This is an archive. Please do not modify it. Thanks.

Friendly note from Esperanza election helper Ral315

You voted for Titoxd for Administrator General. You did not, however, vote for Titoxd for Advisory Council. If this was a mistake, you can fix your votes any time between now and December 30. If this was not a mistake, please disregard this comment. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza election

Hi, you voted too early just as I did. I had to change all mine and you need to change yours on Titoxd's slot. Just thought I would tell you, hope you don't mind. Thanks.--Dakota ^t ^e 19:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

Freestylefrappe blocking threat

Hi Sean,

Freestylefrappe has now threatened to block me for adding information to the RFC on him [1]. (The information I added, incidentally, was about him deleting an entry from the "relevant policies" section of the RFC page.) I am wondering if this may soon be a job for ArbCom. For the moment, can you keep an eye on my talk page in case he actually blocks me? Thanks.

SCZenz 22:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness

With regards to your note at the top of the page, I wish I could be happy... but it seems things get so polarized! How do you get people to chill out? How can I get myself to chill out? Is there a name for this? Wiki-rage? JG of Borg 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats, and happiness

Hi Sean. I'm interested in this whole BC vs BCE dispute - I really hate to see edit wars going on over something so trivial. It seems to me that articles should be consistent as to their date format, and that there should be no reason to switch to another format once an article's consistent. Any other solution would seem to favor one side. I don't know how such an idea could be enforced though. I'm told this has already been talked to death... what do you think? Is the only solution counselling those involved to stay out of it? Would some kind of guideline clarification help? Currently, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras doesn't say anything about leaving well enough alone; perhaps it should?

Any comments you have would be appreciated. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and peace!

Do you agree that this is a copyvio? --Striver 02:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the rvv

I reverted the wrong version because it was vandalized twice. Then someone reverted right ahead of me and it never notified me. I am on RC patrol... --Adam ^(talk) 05:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

w00t!

Thx f0r t3h supp0rt on m3h rec3nt requ3st for t3h adminshipzors. I r hope to make good admin and c0mp1y with t3h po1icies. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:23, Dec. 17, 2005

Thank you!

Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/2), so I'm now an administrator! Here's to less vandals and more constructive edits! Mo0[talk] 06:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aecis

This user is campaigning against me. He/She has been writing an awful lot of this about which are not true. Aecis has been posting that I am "conspiring" and that I was telling people how to vote and that I am on a capaign to eradicate BCE and CE. These are in fact lies.

I think this user is getting out of hand now. I had no malicious intent when I let people know that the category was up for deletion (again). I have been told about deletions that if no one told me about I would never have known about. In fact, people who are admins let each other know about some pages that were up for deletion that I tried to save. I never heard that there was a policy against letting people know. I was not trying to stuff the ballot box. Because of what these people's categories were I thought they might be interested to know. I did not tell people how to vote.

Also, Aecis seems to be on a mission to remove the most commonly used AD and BC dating system from Wikipedia despite from what I understand that when an article was created using either the BC system or the BCE system they should then be kept at what they were started as. I have not tried to change BCE and CE on any article that was started as BCE I have on the other fought to preserve the system that is most commonly used and accepted and which has been in use for over a thousand years and unlike I believe Aecis, religion does not come into it. I checked out enecyclopedias and all of them used BC and AD. Even after Aecis was alerted to the fact that Wikipedia's rule was to keep the dating standard that was first initiated when the article was created he/she would change the article to BCE.

Because of this Aecis has been trashing me all over the place. I understand that everyone's opinions are not going to be in agreement and I have gotten annoyed with what some people have said but this user is being rather devious in his or her tactics because he/she doesn't like what I have to say or that we are at odds on a couple of issues.

My religion is now being made an issue by some, I have been accused of being User:Choossrrr because we vote the same way. Religion does not play a part in voting to save the pro-life and pro-choice categories. Why are people so afraid of people actually voting anyway? My views on the abortion issue have not changed since before I was practicing my religion. And BC and AD for me had nothing to do with religion.

