User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive6

I've noticed your work recently.

You seem like an expert on copyright law - about which I know very little.

Question. If a make a copy/image of a Book Cover of a book that was published in the USA,

let's say in 1915 (I'm aware of the 1923 cut-off date), which Tag do I put on it?

The Public Domain tag? or the Bookcover Tag? Ot BOTH!! --Ludvikus 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good question--it's the public domain tag. The reason is that the bookcover tag explicitly says that the publisher holds the copyright and we're using it for fair use, and for a PD cover that's not the case. I'll add a note about that to the book cover tag itself, I think. Chick Bowen 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here's another question on copyrights. Assume a Russian book, bearing the city of Moscow in its copyright page.

Ordinary meaning is that it was NOT published in the United States!

Or are we to assume that it Circulated in the USA -- therefore published in US?

In other words, how does the 1923 year kick in for a Russian book published in Moscow in 1915?

If the book was never physically published (printed) in the USA,

is it still subject to copyright protection?

I think not, but I'd like to hear your explanation. --Ludvikus 06:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Publication is defined as the country in which it was produced, but the U.S. doesn't recognize all forms of copyright elsewhere. But the case you're talking about is absolutely PD, yes--see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection. If the copyright holder in Russia is known and he died before 1953, it's PD. If the copyright holder is anonymous and it was published before 1953, it's also PD. Chick Bowen 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I'll be away for a while, but if you have any more questions you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... Chick Bowen 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Buttboy666, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice, duly noted. RichMac (Talk) 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

See this [1] Dakshaaayani 08:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Context? If this has to do with my unblock of Malber, I have nothing more to say about that than what I have already said--I unblocked him because I felt the block was inappropriate under the circumstances, but I do not endorse his behavior. Chick Bowen 02:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! Early in 2006, you blocked Nomoretears (talk · contribs) and Lizards (talk · contribs). Since that time, I have been steadily work against possibly sockpuppets of these users, who I believe may be one in the same. The final straw was when MoreronCantContributeHeOnlyErases (talk · contribs) was created recently to discredit me on my user page. I have now filed a (lengthy) WP:RFC case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MoreronCantContributeHeOnlyErases that involves the two users mentioned above that you had blocked. I felt it would be good to inform you, just in case. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

They are either the same person or meatpuppets of each other, yes--some Phish cooperative or other. Looks like this has been resolved since you posted this. Chick Bowen 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the time is ripe to either undelete or recreate the Wikipedian article. I can do a good job of having it comply with WP:Rules. Though Oxford Dictionary haven't included it yet like they did with Google (verb) it is likely they will when it meats their standards. In the meantime WP:N is applicable in allowing its recreation because if you 'google' the term you will see it has been referred to quite prominently in various news sources. Cheers. frummer 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah--after much digging I discovered how this relates to me--yes, I proposed the merge in the first place, though I did not perform it. It was not a good article at the time; if you can rewrite it better, you're welcome to give it a shot--you don't need my permission--though of course someone else may merge it again. I think the less we write about ourselves the better, but I understand that my view is not universally held. Chick Bowen 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You told me that I should not do things like that, when in an episode of Electric Playground she states this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mosenmori (talk • contribs).

