User talk:Pathoschild/Archives/2006-11

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Ludvikus in topic Administration



Redundancy of User:

How is that page redundant? It's very likely a sockpuppet of a user and I think it's better to keep it online as evidence. Could you please undelete it? --Dijxtra 19:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's redundant with the talk page. That IP address is unlikely to be a current sockpuppet; its recent contributions seem to be in good faith. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Good faith? You're joking, right? The way that this IP adress edits hasn't changed in months, it's got Purger's signature all over it. If you monitored Purger before then you should know that Neo-Nazism in Croatia and removing entries from List of Croatians are his favourites, I just don't see how can you say that it's not his current sockpuppet? Are you sure that you have any previous experience with Purger? I don't want to insult you, so please, no hard feelings, but it seems to me that you don't know much about the Purger situation. If that is the case, then I will just undelete the userpage, and I ask you not to wheel-war. If you did interact with our dear impersonator, I'd really like you to explain to me that claim of yours that is unlikely to be a current sockpuppet since I just can't see how that can be true, and I've worked with him a bunch of times. Thanks for your time. --Dijxtra 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, Dmcdevit checkusered him and confirmed it's a sock. Just please don't delete the page again, thanks. -Dijxtra 09:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no previous experience with that particular user, and I have no problem with you restoring the sockpuppet tag if I was incorrect. However, the deletion of the userpage and the removal of the tag are two separate decisions. I deleted the userpage because an IP address has no need for one; the sockpuppet tag can be placed on the talk page. It's not a terribly important detail, and you're free to restore the userpage—as I see you already have. The deletion was part of a larger cleanup of the user namespace restricted to warned and blocked users. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

O'Sean's user talk page

After O'Sean's user profile was blocked by you, he has not been back ever since. He had mysteriously disappeared and never returned. Please be so kind to get rid of his user profile and talk page since it can't even be in use anymore. He would want it gone anyway. Thank you very much. I appreciate it a whole lot. —The preceding comment was added on

I've deleted the talk page; the user page never existed. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for getting rid of that, but please also completely get rid of his contributions and the rest that might still be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:43, October 25, 2006.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely possible. See m:Right to vanish for actions you can take to remove some of your presence on Wikipedia. Note that some of the steps require that O'Sean themselves request it (which may be impossible). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Warning issued to long-blocked user

Hello EmeZxX. I noticed that you issued a final warning to ChrisMH, who was blocked over six weeks ago. I deleted the talk page, but I'm wondering how or why that happened. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks then. I saw his vandalising on a history page..and it was quite recent, so I wasn't sure what to do. ~ EmeZxX ` 12:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Block broken

Were you able to block that account on the first try? --HappyCamper 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocking was temporarily broken, but it's been fixed now. A developer applied a patch without making a necessary change to the database first. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, was that what it was. Ah...I see... --HappyCamper 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting userpages

Hi Pathoschild: If you're looking for more old vandal userpages to delete, check out this google search; they should all qualify :-) —Mets501 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've still got thousands on my list; I'm just taking a break. ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem :-). Just letting you know. I'll help out with the backlog as well :-) —Mets501 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown

Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion review. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me; I've responded on that page. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition/Guideline proposal

"No meaningful content" isn't true. However, since you've also archived the associated talk page, merely archive the discussion from the page you deleted (in correct chronological placement), and that would be fine with me (transparency). - jc37 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only content on that page were three sarcastic comments mocking the uselessness of the page. Ironically meaningful per se, perhaps, but not useful for archival. If you really think the discussion should be archived for later interest (perhaps to discourage such pages in the future), I'll move it to the archive. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not my recollection of the page, but I could be thinking of something else. Would you mind restoring it for a bit? - jc37 17:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Restored. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Apparently the sarcasm was/is lost on me : )
In any case, I'll archive the information from the page history (leaving out the various template headers), if that's ok with you. - jc37 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought the sarcasm was obvious. :) Feel free to archive; I'll delete that page when you're done. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, finished archiving. : ) - jc37 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits

What the heck is your problem i'm trying to get a new layout for my usertalk @ and you gotta keep reverting. unsigned by Coinopkid 18:11, 28 November 2006.

