Meta:Administrators/confirm

Shortcut:
WM:A/C

This page hosts annual confirmation (or removal) of administrators according to the Administrator policies. Please vote to either keep or remove the following users as admins. If you think any of these administrators should not keep their access, please add Remove below. Please do not vote keep if there is no remove yet. Admins will keep their access if there are no votes, or more than 75% keeps. Confirmations end 21st July 00:00 (UTC)

Bureaucrats: Please feel free to close any unanimous decisions yourselves and effect the changes once the confirmations end, but please use permanent links in the user rightlogs and not just remove right as "failing confirmation" etc. Any non-unanimous decisions should be discussed on /bureaucrat chat with other bureaucrats first. Thank you.

Andrevan

Andrevan (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Keep, active on the Interwiki map which requires admin access. Nakon 02:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove He was basically inactive till last month, when he made a series of edits over 8 days, mostly arguing on a request for bureaucratship. He promptly disappeared again on the 12th. He's still active on his home project, but seems to have abandoned here again. I don't think there'll be any net benefit in keeping him as an admin. Majorly ^talk 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - he only became active for a reason and since it wasn't fulfilled, he won't be back, so in other words, as I opposed his RfB based on his activity, I will do the same again and 2 edits to that protected page doesn't really show his activity...--Comet styles 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, his last 150 edits go back to year 2005 and 150 edits in 3 years in really not worth giving a second thought to in terms of "activity levels" ...--Comet styles 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on June activity. I'm not going to indulge in speculation about his likely future activity - that's for him to know and I don't read minds. Maybe someone should ask him? Andrevan is a sensible editor willing to help out who should retain admin access - I certainly see no harm in him doing so. WjBscribe 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the same state of mind as WJB for now; I'd like to hear his opinion before I make a boldface remark. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{neutral}} pending possible input from Andre. Daniel (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep per the fact that Andre edited the interwiki map - an administrator action - within the last month. He did so on three separate occasions. Daniel (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nakon. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Majorly, based upon previous contributions I don't foresee a future level of contributions to warrant retaining admin rights although will be interested in any comment from this user about this. Adambro 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nakon. --.snoopy.  21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not inactive, and he edited the Interwiki map recently. Korg 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I've thought about this one long & hard. I've been here long enough to see bursts of activity which lead to an Rf* and in many cases those of us who work here rarely see the user again. In the end I believe Cometstyles is correct here and a burst of activity that was related to a request does not count as genuinely active to me. Prior to that there was little interest in Meta. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nakon --Fabexplosive The archive man 13:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I had considered this previously, but ended up removing my comments. Since then, I've considered this one, and reviewed their activity more thoroughly. Given the circumstances around the RFB, I don't see this user as being meaningfully active, so removal of the tools here is appropriate, IMO. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Since I neither know the user nor saw him ever edit, I did't have an opinion by myself prior to reading other statements. So it was not an easy decision, since both keep and remove voters brought good arguments across. But for me the ones of the remove side were simply stronger. --Thogo (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has had some activity since his RfB, so I'd rather assume good faith. —Giggy 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to inactivity. Huji 18:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per nakon. He might come back so lets assume good faith here. Mww113 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Datrio

Datrio (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Remove - too inactive, 5 edits this year isn't really good enough --Comet styles 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Basically inactive. Majorly ^talk 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also remove bureaucrat right. Majorly ^talk 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as last two administrator actions date back to 17:38, 9 May 2007. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He edited the Spam blacklist‎ 5 days later and deleted a page in late November. Korg 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Last two" means "his second last". Daniel (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, so his last two admin actions date back to 14 May 2007. Korg 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove inactive--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inativo. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove , inactive. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive.--Ahonc 09:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. -- Avi 06:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. _~Innv^s: 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to inactivity. Huji 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. Mww113 18:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can a checkuser please state how active this user is with the Checkuser tool? Thanks. Majorly ^talk 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking in the logs obviously, but Herby is certainly active on the mailing list. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Number of checks
June 2008	30	++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 2008	28	++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
April 2008	37	+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
March 2008	12	++++++++++++
February 2008	17	+++++++++++++++++
January 2008	19	+++++++++++++++++++
December 2007	10	++++++++++
November 2007	16	++++++++++++++++
October 2007	22	++++++++++++++++++++++
September 2007	15	+++++++++++++++

