User talk:Eaolson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page .

[Moved from user page]

Please explain why you think I entered copyrighted text. I have not done so ever. I have read things and learned things and wrote my own information about what was in in them. (Gurps npc 21:57, 12 January 2006)

The Varak article you created was word-for-word identical to the varak article on this site, which bears this copyright mark:

Copyright (c) 1995 by Barron's Educational Series, from The New Food Lover's Companion, Second Edition, by Sharon Tyler Herbst

Are you saying that the varak article is entirely your own writing? If it is, then this is not a copyright violation and I apologize. eaolson 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Andrew Sullivan edit to Brokeback Mountain [1]. I think Practicing could be an important distinction (implying that he goes to church and is at least somewhat active in chuch life) as opposed to "Lapsed Catholics" (such as myself) who were raised Catholic and have never been excommunicated, but who do nothing to practice the faith. —The preceding

Had he been a lapsed Catholic, should we give his opinion less weight? Mainly, I don't think the difference is relevant to the Brokeback article. If his analysis is valid, then it doesn't matter if he's a good Catholic or a Buddhist. If readers are interested in Sullivan's background, they can go to the article on him. eaolson 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you have a stick up your ass, but could you not leave threatening comments on my talk page? Quite frankly, I'm scarred. —The preceding

This was in response to my adding one of the standard

vandalism warnings to his talk page, after he vandalized [2] the Brokeback Mountain article. eaolson 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I guess you're right. I'll just let it get deleted. Akrabbim 18:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss first before editing something. Moreover WP: not a crystal ball is out of context. Citation needed would be required. Wikipedia is about contribution not meaningless deletion and censoring. The former requires research to be done via extensive searching. I assume you didn't do that otherwise you could have corroborated and contributed with respective links.Thanks.Slicky 13:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require discussion before editing. That's the whole point of the

"be bold" policy. My edit was not meaningless, nor was it censorship. Your edit made significant, speculative predictions about the future. Once these improvements to microscopes are invented, then they will be appropriate for inclusion into Wikipedia. Until then, they are hypotheical. eaolson 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

VOTE to keep Category:Wikipedians from Texas from merging with Category:Wikipedians in Texas. Being FROM Texas is not necessarily the same as being IN Texas. --Renice 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some support for you universal (act) article? I've never heard the word used in this context and can find no citation on the web. eaolson 02:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just read

Talk:Declaration of National Unity. That should clear things up, and both articles will grow in the near future. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Again, that doesn't support your use of the term "universal" to mean "declaration by a government." See [3], for example. eaolson 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, can you just wait a couple of days? That stub is not hurting anybody, and I'm just helping User:Irpen out. Wait a few days, and if there's no need, either Irpen or I will mark it for deletion. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 02:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or another Ukrainian article writer. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll wait a few days to see what happens to the article. eaolson 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding! Oh and by the way, your user page says you're on Wikibreak. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just wanted to request that you let the page stay for a day. I intend to remove it myself as soon as my friend sees it. I just put it up for her birthday. Would this be possible or is it against policy? I hope you understand.

Thanks, Nithin

Good evening, I wrote the article on the holocaust cruelty, and you practically disregarded it as irrelevant drivel on the talk page, I think as it explores the idea of persecution, it explores the idea of cruelty, and merged in the holocaust article, surely that article is long enough as it is

You tagged the article Ja'Warren Hooker for speedy deletion. I wanted to let you know that the article has been improved and now successfully demonstrates the notability of this athlete. Regards, --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating short little stubs with just the bare minimum of information ("X is a lawyer in Missouri notable for his support of Proposition B", for example) and putting the external link in the external links section of that stub? Then other editors could fill in the blanks later, if a more extensive article is warranted. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a finished product, so stub articles and dangling red links are not an inherently bad thing to have. Bryan 07:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, tried that. Now I'm in hot water with another editor.

Category: Candidates for speedy deletion

ArmedCitizen 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Oliver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McGhee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Jeffery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Jamison

They keep vanishing !!!

Is there a reason?

• Try reviewing the guidelines for biographies at
  Wikipedia:Notability people. Also, recreating content from a deleted article is a criteria for speedy deletion. eaolson 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Though it's true some hoaxes are considered a form of vandalism and speedy deletable, there are a few occasions where articles that were originally considered hoaxes could turn out to be factual, possibly due to someone finding out that there was a spelling mistake in the title, or that more notable sources are discovered. As for the Lego Knights movie, the original article was a hoax, but I've recently cleaned it up so that it now describes the real Lego Knights movie.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completely destroying my Worst Journey in the World page. I added a bunch of stuff to it...then you backdoored me before I could save the changes. I lost all my information. Dick move. Make your own pages instead of deleting other peoples. -- User:MonkBirdDuke

• First,
  no personal attacks, please. You say you "lost your change" which sounds like you experienced an edit conflict. Scroll down the page and you will find your text, which you can then cut and paste into the new edit box at the top of the screen. You don't have to lose any of the work you did. eaolson 13:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Whatever, man...just delete it then. People like you sort of make this place no fun. You try to make an entry for something then five minutes later someone like you comes in and shoots it down. Intellectual fascism. I thought the whole point of wikipedia was that anyone could edit it. Stop being such an elitist.

And by the way, all my text is gone because you changed the page before I saved it.

• As I said over at your talk page, that's an edit conflict. None of your edit was lost unless you closed your browser window. When you have an edit conflict, there are two edit boxes on the page. The top one has the state of the page after another editor changed the page while you were working on it. The bottom one contains your proposed edit. You must cut and paste your new text from the bottom window to the top. There's no way to automate this process and have WP do it automatically.

Secondly,

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Your writing is very good, but it's clearly an opinion, and therefore POV. eaolson 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• The writing was a quotation from the book "The Worst Journey in the World" by Apsley Cherry-Garrard. I just sent it up there temporarily. I was working on the body of the article, when you screwed me. —The preceding
  unsigned comment was added by MonkBirdDuke (talk • contribs
  ) 09:08, 23 September 2006.

• I did not "screw you," as I have explained multiple times above. If you wish to work on an article to get it in good shape for the enclopedia, the best way to do that is in a sub-page in your own userspace. For example w:User:MonkBirdDuke/Worst Journey in the World eaolson 14:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, I deleted all my text on the page. You happy now? You've never even read Apsley Cherry Garrard's book...who are you to pass judgment on the article? Way to stifle the freedom of information.

• Was this an article about a book? That wasn't clear, since all you did was post a quote from it. If you want to write an article, then write an article. Don't just come here, complain about my oppressing you, then go off and pout. eaolson 14:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been reading about you a little. You have a reputation for deleting other people's pages. I suppose that's just what you do. You destroy other people's stuff and create nothing of your own.

• That I have a "reputation" at all is flattering. Actually, I edit at a lot of pages, and have been doing a lot of recent change patrolling lately. eaolson 14:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm new to wikipedia, and was just trying to help out with some of the things I that I've read about Antarctica and polar exploration. You're the one that brings all the negativity to this otherwise reputable service.

• You posted two paragraphs of copyrighted text with no explanation or expansion. So yeah, I prod'ed it for deletion. You could have removed the prod, or explained things at the Talk page, but instead you just blanked the page and started making
  assuming good faith. eaolson 12:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Whatever, man. I was just trying to help. I'll try and make the page better; up to your standards...whoever the hell you are. I'm not going to let one jerk ruin my experience on wikipedia. MonkBirdDuke 08:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added a tag that says "can't find def. on google" on the article titled "Nucka". Well maybe you should have actually searched google because the first result is a definition for "Urban Dictionary". ~Cooljuno411

• Urban Dictionary is not generally considered to be a
  Reliable source. eaolson 04:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well it is still shows proof of the words existents so people have no right to just post tags saying it doesn't exists ~Cooljuno411
    • I'm not saying the word doesn't exist. I'm saying it doesn't meet the mandatory criteria for
      WP:NEO. I quote, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." Even if the word is in wide usage, if there are no such secondary sources talking about the word, it's not ready for WP. eaolson 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• I did. I found a lot of people named Brazy, but nothing on the word itself outside of Urban Dictionary, and for that, see above. eaolson 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, hey, Eaolson...I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. I wasn't experimenting on Gold, nor was I vandalizing. I was browsing along all the elements out of pure boredom, when I noticed that the link to Mercury (element) pointed to Mercuray (planet). So I changed to element. Where's the vandalism in that?

Oh, and for the record, I've got my own account, I was just too lazy to log in for one little edit.--65.190.29.207 21:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There were two anon editors right before you that did some vandalism. They changed Mercury from element to planet, and changed some of the constants to incorrect values. You didn't go back far enough. I didn't notice that your IP was different from the vandal immediately before you, sorry about that. eaolson 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oh, it's fine. I just wanted to clear everything up.--65.190.29.207 00:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eaolsen you were one of the few people on Wiki that tried to help out. I know it wasn't all positive but thanks anyway. I've just realised that there literally isn't time to get the Lords reform article into shape before the vultures circling kill it off. I thought, if I spent today on it, I'd be at a state where they'd be positive comments. Unfortunately, its all taken much longer than I thought. Sorry, I'm very tired, because I've been at this for 30 hours on the trot and I've decided I've had enough ...

Mike 19:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Eaolsen If it were not for your timely intervention, I'd have given up the Lords Reform article. Would you be willing to act as a "technical guru", to check it occaisionally and advise on misappropriate use of quotes, etc. Perhaps more importantly is someone we could ask to review any big changes before putting them online?

Hello. I moved that page to userspace, and when I came back to speedy the re-direct you'd already done it. Just wanted to let you know that I was not planning to leave it that way. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 04:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I'm just a new changes patrol machine tonight!  :-) eaolson 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question to you is: when my site will be mature enough for inclusing to Wiki? Thanks. —The preceding

• Basically, when people are talking about it. Both the criteria at
  WP:CORP suggest that notablility is achieved when the subject "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." eaolson 17:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks. ;) Greeting to Texas. Drago dragoburaggo

Regarding AFDs, just a friendly note to point out that the use of "vanity" is now discouraged. Instead please use "apparent Conflict of interest" per

You could have waited at least an hour before listing the Moloch page for speedy delete! I was creating it as you added the tag. --Blue Tie 23:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have recently disagreed with a statement about the incident occuring with a candle and a small ball of fire...

I have added a note of blowing out larger candles. Unfortunately, this advice is only based on one incident and I have no knowledge of the frequency of this type of accident but as the result was quite serious for the individual, and very unexpected, I think it is worth including. All that is known for certain is that whilst Christine Haseler of Cheltenham was blowing out a "normal" 3-4" candle, which had been burning long enough to create a large cup, a fireball was created which caused 2nd degree burning all over her face. I don't want to imply blowing out all candles is dangerous (as I don't believe it is!) so I have added a likely mechanism to make it clear the danger is with large candles where the bowl can create a cup redirecting the air flow back out of the candle. Wax cannot create a fireball unless it is superheated to a gas (unlikely in this case) or finely divided as an aerosol (most likely). I don't know the exact mechanism by which the wax was forced into the aerosol so "vortex" seemed a vague enough term to imply the probable speeded up circular motion around the wick and the reflective motion of the hot wax aerosol back into the face! - MH 5th July 2006

   Frankly, I'm skeptical about this. It's completely unverified, and a Google search on "Christing Hasler" and "candle" came up with nothing. I don't think a single incident that happened to someone you know is particularly encyclopedic, especially as you yourself say you're not sure exactly what happened. I think it unlikely that blowing out a candle could create an aerosol of wax droplets sufficient enough to ignite and create a fireball, unless she was blowing as hard as she possibly could. eaolson 05:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