If so I apologize. But you should provide reliable sources for these things. Chick Bowen 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I certainly hope your edits to drop the slanderous material from Benjamin M. Emanuel are allowed to stand I tried to do the same at 19:31, 10 January 2007 Wowaconia but in little over an hour they were reverted by an Admin at 20:38, 10 January 2007 Mel Etitis. If your edits hold I won't call for speedy deletion, but if they are reverted to put the slander back in, I will follow wiki-standards and do so. User:Mel Etitis argued in Talk:Benjamin M. Emanuelthat "WP:V#SELF simply doesn't rule out the reference to a blog, it rules out the use of blogs as (the sole) source for what articles say about their subjects. if the article said that he was a murderer, and cited a blog, that would be wrong; if it says that he's accused of murder in a blog, that's very different." I was unable to dissuade him of this and worry that he'll continue to revert away edits that drop the blog material.--Wowaconia 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. I am leaving this identical message at ExplorerCDT's page as well. Chick Bowen 07:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• While I appreciate your intentions, I have not reverted anybody's work here. As part of a content dispute, ExplorerCDT has repeatedly removed my edits despite repeated efforts to meet his criticisms, and has done so on no fewer than a dozen occasions, let alone three. Any assistance in mediating this standoff, or any pointer on how to get an edit in without it being reverted, would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Answered at your talk page. Chick Bowen 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you describe is most certainly a revert. Please read WP:3RR once again. The solution is to arrive at a consensus on the talk page of the article. If that fails, pursue dispute resolution. Chick Bowen 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If repeated attempts to update an article to meet the demands of another editor, only to have them removed, is a WP:3RR violation, then I may well be guilty as charged. On the other hand, there is something fundamentally wrong with a policy that grants someone who is blocking changes veto power to prevent further edits. I am walking from this article for now to allow appropraite administrative action to be taken with ExplorerCDT. Alansohn 08:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The deletion was requested not because it was non-commercial-use-only (the "non-commercial" clause doesn't apply as the image was uploaded before May 2005), but because the editor of the website this image was taken from said there is no implicit permission at all, even for non-commercial use. Is there a way you could make the deletion log say the deletion was due to "copyvio" instead of "non-comm"? May be, restore and re-delete? Thanks! -- Paddu 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

How's this? Chick Bowen 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh wait, I meant to say "author has denied that claim". Hmm. I guess I can do it again if you'd like. Chick Bowen 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Might be OK, I guess. I took some time to realise the error. Thanks anyway! -- Paddu 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you read the discussion page on Messy Stench before you deleted it? If you had you would have seen it was being debated and several editors expressed that they were confident of the subjects merit and were working on improving the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.5.12 (talk)

I always read every AfD discussion carefully before closing it. In this case, there was only one registered user arguing for the article to be kept, and though a neutral editor had supplied some sources, they were blogs and fan sites and not in keeping with our policy on reliable sources. If you'd like to challenge the deletion, however, you're welcome to do so at deletion review. Chick Bowen 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've also read your contributions, apparently you take the easy route & have become an adminstrator merely by deleting the work of others. Anyone can do that. What have you created that has lasted? You are an example of the worst aspect of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.5.12 (talk • contribs).

I have written two featured articles: Eric A. Havelock and Mário de Andrade. Chick Bowen 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you're so interested in building the encyclopedia, why don't you register an account and get to work? Chick Bowen 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Both those articles were created over a year ago and tweaked since then. What else have your done recently? Would you have deleted your own work after the first week?

I would like to get back to article editing, though I don't have access right now to some of the scholarly databases I used to use. What's your point, though? As far as AfD goes, I just interpret consensus--you're shooting the messenger here. Chick Bowen 17:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is a fine example of why Wikipedia fails. Its rules & criteria are written by those who enforce them. It is like the police writing traffic laws. Further, there are hundreds of articles which should have been deleted years ago but fly under the radar. This one was deleted within two weeks of its creation and while people were continuing to edit and improve it. The rules are only applied to articles which attract the attention of people such as yourself, not evenly.

If you don't like being shot, dont be a messenger. It's part of the job.