—{admin} Pathoschild 04:42:38, 01 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, hard working on spam issues, good colleague MoiraMoira 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Jacob 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote keep unless there are remove vote(s). Majorly ^talk 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checkuser needs admin status.--Ahonc 09:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even a question in my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Selbsverstandlich. -- Avi 06:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ahonc. _~Innv^s: 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yep, herby uses the tools very well so I see no issue by having herby another year. --Kanonkas 07:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG

JzG (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

~~{{remove}} hardly ever made any log actions at all; last edit was well over a month ago, as an aside. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Majorly makes a fair point about spam blacklist work, so I'll need time to think. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{remove}} inactive--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~~ yep, spam blacklist is admin work... so Keep--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blacklist work is admin work. He's only been gone a month, but has stated he's on a break. Majorly ^talk 12:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the info that he is on a break? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember *where* but he's still active behind the scenes (OTRS particularly, especially regarding spammers...) I think it would probably be a good idea to leave admin rights, as he's been very helpful on the spam blacklist. Majorly ^talk 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly is right, I am busy IRL right now but keeping up with at least some issues via the mailing lists. For example, I'm lobbying Jimbo to rename the blacklists to avert the steady stream of complaints by justly blacklisted not-technically-spamers. JzG 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Active enough and taking break into consideration. Cbrown1023 talk 14:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbrown1023. WjBscribe 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Daniel (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cbrown1023. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbrown1023. --.snoopy.  21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MoiraMoira 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Fabexplosive The archive man 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He works with spam blacklist.
Keep EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Avi 06:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon

Nakon (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

oscar

oscar (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

i have been rather busy [1] [2] at nl.wikipedia.org lately, but i do keep an eye on meta every once in a while though, it's just that i have not found much time lately... all the best, oscar 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can a checkuser please state how active this user is with the Checkuser tool? Thanks. Majorly ^talk 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Number of checks
July 2008	0
June 2008	0
May 2008	0
April 2008	0
March 2008	0
February 2008	0
January 2008	0
December 2007	0
November 2007	0
October 2007	0
September 2007	0
August 2007	0
July 2007	0
June 2007	0
May 2007	0
April 2007	1	+

—{admin} Pathoschild 04:46:07, 01 July 2008 (UTC)

Should Oscar not have lost his checkuser access per the one year rule, or does the one year rule refer to general contributions and not just checkuser actions? Daniel (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he should have lost his rights a month ago, but there is no way of knowing that unless we have this confirmations..--Comet styles 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser flag--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- remove 'crat too--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 12:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Checkuser flag - should have lost it some time ago... Majorly ^talk 11:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also remove bureaucrat right, but leave admin. Majorly ^talk 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CU and 'crat bits (keep admin - he's marginally active with that one :\) — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 'crat too. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser access, Keep administrator and bureaucrat access. Daniel (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CU, Keep admin. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CU and admin. Doesn't seem to make much use of either unless I'm missing something. Adambro 19:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep admin, neutral about CU access. --Erwin(85) 10:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MoiraMoira 10:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and since he is one of only two checkusers on :nl, I don't think it's a good idea to remove it. Zanaq 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having CU on nlwiki, and having CU here are different things. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 58.8.110.218 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to vote. Majorly ^talk 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep admin flag. Korg 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as sysop and crat, remove CU. --Thogo (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove CU access --Fabexplosive The archive man 14:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser flag. --.anaconda 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| ∇ 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser flag, Keep sysop flag. WjBscribe 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser flag, Keep sysop flag --.snoopy.  07:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser bit, Keep sysop bit. Seems fair. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser bit, Keep sysop bit. --Jacob 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Bureaucrat bit. --Jacob 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove checkuser flag, Keep sysop flag -- Avi 06:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CU, Keep sysop; agree with the above. —Giggy 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, Remove 'crat too. —Giggy 09:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CU and Bureaucrat access, only keep sysop access. Huji 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CU and Bureaucrat access,keep sysops....--Comet styles 12:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove CheckUser Remove Bureaucrat Neutral Sysop. Mww113 18:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pathoschild