You do not own that anonymous user talk page. If you'd like to have more control over the layout of your user and user talk page as explained by the User page policy, please edit the pages belonging to your registered account. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reduce protection of test templates

Hi P, When you have a spare 15 mins, could you change all the test templates to sprot for me, as I'm not an admin and can't access them. Cheers muchly Khukri (talk . contribs) 09:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Been thinking about it for a couple of hours now, do you think it might be an idea to put myself up for RFA, which might help me out with WP:UW? Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The test series is already protected. If administrator tools would be useful for you, I don't see why you shouldn't ask for them. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It was to bring them down to semi-prot from fully, so I could then edit them as just a plain ol logged in user. But thought about the RfA, might as well give it a go. See you on the otherside. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Userbox & Userboxes

Hello Ludvikus. I've deleted Userbox in accordance with the following pages and discussions:

For additional reasons, please see the relevant deletion log entry. Please don't recreate the page without consensus to do so. Thanks. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Both of these are WP terms.
  • How is it that they are not defined?
    • Worse, a search gives NOTHING!
      • at the very least there should be a #REDIRECT!
Best wishes, Ludvikus 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Unencyclopedic content about Wikipedia itself is in the Wikipedia namespace, and this term is defined at Wikipedia:Userboxes. Pages in the article namespace are subject to multiple policies and guidelines that such a page violates, such as Avoid self-references and Notability. We strive to provide an unbiased information resource, and part of that involves not giving undue weight to information about Wikipedia itself. Note that a search does return several relevant results. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For your reference:

Dear User:Will Pittenger OK, thanks, got your point.

Now on another matter. There is no Article or regarding Userbox, or Userboxes.
I couldn't do it. And I want to write other articles. Could you do it? Even a Redirect would be useful. Beginners know very soon that these lovely things (which by the way you do a nice job of creating) are called NOT rectangles, Userboxes. But a search yealds NOTHING!
Thanks, and have a nice day (or night). Yours truly,

CC: Administrator User:Pathoschild

  • Sorry for my error(s) and/or mistakes!
And trhanks for the nice job you are doing policing Wikipedia!
Yours truly,--Ludvikus 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Block User:Vinni-Puh

User:Vinni-Puh has resumed spamming various pages with links to his web site. I see that you once blocked him for similar behaviour in the past. Could you possibly talk to him and ask him to be more considerate. Thanks Abu ali 15:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest attempting the dispute resolution process. If that fails, administrator intervention may be more appropriate. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Dated deprecated templates

With the new usage of {{Tdeprecated}}, templates by default go into a dated category. The old usage is considered to be deprecated. On the category page, though, it says that a template should only be added once all of its transclusions have been updated. This doesn't seem to leave any place for a deprecated template to go before its transclusions are updated. I personally feel that each month should have the templates that were deprecated during that month. Once a template is no longer transcluded there is generally only a short time before it is deleted, but it often takes longer for its usage to stop before then. -- kenb215 talk 15:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates which are not yet orphaned should be categorised to Deprecated templates with {{tdeprecated|old|new}}; I've updated the instructions to make this default. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why each use of {{Tdeprecated}} has the page's name as a parameter instead of just using {{PAGENAME}} in Tdeprecated? -- kenb215 talk 00:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep. This allows it to replace template usage with a deprecation notice, which is not possible otherwise. For example, the deprecated template below warns that "The template {{wow}} is deprecated"; otherwise, it would rather absurdly warn that "The template {{Pathoschild}} is deprecated".
  The template {{wow}} is deprecated. Please use {{indefblockeduser}} instead.
{admin} Pathoschild 00:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Broken footnotes

this edit broke the hyperlinks to the footnotes, and also since it removed the footnotes numbers, it left the footnotes pretty useless. I don't know what was going on here exactly, but I though I'd let you know. Morwen - Talk 14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Morwen. I'm aware of the problem, and I'm slowly fixing it while manually converting those pages to the correct syntax. I apologize for any issues that may have caused. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I see that you have tried to fix the footnotes to the table at Bournemouth#Economy, and I guess on a number of other pages, following your earlier replacement of the working, but 'deprecated', Wikipedia:Footnote2 system with the Wikipedia:Footnote3 system.

Unfortunately your fix still doesn't give the desired effect as the footnote numbers do not match the superscript references. If we are not to use Wikipedia:Footnote2, I can only see that we have to revert to a 'manual method, such as:

Year Regional Gross Value Added[1] Agriculture[2] Industry[3] Services[4]
1995 2,740 4 665 2,071
2000 4,142 2 890 3,250
2003 4,705 2 898 3,804
  1. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding
  2. includes hunting and forestry
  3. includes energy and construction
  4. includes financial intermediation services indirectly measured

Have I missed something? CS46 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello CS46. The problem with trying to fix footnotes on Wikipedia is the multiple conflicting methods often used simultaneously. For example, external links[1] break {{ref}}[2] usage, which depends on external link numbering. Additionally, references are often divided into multiple lists; for example, footnotes for a table from general footnotes.
A solution that I think may (finally) work is a new syntax I implemented in the {{ref}} template which manually numbers the references. The new syntax duplicates the deprecated {{fn}}/{{fnb}} method, so there should be no further problems of the sort you pointed out. This is relatively easy to implement, but I need to manually review a very large number of pages to fix my previous semi-automated and automated attempt. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers Pathoschild. Although the table wasn't my input, I noticed the problem on a couple of pages before I mentioned it.
Regards, CS46 15:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