though this person above maybe sceptical, perhaps searching "christine haseler" would be more effective, as despite the high interest value that goes with such a desirable name as 'Christing', that is clearly not how you spell 'christine' (note e not y at the end). Even more to the point, as a fellow Haseler (NOT HASLER) i find it very anoying when people misspell my surname, as such you may notice how you misspelt Haseler. You may also gather from the fact my surname is the same that i am related and interestingly was standing in the room when this 'sceptical' and 'unverified' incident occured. I'm fairly sure that it occured though, i mean, let's face it, it is quite a hard thing to miss. Now, despite the fact that this was a huge international incident, which even involved a news crew speaking to Mrs C Haseler for upwards of 20 seconds, and had a very small, yet consiquential bit part to play on an uninteresting day where not much happened anywhere, i am not actually surprised to find that you couldn't find a report of this specific incident anywhere. Especially as there probably isn't one. Let me also suggest to you the notion that perhaps this candle was in a small square container designed to beautify the light somewhat. This container, despite its wonderful disposition towards colourful light, also served the double purpose of creating a useful storage area for a large amount of melted, then evaporated or perhaps just small airborne droplets, of wax, which then could be heated quite easily and if say, someone was to blow with a moderate force upon this heated and vapourised pocket of wax a small fireball could (and was) created. Now, although you seem some kind of expert on the subject, i think you may have grabbed the wrong end of the stick, no in fact you missed the wrong end of the stick and probly ended up grabbing some large spherical and remarkably unsticklike object and then you may well (though i do not pretend to be a professional obsever of such incidents) of the preceeded to beat yourself on the head with this object until you thought that this small fireball (that could admitadly easily have blinded christine had it not been for her wearing of glasses, and did give mild burns leaving very visable scarring all over her face, but which healed fully in a mater of weeks) was some kind of catacylsmic event akin to that of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Don't worry, it wasn't. It was merely a small ball of fire, perhaps 10cm across at most, that, due to the proximity of the face to the candle in question, caused a reasonably high amount of damage to said face. so please shut your trap when you dont know what your talking about. thankyou for your time.

that is the truth of the incident my dear impudent friend (and the original person also got some of the facts wrong) was not a normal candle but a small candle within one of those special candle box things that makes the light all pretty :) —The preceding

• Responded at Talk:Candle#Hazards eaolson 23:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your signature seems to be broken, leaving wiki code and odd characters strewn about the talk pages. You might want to fix it. eaolson 03:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do try inputting it; possibly, you would see my goal.

Is there a page where I could learn what characters I might try?

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 03:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't make suggestions, because I don't know what you're trying to do. You might take a look at
  Wikipedia:How_to_fix_your_signature. Perhaps you need to specify "raw signature" in your preferences. eaolson 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Although raw signature does make a change, it's too far in the opposite direction. When I'm on an unsigned page, I often need something that I can quickly copy|paste, in order to distinguish what I've scribed.

This has been far faster than anything else that I've tried.

So, halfway between raw, & not raw, would be my preference.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ ]] {

Would this not be an addition to the list of "law firm stubs" already within Wikipedia? Pls advise if adjustments would conform better to these stubs. thanks —The preceding

Hi, I just noticed that you put Eskimism up for deletion not long ago. Funny thing is, I put it up for speedy deletion a little while ago, one of the admins deleted it, and the creators of the page just put it straight back up again. Would you have any objections to my putting it for speedy deletion? Phileas 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You placed a speedy tag on Eric Schoenberg. There have been some improvements to the article, and in my view it now demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, as it is somewhat out of order, but I have removed the text from the Joey Scorda page that you tagged for speedy deletion in anticipation of the SD passing. Given the history of the editor (see here, here, here, here, and here) I have no doubt whatsoever that he is one of the juvenile vandals who have been attacking the Vancouver College page recently. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is this like advertisement?? Its a music biography... HayasaArmen 03:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can only assume you're talking about the Capital Z article. With phrases like "a music unlike any other", "The Recording [sic] is destined to buy thousands of letters independently, and would buy millions with appropriate sponsorship", and "get this album now", the article reads more like advertising copy than an encyclopedia article. eaolson 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is something ultimately worth putting through to the AfD consensus? JRHorse 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Goodness no. If I did, I would have prod'ed it, or AfD'ed it myself. Per
  WP:SNOW, I left it alone. eaolson 05:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I noticed you speedied this article... I have nothing to do with this article... but I think it might not be a bad idea if you told the user why it is being SD'd... he is relatively new. DMighton 02:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so noted. eaolson 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DMighton 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do u get one of those cool boxes like on your user page —The preceding

NooBToob is a podcast program of professional quality, and it's regularly featured in the youtube video games category. They've made 26 hour-long episodes, and they're expected to continue. I think they deserve a page on Wikipedia. Why not?

You had PRODded it, now it's gone AfD. DMacks 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i'm MC Dope. You have asked whether my album In Control LP has been in stores or has been released. The answer is no. In Control LP is an "anticipated" album that i am trying to put together. It will not come out for maybe a year or two, if not maybe even longer than that. I just wanted people to know i am working on music and that i wasnt lying. So, if you please remove the tag or whatever type of "deletion" thing off my page please, i would deeply appreciate it.

Yeah, I got it right eventually. I blanked the page, but I don't know how to delete a page entirly. Thanks. And, how do you know??? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly are your objections to the article (

• My point is that the article describes a particular software program as doing a search that is slow. It doesn't say that this is a general term for a particular kind of web spidering. This is not a generally-used term to describe something specific. We don't need an article on every possible adjective-noun combination. Just because a news article is talking about a basketball player, and says he's a "tall man," doesn't mean there should be an article about it. eaolson 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could integrate the current event topic into the appropriate article with a redirect from this article title. My point is that since slow search is likely to be looked up by current slashdot readers that it should at least lead to somewhere relevant on WP. - Best wishes, Leonard G. 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved the article to Xenon (program), since it's really discussing a particular software package. eaolson 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Leonard G. 07:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. As the user was contesting IFD by removing the tag too, I figured I could revert the prod tags as per vandalism policy in

Actually, I just re-read the policy and it seems clear that it should go to AfD. What do you think?

Alex valavanis 00:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks for your help. I'm watching them now.

Alex valavanis 00:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've deprodded this, with a note on the talk page. Maybe someone else can source a notable speech of this type, otherwise there's only a dicdef not worth keeping. --Mereda 11:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the same user as commons:User:eaolson eaolson 05:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Ryan Maddox" should not be deleted under the pretense of irrelevance. Rather, common interests should be met here through it's allowance of one month of existence (at least) due to [special] interests for the betterment of a singular community. Bolstering this claim is the fact/suggestion that no harm shall be done from it's existence (domain type is irrelevant here). Furthermore, Wikipedia [relative encyclopedia references] does not feel the constraint of conventional (or original; plus moderate confined encyclopedias/dictionaries/etc.). Tampering with it's existence would result in a detriment to certain pursuits in the field of academia. This is a humble plea to save the article in question (ex: Ryan Maddox) from deletion. Thank you. —The preceding

• Sorry, but the
  WP:BIO. In the future, if you wish to dispute a speedy deletion, you can put the {{hangon}} tag on the page and explain your reasoning on the Discussion page. eaolson 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Your comments in the AfD were added before two related articles were added to it as a group nomination. Please clarify whether your vote applies to all 3 or not. Thanks,

the Earliest serving US senator, was a mistake... you may have noticed I turned it into a redirect page.--Dr who1975 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common use of the word earliest and oldest in wikipedia. You may have noticed that I am not the originator of the "Earliest living US senator" page. The language is also similarily used for Oldest people and it;s related pages. What I mean is some thing like this...

from May 8, 1998-June 26, 2003 ... Strom Thurmond was the oldest LIVING senator.

from May 9, 2003 - January 20, 2007 - George Smathers was the most Senior Living Senator

You are correct... there cannot be more than one oldest senator at once... The list starts out with the current and previous oldest living senators... then... further down... I list the oldest current living Senators so that, when Clifford Hansen passes away, we'll know who the new oldest living senator is and there won;t be a period of confusion. You;ll notice that this is the same way that the Oldest people page is set up.--Dr who1975 04:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of another good way to explain my use of the word Oldest. You may notice that

Harry F. Byrd, Jr. is the 2nd senator on the list. He is the 2nd OLDEST living U.S. Senator and so he is among the OLDEST living U.S. Senators (2nd on the list). While he is not THE OLDEST, he is on the list of the oldest CURRENT senators. Don't know if I can explain it any better than that. It is proper grammar.--Dr who1975 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have db nonsensed it - creator has added a second nonsense article on "Winged Humans". Regards, Springnuts 18:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]