User talk:Stephenb/Archive 3

• Archive1 (20th June 2005 - 20th Jan 2006)
• Archive2 (21st Jan 2006 - 27th June 2006)

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective Other : Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20 Improve to GA standard: EastEnders Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project.

Hello to all members of WikiProject EastEnders! Please take a look at the to do list above, and see what you can do to help out! All help would be much appreciated, and the projects on this list are priorities! Thanks Trampikey 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stevenb:

My name is Vera "Wikiwriters". I'm new to Wikipedia. Yesterday, I began my first post on "Envy". It looks like your "Envy" post was the first one.

How do I post my article individually so that it's not linked with yours?

I was trying to do so but, being new, it appeared that "Editing" or adding to an existing post was the only way. Also, since "editing" seems to be the main feature of Wikipedia, I edited the existing your "Envy" post for accuracy (i.e., Seven Deadly Sins originating from Judaism "Book of Proverbs", not Catholicism, as the writing implied) and of course, envy's role in Christ's crucifixion. I see you implemented these updates into your post, but that my original post is also gone. Did you do that?

I ask because I wasn't sure if my editing of your post offended you and thus deleting my post was a retaliation. If the editing offended you, I apologize. But I'm glad you implemented the updates offerred. If you deleted my post, how can I post best, and unrelated to yours?

Currently, the best way, that I know of now, is to contact me via my Wikipedia email: [email protected]. Thanks and have a great day!

Vera Sent: 06/27/06 - 12p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriters (talk • contribs)

Hi Vera - I shall reply to User talk:Wikiwriters. Stephenb (Talk) 19:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephenb:

Thanks so much for the clarifications and suggestions. I appreciate it, and will definitely read up on the Wiki guidelines.

Have a gorgeous day!

Vera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriters (talk • contribs)

Stephenb:

I'm going to temporarily remove my post for update and review with Wikipedia guidelines. "Envy knows no gratitude" is a quote, and thanks regarding the email - I'll remove that as well!

Regards,

Vera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriters (talk • contribs)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andio (talk • contribs)

Hello. Please STOP vandalising pages. Thanks! Stephenb (Talk) 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandal on my user page.--Konstable 15:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work rv'ing the "Panda Vandal". He's a repeat troll with a fetish for bears. He may be done for the day....but rest assured he'll return. Cheers and take care! Anger22 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting the grafitti on my user page. Geo.per 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanquish_Labs

Stephen - I was invited to describe a coporate entity by this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-spam_appliances

I believe that I have complied with NPOV rules. If I am not in compliance, please suggest changes. It is not our intent to advertise

Looks like advertising spam to me - and I see it's been nominated for deletion, too Stephenb (Talk) 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Computer input devices and Virtual Reality today. I'll get around to figuring out the other hundred over the next weeks, assuming they don't delete me first. Tmcsheery 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you alot, it was greatly appreciated :) CharonX/talk 22:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey .. thanks for the message. Is it possible for us to create pages regarding friends or is this also considered vandalism? Regards, Luke.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vowgs (talk • contribs)

It appears that you know Vowgs. Would you mind asking him to knock it off? Every edit he's done has been vandalism (and has been reverted by someone else who otherwise would be able to spend more time doing something constructive for wikipedia). And I hope you've told him about Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines - as in, the probability of one of his friends having sufficient notability to be worth a wikipedia article is ... quite low. John Broughton 13:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, don't know him. Not sure why you think I do, but you can do all the things you've asked me to do. Replied on your talk page. Stephenb (Talk) 08:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. I was hoping the "thanks for the message" from him was an indication that you knew him - but obviously it was sarcasm. Sorry for taking up your time. I'll see what I can do directly. John Broughton 13:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. If you look at other companies that are publically traded you will see the same thing on thier pages. I was putting that on your page because I found out that it is a publically traded company so I felt that it should be there. I will not move it anymore but I would like you to keep it on your page. I do believe that is the right ticker symbol. If you have any more questions let me know. John R G 19:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added a template on the FA Premier League - August 2006 page saying that it should be deleted because no other pages link to it. But considering the nature of the page, only one page should really link to it, the 06-07 page for the FA Priemership. I think this template should be taken off. (If there has already been talk on this, please direct me to it, the temp didn't do that.) --DJLean 16:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been deleted. Stephenb (Talk) 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now i see the problem. I made some misstakes on that article, but i think it is now corrected. Umar and Amr are different names, and i think the articles are correct now. Peace :) --Striver 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you explain why you changed the Dreamwatch entry? I added Rich as Editor as he's just been appointed to the role. His first issue (out at the end of Sept) is cover dated November...