I feel that these personal attacks by several like-minded users are going a bit too far. I think Aecis is trying to vilify me and get me in trouble. Anyway, I wanted to get my side of this problem out to someone. I don't know you from Adam but I figured I should let you know. Dwain 07:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are several points I wish to respond to. I did use the word "conspire". However, after that word, in parentheses, I wrote which meaning of the word applied: "To join or act together; combine" [2]. I have not accused Pitchka, or anyone else, of conspiring in the other sense of the word: "To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action." Such an allegation would indeed be ludicrous and totally inappropriate. Pitchka also raised the issue of our BCE/BC/CE/AD disagreement. I am not on a mission to eradicate BC and AD from wikipedia. I do feel that they shouldn't be used on articles where they are not appropriate in my view. But that’s what wikipedia is about: adding information that users deem appropriate, and removing information that users deem inappropriate. There are no bad faith intentions on my part, and I believe there are no bad faith intentions on “the other side.” I also believe that the BCE/BC/CE/AD issue is not related to the cfd/afd issue, so I don’t think they should be mentioned in one breath. According to Pitchka, I have been trashing him all over the place because of the BCE/BC/CE/AD issue. I can only say that what he sees as my trashing him began before the issue started, so a causal relationship between the two is technically impossible. On one issue I agree with Pitchka: I do not believe that he and Chooserr are one and the same person. I am convinced that these are two different good-faith users. I also believe, however, that in a desire to see a category kept (Pitchka) and an article deleted (Chooserr), they have basically gamed the system. I particularly think that Pitchka has crossed a line by carefully selecting and canvassing no less than 57 users. I believe that this has changed the outcome of the vote, since 14 users responded to Pitchka’s notice. I believe that they wouldn’t have voted if they hadn’t been informed of the cfd. Since the only keep votes are from users who were informed (besides Pitchka himself, who was the informer), the cfd would have ended in an overwhelming consensus to delete the categories if Pitchka hadn’t done this. Aecis ^praatpaal 09:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC) PS. Pitchka, I'm a he ;)[reply]

"We need more happiness aroud here."

I was just about to remove the admin box myself. See my talk page, as well as the the person who made the subcategory on my talk page about it (I forget the name and dont want to make a new window at the moment)

You could've at least had the common courtesy to let me do it myself, but the grumpy/oppositional tone "YOU ARE NOT AN ADMIN." suggests doesn't exactly give the impression that you have any, anyway. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a recent block

You've recently blocked Used2BAnonymous with the reason "Anti-Semitic personal attack". She's understandably stressed due to her dispute with Dominick and upset at being accused of antisemitism. You cite this edit in particular; although she speaks provocatively, I don't see any part that would be considered antisemitic. I'd appreciate any clarification you can provide so that I can respond to her messages. Thanks. // Pathoschild 15:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Sean (repeated from my Talk Page): It's OK, Sean; s'all good. I will forget all about it now. I appreciate and totally accept the apology (I reallllly needed to hear it because I am starting to feel a bit punked on and totally misunderstood). Thank you! Used2BAnonymous 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification as part of this dispute

In attempting to leave Pathoschild a message, I saw you had a dispute with this person. Any antisemetic accusations are not part of my contention with this person. My contention is that she was twisting PoV, and linkspamming links to her personal internet domain, that have been shown to be fueled by wikipedia links (see the RfC RFC on Dominick that was filed after mine on her). She has a non-Catholic outlook on Jewish Catholic relations, so I apologize in advance if her opinion was regarded as an orthodox Catholic position. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity

When you blocked chooserr for content warring, that meant he was suppossed to not edit during that block? correct? does this mean he can be reblocked, at least his user name anyway?--Aolanonawanabe 17:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of them was blocked indefinatly as a sockpuppet of chooserr, immediatly afterwards, two anon IPs come along and make the same edit, with the same edit summary, to the same article--Aolanonawanabe 18:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Dear Sean, Perhaps you could help with advice as to how this dispute over sources can be resolved. I would also like to challenge the addition of fifteen dubious web links to two sentences of the article as not meeting an acceptable or reasonable standard for sources. --Ian Pitchford 19:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15 sources, none are dubious. It is only because Ian claimed agains and again that it is not sourced. So everytime he claimed it more sources were added. you help in further mediating tnis is apprciated. Zeq 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Message

Thanks for leaving the welcome message on my talk page, it made me feel loved! Alexforcefive 19:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Epsilon RFA

