Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi Prodego. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found . Thank you! ] (]) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Prodego. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found . Thank you! ] (]) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
==your unprotection of my talkpage==
re :
I don't see you have any business changing protection levels in my user space making reference to some policy proposal. If you really, ''really'' feel you need to become involved with the question of semi-protection in my user space, you might drop me a note, explaining what it is you want and why you think I am out of line. Or just try some kind of wikilike approach. As you may imagine, there are historical reasons for the semi-protection.
I might add that I do not find edit of yours particularly helpful. It is beyond me how you can argue anyone would have "certainly been justified" in blocking me. This is outrageous. Are you a proponent of some sort of bad-ass approach to Misplaced Pages? Resolve disputes by blocking anyone involved on general principle? Misplaced Pages does not work that way. Please do not bother to comment on a dispute unless you have familiarized with the background first. Which means you have to actually look at content. I see a frightening tendency among admins to think that Misplaced Pages can be "administered" without ever looking into questions of encyclopedic content. This is wrong. Misplaced Pages admins are ''editors'' trusted with a few additional buttons. If you cannot be bothered to look into the actual ''editing'', you have no business intervening in disputes short of some very simple tasks such as blocking vandals and enforcing 3RR. thanks. ] <small>]</small> 08:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Partial list of stubs/short articles created or rewritten by Adv A students=
I know there are a lot here, but many are very short stubs. If there are a lot of grammar mistakes, just tag it with a clean up tag. I did not require that they wikify the articles due to time. Final versions for grading purposes are due Tue Feb 5 so any help you can give would be appreciated.
On WP:AN, you reference the fact that Bishonen's talk page cannot be undeleted or redeleted. Is this because of the high number of edits, or some other reason? for my information, as a newly minted admin, I'm curious as to what the situation is there. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a period of a gazillion years for knowing my secrets and knowing how to link to nonexistent revisions. If you'd like your block to be reviewed, please press your computer's power button. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Power button, never used that one before. Let's see, it must be thi.... Fatal Error: Connection lost to Prodegoat23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Please try again later.
This was brought up a while ago, on VPT and VPP, and I created it then due to popular request, based on Brian0918's skin. However, it was buggy, so I removed it, and updated it to work. While I was doing so, all those pages you mention were created. Now that it is working, I re-added it. You probably had had it checked from when it was first added. Prodego03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
why do u keep sending me messages prodego its the sloppmaster 9000 bitch ok so leave me alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmcrichardson (talk • contribs)
Hi Prodego, I see that you reverted an edit I made to the Kabbalah article and then you re-reverted it. What I removed I thought was a rather useless section in a very long article. But perhaps it would have been better, instead of removing the section, to move it to the talk page for discussion. If you have any suggestions on how to best proceed with this sort of thing please do let me know. I have, in the past been involved in acrimonious arguments, and I am concerned to avoid that and to do things in the best way possible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there!
Hi there,
Do you use IRC? I wanted to chat with you about something... if so, please join #wikipedia-en-unblock so I can chat! :)
Not until I get a cloak I don't (I have been waiting 3 weeks now). You can email me though, or use Google Talk (through Gmail). I am my username at gmail.com. Prodego15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you want. I would like to talk to the others first, before approving non-admins. By tonight. Unless it something else you would like? Prodego15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I mind those new colors. Quite awful. :) Luckily I have my own version. And yes, I noticed you moved mine over, though it is mine no more. Prodego15:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that appears to be improper use of rollback, I guess I am going to have to revoke that for a few minutes. Prodego15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Earless Seal Evolution
Prodego, I was simply fixing the false evolutionary facts on the Earless Seal page, but if you insist that I leave the information inaccurate, then I must comply. --.::Rithschap::. (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please block this user
You recently gave this IP address a "Last Warning" here ]. This user has yet again vandalized a page, by deleting all of its references. Please block the IP address. Happy Editing, Dusti18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
One of my favorite pictures
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Block