Pathoschild (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Question: Can a checkuser please state how active this user is with the Checkuser tool? Thanks. Majorly ^talk 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Number of checks
July 2008	1	+
June 2008	2	++
May 2008	0
April 2008	0
March 2008	0
February 2008	13	+++++++++++++
January 2008	4	++++
December 2007	0
November 2007	0
October 2007	2	++
September 2007	2	++
August 2007	0
July 2007	7	+++++++
June 2007	8	++++++++
May 2007	7	+++++++

—{admin} Pathoschild 04:41:00, 01 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep CU as well. --Jacob 12:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote keep unless there are remove vote(s). Majorly ^talk 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? If certain user who is (for example) going to take a long wikibreak and wants to keep this user as an admin here shouldn't vote? If he/she doesn't do that and at the end of the voting period there appears one or several people who want to remove Pathoschild's admin rights, what he/she can then do to have his/her voice heard (remember that he/she is then away)? –Ejs-80 12:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a good point for dropping this "rule" next time. But that should be discussed on the talk page I think. --Thogo (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Infact the reason why I had voted was because I was not sure whether I would have been able to check this page back before the confirmatione expired(and the original statement said "maynot" and not "please donot"). I am active on multiple wiki projects. --Jacob 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{#ifThereAreRemoveVotes| Keep|}} - Hillgentleman 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Which is rather pointless really as I've said on the talk page because if someone voted remove then you'd expect them to make a good case why just as the community should expect you to make a good case. "Keep" votes are of no value whatsoever before anyone votes "remove". At that point everyone should reassess the user and any votes prior should be considered to have little value since they may have been made without knowledge of what could be serious concerns. Adambro 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, meta benefits in his having adminship.{{#ifThereAreRemoveVotesPleaseKindlyCallMe, otherwise Keep|}}Hillgentleman 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowdog

Snowdog (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Remove - too inactive, no edits this year --Comet styles 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. Majorly ^talk 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Also remove bureaucrat right. Majorly ^talk 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as last administrator action was taken at 15:12, 10 April 2007. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. Nakon 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove inactive :( --Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove very sad --.snoopy.  12:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inativo. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove , inactive. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 14:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive -- Avi 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to inactivity Huji 16:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove inactivity Mww113 18:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suisui

Suisui (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Remove - too inactive, no edits since March 2007 --Comet styles 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Completely inactive. Majorly ^talk 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as last administrator action was taken at 20:25, 15 December 2006. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He edited the Spam blacklist‎ in March 2007. Korg 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still too inactive. Daniel (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - For your information his last edit on jawiki (assumed as home wiki) was on March 31, 2007. He closed his wikimedia related blog in a certain point. Seem to leave the project. --Aphaia 12:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't disagree. :) This was just a minor correction. Korg 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove inactive--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inativo. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove , inactive. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive -- Avi 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove for an obvious reason! Huji 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangotango

Tangotango (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Remove Inactive. Majorly ^talk 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove inactive :( --Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive -- Avi 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to inactivity; and I regret it since he is a great user. Huji 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thogo

Thogo (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Keep --Jacob 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote keep unless there are remove vote(s). Majorly ^talk 12:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not voting Keep until there are remove vote(s). Hillgentleman 18:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany

UninvitedCompany (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Remove - too inactive, only 1 this year --Comet styles 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. Majorly ^talk 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as last administrator action was taken at 22:43, 28 August 2006. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. Nakon 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inativo. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive -- Avi 06:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Because of the inactivity of UninvitedCompany. --Kanonkas 07:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to inactivity. Huji 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zocky

Zocky (talk • email • contributions • deleted contributions • all logs • blocks • deletions • protections)

Remove - too inactive, no edits this year --Comet styles 00:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive. Majorly ^talk 00:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as last administrator action was taken at ~~02:25, 21 June 2007~~ 06:24, 7 November 2007. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. Nakon 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. _~Innv^s: 06:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per this edit. Anyone who removes a listing from the blacklist without request or consultation and does not respond to a plea for information should not have admin rights in my view. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Herby--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 10:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per inactivity and Herbythyme. WjBscribe 14:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inativo. Alex Pereira ^falaê 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, inactive. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Due to inactivity --Fabexplosive The archive man 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inactive -- Avi 06:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Last edit in November; inactive and no admin actions since August. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove due to inactivity. Huji 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]