wrs (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFC
Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Late reply. I was aware of it but decided not to comment. Thanks anyway. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Willie Nelson, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  11:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I took a look at it but will substain to comment (at least for now). Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User: Chowa001
Hey.

This user is a definate sockmaster of AlviDC. The actual user is an individual in my school who's edits include uploading images of other minors from the school, such as his additions to the Adolf Hitler page, and minor vandalism. I can confirm that AlviDC is a sockpuppet of Chowa001, but the problem is, if a checkuser is ran, the steward, due to complicated reasons (e.g the ISP for my country, Qatar, is awful) may encounter that the IP address traced is the IP address for every computer in the state of Qatar. -- Onevalefan talk  06:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I'll get further into this when I have more time on hand but one question I do have: Can you provide proof about the images as I checked the school's site but as a "guest" I just could verify the "school uniforms" which both individuals in the uploaded pics are wearing. Do you have any direct-link that can be seen and verified by everybody? That would help a lot to at least erase the images.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Levi Johnston
FYI: Deletion review/Log/2009 May 7.  Will Beback   talk    20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was aware of it but anyways, thanks for pointing it out to me. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Help Again!
There is a user User talk:134.245.108.65 who despite repeated warnings and removal of there material (by several editors) continues to add non-notable info to presidential election articles. The user repeatedly has added a list of states where the margin of victory was between 5-10%. The user also has added and re-added list of the candidates best states by percentage. This is happening to:

United States presidential election, 1980 United States presidential election, 1992 United States presidential election, 1996 United States presidential election, 2004 United States presidential election, 2008

Despite repeatedly being told that there re-additions are considered edit-waring and vandalism the user continues with the behavior. If you could somehow help to get this user temporarily blocked I think that the user would stop there non-constructive editing. Thank you in advance.Highground79 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. = If there is someone else who may be better suited to deal with the problem please lent me know who to contact (administrators who follow the presidential election articles). That being said your help with the election articles has always been appreciated thank you for your time.


 * Will keep an eye on it and try to resond more specific in the next few days. Regards,--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just another quick reply. (Guess I have to do this with "baby steps" whenever I have some time :) ).
 * The issue you're pointing out might be more a content dispute than plain vandalism although edit warring can be applied to this editor even if he doesn't brake the wp:3rr rule. On the other hand he seems to have started to engage in a discussion with Hamiltonstone which I see as a good sign. Remember to always AGF.
 * For what you consider Vandalism you can always report him at WP:AIV. For edit warring at wp:3RRN. You can also contact an admin that you see active at those boards directly if you think you have a clear case that needs immediate attention.
 * Anyways, as I said before, I'll try to keep an eye on this as other editors are too. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

notices
thanks for letting me know about the talk-page guidlines... I had at first thought that the talk page guidlines applied to articles only, not users. On user talk-pages I thought you were allowed a discussion...my bad. Sorry! won't happen again 98.226.79.168 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The (not a forum) rule applies to article talk pages and of course the article itself. On user talk pages you have more freedom to voice your opinion but be aware of restrictions (like WP:BLP) that are applied to all pages on WP. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks
thanks again!!!! 98.226.79.168 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight
Please review the edit history of their page. I've attempted to comment on the EW/NPA/3RR situation but they just keep making counter-accusations and deleting my comments. ChildofMidnight is not at 4RR but they are edit warring, making accusattions, etc. You can see what I mean if you review their talk page, User talk:Bigtimepeace, Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Bigtimepeace, who has been watching over this, is on vacation now. If ChildofMidnight continues and no administrator intervenes I'll have to report it to AN/I, which if history is repeated will trigger nasty made-up counter-accusations and drama. If you care about this, then perhaps you might file a report if it comes to it. Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to WIkidemon's false accusation pointing out that the diffs he provided were to two totally different and unrelated bits of content. See his talk page history (he immediately removed my response calling it nonsense). I prefer to spend my time improving the encyclopedia rather than responding to more of his personal attacks and false accusations against me. So hopefully he'll stop telling falsehoods and trying to smear me. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please
I only see two additions of the well sourced and NPOV content I restored to the article. Am I missing another? I've self reverted anyway as I'm under attack by another editor who is a notorious POV pusher. Lots of admins can't be bothered to discern the actions of a good faith editor who makes every effort to abide by policy from those of a well documented and toxic abuser of our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The three diffs are as documented in my original warning, which ChildofMidnight deleted from his talk page. The middle one is two edits that count as a single reversion for 3RR purposes because they were made in succession.  ChildofMidnight, as I have said elsewhere, misunderstands 3RR policy in thinking that edits to different material do not count.  Edit warring on the Obama pages, while accusing others there of censorship, vandalism, POV pushing, etc., is a separate issue irrespective of whether there is a technical 3RR violation.  ChildofMidnight was, indeed, revert warring recently to insert two separate pieces of tangential nonconsensus derogatory material about Obama.  The accusations are a behavioral problem that's best not carried to the talk pages of uninvolved editors.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep this personal discussion out of my talk page. Comment removed by --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find diffs in the article's history and yes, all edits count towards 3rr even if they're not all about the same (content dispute) material. I see you rv. yourself and I appreciate it although you want to reread wp:3rr as it deals (like the wp:3RRNboard) with edit warring in general and may block even when one did not brake the (3rr) rule [especially when it comes to articles that where placed on probation). I don't intend to file any report as I see it as a waste of time and BTW, diffs are usually provided in such (report), not in a warning templates about it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You might try using a nice note next time. You might be unfamiliar with the civility policies, but regardless it might help you to consider how best to treat other editors. I suggest basics like common courtesy. This appraoch also applies to providing diffs when they're requested. Common sense also applies. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I used a neutral note as I usually do and try to keep my "feelings" out of any comment or when templating editors. The template I posted was in this spirit of mine and it seems like it did it's job, preventing you from a potential block. Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's enough. Bad faith assumption removed by --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

An AfD
Would you mind taking a look at this AfD and see if you agree with me:  Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama?
I will take up your offer and write in German. Ich verstehe, daß Du anti-left-wing POV annimmst, aber die Frage nach den Eltern von Ayers war wirklich ernst gemeint. Die Ayers sind eine reiche und politisch sehr einflußreiche Chicagoer Familie? Ich meine natürlich nicht, daß man meine Vermutung in den Artikel schreiben soll! Ich kann schon Wikipedia von Rush L. unterscheiden. Verurteilt oder nicht, gut und schön, aber Ayers und Dhorn waren so Weatherman, wie Baader und Ensslin raf waren. Die Taten des WeatherUnderground interessieren mich wenig, ihre Geschichte und Ideologie schon eher. Ice (1970) ist ein schwarzer Film über eine Gruppe Revolutionäre in der Zukunft eines faschistischen Polizeistaates. Einzelne Weather Leute spielten auch mit, vielleicht auch Ayers. It was the first Spielfilm (featurefilm) from 1960s left wing activist documentary (Newsreel group) film director Robert Kramer (lived his last 20 years in France and died there). Kramer has a very good website. There is also a short entry on german Wikipedia. Ice was reviewed at the time and ebated hotly. It is a very disturbing movie: one of the heroes is castrated (not shown in a gory way, but frightening nevertheless). The Arsenal in Berlin showed the film from time to time and it provided a disturbing experience.--Radh (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't see the movie [maybe I will at some point after you made me aware of it] and besides that I must admit that I forgot to reply. I don't have that much time lately and just make small edits, not keeping track of daily changes on my watch list as I usually do. Please accept my apology for that and the following very short kept statement.
 * You think I assume(d) "anti-leftwing-POV"? How comes? I'm trying to stick to the known facts no matter if I like them or not and those facts need to come from reliable sources. Guess that summarizes it quite clear and simple. But your header indeed suggests a certain POV from your side since this is about Ayers, not Obama, right?
 * Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering, but now I am in a bit of a hole. I guess you may be simply right in your criticism of my POV. I also think it is absolutely impossible mot to have a certain bias if one thinks about political "hot" topics. The facts nevertheless must be got right of course and one also has to accept criticism. I had to leave Berlin to care for my parents, but hope to be back soon, and I will try to improve my work at wikipedia soon. I hope we can then talk about Kramer and Ice, even about Ayers and the Weathermen. I have some strong reservations about Ayers, but do not think Obama is therefore a priori disqualified. People knew about it and voted for him and that is that.--Radh (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope your parents are fine. We'll see about the rest when the time comes. Kindest regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I usually don't anticipate in surveys. Thanks anyway, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Help Needed with user (user claims ownership of articles)
recently I've had some problems with User:Jerzeykydd on the articles for the state results of united states presidential elections for the years 2000, 2004, 2008. (example United States presidential election in Iowa, 2004) The user changed section labeling removing "election results" and changing it to "Statewide" & "County Results" when I changed it back to "Election Results" and "Results by County" I explained that the only result was the statewide and that the county was a subsection of that result, since the statewide is how electoral votes are awarded. The user quickly reverted my edits as vandalism and sent me the message listed below on my talk page, in which he claims a form of ownership over the articles.

"I believe election articles should be distinguished between statewide, county, and congressional district. If it just say election results, it could be anything. It has to be specific. I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way."

I have tried to deal with the user on his talk page pointing out some inaccuracies and POV wording as well as thanking them for there contributions. Now that the user clearly is stating a form of ownership over the articles (I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way) I feel I need some help in the matter thanks for your time Highground79 (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Highground. As you can see in my edit history I don't have much time lately and although being on your side regarding this issue (as I had the same opinion regarding the nation wide election articles and this shouldn't be handled different IMO), I only can give you some short advise. No matter what your point of view is, it is a content dispute where the other editor who acted in good faith should be making aware of WP:BRD (also the "rv. vandalism" edits are out of line and his/her statement on your talk page about "doing it anyway" shows some WP:OWN and/or just ignorance. Yet, please keep assuming good faith. You still can file a report at WP:ANI if needed. Another suggestion would be to contact user:Timmeh as s/he was involved previously in election articles. Maybe s/he can help. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While I know you do not have much time as of late and if you do not have the time it is no big deal (since I'm following you advice and I am contacting Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). But since I contacted you before I thoufht I'd lent you know what is going on now. Since the last time I left a message User:Jerzeykydd has restarted his edit warring because of his personal feelings of ownership ("I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way" part of message left on my talk page) related to a number of election articles. The user has also engaged in threatening behavior on my talk page User talk:Highground79 ("don't push it or I'll get pissed off") (comment came as part of message left on my talk page on 00:14, 1 July 2009). Since I have been on wikipedia only briefly the last few days I hadn't paid attention to it till now. While I am in now way frightened by the user there threat is not appropriate for wikipedia and I believe someone other then myself needs to make the user aware of this. Highground79 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At least I could give you a good link hint, although I might not be able to help you much further. I just don't have much time on hand. Timmeh, who you already contacted, can be much more helpful as he seems to be online more constantly besides that he deals with election articles anyways. I'm just doing my best when I can. Good luck and don't get into any kind of edit war trouble over this, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Template
Thank you for sending me the link to the Template talk:Infobox Election. I knew the template existeded but I could not think of where to look and allowed myself to get somewhat overwellmed by the body of work needed to be done on the United States Presidential election state results pages for 2000, 2004, 2008. I greatly respect the work you do on election pages and would appreciate some help with the articles in question if you have the time. Overall the articles have issues with formatting / exclusion / and bias (both POV and things as simple as putting county results in the order of Gore's best results by county/ which clearly lacks NPOV). If you don't have the time I understand, either way thanks for the Template link. 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Highground79 (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lye roll assertion "doubtful"?
Why do you say it's doubtful? - Denimadept (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, it is not only doubtful but plain wrong. See the Pretzel article which is correct in regards of how Pretzels are most commonly served. BTW, both articles are in "desperate" need of sourcing. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It says "they eat pretzels for breakfast, with Weisswurst sausage," in the pretzel article too. Are you in Germany or of German descent?  I'm looking for sources.  All the ones online I've seen so far are reflections of our article, unfortunately. - Denimadept (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll get back at you on this when I have the time. I'm right now just trying to catch up with several things, not only on WP. Meanwhile this article might give you more info regarding the issue. Please feel free to post your sources here so I can go over them. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey
Hi The Magnificent Clean Keeepr. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I usually don't anticipate in surveys. Thanks anyway, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are invited and welcome to join us!
Greetings! Please come and join us for the The Great Wikipedia Dramaout Grundle2600 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No thanks but thanks anyways.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

pdf
hey magnificent, I read on the help page you needed help finding a pdf software. Although its not used for that sort of thing, i use to have this problem often. I use a software now called primo pdf (see the wiki article Nitro PDF) to print word files, or web pages for pdf documents (Like wiki documents). Its pretty helpful and you can download it off the web. The last time i downloaded it was free so it should work. however it doesnt edit existing pdfs. Hope that helps. Later Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your effort,Ottawa but I need to scan and send (legal) paper work as PDF. Don't think Nitro's free version will do that for me although I'll take another look at they're site. Again, thanks for taking the time. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They have a free trial (of the full version w/o limitations, hopefully) which might work for me. I still hope to find a simpler solution but at least it seems like I have a back up if nothing else goes. Thanks for pointing it out.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Magnificent. The free software I use to generate PDFs is CutePDF - you just "print" to CutePDF, and you create a PDF file (instead of printing out on paper). So you'd scan your paper work, then just print to a PDF file. Hope this helps.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 00:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't clear in my initial question. I need to send these papers per e-mail so printing is not my problem. So would that work with your software recomendation? Thanks so much to you (and all the editors who are trying to help me here and elsewhere) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't clear in my answer above... CutePDF would enable you to create a PDF file, then you can e-mail that PDF file. By the way, when I put a message on a Talk page, I keep it on my watch list for a while, so just reply here and I will see it, no need for a message on my talk page. However, for future reference, the easiest way to draw attention to it is by using talkback - see Template:Talkback for details of how to use it. For example, on the next line is one I've put here as an example (there is a brief message on my talk page at the named section!)  gives:


 * Please pay attention to the note on the Talkback Template page about the use of subst:! Hope this helps.  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot Steve. Now I have two options, one from you and one from over there . Thank you so much. Now I can sleep better and handle this tomorrow. BTW, I handle my and other talkpages like you do as you can see at the top of my talkpage. I just was in a rush to get this solved. So little time left... .Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, TMCk, much appreciated. I hope you've herded all the stray PDFs into a single fold; or that you'll manage to soon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I already did and thanks to you it was "a walk in the park". BTW, you're the first one I gave a barnstar. W/o you I would've been potentially in big risk to get in legal trouble. Not that I did wrong but you have to obey legal deadlines or you have to pay the price. So again, thank you for your input that finally solved my technical problem. Best, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC controversy article...
Please remove the tag. I've added some sources.PokeHomsar (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read: . There is no article and therefore the template stands. I've contacted another editor to take a look at it and maybe, but just maybe he will start the actual article. If not and deleted, it can be restarted any time. There is no deadline on WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy Question
Quick question in regards to this edit, I know the author of a page isn't allowed to remove the CSD tag, but why isn't the author allowed to post the -hangon- tag? Is it because the page is recreated? Just curious for future reference. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. Big mistake I made. Will fix it if not already done so. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Recreation of a deleted article" might aply but as I'm not 100% sure I leave it for others to decide.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you. Now please remove the deletion tag. I need help with references and such. I don't know how to work that.PokeHomsar (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That I cannot do as the article still lacks any serious sourced content but I'll fix the refs for you shortly.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
They removed it without paying credience to my hang-on tag...PokeHomsar (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)