Prodego, I noticed that you have blocked the now-vanished user from editing. I think this is an unnecessary action. The only edits being made were removing of personal information (ie an actual RL name), which is part of the WP:VANISH process. Ryan P. made a comment on the user in question's talk page and got a 'right o' response on his own, after which no edits were made. Despite this, you unilaterally issued an indefinite block. The rename and vanish approach has been accepted by a member of ArbCom (see Newyorkbrad's endorsement of the 'vanished user' version of the proposed decision page in its history). We are talking about a highly valued editor who has been forced out of WP. Why does an action that appears to be AND DON'T COME BACK *SLAM* need to be taken? Aren't we all hoping that he might be able to come back at some point down the track? Note that ArbCom didn't change its decision to "gone. block. move on.", they left the possibility of a return open (well, ajar, anyway). I believe this is a case where a single admin should not be blocking, but that any block of this sort should be carried out only at ArbCom's direction. I also ask that you consider the amount of damage WP has done to the now-vanished user, and try not to add to it. EdChem (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing that information should not be done by the user, for the obvious reasons. You simply can't edit under the username "Vanished User" it is completely unacceptable. If you want to edit, don't vanish, that simple. That said, I left the offer to email me or use the talk page should that user need any assistance. If he wants to return, it will be under a new username. Prodego01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, you're missing my point. Of course he can't come back with the same user name, but there is nothing in the actions in question that indicate anything but an intention to vanish. No edits in main space on any topic (let alone ones in which he is interested). No vandalism, or anti-WP screeds. Simply removing references to his name. Now, should he have asked someone else to complete the work? Sure - as Ryan did, and receive a 'right o' response. But it is understandable that he is concerned, and his recent ordeal would not inspire confidence thats others will act with his privacy and best interests in mind. Now, I am not saying that everyone is out to get him - newyorkbrad, for example, has come out of this process with an enhanced reputation for compassion, common sense, integrity, and a whole bunch of other things. However, he has been through an ordeal, and one which has provoked a lot of consternation in the community. Within that context and bearing in mind that he did nothing after responding to Ryan's post, and so I ask again: Why does an action that appears to be AND DON'T COME BACK *SLAM* need to be taken?EdChem (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is precedent here, in that this user over here (please don't use account names here unless it is absolutely needed) did something similar, though for different reasons, I think. This user here should, I believe, be allowed to use this account to replace his former name where it appears. The question of future editing can be left open to ArbCom, in my opinion, but it would be silly in the extreme for this account to be used for anything other than username replacement. It should be noted of course that even with username replacement like this, after a rename, it is trivially easy to track back and find out who the original user was, which is why I oppose such actions on principle (while not standing in the way of people who want to do this for security reasons). It's just that most people never bother to track back and find out who the original user was. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, there is also support not only in the form of the spirit of WP:VANISH, but also the comment here: "if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. They are: ... 2. Change references to your former username to be referenced to your replacement username (you can do this yourself)." So, this block is arguably unjustified on the grounds given; if it is to remain, it should be amended to explicitly relate to WP:U, along the lines I suggested elsewhere. EdChem (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
But then the question arises whether this name is any more or less acceptable than this name. By opinion would be to unblock and the former edit to finish off the replacement edits, and then (if you must) reblock. Carcharoth (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, I just came here to support your block, I wish I had done it and earlier. I for one am tired of people abusing the system and going about causing as much drama as possible. John Reaves07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You should really take such steps first. That username is confusing, and violates WP:U, so it shouldn't be editing. Hiding could be a serious username, more acceptable under WP:U. I will change all the references to his old name myself if he would like (and there is no popular objection). Prodego22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Caltrop's Talk Page
I am a longstanding admin, your plan to help me with my talk page is not something I will agree to.
Please leave my talk page alone or submit your case to arbitration. Caltrop (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello!!! My name is Judith and I am in a course with Leigh, she told us you are a very good mentor that could help us during this semester. These days I am trying to get familiarized with wikipedia but it is really new for me. The use of codes is driving me crazy, so, if you can give some advise I will really appreciate it. I was trying to modify the boxes in the right side of the Wikiproject Mexico. I do not know how to write things in that boxes or load an image...
It would be a pleasure to have contact with you!
Have a nice day!
Cross for Valour (talk·contribs) This user keeps restoring copy and pasted content from Daniel Cambridge to Daniel Cambridge VC. I've reached out to him, told him you can't copy and paste to move an article, and told him to WP:RM. But he hasn't made any attempt to communicate. Others have warned him, and I've given him his last and he still continued. I figured some admin could look into it and possible give him a short block but since this is a slightly unusual case I didn't want to bring it up on AIV, and you were the first admin I saw on. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please explain what you are calling "vandalism." I cleaned up the prose on the article where needed and added sourced information. I have added an extra AP News source in response to the suggestion by Dirk Beetstra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have balanced the article, which was previously highly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. The article now under my version lists both sides equally rather than an overwhelming amount of the Palestinian side with the Israeli side having no sources. Please note that at no time did I remove any of the pro-Palestinian sources; the only quote I removed I removed after reading the manual of style and realizing the paragraph in question was highly overquoted.
Incorrect. The article is about collective punishment, and it is inappropriate to make the accusation without covering both sides of the issue when the question of whether or not it IS collective punishment is so highly contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The edits by Forever Free have so far been a content dispute rather than vandalism, in my view. The article does in fact relate to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, since Israel has been accused, rightly or wrongly, by various humanitarian organizations of engaging in collective punishment. But that aspect of collective pnishment must not become a soap box for that one area of conflict, without appropriate WP:NPOV text based on reliable sources. Edit warring will lead to blocks for all parties who violate the WP:3RR three revert rule. Discuss it on the article's talk page to arrive at consensus. Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Edison, I should know about the 3RR, don't you think? As long as someone looks at this fine, I really don't care. Prodego19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Please explain what you are calling "vandalism." I wrote more than half of the content in this article. I believe I formed the article correctly. All of the information is factual and there was no attempt to vandalize. Please let me know if there is a mistake.
Regarding the line breaks, I was attempting to position the Infobox close to its corresponding section, the same way the previous sections have all been organized. For example, when you scroll down to "4th Generation", its Infobox is to the right. Scroll down to "8th Generation". Its Infobox is shifted down, causing visual confusion.
Thanks for looking after the Buick Riviera article. We appreciate your concern! The page looks good. I will use the br clear=all code in the future.
Thanks for your help!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Searles a (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hector Berlioz
Hello Prodego
I am not sure if this is the best way to contact you.
I got your message on my page. I removed some old 19th century pictures from Hector Berlioz because they were from our website for which we had paid fees in order to use them on our site. If you would like to use these picture again it would be nice to ask us first, as many other educational sites do and we are always happy to give permission for their use subject to acknowledgeemnt. We are both Berlioz lovers and should cooperate with one another.
Image:Berlioz in 1868.jpg
and
Image:Berlioz choir.jpg
We provided the second image at a high resolution and in large scale (from an 1888 book in our collection) to someone who wanted to write a on 19th century choirs; I was surprised to find it on a different site to which you have placed a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HasHasBoomBoom (talk • contribs)
Hello again
But look. We have spent literally over 5000 pound (about UD dollar 10000) just on anitque books and engravings for our site. You don't really think that people can copy our images at our expense, without even bothering to ask our permission. Do you? The Bibliotheque nationale de France in Paris for instance have a lot of 19th century material on their sit but they will sue anybody who copies iamges or texts from their site. We have always asked for their permission to reproduce any of their images. American and European museums sites also sue anyone to reproduce their ancient engravigns and paintings without their permissission.
Our site has also cost us a fortune on ISP, bandwith etc, surely it is not a public domain entity. What would be the incentive for anybody to do anything about any subject?
btw, the image: berlioz in 1868.jpg is not from an old publciation and we have paid a high fee to reporudce it on our site. Please, please amend the big picture copyright notice; the picture is not in public domain.
In your last message to me you say that “the Louvre has the Mona Lisa, but anyone can have a replica of the Mona Lisa, and the Louvre can't prevent that simply because they paid for the original painting”. But with respect, replicas of Mona Lisa are not given out for free; they are sold at a price. Somebody has gone to a lot of trouble and expenses to produce them. Why should electronic reproductions/replicas of 19th century engravings or books be treated as free for all objects? What about the costs involved to the person who has produced them? Never mind the recompense for the cost, why not even ask for permission to use them? The original publications may be over 70 rears old and in the public domain, but the electronic copies are certainly not that old! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HasHasBoomBoom (talk • contribs)
Hello again.
When in 1997 we set up our academic site on Berlioz we sought legal advice regarding our intellectual property rights over the content of the site and their protection from abuse, as we have always done for our print books and articles.
Following our lawyer’s advice regarding our rights in UK and international laws, we put the following notice on the home page and all other major pages of our site and a shorter version on all other pages:
Copyright notice: The texts, photos, images and musical scores on all pages of this site are covered by UK Law and International Law. All rights of publication or reproduction of this material in any form, including Web page use, are reserved. Their use without our explicit permission is illegal.
Over the years individuals, institutions and websites from around the world have respected our rights and have contacted us to seek permission to use some of our materials.
It is in the spirit of cooperation and internet citizenship that I am writing this. All I am asking you is to respect our copyright for the electronic image for which we have paid and do not treat it as a public domain item. Please tell your readers to contact us if they want to reproduce it, we would be very happy to oblige on condition of acknowledgement of the source. It's mutual respect and understanding that I am asking for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HasHasBoomBoom (talk • contribs)
Hello
Just to say that I have enjoyed my discussions with you and your colleagues. By the way, someone had removed the link to our site as the source of the image and replaced it with a different URL. I have now reinstated the original link.
