User talk:John Z

Welcome aboard! I noticed high quality of your contributions and wanted to commend you for making WP better. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the quality of your edits and willingness to cooperate with others, I see a sign that you will be a great editor in the near future. Welcome aboard.

Guy Montag 07:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the start of the 6 day war page, good job. --Apyule 05:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Help please. On Ronn Torossian page there are sockpuppets seeking to destroy and I saw you helped previously. Can you assist ASAP pls ? --[[User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binyaminyigal (talk • contribs) 10:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

I see you reverted my edit to the Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article when I said there was no evidence that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. I thought there wasn't but I'll take your word for it there is in Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation. However, I would like to know what you meant by pp.4,217, I thought pp. meant a page but obviously not. Could you tell me what you meant by that, what part of the book provides the evidence should I acquire the book and the exact words in that book that you think are proof Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a Muslim. --Supertask 04:41, 10 April 2008 (GMT)

""He was born an Ottoman Moslem, of lower middle class family and ostensibly Turkish stock.""

A newborn can't accept the metaphysical tenets of islam or any religion, so this just refers to the religion of the family he was born into.

"On p. 216-7: After noting how the Sheikh of Islam had pronounced a fatwa on the Nationalists, Kinross says "In creating it [ an elected national assembly] Kemal must reply in kind to the Islamic manifestoes of Constantinople. Thus he still acted outwardly in the name of the Caliphate, whose abolition was his ultimate objective. With every appearance of defernce he mobilized the ulema, the religious authority of Angora, which now issued a counterblast to Constantinople with a fetva of its own." "... to encourage such deputies as might be reluctant to come to the newly elected Assembly, he thus circulated throughout the country his own proclamation which outdid the Sultan-Caliph himself in its Islamic invocations." Later, p.386 Kinross mentions how "an emissary, claiming to represent Indian and Egyptian Moslems" "suggested to Kemal that he himself should become the Caliph.""

This shows nothing of his personal beliefs, just that he used Islam politically because it was useful/needed.

I'm not stating he wasn't a Muslim, just that it is not known with certainty what his religious beliefs were. --Supertask 01:45, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

So what is this new quote from Atatürk from page 6 of Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation? You said go to talk to see it but I can't find it. --Supertask 01:53, 16 April 2008 (GMT)

John, I appreciate your edits, but I don't think putting sources in edit comments is a good thing. Rather, I think they should be added to the article itself, ideally as footnotes. Editors who come along later are unlikely to look back through an edit history to try to understand that you've actually provided a source in an edit summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put together a little poll at Talk:Terrorism regarding the "lone wolf" section. Your input would be appreciated. Thx. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to be working on a number of substantial Palestine-related rewrites, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Palestine. - Mustafaa 22:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The 13 Israeli Arabs sentence was already there, I just added the part about Asil. Yeah I agree that is a pretty weak sentence, I guess what I was trying do was add another sentence to emphasize the significance of his death to his Jewish and Arab friends while maintaining an optimistic yet neutral POV - please feel free to clean that part up, my mind is blanking. As for Azmi, I don't think he was actually hurt then, but there was an attempt by a Jewish mob to burn his house down. He apparently was injured a couple of weeks ago though, during a sit-in to protest a house demolition in Haifa [1]. Thanks again Ramallite ^(talk) 06:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, the civil administration was established later, but since the whole thing was military rule in one way or another, that little fact slipped my mind. Thanks for the note, I fixed the text now. Ramallite ^(talk) 5 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)

In case I haven't said this before, please let me compliment you on the quality of your edits in what are normally extremely contentious articles. Please accept this barnstar from me Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I recalled you saying this wasn't clear; could you please comment at Talk:West Bank#Pakistan? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John Z, That's a good find. I was quite surprised but the source you give seems impeccable. --Zero 02:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I just noticed that some wholesale vandalism of the History of South Africa in the apartheid era a couple of days ago went undetected until today. An anon replaced the entire text of the article with the old text of the Apartheid article, including the bit about "diaspora Jews." Since this seems to have slipped under everyone's radar (including mine), and I don't know who has History of South Africa in the apartheid era on their watchlist, I thought I'd give you a heads up. --Bcrowell 18:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 1958 convention could be used as evidence of customary international law, but Egypt would still only be in violation of customary international law, not the treaty itself. An argument could reflect this, but it's probably easier to omit references to the treaty altogether, as it complicates the issue for most people and is indeed anachronistic. --Cybbe 14:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to your draft, I think that is a pretty good version although it includes too much from the history of Shechem. I would be happy with that version with a few edits (such as a shortening of the info on Shechem).Heraclius 18:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know, I've reverted back and reprotected it at the correct version. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contibution and support in the discussion pages. --Yodakii 10:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John, would you mind taking a look at the Territories under Israeli control article? I'd like to ensure that the issue is properly represented, and, being a knowledgable editor regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, I thought you'd be a good candidate for doing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, I'm confident you'll be able to help sort things out and improve the article. I'm sorry to hear you haven't been well though, hope that's better soon. I didn't understand the "ill-gotten gains" part, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John,