I want you to see the comment under the "comments" section I left at My RFA. It partially involves you. — Moe ε 22:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting

I think this time there was no other option. Ian need to agree to resolve this without unilateral changes. Zeq 08:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you protect

Can you also protect Israeli Arabs ? Revert war starting. Thanks. Zeq 12:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, can you do that???? And where the HELL have you been when Titanic sank? -- Heptor _talk 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Dear Sean, I have made what is probably my last comment on sources here. I've not seen any reason to believe that Zeq will address any question put to him let alone negotiate for the benefit of this artcle in particular or Wikipedia as a whole. I'm not prepared to see blatantly racist material added to the article and would like to know what recommendation you would make for getting the matter resolved. --Ian Pitchford 21:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario

What kind of edit has Super Mario been making that you reverted?? Georgia guy 01:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you!

Hi Sean Black, thanks for your support on my recent RFA. Although I did not make admin, I'm very happy you decided to support me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. — Moe ε 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Democracy

Hi there!

Thanks a bunch for taking the time to welcome me to Wikipedia and writing that nice message.

However, I still don't see what I did wrong: the admin [User: Jbamb] kept reverting without offering sufficient argumentation. I would then first go to the talk page, write out why I believe a specific link should be re-introduced, and then would add it back in.

At the end, [User: Jbamb] just stopped participating in the exchange and said "ban incoming."

Would you be so kind as to read the talk page and tell me whether you feel my arguments are wrong (not so much on whether I was right to revert, but whether the link should be added or not).

I want to repeat that the link that they keep removing was:

a) written by someone who for two years was the Assistant Editor of "Democracy & Nature, the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy"

b) Has published 7 papers in scholarly journals on "Inclusive Democracy", one of which was even co-authored with Takis Fotopoulos (who is the founder of the project of "Inclusive Democracy")

b) written by someone who created and ran for 5 issues the Greek magazine "Inclusive Democracy"

c) published in a Greek magazine, with an accompanying response from Fotopoulos (and the fact that he thought it was significant enough for him to provide a personal reply shows, I think, that it was not as insignificant as they are now trying to portray it)

d) was deemed "significant" by T.P. a professor at the university of Bath and an ex-member of the editorial board of "Democracy & Nature, the International Journal of Inclusive Democracy"

Kindly note that the entry I am talking about is called "Inclusive Democracy". I don't think that the fact that the link I am providing points to a University of Illinois web page is sufficient reason for its removal.

I also don't think that the fact that the people around "Inclusive Democracy" should be able to remove a criticism of their project just because they don't have an article available to reply to a criticism. If they want a reply to appear they should write/translate one, upload it, and provide a link to it.

Also, I would like to ask you: do you think it's right that the people around the project of "Inclusive Democracy" should always be the ones to have the last word on every Wikipedia entry that's related to their project? Does that mean that e.g. the entry on Communism should only be controlled by communists (and likewise for the entry on conservatism)?

I have decided to stop reverting and wait for your feedback.

Once again, thanks for being so nice to me.

Paulcardan 05:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made my points, this page is on his student personal website. Do we link things from geocities just because someone wants to insist that their own paper get included? This paper is published no where. The guy is a no-namer. He's a physics grad student trying to push his own paper. This seems text book vanity policy violation. -- Jbamb 05:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to Sean separately. Now, regarding Jbamb's comment: Gezerlis is the only other individual on this planet (apart from the project's founder, i.e. Fotopoulos) who has published half a dozen papers on the "project of Inclusive Democracy". Now if his view on the subject is not authoritative, then whose is?

Furthermore, what do you mean "The guy is a no-namer"? In comparison to whom? What about the name "Fotopoulos"? Had you heard of it two days ago? Obviously not, but still, you don't have a problem with an entire ENTRY on him.

Finally, and most importantly: this paper was published in the Greek magazine "Periektiki Dimokratia" WHICH MEANS "INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY". JBamb you didn't do your homework. This magazine is run by the same people who are demonizing Gezerlis now (and that group includes Fotopoulos himself). On the other hand, check out the last two links on this entry: they are published on the website http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/ which is a self-proclaimed journal with no publisher, and in which 95% of the contributions are reprints (I just found out that there's an ongoing AfD at the page The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy). This, however, is good enough for you...