As you know Berlioz 1868 iamge is from our site, now somebody in Germany keeps putting his own site's URL as source. This is a dishonest act. Could you please stop him and reinstate the original link to our site for this image.
what do you mean it changes nothing with sources. the girls scouts of america, is not single sex they omit boys. the boy scouts of america, is the largest *male* one as staed in link i provided. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Prodego. The creator of this article removed the speedy tag (a no-no), and you restored it. (The creator has now removed it a second time). Yet WP:MUSIC allows coverage of albums of notable performers who have their own articles. The article on the performer Miki_Matsuhashi was just created today, by the same editor, and is not such a bad article, though the notability of this musician would require study. Her record Destiny_(Matsuhashi_Miki) is published by J-Disc (record label), and is for sale on Amazon. If J-Disc is a major label (or serious independent label) that is one of the two that would satisfy WP:MUSIC. Should we cancel the speedy nomination? EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If they put hangon on it is ok to remove it (it keeps it in the cat). Only an admin should be removing the tag, FYI. Let whichever sees it review it. Prodego23:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
IP keeps placing advertisements
He added his advertisment again tonight , after I warned him on his talk page User_talk:83.199.52.195 because the last time he even disguised the link text to deceive people. He has been warned before three times. His only contributions are adding the same link on the same article. He doesn't look like willing to learn. Can you block him for a bit to see if he gives up? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
For the countless times you (and Huggle) have beaten me to reverting vandalism. With staggering amounts and with stunning accuracy in reversions, all vandals should fear you. Keep up the good work! Thingg00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where/what formatting to use putting this on your userpage, so I'll award it here and let you put it on your userpage if you so desire. Again, awesome job. Regards. Thingg00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just curious why you removed my edit to the page. The storm came ashore between Peggy's Cove and Halifax NS. I've redone the edit.
Aloha27 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
ANI Thread
I've started an ANI thread about you posting my email address on my talk page. I would appreciate if you would address the topic as to why you found it necessary and if you feel it appropriate to do it again. The issue of my being denied access to the list, quite a tangent, has been raised, so if you want to chime in about my incivility, please post that as well. the_undertow11:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Cookie
SyntaxError55 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! For editing Image:Bid rent1.svg when all my text editor wanted me to do was press it.
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with blocking policy because I can. If you believe this block is unjustified you may not contest this block because this is not a democracy and you have no say. If you'd like to swiftly be dealt a blow, include {{unblock|your pathetic whining here}} below. You may not remove this block notice forever because I am great. Good day, pleb, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You never were quite succinct in just why you felt the need to post my email address. Why don't you fill me in on that? I'd be happy to know. I've looked through your edits, and don't see any other examples of this behavior. the_undertow09:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Muddyb Blast Producer: I'm a moderator for the list and I haven't seen an application from you. Though it's likely that the list admins would deny you as a non-admin. John Reaves16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Prodego, I've altered the proposal to make it read < 90% to reflect my original intent. If this changes your opinion on the proposal, can you edit your response when you have a moment? Thanks, Avruch02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
VandalProof
Hi there,
Would it be possible to poke Daniel (hard) with regards to 1.38 (bugfix) release of VP? FYI (and his):
Fixed an issue that caused minor edits to break the moderator list.
Fixed a bug that meant that bot edits could not be displayed when clicking on them from the RC list.
Fixed a bug that meant that, when viewing a diff where the penultimate editor had used the rollback tool, the wrong user was detected and subsequently warned if a rollback button was pressed.
Fixed detection of user warnings to support WP:HUGGLE, User:ClueBot and the most recent block messages.
Fixed the retrieval of the username for users who had no edits to their talk/user pages.
Hey, was I any trouble, if I was, I apologize. I have looked through the installation and it looks easier than I expected. Though I think I am not going to try to create my own wiki. Thank you for guiding me through that, and if I ever decide to, I will know what to do. Your guidance was not wasted. Thank you for your help. I apologize. Cheers. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Maximillion Pegasus (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Huggle User Category
Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category ] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· /Cont18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
"My 'expertise' is to deal with anon. IP edits so there's no point of placing a warning"
As you can see from my contribution, I primarily aim at IP vandals and revert them ASAP. In terms of placing warnings, I don't see a need to do it if it's a IP (as many people can share the same IP and the vandal message might get to the wrong person instead of the target) --Cahk (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
86.46.78.29
Hello Prodego a quick question can somebody else use your IP address i got a message saying that my ip vandalised the De La Salle College Waterford that wasn't me thanks i am usually logged on as burgoyne172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burgoyne172 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Prodego, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars survey
Hi Prodego. I'm running a small survey about wikipedian barnstars. If you have the time, I would really appreciate you taking a look and participating. The survey can be found here. Thank you! Bestchai (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
RFA thanks 
:.