Thanks for the tutorials and welcome message. Zeq 16:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John, I sent you an e-mail on Friday, which I'm assuming you haven't seen based on your responses. I'll do my best to reply to you tonight. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're the second person today who didn't receive an e-mail I sent via Wikipedia. I've sent it again, but if there's a problem with that way of sending things, you may not receive this one either. Anyway, it just said I'd try to reply to you on Saturday or Sunday, and that I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. I'm also not sure what the translation sentence was saying, so I made it invisible until we can figure out what we're doing. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite liked your "crazed vehemence." It was kind of stirring. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help to prevent the vandalism. Thanks. Zeq 22:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi John,

Thanks for your comments.

I agree about your advice that I will try to work theminto my editing. But I think that on the legal issue you made a mistake.

You wrote:

""although both courts rule according to the same Int'l law" - of course the ICJ used only international law, while the Israeli court can use Israeli law too. The ICJ unanimously agreed that the 4th Geneva Convention applies de jure to these territories - this is a major legal, not factual difference between it and the Israeli court. The Israeli court may say different, but practically all international legal experts disagree with it here. "

This is not true. The Israeli court decided to apply the 4th Geneva convention and it is sais so in the decision

Please read the decision, it is based on solid application of Int'l law and on facts. That is all. The only difference between the courts are the facts and the decision clearly show that.

If you think differently, please find a source (legal source) that sais so - I am very intrested to read such source.

Thanks, Zeq 18:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

Thanks for your quick note.

Please assume my good faith AND that I also know what I am talking about. You are correct about the position of the state of Israel (the goverment) but you are not corrfect about the court.

The court addressed exactlu your concerns and sais that even if Israel does not accept that Geneva apply in the territories Israel (must) act as if it apply. So I suggest you read the decision, some of the best legal minds in the world (Barak) have wrote it.

In the prefix and in section 14 they discuss why the Geneva apply and later they rule according to it in many sections:

14, 16, 17 35, 37 48,49, 50, 26, 95 and more......

Best,

Zeq 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I would appriciate help with the solving the balnket revert by well respected editor. This is not the wikipedia policy (I hope). I am doing my best to contribute from my extensive knowledge on the barrier to this article and encyclopedia. I am doing so without using "original research" although I have a lot first hand knowledge based on my work with the UN on this issue.

Hi John, just wanted to thank you for your comments about me on Zeq's page and your help in trying to resolve this matter. I think Zeq, being new here, is struggling with POV, OR, and a language barrier, but it looks like he's slowly coming along just like most of us did. Thanks again! Ramallite ^(talk) 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ramallite Zeq 19:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could help here? I wrote this off the top of my head to replace a POV-filled article whose useful content was near nil. I have limited references available to me to fix it. Palmiro | Talk 21:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We're getting things off the ground, hoping to eventually build a community of contributors interested in international law. Yeu Ninje 04:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... facilitating quality wiki work.

I have synthesized a wiki at http://www.wikimodel.com for modeling causality. I would greatly appreciate additions to the work in progress! Thank you --Dialectic 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I thought you may be interested to learn that I translated most of חוק רמת הגולן as well as its three broad provisions. Regards, El_C 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my last posting to Talk:List of military occupations#World War II. You were right I was wrong. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have done some good and reasonably neutral work at Sabra and Shatila massacre and other related topics. Could you take a look at my question at Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Confusing_paragraph and see if you have any insight? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're back! I'm so pleased to see that, and thanks for letting me know. I hope you have managed to put the family issue behind you, and are doing better now. Look forward to seeing you around. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Mandate of Palestine, and choose whether or not you wish to become a party to the case. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Zero^talk 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

Thank you for that. Tiamut 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Thank you for your reading !

• yes, refugee would be far more better
  

Don't hesitate to comment/correct/modify what you consider a matter in the article !
I wish our discussions here based on this work will be used to improve both our wikipedias :-)
Alithien 07:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you very much for your kind comments.

Don't hesitate to proceed to the modification you consider useful ! :-)

I am not fully satisfied of the english version of tne french article yet

(even if it-is-not-a-genitive made a WONDERFUL work) !!!.

I realize how hard it is to translate subtle meanings and sentences.

And if I perceive some differences I am unable to correct them or even sometimes just to explain them.

Regards, Alithien 08:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, John. I've posted a proposal for a partial rewrite of the Arab-Israeli conflict article at the article's talk page. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks, Gatoclass 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input John.

I feel that you should try adding your material, most of which is good, to what is already there, which tends to the opposing pov and then try to achieve consensus on what to get rid of once it gets too big.

Not really interested in that as an idea, for a number of reasons, but see my next response.

Another thought - I don't really understand why there is a separate article on the history of the conflict. POV forking danger, and the History article has far too much on the pre 1948 stuff, where there was little international component, and Israel didn't exist so there couldn't be any conflict with it strictly speaking. IMHO, the articles should be merged

I'm inclined to agree, and I did initially consider an AFD, but I have my doubts I could get it through as one party or another would probably squawk about its importance.

So given that we're probably stuck with this article, I think the idea must be to try and keep it as brief as possible to give it some sort of reason for existence or separate identity apart from the History article. Although your comment about using it as a sort of shortcut to various links makes very good sense, and now I'm wondering if perhaps I shouldn't have approached the job more from that angle. Although that might still be possible with the proposed version I guess. Anyway, I guess my current proposal won't do any harm as a temporary fix at least.

Regarding your first point about merging the existing content with the new proposal, I don't think that's going to work but I do think the existing content probably has a place somewhere in the History article where it would be more suitable. I'd like to do an overhaul of the History article too but I thought it might be easier to try and straighten this one up a bit first.

and as he explains later, "land expropriations accompanying settlements"

Yes I've always had the impression that that was the case, your input at the article talk page on this point might be helpful :)

A strange thing is that some articles seem to be superfashionable and attract scores of editors, e.g. 6 day war, while others first intifada, Suez crisis, etc. get only a few a year if that, and easily become POV and bad.or strange.

LOL, I often reflect on the same phenomenon. There are a plethora of basic articles on the Iz-Pal conflict badly in need of work, and 90% of available editors seem to spend most of their time haggling over the "Israeli apartheid" page, that I suspect gets only a fraction of the page hits the more mainstream articles get. It's just bizarre.

A few other factual errors, Lebanon and Israel have never made peace (except for the old 83-84 abrogated treaty).

I had a feeling that was the case, I guess I don't really think of Lebanon as a combatant in the conflict, it's really not much more than a passive victim of foreign and non-state player agendas isn't it? And to tell the truth, I sort of threw that "Syria is the only country not to make peace" bit as a way of balancing up the narrative a tad. I guess now I'll have to try and rethink it, dammit.

You perhaps imply that terrorism was a real cause of the 82 war, (as it certainly was of the 78 war, which was probably intentionally provoked by the PLO.) when it just wasn't as there was next to no crossborder terrorism to speak of

That was a case of throwing a bone to the opposition. "Next to no terrorism" is not quite the same as "no terrorism" and I'm sure the pro-Israeli editors would complain if terrorism wasn't included as a cb. So I thought it wisest not to belabour the point. I was at pains though, to say something about "growing PLO influence", because although I'm not certain of it, my reading suggests to me that Israel's real agenda was arguably to stop the PLO taking over the country and turning it into a de facto Palestinian state.

One more thing. I've been sort of fooling around trying to organize a coherent narrative for this page and the history page, but I'm having a little trouble getting to grips with the exact reasons for the breakdown of the peace process after the '67 war, although I'm starting to get a better handle on it. If you'd like to give me the benefit of your thoughts sometime regarding this very important stage in the conflict, I'd be very interested to hear them. Regards, Gatoclass 09:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again John! GHCool has been hassling me to address my concerns regarding this page so he can take the neutrality template off. Accordingly, I've revised my proposed rewrite of the Six Day War section as an initial step toward this goal. In particular, I've added a new section on the failure of peace talks in the wake of the war which I think is an issue important (and contentious) enough to warrant a reasonable degree of discussion. But I've also extended the initial discussion of the war itself a little. Quite frankly, I think we can afford to have entries a little longer than the existing ones in an article of this type, and given the inordinate length of the specialized pages on these conflicts, I think a more comprehensive coverage on this page is well justified.

Anyhow, I would again appreciate your feedback (preferably on the article talk page where everyone can access it). Regards, Gatoclass 06:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby the link that violates article 16 of the Statute of the Court http://www.law.leidenuniv.nl/oratieowada.jsp Owada holds a professional post at this University. Most of these Judges are also heavily involved in arbitration, this is against the same rule. You can check there CVs to have your evidence. The other things were in various newspapers.

The amount of cases can be verified at the ICJ's website. It is not steadily increasing but decreasing; at least the last seven years.

You should read their budgets (requests).

What are your sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherneck121 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't provide me with any information about your sources! Owada's position is confirmed by the ICJ itself in various emails to me. I think you should be banned, putting lies on Wikipedia and removing the truth. What do you know about the ICJ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatherneck121 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is does WP use the date the book shows up on some bookseller's shelf as the date of publication or the official date of publication as stated by the publisher. The official date of publication for the book is 2007-09-04. Your bookseller might have put it on the shelf prior to the embargo date but does that really make it the actual publication date?

A quibble to be sure but it would be nice to be consistent and I would suggest using the publisher's own date of publication rather than when someone saw it on the shelf. IMVHO anyway. P.S. - I'm not going to change the date back to September -- I'll leave it for you to decide/change. Gep3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gep3 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind and helpful comments on my talk page. Gep3 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please read Abdullah I before considering reverting again. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This change is problematic because the Jerusalem Law did not both the piece about East Jerusalem and the West Bank; only the former. Thus you can't say the Law "reaffirmed this measure". -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit on George Galloway, with an edit summary implying that I had made the edit you reverted[3]. I did not make that edit, and in fact agree with your position on this; my edit was a completely separate removal of an irrelevant snide remark about Galloway. Please check the edit history more carefully before making such accusations in future! Thanks. RolandR 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As your edit summary stated that you were unclear about whether your third opinion on the Hebron Massacre issue followed the rules or not, I took the liberty to respond positively here. It is an excellent opinion, and it is always good to see an expert in a particular area of Wikipedia policy responding to requests for opinions in that area. User:Krator (t c) 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have created an article about the UN Parliamentary Assembly, a proposed world body that would be similar to Europarl. Please review and vote on the WP:FAC nomination. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful note on my Talk: page, John. I see you've been away for a while yourself; I hope you are well, and return soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleland has made an edit that seems to be a rather elegant solution to the problem. Thanks for explaining the history of the discussion at that page. Happy editing! Tiamut^talk 18:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, six months ago you debated the title of this article. You might be interested to know that this debate has been re-opened (not by me) in the talk page of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on Talk:Amdo. I will keep the points about language in mind. I grew frustrated because I had run into Blnguyen acting in concert with Khoikhoi in exactly the same way before (on Qoigyijabu I think it was) - where I forgot myself and got blocked for 3RR, so I wasn't particularly pleased to see the two of them doing the same thing again. I will, however, keep to non-emotive language from now on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have taken the tags off this article because there was "nothing on talk." I have been revising the article to make it NPOV, and have made several comments on talk in the last few weeks, but received no response. I will continue working on this article as time allows (and the end of the semester is drawing near...). Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. I will continue work on this article. Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to archive your talk page?--~SRS~ 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the notes on Nachum Goldmann's obstruction of one of the most important Holocaust rescue groups, Hillel Kook's, is problematic? His obstruction and lack of significant positive action on behalf of his fellow Jews is viewed as a critically important aspect of his life. After all he was one of he most important free world Jewish leaders during the Holocaust. I'd like to work on this with you to assure this aspect of his life is treated truthfully and given appropriate weight.

I disagree that Goldmann is not responsible for apparent corruption and certainly lack of transparency in the large and wealthy organization he set up: the Claims Conference. If a building, state, organization collapses the architect is often held to be partially or fully liable. Similarly, if a complex system holds up and even improves over time that is to the architect's credit. Emesz 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted responses on my Talk page. Should it be posted here? Emesz 23 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesz (talk • contribs) 06:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John, hearing from you is a godsend. I have to admit I don't have a full mastery of Wikipedia rules regarding sourcing but I have tried to read all citations presented by Duplicity & to me they appear either irrelevant or questionable. I'd like to figure out ways to include references to my blog when the material is appropriate to the article & adheres to Wikipedia sourcing rules. If you could help me by working with me on this I'd be very grateful.