Paulcardan 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, if the guy has published a half dozen papers, why do you need to link to his student homepage with a page and a half tract? If the article was published, link to the published URL. Or link to an actual published paper. There is great evendence that you are the same person as he is, namely, you are engaging in vanity. I don't troll wikipedia for every single entry, you just came on recent changes, and insisted including your own one and a half page tract and violated the WP:3RR in the process. If there's another AfD on the issue, that's even further weight to get rid of this stuff. If you don't like Fotopoulos, then by all means, AfD it. -- Jbamb 21:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the electronic reprint of the original paper (in Greek - along with a response) at the website of the people who are now denigrating Gezerlis (as for the "vanity" issue: what you're saying is that whoever supports Marxism and uploads a link to that effect can only be Marx himself, back from the dead!):

http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/pd/is8/issue_8_kritik.htm

As you can see, it is published in Greek. That wouldn't be really helpful in the English version of Wikipedia. You also ask why would one need to the personal website of an author, instead of "link[ing] to the published URL. Or link to an actual published paper." Well, let's take another paper by Gezerlis as an example:

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/gezerlis/www/dn6.pdf

Try finding the same paper on-line in PDF (i.e. more authoritative) form and you will see that you will fail. The closest you can get is to go to:

http://www.gateway.ingenta.com/patron/searching/Availability/ilurbana;jsessionid=s5sks1bkmrqq.circus?pub=infobike://carfax/cdna/2003/00000009/00000002/art00007&targetId=1135113302131

which is the publisher's website and asks you to BUY the article. The fact that an author runs the risk of getting in trouble with his publisher and is willing to provide his articles for free should be commended, not attacked.

I don't see how I violated the WP:3RR. From where I stand, you did so. You kept reverting an entry on which you know nothing about, without even taking the time to read the arguments on both sides.

"If you don't like Fotopoulos, then by all means, AfD it." Is this how you think Wikipedia should be operated? I don't like John Malkovich for God's sake, but that's not enough of a reason for me to AfD the relevant entry!!!

Paulcardan 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I did not only add a link to Gezerlis's text. I added links to a bunch of other critical texts, solely with the intention to provide a critical context for Wikipedia users and not a biased entry. The problem arose when the guys around "Inclusive Democracy" accepted my additions of some links, but not the one by Gezerlis (who obviously, given that he was so close to the foundation and expansion of the project is better equipped to criticize it than others who don't even know what's it's talking about).

PPS: I just noticed you voted on the AfD of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy something that shows that you are being self-consistent. My point about John Malkovich above was the following: some of the stuff around "Inclusive Democracy" is vanity crap, while other parts are actually serious (like the now defunct international journal "Democracy & Nature" whose Assistant Editor Gezerlis had been).

Othro Evra

This material had a link which described the situation so straight off the bat it wasn't unsourced. It's notable enough, and it is still pending so I kindly request that you remove your edit. Thank you, Chooserr 06:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condom

--Aolanonawanabe 07:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Condom application

I noticed you restored the condom application section despite my firmly grounded point that any idiot can read the directions that come with them. You might as well give step by step directions to making Chocolate. Chooserr 07:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We do--Aolanonawanabe 08:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No we don't, we give a generic list of ingredients, and don't tell you how to prepare them, or if it needs baking/cooking. Chooserr 08:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert actress?

Hello Sean. Why revert actress to actress? Yours in WikiPedia, Brequinda 08:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Thanks! Brequinda 08:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin powers

Using them well, keep up the good work. Redwolf24 (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey by the way...

Dominick ^(TALK) 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Blank

I'm not sure I'm doing this right but anyway... I didn't make corecting or hacking, that was my cosion. I didn't have a way to delete them, though. As or Spoiler3, I did make that. I thought that it might help the comunity because with the current spoiler, you can see stuff you didn't mean to. With Spoiler2, you have to highlight the text in the box to see the spoiler. About the Earthbound stuff, that was my cosion to.

P.S. By the way, I got the Spoiler3 Idea from Acmlm's Board.

P.P.S. Maybe I should post ideas on my talk page?

--Cat lover 16:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Democracy -- That's It For Me

Hello again Sean!

Thanks once more for your kind words.