One more comment: Wikipedia provides multiple progressive avenues for article improvement such as declaring it a stub or listing it as an article in need of improvement. Instead, the more dramatic option of deletion was the only option exercised. You claim to be an academic; when your students submit papers do you burn those that are not perfect? I've looked through your contribution history and the histories of those that contributed to the deletion of the Messy Stench article and deletions are their major or only contribution to Wikipedia.--Sand Squid 20:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm certainly happy to admit there are problems. I hope you'll stick around and help us fix them. Chick Bowen 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is that the best response you can offer? After the arrogance & pettiness I've experienced from Administrators such as yourself I believe my Wiki days are down to their final minutes.--Sand Squid 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's the best I can offer. I'm sorry if you see it as arrogant--it is sincere. Chick Bowen 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You've done a great job of encouraging new editors to improve their articles. Nothing sparks enthusiasm like a BOLD deletion. You said you read the discussion page of the article, did you also look at it's history? Changes & improvements had been made only two days ago! If the article was so bad, why wasn't it tagged as a stump or listed as needing expansion? Because deletion is easier.--Sand Squid 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There was a minor edit made on January 19th, which did not address the concerns of the deletion discussion (which were principally about the quality of the sources). Otherwise the article had not been touched since the AfD began. Look, there's really no point in debating this with me. Why don't you just list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review and get a wider spectrum of opinions? Chick Bowen 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why? The sources were just as reputable as the millions of other biographic articles which survive. Why do you decline to defend you decision? You apparently were the final arbiter of this articles fate. If you are not willing to discuss or debate your activities why are you an Administrator? Why do you have your name listed in the edits? Why not do them anonymously since you are above debate. How many articles do I have to delete or nominate for deletion to become an Administrator? I want to be infallable too!--Sand Squid 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have learned one thing though this conversation: an article of quality or potential quality is of less worth that a deletion. Quantity trumps quality. Wikipedia editors and adminstrators would rather delete an article than try to develop a new editor.

Good night.

--Sand Squid 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good evening your Holiness. Perhaps if you are not too busy deleting other peoples work,could you please explain why Max Keith has lasted almost three years with minimal information and minimal work yet it has not been deleted. How has this scaped your esteemed attention? You need to get on the stick your Holiness, I say delete it NOW before someone takes action on improving it!--Sand Squid 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to nominate it for deletion by applying {{subst:afd}} to the article and then following the instructions in that template, my son. Chick Bowen 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Your Grace, but I am not a Worthy. I must wait for One greater than I. I am only allowed to write articles for deletion. Not nominate them for deletion. That is your job. Maybe you can whisper in the ear of your friend User: janejellyroll. She thrills to delete as much as you do.--Sand Squid 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Chick, I noticed that you redirected Bik'a to the article that I mentioned in the speedy request. I'm aware that in many cases a redirect is the best way to go, but this seems to be a nn name for the article which I don't believe merits an article (even with the extremely discounted price of redirects  ). Perhaps you could reconsider and delete Bik'a after all? Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you can see at Special:Whatlinkshere/Bik'a, there are three articles that link to it. So it seems like the name is in use (and redirects are cheap, as you say yourself). Is there any particular reason that you want it deleted? Chick Bowen 07:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The links you mention were created by the same user. That doesn't bother me in and of itself, but the term "bik'a" (meaning valley in the Hebrew language) is a non-notable (and unconventionally transliterated) term which does not really refer to the subject. It would be like redirecting "coastal plain road" to Interstate 95 without any widespread use of that term (as I see that you are familiar with the state of Connecticut). Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. The links were my only concern, and they're gone now. The transliteration did look odd to me. Chick Bowen 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I think a banned user (ColScott) may have come back as a different user (Spawnopedia) and created the article Patty Columbo. How was the original article Patricia Columbo deleted (speedy, XFD)? I came to you because I saw that you were one of the admins that deleted it. Could you perhaps e-mail me the original text of the article so I can see if this is a sockpuppet case? My email is phil.gronATgmail.com. Yours, Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it as WP:CSD#G4. You can file a request for checkuser on the creator if you deem it necessary. Chick Bowen 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patty Columbo. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spawnopedia (talk • contribs).