I use Wikipedia as a source in my blog & would like to see Wikipedia use my blog as a source when that is appropriate.

A good example of this problem is that I linked my blog post about JDL member & accused terrorist Earl Krugel to his W. article. The reason I linked is because my post has a first hand recollection by me of a personal interaction with Krugel in which he threatened me in the aftermath of the assassination of Alex Odeh, a crime of which the FBI suspected him of complicity. Duplicity removed it claiming I couldn't insert a link to my own blog. If a first hand recollection about the subject of an article is considered a questionable source then what is Wikipedia coming to?

I also need to figure out how to deal with Duplicity who seems to see it as his/her role to "stalk" my Wikipedia contributions & revert them.

I don't always look at my messages in my Talk pg. so if you want to conduct this conversation via e mail mine is richards1052 at comcast dot net Richard (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words John. I hope I can find some time to be useful. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank ou for putting Medoff into context, I wandered into this sideways (I went with friends to see The Acomplices last year where I heard Medoff speak, a couple off days ago I put up a page about A Flag is Born, added the Accomplices to the Hollel Kook page, and saw that somebody was trying to remove Medoff's page, which seemed absurd to me. You understand the politics of the revisionists much better than I do - I hope that you will take the time to improve his page.Fan613 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613[reply]

Thanks for your note, and thank you for your recent edits to the article. I realize that Roy is notable, and that even a tour guide refers to her as the leading expert on Gaza, but frankly I think that a clean slate might be a better starting point for a biography than what we had. That's why I nominated the article for deletion.

Today's version is a sanitized copy of the article. This is the version American Clio and its sock wanted, with a section about how Roy's "Scholarly research" has "misunderstood Hamas" (sourced only to Roy's papers) and a section about Roy's "Political positions" that included the fact that she hasn't taken a position concerning divestment from Israel. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I managed to get one vote :) Thanks for being number one John.

I haven't actually submitted the RFA yet, I'm waiting for Bencherlite to co-nom, but I guess it doesn't hurt to cast a pre-poll vote :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of thanks for getting my RFA off to such a flying start John. I was also particularly pleased to see the first vote coming from a guy whose opinion I very much respect. So as a small token of thanks, this round's on me. Bottoms up! ;) Gatoclass (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice and for weighing in for the discussion. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if you really intended to delete my entire user page. Perhaps you could ask the question again. DGG (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input; there are few truly neutral editors there and your moderation is much appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I can access scholarly databases, and I can fwd you pdfs of Engel's article, Cienciala's review of it and anything else you'd like.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urngh, I'm starting to hate that name! Hi JohnZ, thank you for adding the times obituary of this lady at the AfD and the talk page. Oddly, the one at AfD works, but the (Talk) leads to a no-can-do at the NYTimes. Don't know why this is because they look the same to me. You mentioned there were 18 refs to her back to 1899 and I was wondering how you found these without being a plutocrat. Can you let me know how? Thanks, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! 79.78.65.89 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments at discussion of Fear. Could you take a look at a (relatively short ATM) neutrality dispute (about one sentence) here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply; could you also comment in the thread above the one you commented at? Those are two very different issues, and I am more concerned about the first one than about the second one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC

Thank you for Your input indeed. I'm also very interested in sorting the mess in this article. It would be very nice if You could state Your opinion on issues I've stressed in my reply to Your analysis. If you could stick with topic for longer, until we'll sort it out, it would be very helpful. Thanks. M0RD00R (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apology and accept it. Would you mind refactoring "Jaakobou could think about the site's & source's reliability seriously for even a minute" to something that doesn't suggest I approve of JewsAgainstZionism.com (even for a minute), but rather I was only willing to search if the material they posted happened, on this extremely rare occassion, to be correct?
Thanks!!! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John.

I've responded to your comments on the PR situation here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but I remain unconvinced. It looks like what we used to call fax lore back in the day. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the kind words, if you're doing any more work on chapter VII I am doing a large piece of work on it, so any content etc. you find would be really useful. :) --Penny (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed John. I am ever in debt to those who can refer me to some illuminating article or book by a trenchant analyst that can sweep the minefield of our conceptual and linguistic confusions by mapping the terrain with precision. My gratitude, once more. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the objection some people have with "Uprising", which (to me) suggests something un-coordinated/unplanned. In the case of the 2000 Intifada, the violence was triggered (by my understanding) by Sharon at Al-Aqsa and the death of Al-Durrah. For better or worse, each of these was treated as really serious provocations. Meanwhile, terms such as "rebellion", "insurgency", or "insurrection" all suggest actions with significant planning by groups that came together and acted, at least initially, in some coordinated fashion. PR^talk 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I responded to (part of) your comment about the annexation of Jerusalem on Talk:Jerusalem (the subject isn't really related to the title of the other IPCOLL sub-page). -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those links at the sources page. Oberiko (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure to see your reasoned comments on an article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for discussion about some clear inclusion guidelines for In popular culture related content. I would eventually like to make WP:IPC a guideline, but it need more guidance to have any teeth. All thoughts are welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cheshire Cat in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts in digging up online refs.As I was blocked for 48 hrs, I could not participate in the discussion and the article was deleted.-Regards-Bharatveer (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,
Thanks a lot for providing excellent sources in the deletion discussion of Anandwan (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anandwan). Really appreciate the help. - Electronz (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, for your thoughtful and encouraging words. You're a good man :-) - Electronz (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Ten new Afds have been listed at, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion. The articles are; Living Essence Foundation, Madhukar (author), Nancy Freeman Patchen, Swami Sundaranand, Linda Johnsen, Luc Venet, William McKay Aitken, Yogi Marlon, Anthony Fernandes, and Vaishnava Center for Enlightenment. Please review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I fixed my comments. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised and shocked that so many articles that come up for discussion. AFDs for non-notable holy men can be considered but Some of them like Navnath, Tirtha and Kshetra should have never have come up. I hope that you too keep aan eye on the page. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The deletionist appears to be a committed Krishna-consciousness wallah from all their contributions. I flagged up a potential "issue of faith" in the proposal.

Some people just do not have enough to do with the times on their hands ... good luck to you. ----

Thanks John. Not back. I will stick by my declaration. But since this means betraying a loyalty to a project, and to virtual friends dedicated to quality and not propaganda, many of whom show exemplary gifts of energy, insight and rigour, it sticks in my craw, if not my conscience, and so I have decided to keep following the pages, silently, kibitzing with an occasional ref. Were some genius to come up with a new rule barring patently fatuous or factitious cunctator tactics and POV-pushing for I/P articles, warranted by the chronic immiseration of most articles there, I think many productive editors would join me in jumping back in to help out again. Finest regards Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently signed up to be part of the Article Rescue Squadron at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members.

If you have not yet added this template to your user page, please do: {{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}}

There is a whole list of articles which needed rescuing now:

Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics

...can you please take the time and rescue one?

And please watch Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for ongoing new developments.

Thank you, Article Rescue Squadron member, Inclusionist (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

i see you removed prod tag from arthur rubin page. i don't know what was notability guideline in the time of previous deletion discussion, but by reading current WP:N (people) guideline, it seems that article should be deleted? he doesn't have any 'significant coverage in secondary sources'. the one source from time magazine arthur said exist was not provided.

Lakinekaki (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do you know what other deletion tag should I use? Lakinekaki (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, though after re-reading it there were still a keep and delete vote after your exxtra sources were found. This combined with how the discussion appeared before led me to delete. Hadthe article been expanded and the like with the sources found I may have reconsidered. I'm not quite seeing consensus, though if you wish to DRV i won't stop you. Wizardman 23:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see what you mean. I'll re-read it and probably relist the debate then to see what happens. Wizardman 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! When you removed the prod, did you happen to catch a good biographical source or two? I prodded it because I found nothing substantial. Thanks in advance! --Stormbay (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing your common sense and neutral point of view to Hinduism articles and AfDs, and for so kindly taming my over-exuberance on the last one. You've surely seen that some parts of the Hinduism world on Wikipedia are a mess of narrow sectarianism (sometimes in good faith) and obstinate POV nudging and pushing. Having someone involved with an understanding of policy and without a predetermined point of view, is sincerely appreciated. best, ~ priyanath ^talk 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you might enjoy this brand new PBS/NOW article about the "Clicking Swami", who's article we recently saved.[4] ~ priyanath ^talk 05:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding links on the Patrick McGinley article and thereby preventing its deletion. I have been too busy to edit much these days but I created an article for McGinley because I've read his books and he is too good (though strangely ignored by the critics) to not have a listing on Wikipedia. A passive aggressive Wikipedian who had a bone to pick with me tried to delete it before I had time to elaborate the article. Thanks for the good work. o0O [GUTH3] O0o (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really intent on defending this article, would you please restore the controversial sections that were edited out in the past week? Controversy is what Alkon is all about -- to write about her without mentioning her intensely controversial and oft-stated opinions is a bit like writing about Edward Teller and not mentioning that he made the H-bomb. Also, your 2 added sources are pretty lame -- one 9 years old that doesn't even load for me, and another 6-year old puff piece from a newspaper that just put her under contract. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you have an outstanding memory, or your research before !voting was exceedingly thorough. Either way, impressive! --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going deep into the revision history of Education in the Thirteen Colonies. I just looked at the recent edits and thought, "Why is this article even here?" and added the Prod template. Cheers. --Mosmof (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I was busy with Niobium, Yttrium and Germanium! You saved him! I think there are a lot of biographies of not very notable people in wikipedia, but to make a chemist, which did great work 100 years ago, notnotable, because he is not in the news anymore is a idea I do not like. Most of the next super whatevers have less right to have article than him!--Stone (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't know, but nevertheless, sorry. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, can you please provide some sources to back up this statement? The only criterion of WP:NB that this book could possibly meet states:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.

I'm not so sure of the "zero chance at AFD", and I'd like some sources to verify your claims. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John. Can you please explain to me why you removed the talk page for the above article. I am in the middle of discussing the state of this article with an administrator, so I would like to know what is happening. Thankyou. Please reply on my talk page. Colliver55 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Hi as requested I have placed AfD on the article. According to the articles deletion log, the article was nominated for deletion in 2007 and the consensus was deletion. Does the article still require a second AfD process, or can the article be deleted? Please respond on my talk page. Thankyou. Colliver55 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wish to say thankyou for your assistance in creating the AfD for Charles Linden. Regards. Colliver55 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First I would just like to thank you as one of the few administrators I have experienced who truly understand what I have gone through in posting what I thought was a legitimate page on Wikipedia. 'Exasperated' is a great way to describe what I felt, and after some of the abuse I recieved, so is 'genuinely shocked.' Can I ask your opinion on how to proceed in this matter? This is not a promotional stunt, or a hobby (I can think of better hobbies which don't run in the tens of thousands of dollars and that don't involve the contribution of monster truck veterans and experts!) In all honesty, I felt I could post information on a completely new design of monster truck which will be debuting at a major arena at the start of 2009. Any advice? Kildare2 (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you thought to look at the underlying wiki code for this article I'd tagged for speedy deletion. No wonder the article looked devoid of context. I'll take the tip, thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. It's really nice to have your message of support. I'll give it some thought. I think the crucial thing for me at the moment is how much time I want to spend on the project, when I do also need to get on with my original research. Which is a contribution in a way, because academic outputs can count as reliable sources. Plus I am planning to use Wikiversity with a class, for the first time, which could also take up some of time and potentially be a good way to use the skills I've learnt on WP. Thanks again. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and track down the "Thank God for Football" book at the weekend, but I can't promise anything as I've got quite a lot on this weekend..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's only edited twice in the last six months, though, so I'm not sure contacting him would yield much in the way of a response......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a tag to the talk page of the article on David O'Neil, which I originally created, specifying that the article had at some point in the past been nominated for deletion. I can't find that nomination, though, could you help me find it? Are you sure it wasn't for the comedian David/Dave O'Neil and not the poet? Thanks. Algabal (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bow my head.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'something that no one could have predicted or did predict at the time.' Contextually looks like a ref to the Holocaust, grammatically it turns out to be the Blitzkrieg. On this, sir, you reputation remind unimpugned! I do not believe the Blitzkrieg was forseen. Trotsky of course did predict the Holocaust. He's too much of a rightwinger, if less so than the unspeakable Stalin, for me, but did get somethings right!:) Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fruitful research for the page George Karakunnel.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John: thanks for your input on my page. A visiting scholar was doing some editing of my page & he may have confused the editors. Is there anything further I should do at this point? Sincerely --Colin A Carter (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added references and some content from the sources you supplied in the AfD to the Saleem Sinai and Salman Rushdie articles. In fact, there was some good content comparing Rushdie to Saleem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you removed the prod, your edit summary said "cf article on school" as part of the reasoning. I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of this phrase and I would appreciate it if you could explain your intent. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant see the Ross School of Business article. It lists all faculty there with endowed chairs, and as one can also check here, he is a "distinguished university professor", although this information was not in the Weick article. Articles on people with such positions are invariably kept at AfD. cf WP:PROF #5. Regards,John Z (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't seen the "cf" before, so I wasn't real sure what you were getting at, thanks for clarifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, John Bell (North Carolina politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bell (North Carolina politician). Thank you.
Jerzy•t 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [5]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question. You "deproded" because it was the second time. Yes, the article had been marked with prod before. But in fact, it should had been deleted the first time! On Dec 17 2007, User Picaroon contested the entry because there were no reliable sources. five days passed. No one contested. The article should had been deleted, but nobody did it. Later, user Spacepotato gave links to short news stubs from local newspapers and "deproded" because of that. That is not valid under Wikipedia:Notability, nor Biographies_of_Living_Persons. So, wasn't that just POV or fallacious support? Just want to know. Regards!

As you were involved in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite and you commented on User:Paris London’s talk page and so you are still familiar with the topic I thought I let you know I have nominated Mohammed bin Faisal I, Adnan bin Mohammed bin Faisal I and Adel bin Mohammed bin Faisal I for deletion, cheers. - dwc lr (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your support in helping with this article. Obviously Bali ultimate is out to trash Gomez. That aside to answer a few questions on the talk page, please see this link, [6] Of note, the "Robinson, Carol (March 31, 2006). "Hometown folks fret over Attalla teen’s centerfold", The Birmingham News, pp. 1. Retrieved on 15 December 2008." is the article that quotes Playboy Playmate Holley Dorrough in stating Rolando Gomez discovered her as a playmate. "Jaime, Kristian (January 13, 2008). "Going digital with Rolando Gomez". La Prensa 20 (25): 8B. Retrieved on 15 December 2008." is an article on Gomez's career and accomplishments as a photographer. On [Lexar] Elite Photographers, Lexar chooses each year 30 photographers that they feel deserve that honor. This is a "non-compensated" honor, there is no requirement for the photographer to promote their products or company. The link to D-Pixx, it was not a cover photo only, it was a 9-page article on Gomez's photography and success plus a 4-page (13-pages total), separate article on his workshops in the Virgin Islands. Again, no compensation or promotion required. The "Rangefinder" (Sept. 06') was a cover story, not just a cover shot. The photo was not shot for Rangefinder, it was used by them to illustrate their featured photographer of the month plus the topic, "Lighting." The links to Photo District News were press releases on his 7-city, 3-country tour in Europe completed in Sept. 2007. The article "War Stories" [7] published in Studio Photography was written by the magazine editor at the time, Alice Miller [8], currently the vice president and board member of the International Photographic Council. On Gomez's selection, it was for the 55th Signal, Combat Camera annual workshop where the top 25 photographers, from all branches, spend a week with noted civilian photographers which that year included James Nachtwey, Mary Lou Foy, Bernie Boston and others. At the end of the week they choose the "Top Five." This is not to be confused with the "Military Photographer of the Year" (Bali ultimate cites in the talk page) competition were portfolios are submitted, via mail and judged (only), a total separate program. Several articles site Gomez's DOD Top Five accomplishment and are sourced including the one written by Miller. Finally, this press release, PhotoImaging & Design Expo 2005 Brings in the Top Guns "[9] lists Gomez in the 3rd paragraph with other Wiki notable photographers. Just FYI, thanks for your fairness. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please respond to my comment at AfD regarding autobiography of Halmos. Katzmik (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have have easy access to Halmos' book, could you please see if you can find some material on E.Bishop, A.Robinson, and NSA in general? Katzmik (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the content and the history to the link above...hope that helps. Singularity 02:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you had made some edits there in the past. If you get a chance, please respond to my query at WPM. Katzmik (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a discussion you would be interested in Talk:Syrian occupation of Lebanon, please read and vote.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work bringing attention to articles on academics at PROD. Much appreciated! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you! Espresso Addict (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB finally accepted the sourced merge of the different Bill Ewing listings in their database that I submitted to them. I have now returned the IMDB external link as it now includes ALL his projects. Thanks for your input at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]