What's the problem? Don't you want to be up-to-date with info straight from the source (ie. the magazine's Managing Editor)?

email me at [email protected].

Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.99.98 (talk • contribs)

Well (1) I have no proof you are Brian J. Robb, and (2) the information you added is not verified publically. Come the end of September, if you are correct, we can update the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of verifiable facts. Stephenb (Talk) 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since I have no proof of your identify, I'm not emailing Brian who may have no idea about any of this! Stephenb (Talk) 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your work on bodybuilding related articles, and thought you may be interested in the following :)

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! - GIen 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks - I was just clearing up a few things! Stephenb (Talk) 18:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, well please keep up the great work! ;) - GIen 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake in tagging the wrong article as a magazine --Brat32 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen,

I just wonder if you could clarify why you keep deleting the forum on Louisa Lytton entry. At the end of the day it is a busy forum and the girl who runs it has also been in contact with Louisa Lytton who loves the website and approves of it. Just wondered why?

Thanks

Ellen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webkin (talk • contribs)

I'll reply on your talk page, but since you seem to (so far) be a novice, here's my reply here, too: Wikipedia is not a collection of links, especially not to blog and forum sites. See Wikipedia:External links for the guidelines. Stephenb (Talk) 11:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen,

I am pretty new to Wikipedia and have only just started editing, I copied the link style from other pages. I know its not for a list of links but it is relevant to the subject surely. Maybe you could tell me the correct way of posting a link.

Thanks for replying.

Ellen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webkin (talk • contribs)

The point is that it is not an appropriate link for Wikipedia - (links to) fan forums are not sources of information that an encyclopedia needs to list. I see some other user has now removed the link again. Stephenb (Talk) 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GET YOUR FACT RIGHT!!!!!! JESUS DEAN GAFFENY IS IN TALKS WITH THE PEOPLE OF EASTENDERS TO BRING HIM BACK QUOTE 'COME AND GET ME' THE STORYLINE WILL BE FOR SONIA STORYLINE, HE SAID THAT HE DOESNT JUST WANT 2,3 EPISODES IN THE SOAP, HE WANTS 2-3 MONTHS IN THE SHOW. SO THE FAN CAN GET TO KNOW HIS CHARACTER AGAIN, AND HE CAN GET TO KNOW NEW PEOPLE IN THE SQAURE. HE ALSO SAID HE WANTS TO MAKE MORE GUEST APPEARANCES IN THE SOAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fall out boy182 (talk • contribs)

Woa - (1) Stop SHOUTING, please! (2) I never said the above wasn't true - I just added a note to the article saying that a citation was needed. I'm sure he's desperate to come back... Stephenb (Talk) 14:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it was on a national paper, where he said that he wants to be back in eastenders, and hes now in talks to go back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fall out boy182 (talk • contribs)

"A national newspaper" Which one? What date? Wikipedia is only for verifiable facts. That's what references/citations are for - so that we know the information is correct, not just something someone made up. Stephenb (Talk) 14:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o, you really should know should you, if your not up to this job. maybe you should quit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fall out boy182 (talk • contribs)

Lol! Funniest thing I've read all week. Poorly spelt, bad grammar and saying something totally incomprehensible with no relation to any facts. Wonderful! Stephenb (Talk) 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stephen. I'm the creator of the Big Royal Dig article - a historian and former Royal Household employee (for my sins! :o) )

Two points: 1. Section titles - cross-refs. I note that you removed these (I think it was you; pardon me if I'm wrong here). why? Are they considered bad form? I've contributed extensively to the B Pal article and I've regularly used cross-refs in section titles? Do you not like them? Please enlighten me.

2. Your removal of "irrelevant material" in the article leader. I included this material as it opens up the interest of the Article to a wider audience and points them to other related issues. It also puts the Time Team excavation in the context of events taking place at Royal residences and thus expands the significance of the event and the scope of the article as well as educating the readership further. Of the many events I mentioned taking place in B Pal Gdns, many are culturally and socially interesting and as a published writer I feel that an article's introduction is fair game for this.

Losing it takes a little glitter off the introduction - I am not sure why you would wish to remove this and would like to reinsert it, if that is OK with you.

Please advise at my (talk) page. With thanks and best wishes. -- FClef (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stephenb, Quite apart from the Big Royal Dig stuff, I LOVE the box at the top of your title page and have copied it over to mine for correspondents to use.

I hope that this is OK with you. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! ;o)

Please let me know, however, if you have any objection to this. Tara for now. – FClef (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephenb - Scott Wilson has proposed a merge of this article with Time Team. I don't know how you feel about this, but hope you will agree with me that it is worth its own article.

Scott actually proposed this while I was writing the article, and I withdrew the notice, with his knowledge, pending completion. He has now re-read the full article, appears to like it, but still feels that it should be merged. I am appalled that this proposal was re-made within 24 hours of my completing the article, him having originally made it when the article was first conceived.

(Incidentally, part of the reason I wanted to keep the scope of the intro broad was to justify keeping Big Royal Dig separate.)

Either way, as someone who has read the article, I would appreciate it if you would read my statement of opposition and join the discussion. I refer to the two discussions on the sites given by Scott Wilson - namely, his and my Talk pages, plus the discussions I've had with you.

Thanks for your contributions and hopefully your support. Best wishes. –– FClef (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliments about the article. I have suffered two days of angst instead of joy at my shiny new contribution, and am happy to say that Big Royal Dig has now been deleted at my request. My opposing statement is self-explanatory. –– FClef (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stephen, just to clarify re your message on my Talk page - I gave no blessing for a merger. I proposed deletion because I was not prepared to have Scott Wilson place my work under a shadow without it having even been read by the Wiki community. No one could have read my article impartially with that notice hanging on it. Accordingly, I decided to carve it up, reassign it and delete it rather than having it exist under a cloud. I don't see that there's any way back now for the article because Scott Wilson obviously took it as a candidate for destruction right from its inception. It was never designed to "yield useful facts" for the Time Team page. It was designed for a broad readership. Interesting you mention you're not a Royalist; I had mentioned that I worked at Buckingham Palace previously. I'm not sure whether Scott's objection was on political grounds or whether, as seems likely, he disliked the fact that the article had been written at all. Either way, I wasn't prepared to have a new product of mine scarred in such a way. This is my final word on the matter, but thanks for all your support. –– FClef (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im nominated for system operator (sysop) or admin vote for me please! vote here i love wikipedia and would love it if you voted for me so i can continue to contribute and help out even more! Qrc2006 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed some stuff from this page thinking it was silly vandalism but it is actually true! The superstition is a real one, and the clock tower offices were closed down becuase people used to kill themselves off the top! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjamjim (talk • contribs)

Instead of being rude to me, it would be far more helpful if you would just let me do my first redirect page by myself, so that I can figure out how to do it properly; its OK if a redirect page to a no doubt rarely perused lizard stub (which I authored) is wrong for five or ten minutes, after all. Now, I don't know if I ever did it correctly or not, so I'll have to go through the same process next time. Since it was obvious I was confused about the correct procedure, you could have earned my thanks with a dozen or so keystrokes explaining to me how to do it (I think you only encapsulate the topic one is redirecting to in a single pair of [] marks, rather than a double pair, [[]], but I remain uncertain, due to not being allowed to complete the process myself. I frankly resent your implying I was somehow "messing around," or whatever derogatory phrase you employed. KevinOKeeffe 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't rude. I was simply pointing out that I had already corrected it, and you could learn how by looking at the edit history Stephenb (Talk) 08:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got your correction of the toast article in just before me, meaning that, somehow, I only managed re-reverted it to the vandalised version. I've reverted it to the correct verion now. Thnaks. JK23 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, it looked as if you were trying to revert to the vandalised version! Apologies Stephenb (Talk) 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. JK23 16:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have included the text because it's in the manual of style I linked, and because the article should conform to this style as it is a part of the football project. Do you feel strongly against having the text? It does explain the following section, and I can't see the harm in it. I was going to organize the manager section, but comparing it to the different featured club articles, they have different formats and content in the player and manager sections. A better title for the manager section might simply be "Managers", as it lists every manager in Tottenham history. Jol is listed in the infobox as "manager" - I'm aware of the "new" structure with the introduction of Arnesen/Santini, but Santini and Jol are still referred to as managers. Poulsen 11:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right about the italics text, but as I see it, the italics text as used in the "Current squad" section, are meant to be copied into the individual club articles. Also, editorial remarks on the template seem to be placed in small text on the bottom of each section. Labelling Santini and Jol as "manager" or "head coach" has been done interchangeably by many mainstream media, including BBC (check it out with Google). Poulsen 11:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting the article on Pint? Do you not know the UK is England, Scotland, Wales AND Northern Ireland? So, it’s obviously part of Ireland! Ireland is just as much in island as Great Britain! What is the point of putting Ireland twice? If you are pedant then put the UK and the Republic of Ireland, but please get your facts correct before you edit pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.12.18 (talk • contribs)

Stop talking nonsense Stephenb (Talk) 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop removing my article on Quick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokey019 (talk • contribs)

It's a non-notable addition. Stop adding it. Stephenb (Talk) 15:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'll keep editing it. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokey019 (talk • contribs)

ok baby i took it off that page and made its own :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW_Quick\

Sigh, typical hordie. Your subject/article is un-notable and does not deserve a place on Wikpieda, Smokey, so stop adding them. I gave you a link to a place where you might get a better welcome, but don't cross your fingers. What I'm sure of is the fact we at Wikipedia don't need an article about a WoW addict bragging about stats. I suggest going back to your computer game and leaving the rest of us hard working people alone, unless you plan on learning the rules and getting a clue. Now, I'm not bashing Warcraft or anything, I play it myself, but don't go around trying to make yourself look like you're doing some incredibly remarkable thing, when all you're doing is wasting your time on the computer. Get with the program, please, and stop harassing other people. (Or join the Alliance. Smarter people are in the Alliance. We'll like you then.) - ^‹('.'‹)Kribbeh_(›'.')› 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I LOLed too! Glad to know spammers can't get much anything in edgewise when two users rv it at the same time. Hats off to you, good sir! Have a lovely day! E. Sn0 =31337= 20:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't revert the articles that we change. We are doing this for the benefit of the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.171.12 (talk • contribs)

Your IP address was being used to vandalise articles. So, I will continue to revert if you continue to vandalise. Stephenb (Talk) 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you do decide to block this IP address, you'll have blocked Pinewood Studios, feel free to do a whois.

"inetnum: 193.203.64.0 - 193.203.64.15 netname: CHARLIE-UK descr: Studio Assignment- PW country: GB admin-c: JLF22-RIPE tech-c: JLF22-RIPE rev-srv: ns0.sohonet.co.uk rev-srv: ns1.sohonet.co.uk status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: SOHONET-NOC source: RIPE # Filtered"

Where did Sid James work a lot of the time? And if you know your stuff, where do some of his descedants work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.64.10 (talk • contribs)

I am not an admin, so I can't block, but I can request a block, and have no hesitation about requesting "Pinewood Studios" be blocked if that's where the vandalism is coming from Stephenb (Talk) 14:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, wow, you aren't too bright are you? Did you even run a whois? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.64.10 (talk • contribs)