I've blocked it since there have been complaints about the "AOL proxy maintainance" on WP:AN. Feel free to unblock any autoblocks if it hits you, but don't unblock the bot until discussion has taken place there. Titoxd(?!?) 03:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've indefinitely paused the bot until the discussion has run its course, and lifted the block since it is no longer necessary. Thank you for notifying me; I'll discuss the task on the Administrators' noticeboard. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi Pathoschild, I don't agree that {{attack-n}} should be merged with {{npa3}}. The former is often used by :Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion trackers and the warning emphasises that we don't tolerate nonsense pages and that they are quickly deleted while npa3 doesn't mention deletion at all. Attack pages typically aren't targetting against other contributors, but against schoolmates or "friends", so npa3 doesn't really convey the right tone. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Netsnipe. I redirected {{attack-n}} to {{npa3}} because {{attack}} is already redirected there. Perhaps we could reword {{npa3}}, or move {{attack-n}} to {{attack}}? —{admin} Pathoschild 04:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I forked off attack-n from attack mainly because the people creating attack pages are usually immature kids, not uncivil Wikipedia regulars so quoting policy about "comment on content" makes no sense in these cases. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the foo-n merge

now when substing warning templates on user talk pages, the #if stmt is visible in the resulting code, looking unprofessional when viewing the source code. AzaToth 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Fortunately, there is a simple technical solution to this. The {{#if:}} statement can be substituted using {{{{{subst|}}}#if:}}; the 'subst' variable will disappear if the template is used as {{subst:foo}}, but the entire if statement will be substed if used as {{subst:foo|subst=subst:}}. However, the code is very simple—usually less than a few words' length—so it's easily understandable even if it isn't substituted. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that everyone using JS automagic need to update. AzaToth 20:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not necessary, just an improvement. All current usages will work regardless, the only change being a tiny line of code nested in the text. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Double redirect: Template:Testarticle-n

It looks like when you merged Template:Test1article-n into Template:Test1article and made the former a redirect, you turned Template:Testarticle-n into a double redirect. With all those numbers and letters, I don't blame you 16px. I've fixed it now. --Slowking Man 14:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd found all the double redirects, but apparently not. Thanks for fixing it. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject on user warnings harmonisation project

Hi Pathoschild,

I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond to the ideas. As I said above I appreciate that you are busy but certainly welcome your insights and any assitance you can spare. I also hope that you can continue to spare a little of your time in the early days whilst we get things moving. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Morning, I see you are around at the moment, can you just give the text I put in the talk page a quick look as I wouldn't mind getting the RC patrollers doing this for me.
Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 07:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope all's well? Would you mind have a quick glance through this for the signpost please? Edit as you feel fit.

Also I've updated the template overview page with a first real draft of the warnings we wish to create, again as you think. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked both; thanks. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created this page which we'll use to make sure we have all the re-directs in place for all the existing templates. I know you have done alot of these already, when you get 5 mins, can you just put your names besides any that you've done. As we take responsibility for messages on the overview page, we can verify the redirects are in place. I'll try and complete it over the next couple of days or so. Cheers Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maureen O'Carroll

