User talk:PeeJay/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello PeeJay/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page or see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Again, welcome! -Sean|Bla ck 23:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Hi. When moving pages, please do not do this via copy-and-pasting the text from one article to another, as you did with Olympiacos and Olympiakos. The correct procedure is detailed in WP:MOVE and (in simple cases) just by using the "move" button on any page. Cheers --Pak21 10:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, further to that, could you explain why you think the page should be at Olympiakos? Certainly the official website is at [1]. Also, you have broken both the external link to the official website and the category filing by your edit – please take care in future. Cheers --Pak21 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just undone your move; if you feel it should be moved, I suggest you bring this up at Talk:Olympiacos, where the subject has previously been discussed. Cheers --Pak21 11:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Van Der Sar

He's been wearing #1 all pre season. Foster has been wearing #19. Don't rely on the official web shite - it only recognised Howard as going to Everton yesterday!

Pre-season numbers mean nothing. There has been no official announcement about squad number changes for the coming season other than Carrick and Kuszczak's numbers. Anyway, since Fozzy is now out on loan, the fact that he was wearing #19 is moot. PeeJay 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were saying?? ;-)

I was saying that there hadn't been an official announcement at the time. Wikipedia is a database of facts, not conjecture. The squad numbers have now been announced, so it would appear you were right, but we can't afford to assume until there's been an official announcement. PeeJay 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning British English grammar

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I would like to clarify with you a recent edit you made with regards to the Manchester United F.C article on 00:29, 10 September 2006. In that edit, with regards to grammar, you changed the are to is in the opening sentence of the article. Incidently, I changed it a few days ago, in line with the discussion which is currently going on at the talk page of the article. Moreover, I would like to encourage you to read this article, which would aid you in the final decision you would be making about this. I would like to strongly encourage you to discuss this matter in the talk page of the Manchester United article under the sub-section of A note on British English. Your comments and views would be greatly welcomed over this. Thank you for your patience and kind understanding in this matter. If you fail to voice out any objections you may have over this, I shall change the grammar style of this article in line with British English standards. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my edit. However, I changed it to "Manchester United is a world-famous English football club" because the standard form of "to be" is "is" when put with a singular noun, which "Manchester United" is.

Hats off to the Buskers

Please stop changing ""Gran's for Tea" to the grammatically incorrect "Grans for Tea". They are not eating plural grans but talking of being at gran's house (possessive) for tea. Here's the link to the official album description on the Columbia (parent of 1965 records) site. http://www.columbia.co.uk/releases/401/.Here's the same info at Sony http://www.sonybmgmusic.co.uk/releases/401/ Note the apostrophe. Also I have the album as well and there is a clear gap between the n and s in the handwritten version. Citizensmith 11:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wru logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wru logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Rugby

Pliz dont make anymore changes to Wales national rugby union team or it might be recognised as Vandalism andif you want to know the reason for removing the fixtures pliz talk to Shudda--Cometstyles 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its OK

You can add your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Participants list and become a part of our small clan..hehe--Cometstyles 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Rugby union WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to rugby union.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPRU Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and a collaboration of the fortnight.
We have a Fijian rugby task force that focuses on Fiji-related rugby union articles.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorisation, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Shudda ^talk 05:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Wigan Athletic F.C.

Please discuss changes to the kit image rather than simply reverting them, preferably with more civility than calling changes "shit". If the current pattern continues, you and User:FootyStavros are likely to break the three-revert rule. Oldelpaso 09:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made a new Wigan pattern. Have you seen it yet? I think it looks better.[2] FootyStavros 19:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magners League

Thanx for updating the {{2006-07 Magners League Table}}--Cometstyles 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United 1st team squad list.

Hi. Please, before you change the list again, can you go to the Talk page and discuss this. I am also rerquesting that Oragina2 does the same. Thanks. Darkson - BANG! 13:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Iam not sure why you dont have a userpage but I believe it would be a good idea to redirect your userpage to your talkpage..Cheers:-)..--Cometstyles 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor reformatting

I have done a minor reformatting on the 2006-07 EPL page. Please do not revert back to the older edits, or else I may report you for vandalism. Thanks. NoseNuggets 12:35 PM US EDT Mar 18 2007

I warned you. Now I have not other choice but to report you for vandalism. NoseNuggets 9:24 PM US EDT Mar 18 2007

Suggestion for 07-08 EPL Uniform section

When the 2007-08 EPL article is created, how about a wikitable listing every team's kit maker and shirt sponsor. Without using the table here, it should look like the following:

TEAM | KIT MAKER | SPONSOR
Arsenal Nike Emirates
Aston Villa Nike 32Red
Blackburn Lonsdale Bet24

And so on.