Being rude is not helping your cause. If a whois points to Pinewood, so what? Stephenb (Talk) 14:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I thought wikipedia liked to provide correct information, seems I was wrong so I don't see much need for me to come on here anymore other than "vandalizing" his article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.64.10 (talk • contribs)

You remember the part about Wikipedia needing citable, verifiable evidence? If you are his grandson, then what a shame he has such a rude descendant. Stephenb (Talk) 14:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has a rude descendant only when such a descendant is insulted by someone who claims himself or the media know more information about Sid's life than the descendant. And this happens surprisingly often, and not only that, we also have no say in where photos of him are shown or how they are portrayed, and we also have no say when people from the media choose to sell him as a bad person to make some extra cash.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.64.10 (talk • contribs)

I don't claim to know more about Sid James or his life. However, I do claim that I can verify his birth name online and that you have provided no verification for your claim. The argument is about verification of the claim - if you can verify that his name was really Joel, then I'm happy that the article be updated. I have added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies Stephenb (Talk) 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I would still like to know what valid verification is, if you consider media to be valid verification of truth, maybe I should list George Bush as a lover of Tony Blair, or maybe I should start an article explaining about "Celebrity Sweat Patches", see my point? ;)

A book, a web site, anything in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Citing sources Stephenb (Talk) 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey StephenB. Thanks for adding the cats on the SoVo wiki. I do have a question, though. I was trying to create a sub-catagory for the category 'National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology schools'. I wanted the sub-catagory to be named 'Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science'. I think in the end, what I had intended to be a sub-category ended up being an undefined category. Any idea how to fix this situation? Thanks for your help! ElentariAchaea 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you supported the article's deletion via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're confirmed in a forthcoming Doctor Who Magazine as reported on Outpost Gallifrey Forum

The Iceman2288 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)The_Iceman2288[reply]

Has already been deleted by {{prod}} once. If you want it to stick you may have to use AfD, I'm afraid. Grouse 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work in trying to combat vandalism. However, after seeing the speedy deletion tag you placed on Eth Bombo, I think the article is probably more suited to a proposed deletion. It sounds to me like the Eth Bombo might be a cryptid, and after working in the cryptozoology section for some time, I've seen many similar nonsense-sounding stubs that bloomed into better articles. A proposed deletion would give more time for the author and/or others to dig up any legitimacy that might exist. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the article does sound terrible. But some of the local names for hominoid cryptids are quite obscure, so I don't agree that it is necessarily absolute nonsense. I do agree that it probably needs to go (either deleted as not notable enough, or merged into a minor mention in passing in some other hominoid cryptid article) but it would be nice to give the cryptozoology community a chance to look into it first, just to make sure. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense" in the sense of speedy-delete does not include hoaxes.

See WP:CSD#General_criteria and Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I knew that, though it still read to me as nonsense! Stephenb (Talk) 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stephen -

I am having difficulty completing the copyright image tagging requirements for the American Angler, Fly Tyer and Gray's Sporting Journal entries. I'm an editor with the Morris Group and have verbal permission to use these images, but the best way seemed to be under a fair use tag. However, the auto bots are telling me I have done the tags wrong. Would you mind looking and seeing if you can help me, or referring me to a moderator who could help?

Thank you, ZachMatthews 14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now what i have to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alejandrozamora (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

hi thank you for re-editing what I have edited! you have done a great job of keeping Wikipedia safe from no good yanks like me. I hope you have a great day at home in your posh London flat living the good life and sipping tea with the queen!

CHEERS!

jonnyharman—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyharman (talk • contribs)

FYI: [1] (But please ignore the fact that my lazy fingers typed "LIST EMPTY" when, in fact, there was one item remaining :-P) I removed the report without action because the anon hadn't vandalised after your final warning. I'm not sure if you used a tool like VandalProof to make the report, but we generally only block anons if they vandalise shortly after being issued a final warning. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - there was one incidence of vandalism after I reported the IP user, but then whoever it was stopped Stephenb (Talk) 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]