User talk:Flewis/Archive 4

purge server cache | edit count

User:Flewis	User talk:Flewis	User:Flewis/DYK	User:Flewis/Sandbox	Email Me!	Sign My Guestbook	http://stats.grok.se/%7Ccenter	WP Policies	Vandalism Levels
Homepage	Talk	DYK	Sandbox	Email Me!	Guestbook	Article Traffic	WP Policies	Vandalism Levels

I will reply to all messages new on this page, so be sure to add it to your watchlist if you post here. I may also send you a {{talkback}} template, but that's not guaranteed.
Also remember to post your messages at the bottom of the talk page . . .Thanks, Flewis

Number of times this page has been vandalized: Only 42 times so far. . .

Template:Archive box collapsible

Taunt the trolls, please.

Remember the third word of RBI... HalfShadow 07:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just responding with sarcasm once in a while. . . I don't take their edits too seriously, otherwise this place would eat me alive ;)--Flewis^(talk) 07:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sharat Chandra"

Generally, if a user blanks a page and they're the only substantial editor (bot edits, interwiki links, maintenance templates, etc... do not count as substantial), it's considered a CSD A7 ("Author requests deletion") deletion request.

Instead of reverting the blanking in that case, it's better to simply add a {{db-author}} tag and wait for an admin to delete it.

Thanks for all the hard work. :) Kylu (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Huggle normally does that automatically. . .It must have malfunctioned slightly this time 'round --Flewis^(talk) 07:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Job Man

Hey, just wanted to say good job with handling that vandal who then proceeded to litter his own talk page about you.

And P.S. - I hate your style. I hate your face! Partnership against vandalism? Yeah fucking right! Knippschild (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

consider it done --Flewis^(talk) 07:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Flewis, thanks for taking corrective action to address the vandalism reported at Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar, Cheers for the spirit of Wikipedia and it's ever vigilant sad bastards !!!

Kamal (talk) 10:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --Flewis^(talk) 10:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry"

I did not mean for the link to Oasis Academy: MediaCity: UK to be an advertisement, just a link to show where I got my information from and to prove its existence. I thought the link was meant to be placed there. I wouldn't want to advertise it, I go to the school at the moment and it's rubbish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.99.222 (talk • contribs)

Ok, assuming good faith - I have reverted my edits. Just make sure to write an edit summary in the future, so that those down at RC don't get confused and mistakenly revert your edits. Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 11:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, crazy revisions.

If somebody made factual revisions to an article, and it still gets reverted, is there any way to not make it get reverted? its freaking dumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raydae2003 (talk • contribs)

Hi there, make sure your edits are always Reliably sourced for verifiability. The content you wrote up isn't bad, however without reliable sources within the article, there is no way to ascertain what is 'true' and what is 'false'.
WP:V (this is mostly to make sure that the stuff that in wikipedia isn't complete crap.)--Flewis^(talk) 11:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Geography of Georgia

Link to the "international recognition of Abkhazia and Ossetia" has nothing to do with the contents of the article imho.

I deleted I few maps of Georgia, because they closely remembled each other and didn't contain any additional information, so it would make sense to leave just one of them, and delete the rest.

Map about political divisions of Georgia (including its separatist disputes) is pretty damn relevant in that article. I'm not suggesting it can't be used at all, but it should really be used in an article that provides context for it, and the article about phisical georgaphy of Georgia, its terrain and climate is not one of these.

I suggest all the images highlighting political divisions of Georgia be moved to Administrative divisions of Georgia (country)Keverich1 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In the future, discuss the changes you make on the article's talk page. For now though, I've re-reverted to your edits. Moving the images to Administrative divisions of Georgia (country) will require consensus, so I suggest you make a straw poll on the talk page, and then work from there. Thanks, --Flewis^(talk) 12:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Act

Hi Flewis, is it possible if you could explain what you mean by "unconstructive" means? (Do you mean it literally, because if its used in the sense of "does not seem to contribute anything" then I would go about justifying it by saying that its to counter the image of deliberate anachronism in the article.) I am guessing that its a form letter from Huggle, but as I said in the edit summary, I won't put it back in. 118.90.65.233 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, after looking back on your edits, I see they were not "un-constructive" at all. That was an error on my behalf (Unfortunately this is one of the very few times that editor's such as myself mistakenly revert good-faith edits among the thousands of vandalism-related edits). I've re-instated your version. Apologies for the inconvenience. --Flewis^(talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a feeling that that (the long list of IP edits) was the case. 118.90.65.233 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to Simona Pauca page

Lulubon (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, please revert your change to page Simona Pauca. Page Simona Pauca should be a redirect page to page Simona Păucă. Simona Păucă is the correct name and spelling of this person. Please check the Romania page http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simona_Păucă. Thank you. I appreciate your message, indeed I should have explained better the reason for my edit.

Done --Flewis^(talk) 13:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cut & paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Simona Pauca a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. As others have already requested, please slow down and actually look at what edits you are making and reverting. --DAJF (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lulubon (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, thanks a lot for your comment. I tried first to move the page by using the "move" tab but I did not manage to write symbols like ă, Â, Ỹ in the "To new title" tab. Please if possible, could you tell me how to do that? Thanks.

Vandalism on my subpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my subpage. I didn't even know it was there. I guess I should put it on my watchlist, eh? ... discospinster _talk 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime --Flewis^(talk) 04:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

For helping pick up the slack on the Musicane spam. Much appreciated. Montco (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No Problem --Flewis^(talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Long Beach Poly

Thanks for interjecting in the edit issues at Long Beach Poly. Unfortunately a edit war ensued and now the article is under edit protection for a couple of weeks. I would like to invite you over to the talk page and help the editors come to a common ground. Thanks! Manorin (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll see how I can help --Flewis^(talk) 05:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Eight88

Just to say thanks for keeping on top of things. My mistake for not writing a comment Eight88 (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit summary notification - It really does help in distinguishing between vandal/good-faith edits.--Flewis^(talk) 05:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops...

Sorry about that. I'll put my templates on my user page.--10000 Walls (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, you fixed it. thanks.--10000 Walls (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stroganoff.jpg

Hey, noticed the image with your DYK hook for 10/20 is dead. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Local void

On 21 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Local Void, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --Flewis^(talk) 03:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

photo removal of Nikki Dubose

Hi

Nikki DuBose has asked me to remove the photo I posted of her which is why I removed it. I would also like the photo to be removed from the Wiki Database but don't know how to do it.

thanks........ Glenn

Glenn Francis (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you uploaded the image, if you want it deleted, consider pasting the following onto the "file" page pf the image: {{db-author}} - this basically means that the uploader of the photo (i.e. you) requests deletion. An administrator will review the request and decide whether or not to delete the file. --Flewis^(talk) 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Marson

On 21 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Marson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger

What a great idea! I could have taken it to AfD with the amount of support it was receiving, but I prefer the merger, which is receiving even more support. Enjoy! Timeshift (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer it this way - the content remains intact, and that's the most important issue. Mindlessly sending this to Afd wouldn't have achieved anything. --Flewis^(talk) 13:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Going by your 'strong object', i'd say you're just saying that to save face. AfD would have deleted the article (as has been done by default with the merger). But i'll leave for you to ponder as it has now been done :-) Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not as big an issue as you make it out to be. I have no problems with the outcome. Buy hey, at least with this result you earned some "wikipoints" to use at your next RFA, and of course another 'article deletion saga' to "cite" while pursuing your 'deletionist' agenda. It's sad that you take this so seriously - P.O. Advice: stick to making dour jokes on your user-page, rather than going for the quality content that you dislike. Nuff said --Flewis^(talk) 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While this is a hobby for us all, there is a serious side to it. We have obligations to those we write about, and if we don't live up to those, there are real world consequences for them. I was troubled by your image caption in particular in the original version of the article - we are meant to be professional and detached, not sensationalist. Having dealt with politicians by email before on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation and in other capacities as well, I can say we have a *lot* of ground to make up with them. I would suggest as starting reading material the July 2008 report by Asher Moses in the SMH, which appeared in an edited form on the front page of the print newspaper, to see just how poor relations are and our need to build a reserve of good faith with them. In essence, our stance to them should be "no, we won't censor your articles the way you like, but we will be completely fair to you for better or worse whether Labor, Liberal, National, Green or other, and we will take our obligation not to defame or demean you seriously." Once they know where they stand with us, the situation looks a lot less like an open declaration of war. Keeping in full compliance with Wikipedia policies (especially BLP and UNDUE) will largely ensure this. A very recently concluded RFAR at this location reaffirms ArbCom's view that BLP is now the overriding policy at the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 13:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never gone for an RFA, I wouldn't want to. And i'm not a deletionist, I just think that utterly non-noteable articles are inherantly of no quality. Like yours. Nuff said. Timeshift (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Goofballcharlie

Hi. If this user makes more edits to / or reverts Thurgood Marshall again drop me a line and I'll give him a further warning. We don't want you being accussed of edit warring!

Happy editing TINY MARK 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, however edit warring does not apply to vandalism reversion. See WP:EW for more info --Flewis^(talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ananda Central College

I added categories to Ananda Central College and tried to improve the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I raised a few more concerns at Afd. This article will require major work if you wish to keep it. The issues are listed in the article. Thanks, --Flewis^(talk) 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PR request

I will be glad to look at it. I had added it to the backlog when it was three days old and have not dug through the diffs to see why it was removed without a review. Should get to ti in the next 24 hours or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Laughing Baby

On 21 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laughing Baby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Contest Invitation

Hello there!

You have been invited to enter C4v3m4n's Contest!.

The contest is designed to provide users with a challenge while still having fun! This month's contest is focused on Movember, a month designed to to raise awareness and funds for men's health issues, such as prostate cancer and depression in Australia and New Zealand.

Follow the link given above to find out more information. Hope to see you there!

${\mathfrak {C}}{\mathfrak {4}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {3}}{\mathfrak {m}}{\mathfrak {4}}{\mathfrak {n}}$ 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute on Deacon's School

I saw your report of vandalism on Deacon's School at WP:AIV. From looking at it, it is apparent that the edits are not vandalism, and that you are having a content dispute. I have protected the page, and I encourage you to discuss the content on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. StephenBuxton (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the content. I do however, have a problem with the user's persistent vandalism. Despite the fact that the his last couple of edits may be considered 'positive', I fail to understand why he will not receive a reprimand or temporary block over such edits as [1][2][3][4]. --Flewis^(talk) 09:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that User:BenGriffiths has indulged in persistent vandalism, and the recent block was appropriate. It was easy to mistake his edits to Deacon's School as vandalism, given that all his other recent edits to school articles have been, but I don't think there's a real dispute at that article. Kanguole (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

When I review the evidence presented on AIV, I always go to the most recent edit and check the change, along with the time of it (to ensure that it has indeed occured after the last warning). When I reviewed the evidence you presented, the most recent one did look like a content dispute (demolished versus destroyed, amongst other things). I then checked the penultimate piece of evidence you presented, and that too looked like content dispute. I looked at the first one, and that was another content disagreement. At that point I decided not to check the rest, I made my comment on the AIV, and protected the page to encourage content discussion.

Now I see that if I had checked every single item of evidence you had presented (all 6 of them) I would have found one piece of evidence. Had you have posted the links you present above on the AIV, my actions would have been different. I wouldn't have protected the page, and BenGriffiths would now be blocked. I do appreciate your efforts in fighting vandalism, but please can you make sure that when presenting evidence of vandalism, it is actually vandalism you are showing. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispensing chemist

Regarding your recent revert to this article... the IP has a point, Japanese pharmacy appears to predate it. - BalthCat (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I stated previously - the ip raised suspicion for removing sourced content from the article without explanation. --Flewis^(talk) 07:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You stated it previously in a conversation I was not a part of, and hadn't read. I just now (because of what you said) viewed the IP's talk page. The IP used the edit summary to justify his edit, while your edit did not, which implied less attention on your part (possibly automation), and since you're the registered user, I came to suggest the change might be appropriate. - BalthCat (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Apothecary

You might wish to review the Apothecary talk page where I have indicated, with proof that you can review, that the cited reference does not support the assertion in the article. The reference is used in at least one other article. 85.158.139.99 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted --Flewis^(talk) 12:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The road less traveled/travelled

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for your efforts in fighting vandalism here on Wikipedia. Cheers! 206.211.166.17 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Swing Vote

Dear, Flewis or The Paul Kersey, whatever your name is, you are really getting on my nerves. On the page, List of U.s. and Canadian box office bombs, I added the film, "Swing Vote" (2008) to the table. Yet you keep on deleting it, it's an official flop, okay! The film ended its theatrical run at the box office with $16,289,867 under its $21 million budget; and the worldwide gross ($583,075) didn't help make the film a box office success. A "box office bomb" is when a film fails to generate enough money to exceed over its production budget. Please discuss this with me so future editors won't delete the stuff I add onto it. talk 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have me mistaken with another editor. I have never edited the article in question! If you are referring to this editor: The Paul Kersey (talk · contribs), it may be best to post him your complaints, as I have nothing to do with this. --Flewis^(talk) 00:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry, Flewis. I didn't mean this and falsely accused you of something you didn't do. However, it was great to meet you. Happy editing! talk 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

911

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Survivors of the September 11 attacks

The result was Withdrawn nomination. NAC Tavix (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

CLOSED, NOMINATION WITHDRAWN AFTER COMMENT ON THE PROCESS BELOW This article is different from the one nominated for deletion about a year ago. It no longer has a list of survivors' names. The main body of the text describes how few survived and where they were located in the building. This could be easily merged with the main article or the WTC article. I am not aware of any reason why this needs to be a separate article, though this AFD could offer explanations.
There is no political agenda for the AFD. I am not trying to eliminate information about 9-11 nor am I opposed to mention of survivors or lack of survivors.
This article doesn't seem to meet WP criteria for people, i.e. notability. Nor does it meet the requirements of criminal acts, which is covered by the main articles. This article doesn't offer any information which a merge could not accomplish.
At this point, I recommend and merge and redirect. Editors who have worked hard on this should be encouraged to continue to do so after the merge, if that's what is decided. Chergles (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Articles for deletion. It is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please don't nominate articles here unless an administrator hitting a delete button is actually what you want. Deletion forms no part of the article merger process. If you want an article merged, the correct tags are {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}}. {{afd1}} is not the tool for every job. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I saw people vote "merge/redirect" so I thought one could AFD it. I will withdraw . Chergles (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep People who want information on a subject like this don't have a lot of places to look, therefore Wikipedia should have lists like these to supply interested people with relevant information. A merge would only clutter associated articles. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep seems to be a valid article. DGG (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Nomination withdrawnChergles (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This message is being sent to all editors who made edits to this article in 2008, except IP and simple vandalism corrections/reverts. Chergles (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Next Israeli elections

Sorry - I've moved it back. No date has been set, and there is still a chance that someone could form a government, which means there wouldn't be elections until 2010. The current article title is standard for future elections, and is consistent with Next United Kingdom general election, Next Irish general election, Next Japanese general election etc.

Also, for future reference, the date on election articles goes at the end, e.g. Israeli legislative election, 2006. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok sure, I wasn't aware of that policy. --Flewis^(talk) 12:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Kelly Criterion

Thanks for fixing the vandalism on this page. AaCBrown (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Any time --Flewis^(talk) 06:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Flewis! Thank you for the support and warm comments in my RfA, which passed yesterday :) The comments are much appreciated and I hope to use the newly-given tools for the good of the project! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My editing to Tammy Bruce

Hi there. Thank you for notifying me that you eliminated my additions to this subject's page. I am an assistant to the subject and I've been dealing with a lot of hostile editing lately (as you probaby could tell on the History page). I thought it would be a good idea to finally add some detailed content regarding her career and other aspects to grow the page from a "starter" or effectively a "stub" to something more substantial. While I appreciate you being there and acting on additions (considering the troll the page has been dealing with) I do think my additions were quite relevant and fit within the style of many of the wiki pages of Ms. Bruce's peers who are writers and broadcasters. Could you expand a bit on what exactly the issue was? It's funny, I've been trying to get the wiki administrators to reverse POV and vandalism on the page (which I have to do myself), and then I add significant background and get immediately reverted. If you could elaborate I'd appreciate it.Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for message. To avoid any further reversions of the content that you add, you must cite any claims you make, using reliable sources (This is just to make sure that wikipedia's content isn't complete crap! - See WP:V). I understand that you are personally acquainted with the subject, and although that may be helpful in some instances, such editing is generally discouraged on wiki (see WP:COI for more info). As for the "troll" I suggest that you continue to discuss any potentially controversial changes you make (or that s/he has made) on the article's talk page. This is often more helpful than engaging in an edit war, and allows you to sort out the article's problems through dialogue. If you have any more queries, feel free to message me once more. --Flewis^(talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, what I published did not have enough sourcing. I will go back and assess what I added, and make sure it has a *public* source, and if not I won't include it. I will also review the articles you suggested. Re the troll, this comes from an editor who has already been blocked previously because of edit wars targeting Fox News personalities. We're not dealing here with legitimate content-based disagreements--from his own Talk page it's clear this is someone who targets the pages of those he perceives to be conservatives and attempts to cast them in a bad light. At any rate, thank you for your help and suggestions. I do appreciate it. Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. If the editor in question continues to make controversial, vandalism-related changes, or failes to adhere NPOV, be sure to alert an administrator - and if the offense is blockable, you may consider reporting him/her to WP:AIV. --Flewis^(talk) 08:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My editing to Georgia May Ayeesha Jagger

This article needs to be deleted i made one called Georgia Jagger how it sould be called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerqueenn18 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I redirected the article to Georgia Jagger, because its an identical copy of the aforementioned article. --Flewis^(talk) 08:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit to Equestrian vaulting

Hello! I got your message:

"Your test on Equestrian vaulting worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox."

... but I'm afraid it left me a bit confused (I'm new to this).

I see that the unsupported assertion that I challenged has been removed, which leads me to think I did something right (which is my fervent intention). But the talk of 'my test', and of experimenting further in the sandbox, makes me think that I did something inappropriate.

I suspect that I just need a brief lesson in Wikipedia editing jargon. Could you point me to one?--212.36.48.46 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

email

Please send me a copy of the email you refer to - complete without adjustment so that I can reconsider as necessary the block. That email will be kept by me in complete confidence.--VS ^talk 11:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)