Good idea? NoseNuggets 2:44 PM US EDT Mar 18 2007

Looks OK, but is it really necessary? I'm happy with the "Changes" section as it is now, so I see no reason to change it for next season. PeeJay 18:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting

Please see WP:DATE, especially the section labelled Dates containing a month and a day. Both [[May 1]] and [[1 May]] produce the same output - May 1 1 May - you can set your preferences at Special:Preferences. Just a heads up. QmunkE 18:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Bath rugby badge.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you uploaded the same image twice: as Image:Bath rugby badge.png and also as Image:Bath badge.png. The latter copy of the file has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 13:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me concerning Manchester United

Normally I'd reply on my own talk page but your particular form of rudeness leads me to break from that principle. First of all: cool it, get your facts straight and assume good faith. You write to me as if I continually deface the ManU article, and the word vandal is not something you throw about lightly. Now, if you decide to be rational about this (and refrain from assuming you have travelled more than me or have a greater understanding of the world-wide perception of ManU) you can calmly look at the intro sentence of the article.

Manchester United Football Club are a world-famous English football club, based at the Old Trafford stadium in Trafford, Greater Manchester, and are one of the most popular sports clubs in the world, with over 50 million supporters worldwide.

Adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, this line is just unacceptable, twice buttering up ManU world glory. One is enough, if that. Since WP is an encyclopedia, and not for promotion, we want the article to be above club allegiances and stick to the sobre facts. MURGH ^disc. 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two statements in that sentence are both mutually exclusive of each other, and also factual. I do not see how either statement is anything other than factual. Granted, they do both glorify the club's support a little, but being well-supported and well-known are two completely different things.

I apologise for the vandal comment, but there is a difference between being bold with your edits and removing something for a reason we have not yet come to concensus on. Again, sorry, but you have to see things from our point of view too. That's the whole idea behind NPOV, isn't it? PeeJay 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for apologizing, and yes, I'll absolutely respect a consensus. As I entered the situation, User:Brendyeire made the initial edit which I reviewed and found to be reasonable (considering world-fame was already mentioned elsewhere in the same sentence), so I left it alone. It was when this was reverted without explanation that I saw the need to defend Brendyeire's edit. Thankfully, nothing on WP is written in stone, so no damage done, and consensus should ultimately decide. MURGH ^disc. 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there thanks for the comment. I'm basically addressing the points covered in the peer review. Not altering the content significantly, mainly copy-editing and reformatting so that there are fewer needless subsections etc. Content I'm significantly shortening (staff and possibly stadium) will still be visible on the edit page, meaning if you disagree with a change it will be easy to edit without need for a revert.BeL1EveR 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDF ENERGY CUP attendance

I found it on the RFU website it said it was that. Like you I was suprised to see such an exact figure and on there it says the figure I included.

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hardwork in making Wikipedia a better place. I, User:Noface1, award you this Original Barnstar. Well done and happy editing! Noface1 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I have no vested interest in the article other than making it neutral. You on the other hand, the user who is attempting to cover up what independent sources say have a vested interest to try and sway the article in Manchester United's favour as you are a fan. You also seem to have a heavy bias against the police force. Vandalise my edits and blank my sources to the article again and I'll report you. - Daddy Kindsoul 08:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas you seem to be intent on making Manchester United fans look like the sole instigators of the incident. Feel free to report me, but I think you'll find it is you who is in the wrong. PeeJay 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure man.I had that article in my watchlist but somehow I seemed to have removed it . Illidan reules 11:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no. My edit simply added the reality of the situation with sources from media to back it up. Your edit seems very bias, as a United fan you're trying to twist it as if police were acting for no reason at all, when subsequent media reports and statements made by police heads shows otherwise. - Daddy Kindsoul 08:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United fans didn't "retailate" against police, as video footage showed them throwing objects,[3] kicking at police, etc. Before the later bloody faces United fans scenes occured. The force of the police reaction, is stated in some media forums to have been harsh, but it says police reaction... they were there to react against what the behaviour of some fans. You don't send riot police in if there is nothing to control. - Daddy Kindsoul 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no bloody faces, if you look at the picture of the other fans though. The image is from before what was judged by some as a "heavy police response". The police have moved in there, but have not yet started hitting with battons, until United fans threw things (as seen in the image) and kicked at them.