Thank you for the notice. I have commented at the deletion review. Chick Bowen 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I endorse the deletion, but please remember that G4 is only for pages deleted via AFD. G10 would have been a better reason to give, as there never has been an AFD (so far as the deletion logs show). Either way, you got to the correct answer. GRBerry 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I generally find changes to CSD hard to make, but I do think that creating a page under a different name in a clear attempt to get around a protected deletion qualifies under the spirit of G4. But you're right that Centrx's original deletion was not as the result of an AfD. A simple checkuser here might make this all a moot point, however. Chick Bowen 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anyone interested in this case can comment at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ColScott, which I have created. Chick Bowen 19:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

My pleasure, and good luck to you. Chick Bowen 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks very much for the heads up on the change to copyvio speedy deletion. That's good news! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I found the link I was lookin for: [2]. Chick Bowen 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely - shortern as you see fit. I will say that the user looked to me like he was up to no good. Perhaps WP:POINT would have been a better block explanation. But anyway, I'm rambling - go ahead and change the block if you think indef is unwarranted. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Replied at User talk:MrDarcy. Chick Bowen 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not opposed to your shortening of the block. But I wonder why no discussion was made with Knowpedia before doing so. Looking at the request,[3] there is no indication of apology or even admission that the vandalism was wrong. In fact it even seems like Knowpedia is justifying the vandalism: "I do not deny the vandalism; however it was to user pages who had been using there user pages as way to have some fun at my expense. I did not vandalise wikipedia articles." In situations like this, where a user requests unblocking, I've usually seen an admin further engage the user and ask them to apologize and/or assert that they will not do it again. It's probably not going to end up being a big deal, but I worry that Knowpedia has been given the impression that some vandalism is indeed justified and that defense of such vandalism can get one's block reduced. — coelacan talk — 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would indeed like to hear from Knowpedia. But in this case it was not that I reduced the block based on his request or contrition, but that I wasn't sure the original block was justified. An indefinite block seemed counter-productive, particularly since it might lead to sock-puppetry. I recognize that, having been directly affected by Knowpedia's vandalism, you would be particularly sensitive about this, but please remember that blocks are always intended to be preventive, not punitive. The best thing would be for Knowpedia to know that what he did was wrong and never to do it again, but to return to productive editing. I assure you that I'll keep an eye on this situation, as will MrDarcy and other involved admins I'm sure, and you can certainly talk to or e-mail me or any of us if you have any concerns. Chick Bowen 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Righto, that's fine. As I said, I have no problem with actually lifting the block. What you're saying about indef blocks and socks makes sense too. I just usually see it happen in the opposite order: discussion with the blockee first, lift second. Not quite the way I would have done it, but I'm satisfied, as I notice now that you have left a message at User talk:Knowpedia to the effect of "you know this was wrong". It wouldn't make much sense to reverse things now. My only issue was that a block cannot be preventive if, upon returning, the blocked user still believes the behavior was justified. I'm realize I'm not making much helpful contribution by harping on this though. Peace, — coelacan talk — 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, you're right! Just goes to show how late at night it is in my area... Cheers, PTO 03:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are definitely wrong about the number of hits.

Also we have been trying to update and add links for the past few weeks, and have been having difficulties, and have had no help from Wikipedia. In fact, I believe this response is in direct reply to our complaint about our inability to update the site and your refusal to help us.

Check emails from our site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anna Jackman (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

You are welcome to comment at the deletion discussion. It is out of my hands. Chick Bowen 18:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I like it. The problem is that I use a script, so I click a link and it marks the image and notifies the user in one step. I would have to ask the script owner to modify it to allow "Mark as replaceable 2nd warning" or something which I'm not inclined to do. I think multiple warnings show the user is often not a good judgement of uploading images. What script? See my user page, right at the top. --MECU≈talk 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've gotten it to work by using coding similar to that used by {{Cleanup}}. You can see it here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

How ironic! —Malber (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Noticed you deleted OggSync.

Any reason you shouldn't delete my competition, GMobileSync, then?