I think the point I should have raised sooner was the fact that this text they keep deleting was published in a Greek magazine whose name stands for "Inclusive Democracy" (which is their official "organ") and accompanied with a reply by the project's founder.

I don't know if you've noticed what happened: 4 hours after you added the link, it was removed by one of the people around the project (I know who he is, but that is beside the point) with no edit summary or comment on the talk page.

Trust me when I tell you that the minute you try to add it back in, they will revert it again, and then go to the talk page and start attacking either Gezerlis (whose "evil hand" they see behind everything) or you. I have had similar experience at the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature

I have decided to stop adding the link (although I REALLY feel it does belong on this page). The thing is, the more I try to present the article (with a weighted-out Wikipedia presentation in mind) the more they attack Gezerlis.

I don't know what to say. I realize that you have other things to do in life (and this includes "other things to do in Wikipedia") and cannot focus on this one page. I have noticed the "my watchlist" option at the top of the page but it didn't really work for me.

If you wish to see to it that WP:AUTO (which you mentioned) is followed then I would be grateful. But I cannot bring myself to ask you to spend so much of your time against people who seem to be control freaks and don't care one bit about Wikipedia, but about their ability to control any piece of information that refers to them or their work. If it's easier for an admin then please do so; if not, forget about it.

The only thing I can say is that you are the first person in Wikipedia who was so kind (although I have seen a couple other nice people). I have to admit that if it wasn't for such behavior (and this has NOTHING to do with whether you agree with me on this or that specific issue) I wouldn't think of continuing my participation in Wikipedia. :-)

I hope I'll be seeing you around!

Best,

Paulcardan 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my RfA

Thank you!

Sean Black, thanks for your support on my RFA. I was rather suprised at the overwhelming support I received. Thank you for your confidence in me. I hope that I'll live up to your expectations in the future as well. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the links! Also, I don't EVER change an article without sighning because I have nothing to hide. I won't vandalize because I think this is a great idea: to have peer review, just like in experiments.

Captain Marvel unprotection

Hey Sean,

I wasn't intending to protect it very long, but it was under extreme rapidfire attack and I thought it should be protected long enough to deal with the vandals who are doing it. The link you included when you unprotected it was red (a typo?), so I'm not even sure what I did wrong. Can you fill me in? -- SCZenz 22:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know perfectly well that extended protection of main page articles is bad. As I indicated on the talk page of the article, I intended to protect it only long enough to see what was going on, and maybe make sure the offending IP's were dealt with. It was undergoing extremeley fast vandalism at the time. You could have given me a tiny bit longer than 5 minutes before overruling me. -- SCZenz 22:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, the page seems to be doing fine now. Maybe they'd already been dealt with, were dealt with in the interim, or just gave up and got bored. -- SCZenz 22:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bigfoot page

I strongly object to 90% of the retrograde edits that DreamGuy is making. I add new info that he never heard of, since I doubt he reads any bigfoot books, and he comes along and deletes it. I restore,he deletes. I want him OFF this page. He has no expertise and his POV is of a skeptic. I've done 30 years of research in the field on this, and have run three Bigfoot museums. This skeptic has no knowledge,nor experience. I want him OFF the page. He has no right to make these edits. He is aiming for a low-info, backward, passe' page. He does not want new info for the public to read.

I see nothing to compromise on with him, I just want him gone. He has no valid point of view, and I have asked him to contact me, and he ignores me, from some arrogance.

beckjordBeckjord 08:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!)

Umm this one is derrived from the nprse tree and fulfils the same duty. One watching the amime will be more than likely of the origin and other ygdrassils on other anime which are listed in the disambig page. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone's only going to get to the article from Oh My Goddess! articles, or Yggdrasil (disambiguation), so the disambig stuff doesn't need to be at the top of Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!). But, hey, whatever, you think is best.--Sean|Bla ck 02:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it easy for the reader. The Anime and the norse legends go back and forth quite often although not too much. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Norse Mytholgy

Assuming you know about the mythology, can you check the factual accuracy of norse mythology referances on any/all articles related to Oh My Goddess!? You can use the nav box :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 02:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikithanks

Thanks for the props. We edit whether we get recognized or not, but it's nice when one's efforts are noticed. Kerowyn 02:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MY Complaint....

My complaint has been settled. Martial Law 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]