Roma and United fans were reported in the media to be baiting each other during the game. Claiming United are innocent faces angels and Roma fans were somehow mindless thugs there to cause trouble is POV. As I said.. I have no vested interest in either side, I'm not a United or Roma fan... my interest is the neutrality and so that we don't have United fans slyly bashing the police baselessly in the article with weasel words which don't reflect sources and video footage of the events. The police vs. United fans and the alleged "harshness" of their reaction is what made the event notable, Roma fans vs. United fans wasn't the main part of it. - Daddy Kindsoul 09:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is your problem?.. you are still blanking the part which states "United fans attacked riot police as they moved in to put the situation under control[4] after a portion of the United fans refused to be contained by stewards[5]." These statements are sourced information from the BBC and 24 News. Stop vandalising the article, just because you don't like the facts. You've had it explained to you above how the police retaliated against the United fans actions, how the reports state that... United fans had nothing to "retaltiate" from! The police action came afterwards. Do you not understand logic? reports?, etc. Can't you just choose another Manchester United article to ruin until another user notices you're adding NPOV and then you have another dispute? - Daddy Kindsoul 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Daddy Kindsoul has no intention of allowing "both sides" of the story to be mentioned, and as such I've placed a POV check on the article. Might I suggest you ask for a comment? Darkson - BANG! 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:football box on UEFA Champions League 2006-07 pages

It is still too long if using Manchester United when no finalist is confirmed. Being the short form used by UEFA, why don't use it? KyleR Giggs 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I was confused whenever to use European flag. But since other members used European flag on UEFA Cup, an European flag should be used on every articles if the country of the team is unknown KyleR Giggs 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coiling

Do you like to coil things? Such as rope.

Date formats

If you feel you need to change the date format for a single entry in an article to yyyy-mm-dd, please respect the other dates used within the same article. They may have the same effect with YOUR preferences, but not necessarily with everyone else's. In effect, if you change one, please change them all. - fchd 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 131.251.0.55 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Netsnipe ► 05:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have drawn the attention of the blocking admin to your request.--Anthony.bradbury 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should now be able to edit.--Anthony.bradbury 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

You are more than welcome. By the nature of the software within which wikipedia runs, this happens now and then. I personally have been hit by autoblocks on four separatre occasions, without having done anything at all to deserve them. So I sympathise.--Anthony.bradbury 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Image:Ryan giggs.jpg

Message posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Image:Ryan giggs.jpg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.4thegame.com/club/manchester-united-fc/player-profile/754/ryangiggs.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article [[Talk:Image:Ryan giggs.jpg|Talk page]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Ryan giggs.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article [[Talk:Image:Ryan giggs.jpg|Talk page]]. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Ryan giggs.jpg]] with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at [[Talk:Image:Ryan giggs.jpg]] saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your original contributions are welcome.

Ytny (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RWC07

Nice work putting in all the referees! Some of them have articles, and did a few, want to give me a hand with the rest? Goldman07 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you have been doing great stuff lately! I have started the others, so if you want to look them over that would be great. Peace. :) Goldman07 04:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your solution works! However, there is now a problem as all the non-RWC teams have not been updated. So what should we do? Post on Talk:2007 Rugby World Cup. Good work again, sorry about this last issue! :) Goldman07 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referees

Hey,

Good work with the referees. If you and Goldman can get one to better then stub standard then you should nominate it for Did You Know. Keep up the good work. - Shudda ^talk 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of the Daleks/Hooverville

I have asked for group consensus on our edit conflict about Hooverville. Please see Talk:Evolution of the Daleks#Hooverville. mattbuck 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rugby Forum

I am Wikipedia! Haha! Yeah...RBS is on here too! He wrote the Waterloo R.F.C. page. Glad to hear from you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rowlan (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RfA closed

Hi. I closed and delisted your RfA. Better luck next time. Regards, El_C 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ebbw vale rfc badge.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ebbw vale rfc badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cardiff rfc badge.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cardiff rfc badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cardiff blues badge.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cardiff blues badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Caerphilly rfc badge.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Caerphilly rfc badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bridgend rugby badge.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bridgend rugby badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United

I do not think Man U is offensive as the team is world wide known for that name.

Maybe you don't, but I do. Man U/ManYoo/ManUre is used by fans of other teams as a derogatory term to describe Man Utd, and if you don't understand that, then I can only assume you're not a proper United fan.
P.S. Remember to sign your posts. PeeJay 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roma/United clash page

Hey, I know there's been a lot of hassle over this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_AS_Roma-Manchester_United_conflict but as an editor who seems to have a bit more experience then me, would you mind having a look at the new sources on the talk page and seeing if you can get them into the page? If you think it's more trouble then it's worth, that's fine, I'm inclined to think the same thing, but with a full set of neutral references I don't see how anyone could object, although I'm sure they'd manage somehow. Spugmeister 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 66.230.200.151 lifted or expired. Request handled by: —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]