Hello BrownHairedGirl. I've tagged Maureen O'Carroll for proposed deletion. We've received an email from a reader through Wikimedia's open ticket response system claiming that the subject is still alive, despite the article's claim otherwise. There are no references backing the information and I wasn't able to find any with a quick search online. If you can provide reliable sources, please do so and remove the template. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. See reply on my talk at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Proposed_deletion_of_Maureen_O.27Carroll. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pathoschild, Thanks for the note. I have removed the {{prod}} tag from the article, because I believe that the article is properly referenced. The two sources for the information in the article are:
If I understand you correctly, the reader does not claim that O'Carroll did not exist or that she was not a TD, and that the only issue at stake is the date of death (or rather whether she died at all). We have two conflicting sources: the reader's email and the Oireachtas database. Of the two, it seems to me that the Oireachtas database is the more reliable (it is a published source, run by the parliament itself).
I have corresponded on several occasions with the officials in the Oireachtas who run that database, and I have found then to be very conscientious and approachable: like Wikipedia, they insist on verifiability.
May I suggest that the best course of action would be to suggest to the reader that they either point us towards another published source, or contact the oireachtas (see contact details at ) to offer them whatever evidence they have to show that the database is wrong? It seems to me that to prove a negative (viz that O'Carroll is not dead) probably requires some original research, which Wikipedia cannot do, but the Oireachtas can.
What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that; I somehow missed the database entry. I've disambiguated the link to the database and asked the concerned user to provide a reliable source. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough. The Oireachtas database members database is not perfect, but it is a published source and it has very few errors. If there is another reliable source, we'll have to consider how to hnadle any conflict, but as yet we don't have anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The reader points out an interesting contradiction in our sources. If O'Carroll died in 1984 (database profile), how was she elected to the Tramore town council in 1999 (electoral history)? ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 21:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. The electionsIreland site is an independent one run by volunteers, and I have found this sort of error before on that site, when two candidates of different names end up being conflated (I had spotted that in this case, and gave it little weight). Maureen O'Carroll the TD would have been 86 years old at the time of the 1999 local elections, and 91 years old when the next council elections were held in 2001. That in itself would be unlikely, but the entry on O'Carroll at the Centre for the Advancement of Women in Politics not only confirms the birth and death dates, but adds the information that she was a mother of ten children.
A Google search throws up plenty of hits for the Tramore Councillor, including 15 mentions in the local paper (The Waterford News and Star). She is recorded there as, amongst other things, an advocate for skateboarders and a candidate for Chairperson of the Town Commissioners. In 2002 (at she is reported as a campaigner against the Treaty of Nice.
Such an active political career in Tramore all seems highly improbable for a ninety-year-old mother-of-ten from Dublin: if it was indeed the same person, her career would have been so remarkable that her age and political career would have been mentioned in some of the reports in the local paper and she would have achieved widespread coverage in the national media, rather than merely routine mentions in the local paper. (With ten children, the Dublin O'Carroll would probably have been a great-grandmother by then).
So as well as expanding the article, I have reverted your removal of her date of death. I will also write to to ask them to check their records and see if they have anything other than a shared name to link the Tramore and Dublin candidates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I've copied this discussion to Talk:Maureen O'Carroll and invited the user to discuss there. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Please continue any further discussion of this subject at Talk:Maureen O'Carroll. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the reader asked me to pass the following message to you.

Hi BrownHairedGirl

Sorry, I've probably posted this message in entirely the wrong place - I've searched through where else to leave a message for you but couldn't work it out!!!

My name is Trish, I'm the reader who was querying the death of Maureen O'Carroll... Having read through all the correspondence, I think I can now see what has happened. There are (or rather, were) two Maureen O'Carrolls who took up a career in politics after teaching!

The one that the article was written about was not 'my' Maureen but a different person altogether! The Maureen O'Carroll I was concerned about is actually my aunt which is why I was so adamant that she is still alive! She is still a very vocal character in local politics despite being 'of an age'!

The other big difference between the two is that my aunt is a spinster and I don't think she has ever looked after a pet let alone 10 children!!!

It can only be as you surmised, the site has added the wrong information to the bottom of the Dublin Maureen O'Carrolls political history.

So, adding my apologies, I will now bow out and continue my enjoyment of reading Wiki articles rather than writing them!!!

Apologies for any upset I may have caused.


{admin} Pathoschild 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ParserFunctions in test templates

On Template talk:Test you were talking about making it so the if-statements do not show when the template is substituted. Could you implement this or give a more specific example how to do it? —Centrxtalk • 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'll do that today. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Bug 5678 ("Colon functions: undefined parameter (default) values clobbered") makes #if unusable for this purpose when substituted (see sandboxed bug test). I've mentioned it in the relevant discussion. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

Happy Diwali!

:)--§hanel 04:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Same to you. :D —{admin} Pathoschild 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible

Hi, I rearragned some sections of the Bible article. If you ahve the time could you please review and help discuss? Thanks! --Home Computer 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no interest in that article. Feel free to discuss with other interested editors on the article's talk page. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

DenyRecognition on User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry

Hey Pathoschild,

What's your take on User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry? Do you think it violates WP:DENY? Just wondering if you think it should be deleted or not. Regards, Khoikhoi 23:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Information pages are sometimes kept regardless if they provide very useful information to counterabuse patrol, but I don't see anything that fits that description in this case. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Khoikhoi 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


Hello Pathoschild,

I see from the e-mail that :meta:User:Walter sent that you're the other new collaborator to the Wikizine. I just figured I'd swing by and say hi, and that I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proxy scanner down

Hi, please excuse the intrusion. I saw your name on the list of verified admins. Was wondering if you had any idea what happened to Shauns's Open Proxy Checker - I was using it to identify proxies but it's been dead for the last two weeks or so. It'd be great if you can point me to alternative sites which can help identify an open proxy as such. tnx! Odedee 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened to it; I've been concentrating on other projects lately. If it's down permanently, we'll replace it with a different scan tool. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pathoschild/Archives/2006-11".