- Shawn Rhoads

Already deleted by someone else. Chick Bowen 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm still bitter about Messy Stench. But fortunatly Ive discovered a new life here at Wikipedia. It really isn't a long fall from gnome to troll.--Sand Squid 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to know when user:knowpedia Block began or begins? --71.10.138.47 20:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a one week block, starting January 24th at 1:24 UTC. Chick Bowen 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Needs some work, and I can't figure out how to fix it--see what happened when I added a subpage to the list. Chick Bowen 19:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The activity log link was broken because you omitted the last parameter (the page name with underscores in lieu of spaces). The talk page link is broken because the template is compatible only with pages in the article namespace (which is why I used "article" in the name instead of "page"). I intended to create a variant with an extra parameter that enables compatibility with the other namespaces, but it occurs to me that I can simply add it to the existing template. I'll do that shortly. —David Levy 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. I've added an optional "ns" parameter for specifying a non-article namespace. Simply omit the namespace from the page title and append ns=[namespace]. —David Levy 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right--should have figured that out. We do use deletedpage in other namespaces from time to time, though, so this will be good. Chick Bowen 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I was going to create a separate template for that purpose, but then I realized that this wasn't necessary. I love ParserFunctions! —David Levy 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, since there's no actual protected deleted page policy--it's just something we do--there's no reason not to proceed with this. Chick Bowen 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we at least allow a few days of discussion? —David Levy 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course. But I just meant that the process could be up and running at any point without interfering with {{deletedpage}}. Chick Bowen 21:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, okay. Yeah, I see no harm in that. —David Levy 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding the first edition image, quite the thing to do and replace the Fair Use one I put up. All I would say is if you could find the covers rather than the titles pages that would be better. For major work both might be good and include the title page as an "in article" illustration, Anyway thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

In this case I see what you mean, title page is clearly better. It "might" be worth placing something in the article to indicate that the title page was chosen for that reason, even just non-displaying comments for editors to understand the choice made, thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting out the Kingdom Broadcasting Network article; a relist is the perfect way to handle it. William Pietri 19:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I have doubts about those massive multi-nominations--they only make sense when all the articles are essentially equivalent, like album pages each consisting of a tracklist. Chick Bowen 20:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

How can I get a copy of the article that was deleted? In about 10 or 15 years when I cool off I might find it fun to redo it. (If Wikipedia still exists) Hopefully my version in 2022ad will be more pleasing to the GREAT INFALLIBLE GALACTIC EDITORS. Or maybe they will have moved on or gotten real jobs. Either way, I'm having tons fun now! _{groveling before your esteemed Majesty....}--Sand Squid 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've created it at User:Sand Squid/Messy Stench. If you can provide reliable sources, I'd be happy to move it back into main space. Please note, however, that it can't sit in your userspace forever--if you want to work on it, fine, but otherwise either I or someone else will probably come along and delete it. And please, no groveling: a kowtow is quite sufficient. Chick Bowen 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I cut & pasted it to my email. Sorry to disturb you from your great delete-fest in the sky but you are the only admin I've encountered that does not come across as completely arrogant. You probably won't anyway but I don't recommend holding your breath on an article on Messy from me. I still believe she is noteable & worthy of an article but my enthusiasm and good will for Wikipedia is extinguished. Despite copies of better & legitimate sources I found or recieved from Messy herself, I don't see myself attempting anything worthwhile. Someone will do an article on her, won't be me. Good night.--Sand Squid 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am not George Reeves person,I checked antranadus history, that guy had long standing problems withhim- but i was approached by somebody, why did you block me, i tried to help with some articles, check my history, I will not do anything wrong from now on, just tell me what is wrong, but do not block me. If you go on my talk page you will find out i was contacted in the past by somebody who may be george reeves person, ranting and other stuff, well, what can you do, when things get out of way? But again, I will do my best not to do it and will leave you a message, yes, i was contacted and told if i go on wiki, i will have lots of problems and bad administrators, so that is true now. I left more xplanation here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=104942810&oldid=104942532 Boxingwear

This IP is now blocked. Chick Bowen 04:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply