User talk:Wjhonson/Archive10

Bertrada of Laon
I'm not clear on what you mean by 710/27. Does that mean she was born in one of the two years or some time between 710 and 727? I suspect the latter, but there has to be a better way of expressing it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My responseWjhonson (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

How to cite properly?
Hi, I noticed you removed some sentences from the Frances Farmer article. I can provide cites for two of them, notably the page number in Jack El-Hai's "The Lobotomist" where he states there's no mention of Farmer anywhere in Freeman's records, and also the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article where the nurses state she was never on the lobotomy ward (I have a clipping of the article, with the date). Would you like to do it yourself? I can come back here and post the information if that's the best way. I don't do very much editing on Wikipedia and have not mastered the correct citing formats, but if you can help, I'll add that stuff back in. Thanks. 173.50.147.215 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes my point being that citations need to be specific enough that an editor can find the paragraph (if they choose) without the need to read an entire work to do so. So cite the work, date, page number, title, whatever is necessary to allow pinpointing the exact reference.Wjhonson (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Spencer
Hello. Awhile back you edited the entry on Col. Nicholas Spencer, and suggested that the references did not support the fact that both Nicholas and his brother Robert emigrated to Virginia from England. I can assure you they did. Here are four references. ]. Three are Maryland history books; the other is the William and Mary Quarterly. (The brother Robert subsequently moved around a bit and ultimately came to Talbot County, Maryland, to live.) I can supply plenty more references. A number of years ago I visited Mount Vernon and discussed this with the staff, which is the reason I added the Spencer information to the Mount Vernon wikipedia article in the first place. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are mistaking the edit I made. I did not state that Robert was not a brother.  The edit I made was because the *sources cited* at that point in the article do not state this at all. They state other things.  The way the sources were cited, made it appear as if they supported the idea that Robert was a brother and immigrated to Virginia, and those particular sources did not support this idea.Wjhonson (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No sources have been added to the article since you edited it. In your edit summary, you stated that "rewrite sentence since the cited ref does not support the existence of 'Robert' at all." Every source I've quoted you – and more if you'd like – not only support the existence of Robert Spencer, but support the fact that he was the brother of Nicholas Spencer; that he settled initially in Surrey County, Virginia; that he likely removed for a period to the Caribbean; and that he subsequently settled permanently in Talbot County, Maryland, where he likely died. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read exactly and directly, the exact sentence I modified. Not the entire article.  The exact modified section, has sources tied exactly to it alone.  Those particular specific few sources, do not support the existence of Robert.  Those exact, few sources, are the only things I'm referring to in my edit.  I am not referring to all the sources in the article.  I hope that is more clear now. Wjhonson (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Robin Hughes
I have nominated Robin Hughes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Robin Hughes&. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Jeff V. Merkey. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, thanks for all the edits you made at Margaret de Bohun, 2nd Countess of Devon. I see that you live in California. I too am originally from California.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFD nomination of Common Sense (paper))
I've nominated this redirect at Redirects_for_discussion. You appear to be the primary author of the article Conde McGinley to which it redirects, so I am letting you know as a courtesy. I've made some other relatively minor changes in that article, for using surname instead of familiar name, and so forth; I might have a go trying to fix the references. But I believe that redirecting a minor paper to its editor is essentially unhelpful, especially considering the other entries at Common sense (disambiguation) and roughly under R4 of the WP:RFD guidelines.

I could see it would be helpful for it to be a redlink (or a stub article of its own, with content moved from the biog and a put in its place) so have no problem with that as such, but it seems odd to me that looking for a newspaper redirects to its editor. I imagine you may be able to quote other cases that do, but I would argue the same for them: in a nutshell, keep the paper and its editor distinct articles, perhaps crosslink them but not redirect them.

I might try to tidy up the references a bit.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

your offer regarding SM U-65
hi, I am glad to have the offer of on arbitror.

My latest idea was: I add the source of this article, the photographed image of the National Archive document, the complete original informations about U-65, where they clearly say "blown up", and not "scuttled". If someone should doubt the NA sources, than he should discuss this with the National Archives, UK.

I really appreciate the work of other users like trekphiler, when they add usefull infos: links to events, places, ships, to other wiki pages etc., without visibly changing the original text. I would now even tolerate formating changes for dates, or dissolving abbreviations used at this time into clear text (for whatever this should be usefull). Please look at SM U 108, where I simply reformatted contributions of trekphiler, without deleting them, but also without changing the visible original text. I never did change or delete contributions of other users. This is "holy" for me. Links and footnotes are ok, as long as I can than add simply a photograph of my sources (see above), if I as creator of the article and in possession of the original texts should feel uncofortable, like for the changings of facts from "scuttled" to "blown up". In this way I could keep my "holy" citations very simple and very effective on Wiki.

I would propose trekphiler to continue his work to add links to the texts. If he should have other information in contrast to what I have published (the original infos of the British Admiralty from 1918/1920, which clearly are not always 100% correct, than he could simply add a footnote about his sources, in the following way:

... blown up 2) ...

2) after xxx source this boat was scuttled

I even would propose trekphiler to systematically ad links to all ships etc mentioned in my SM U-1 to SM U-108 contributions, I could provide him additionally with a list of somethousand ships sunk by this subs. He couls than add this info into footnoptes, linking to all these ships in Wiki. In this way we really crzate a big project about details of WWI, instead of mocking each other.

Do you think my compromise offer is unfair or stubborn ? I will create an example in the next hurs on SM U-92.

best regards AchimKoerver --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)

hello, thanks for your service !! please take a look at SM U-92 - Couldnt this be technical basis for a compromise ? I add the sources as jpegs if I feel uneasy with the changings; everybody is free to add his comments in section "Unauthorized Transcription" I would really appreciate if trekphiler and others would contribute in verifying / creating new articles about merchant / navy vessels involved in the WWI submarine warfare. In this way we could really create something GREAT for wiki users ! --Hans Joachim Koerver 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)

Thecolombygroup
(Creating a backlink here to my portion of this dialogue on MBK004's Talk page.)

For reference: The block notice is sufficiently adequate, and the block log entry is exactly what many admins use when making this type of block. For more, there is a strong suspicion that this was a professional promotional group hired to promote the artist to which the two edits were made to. Since the username was against policy, the block is justified even after two edits which were of a promotional nature. -MBK004 21:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I do not see how reverting removal of text as well as purely promotional material would make me an "involved" editor in the matter. Plus, since the username was against policy, any admin could and most likely would have made the same block I did the moment they noticed the username. As to having another admin review the block, the blocked user was provided the instructions to request an unblock where another admin would review the situation. -MBK004 23:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm Larry Cessna
Yeah, Achim's meaning "quotation". He's explained it as a specialist usage (one I can't claim ever to have encountered before), to which I said, "usage changes". And I can't tell if he's being stubborn or what. As to archiving, I thought I'd set up auto-archiving... It wasn't working. (Which should surprise me none at all, the way me & technology get along. I was a late adopter of touchtone... ;p And the more I think about it, the more I think Bones was right: I want to live to be 140 & be an Admiral, too. ;D ) James T. Dunsel  can you hear me now, Uhura? 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think he's trying to maintain a "perfect" quotation. He's said his idea of "citation" is "don't tamper with it", & has been inclined to revert anything in the section attributed to the doc, even if only formatting changes (most notably, dropping "th" from dates). I'm taking a broader view: unless it's actually a factual change, no harm done. (His point on "scuttling" v "blown up" is a judgement call; I take it, once a sub's been in the water, she's a ship, & anything done to keep her out of enemy hands is "scuttling".) If the docs can be put on WikiSource, it might be worth doing, except, AFAI can tell, this is as accessible, & has them all anyhow. (I haven't crosschecked every page, to be sure.) Is there a need to repop them again, then? And the resistance to even inconsequential changes & what seems like a sense of ownership (again, maybe a misunderstanding; I'm trying not to read in anything, since I'm not actually Kreskin) needs overcoming anyhow. I've never taken the view that information in a doc is sacrosanct in its form, only in its content, so if a source says 353 aircraft attacked Pearl Harbor, fn the number; if it says Isoroku Yamamoto, calling him Yamamoto Isoroku is OK; & if it quotes Chihaya as saying IJN ASW was "shiftless", "shitless" goes in quotes with a fn attached, 'cause now it's important it be exact. And I've never had a complaint in doing it that way, even from my profs. (Admitted, I've never submitted for a peer-reviewed journal... ;) ) Also, FWIW, Achim's "don't tamper" seems to run contrary to my understanding of scientific citation, which would attribute source & quote facts faithfullly, but not insist on retaining formatting, which is a standard I've never encountered. Til now.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I take your meaning. I believe he is referring to strict quotation, so for example "the man was a theef [sic]" the [sic] explaining from the editor that the source actually says "theef" but they are letting you know that they know that a misspelling.  Or something like "Last week he was here" [ed. last week would have been the third week in April].  And so on.  That he believes you should enquote exactly what the source says, even if wrong, and then explain if wrong, why.  Without the use of quotes, I'd agree with you, you can paraphrase a source and just enquote one or two words of it.  That's why I suggested Wikisource as a place to put large blocks of quoted material and then reference it off that site.  Alternatively perhaps the use of as a way to specify that the material is being quoted exactly as it is without any changes. However I think you will find that he is not now insisting on the date format being kept strictly as is.Wjhonson (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I find putting up the pix is more of the same. AFAIK, nobody is questioning the existence or authenticity of the docs, nor at bottom the accuracy of his original transcription, so this strikes me as, "See, I'm right". (Again, just my impression; no claims of Kreskin.) If the actual docs were more historically significant, in the vein of the Gettysburg Address or Emancipation Proclamation (which immediately come to mind...), I'd say, leave 'em in; these don't rise to that level of importance. I did leave 'em, pending a better solution, 'cause he's gotten peeved enough already; let things cool & see if there's a way out of the logjam. Unfortunately, this does not give me confidence he has any intention of changing.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 21:52, 22:57, & 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that diff is what you think it is? He is stating that starting at the line-break the rest is a direct quotation. So he wants to enquote it with the (") symbol. That makes sense to me. The part about "Royal Navy" vs "British Navy" seems like a style choice. That doesn't seem big, just a typical conflict in name choice. And then he changed the year a book was published. I don't know what the correct year is, so I can't comment on that. Is there a central article about all these SM U submarines in general? With all these detail pages, we should probably have one that gives the broad overview. Wjhonson (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it a quote? Yeah. Is it necessary to quote, when reproducing the info faithfully, & citing to the doc at Kew, will do it? I don't see it is. What I'm noticing here is the resto of WW1 & the lengthy pipe of Rm40, which strike me as needless.
 * As to "See, I'm right.", admittedly, it may be a perception more than reality; reversion of minor formatting changes (the U-44 changes, too) left me a bit sour, maybe, & maybe it's Achim's (expressed) inexperience with WP at work, too.
 * Is there a type page? This is as close as I found, & clearly doesn't cover all Achim's pages. I'm messaging Keallu to see if he can say, & hopefully whip up a stub to include them, FWIW.
 * Looking at this, I can't help think it's a needless duplication of the same information. The fns goto the doc, & the text has what's in the reproduced section (quoted entire by Achim). I don't see the need to do it twice. (I'm not dead set against it, if it'll keep him on board, but you can bet somebody'll delete it.) And you've seen this, so you know what I think is the best approach. Can we persuade Achim it's the info & not the format that's at stake?  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 10:35, 10:38, & 10:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the best way forward is to have a transcribed section, a prose section, the images, and work on the prose section to simply make it bigger. Then the transcription, may eventually be seen as redundant, or it may be seen as a necessary first step in making the articles more authoritative.  What I don't think is a good way forward, to reverting each other or having other people join in a revert war.  That will only make the situation worse, not better.Wjhonson (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think about the technical changings I did to SM U-92 ? Could this be an ameliorisation for the community, regarding user-friendliness, and as a input-structure for future contributors ??? As a new Wiki-contributor I would like to have the feed-back and help and support of you ALL. I think the formatting proposed by Wjhonson is really salomonic wisdom. There will be never something we could agree to 100% whole-heartedly, but there MUST always be sth we have to agree to TOGETHER. Thats our responsibilty for generations past, recent, and to come. Please, trekphiler, lets in this way create sth really GREAT togehter, a recent and detailed image of submarine warfare in WWI, over frontiers, and times passed, in commemoration of our ancestors (did you know that my grand-uncle went down in U-92 as a 18 year-old boy ? This really touches me everytime I come to this. He is still lying with his comrades at the bottom of the North Sea). And over quarrels. Sorry, if I should have nerved you unneccesarily as a "newby". Maybe also some typical german "Rechthaberei" ("always be sure to be right", I would translate this) is also implanted culturally in my genes - I swear you, I try to fight it down every day, but not always with success -)) Please lets be a BAND OF CONTRIBUTORS, lets be friends. Quarreling from time to time, ok, but looking forward, to progress. I cannot bear all this German sub-stuff alone, I have some 250 more sub-articles in petto (ready), once we have agreed to the format. And some 6.000 ship sinking entries. My God - WE ALL are needed to create add-on value for the Wiki-comunity. Please, my friends, contribute to the "Operations Summary" everything new or controversial you can grab out; create user-friendly compilations of all this old end-19th century styled telegramm stuff. Add links and footnotes to everything in "Transcription" you can find !! Togehter, as a TEAM, we will be unbeatable and can set new standards, reach new frontiers, for Wiki !! --Hans Joachim Koerver 00:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)


 * I've no real problem with leaving the transcription in, as noted, as a way forward. If we're agreed to leave the transcription, is repop the docs also needed? It's been usual only to include what's been generated by the subject, FWI've seen. This would be my preference; the table strikes me as too distracting, to no purpose.
 * Achim, you're not the only one feeling a need to be right. ;D (I'm very guilty of that at times. ;p) Which is why I've been trying to give benefit of doubt. (And why this was a bad decision; WJ, you gave me too much credit, it was pique. :( :. I hope we aren't getting alienated over this.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 13:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Copying this to Achim.)

Trekphiler look at what Achim did here SM U-51. It's beautiful. I would not object to all of them being done in this way. Looks better than my stodgy table.Wjhonson (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very attractive. Have a look at the tweaked pipe. If Achim's OK with it now, let's do 'em all that way.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura 18:48 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

/Hey guys, I integrated the proposals from trekphiler into U-92. In the enxt step I changed the page, I added a transcription, which is in fact a jpg, means not changeble, and put the old text with all links, and adds, etc. to "Operations". Wouldnt this be an ideal solution? Also I started to mock up U-6 to U-25 in this style. Thanks for the cooperation, in this way its really fun to work at Wiki :-)) --Hans Joachim Koerver 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)

RE: Subs
That seems fine. The user has been coming to me for advice and I gave as best I could, but your help to arrange actual images bests anything I came up with! I would just run it by WT:MILHIST as well to get their consensus (you will see a large section under the title "submarines" where this is being discussed.) Cheers, SGGH ping! 11:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding direct link to that discussion on SubmarinesWjhonson (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

hi, now other users start doing the same changings BilCat, on SM U-72, did exactly the same as trekphiler on SM U-65: he changed "blown up" to "scuttling", also some other words deleted or added. Does not realy give any value to the users, I think: They do minor changes, which do not at any value. Acad Ronan changed SM U-51, he split up sentences to 2 by adding a word like "and". I resetted this to my last version. Should these 2 users be included into the process ? best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)

Waldrada
Hmmm... Yes, you are indeed right. It's so long ago I couldn't even remember starting that article. I think I wasn't quite as aware as I am now about copyright issues, as I seem to have lifted verbatim the text from that site, honestly can't remember. Your suggestion would I assume be a delete or at least a complete rewrite? 1812ahill (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes a rewrite. You have to admit, right now it sounds awful technical for our general work.Wjhonson (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Assistance Submarine WWI pages
hi,

the last 24 hours I had a lot of negative attention several wiki users/admins ? (not to see on the first view for a new user).

1) yesterday I updated SM U-6 to SM U-25 with the new scheme, which you developped, and which and I and trekphiler then mocked up a little. So, for me it seemed clear, that you+me+trekphiler have agreed on a common style of these pages, analougos to them in SM U-92 (you+me), and SM U-51, where trekphiler+me work toghether.

Yesterday I was accused of Vandalism regarding SM U-22 (by A8UDI) and SM U-18 (by HappyInGeneral). U-22: I hace created the article. trekphiler has deleted exacly one sentence. Then yesterday I replaced all this by the new design. The sentence trekphiler deleted was about Lusitania case etc. Nothing of this is to be find in the new entry for U-22. So, the deletion of trekphiler is still "effective", and me, the creator of the articele only have changed the design and the content. Where is the vandalism here ?? Me I first said "abcd", then trekphiler said "ab_d"; then me I say "ab__". What is vandalised here ?

2)The same for SM U-18. And there are a lot more entries to come, when I want to standardize the design ferm SM U-6 to SM U-111

3) Bad visibilty of images,

4) Copyright for Images (by Spartaz). First one told me, that the images were black. Now I am asked if I have the copyrights for the newly uploaded files. In fact: these are copies from my book about Room 40, corectly cited, (for which I have the copyright); and for the right to publish the texts in my book I was granted the Copyright by the National Archives, UK.

So I am very glad for all kind of assistance, but all this in so short a time confuses me a bit ...

Could you give me some advice or help here ?

Best regards Achim —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail exchange
We need to follow up on this post haste - happy to handle it by e-mail or on-wiki. Can you point me at any of the diffs that you've found that show the problems that you've described? The last exchange I had with him was in my archive, and all I have is the 5RR diffs. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SM U-25 and others - all my images proposed for deletion
hi, there is a discussion still going on about SM U-25 images, an admin proposes them all to be completely deleted. Also someone else criticizes now in my talkpage all my articles, ("too many references", "not nice" etc) and proposes me 2 times to stop contributing at Wiki. Could you have a look please. AchimKoerver talkHans Joachim Koerver 15:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Weird News
Hi

Category:Weird News, which you created, has been nominated by me for deletion via the the Categories for Discussion process. Your input would be welcome in the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 24. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Wjhonson! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Dennis Hunter -
 * 2) Patrick Merla -
 * 3) David C. Lewis (Spiritual Teacher) -

Articles for deletion nomination of David C. Lewis (Spiritual Teacher)
I have nominated David C. Lewis (Spiritual Teacher), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/David C. Lewis (Spiritual Teacher). 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia of American Biography. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)