User talk:Wisdom89/Archive 2

MGIQ4J Were a U from?

Your RfA

You've got (more) questions! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I suspected you'd enjoy them. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA - my neutral

Hi! Well, thanks for your message. Have just taken a look at the page - will read through your input and I might reconsider. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I'd love to participate, but I'm only here to work on Derek Sherinian, a personal request. I'll only be able to post a quick support. — Deckiller 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I hope that you won't take my neutral as any lack of support for your potential. there are jsut some areas I'd like to see you work on, and nothing particularly 'bad' about your work here. thanks for letting me know it's going on, and I'll look back in on it. ThuranX 22:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, my intention was not to recruit you for a support vote : ) You are indeed correct that there are areas that perhaps I lack experience in - but I have indeed been "lurking" about in those spaces, just not really participating. I've been doing my homework, trust me. I appreciate you taking the time and for your comments! Wisdom89 22:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the right start, but keep going, and start reading and following threads at the various AN baords, esp, AN/I, which shows how you handle more serious disputes. On the right track though. ThuranX 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding vandals

I found 3 new vandalism-only accounts at Special:Log/newusers. Whether you get your mop or not, it's a good place to find vandals and get them out. Bearian 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Read this essay also User:Keegan/On administrators. Bearian 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

97.82.225.246 sockpuppet case

Hi. I have noticed that you recently opened a sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/97.82.225.246. I had a case open at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Laughing Joker which seems to involve the same user and so it may be a good idea to merge the cases. There is a message on my talk page concerning the user at User talk:Tbo_157#Laughing Joker which you may be interested to have a look at. Any help would be greatly appreciated in putting together evidence for the case. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll help you in anyway I can. Wisdom89 19:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I Am Neutral

It is very good that you are improving your use of edit summaries in your editing. Unfortuately, there are also many good points also made about potential experience issues that you have. In addition, you are arguing with a few too many neutrals and opposers in your RfA. I realize that it is tempting to do (and I should know as I had a failed RfA a few months ago), but it looks bad to dispute everything your opposers say and it seldom convinces them to change their position. Though how many times you dispute with opposers has little to do with adminship, it can indicate how argumentative you would be as an administrator. This is why I did not change my vote after your first comment on my talk page. Sorry and good luck in your next RfA. Captain panda 02:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I opposed, and it should be a weak oppose but I will definately support you next time. Phgao 08:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should have more talk contributions with other users. You also do not have enough experience in Wikipedia/project space yet. Gain more experience in these areas and you will definitely have my support in your next RFA. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

House (TV series)

I find it rather disingenuous for you to put a templated warning on my talk page like I'm some kind of vandal. Where is the policy that states I cannot, in good faith, revert your edits when I've provided a rationale? As I said in the edit summary, plot synopses do not require sourcing and are by their own merits not original research. You've reverted my revert, and for the sake of harmony I will not descend into the edit war that you could have sparked, but please don't assume your opinion takes precedence over mine. Docta247 08:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for replying to self, but I notice on your RfA that someone has noted a lack of talk page warnings to vandals. I therefore understand your desire to improve on that but a shotgun approach to anyone who reverts your edits will not improve the situation. I hope your RfA goes the way you want and I won't attempt to bias it by bringing this up. Docta247 08:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption that it is yours or anyone's place to be stern with me or anyone else here is very troubling. I didn't expect you to suddenly agree with me when I noted my good faith in the edit summary, but I equally didn't expect to be treated like a troublemaker by someone who claims himself to be acting in good faith. Docta247 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You have my thanks. I'll do whatever I can to address the concerns you have regarding the article, so please let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to do. I notice on your user page we share a liking for Dream Theater and Symphony X, so I can't be all bad  :-). Docta247 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I have closed your RfA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

re Kizor's RfA

You declared yourself Neutral, per Miranda, pending answers to further questions. Just to let you know Kizor has now responded. LessHeard vanU 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Username reports

Several usernames you have reported recently were not blocked as they weren't blatant violations. You might want to look over Wikipedia:Username policy before you make more reports; some of these were clearly non-violations, such as User:Ludwig2. Mangojuice^talk 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a thorough re-read. Thanks Wisdom89 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Wisdom89! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 05:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

SJP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RfA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my RfA this past week. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started. I saw that your own RfA closed, and just wanted to urge you to stay positive. My first RfA also failed, and I think that if you focus on the advice given, combined with your already civil, and informed style of contributing, you should gain the needed trust in no time! Hiberniantears 17:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

about talk pages

read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings

i can do whatever i want with my talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

Thank you! Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number :-(, but I'll just have to fudge the next vote about me. Adminship feels slightly august but not particularily exalted, so I shall endeavour to consider it a toolkit and make sincere efforts to know what I'm doing before using it. If you later on have something to say or want to ask for -- MESSAGE EATEN BY BEARS --Kizor 15:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NP

NP does mention Collins here: Peart, Neil. "Neil Peart Speaks With Zildjian" - Zildjian.com - (c/o 2112.net) - January 2003 WikiDon 04:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

House

All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. from Wikipedia:Citing sources --Neon white 18:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. Exactly what are you referring to? Wisdom89 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is in regards to removing the citation needed tag in the lead, then two things 1)Per WP:LEAD, it should adequately summarize the article. Refereneces are not required since all material in the lead section should be found somewhere else in the body of the article. 2)There is nothing to challenge. The show is referred to as both House and House M.D. Cheers. Wisdom89 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

George Bush's cat

May I ask why you felt the "Trivia" on George Bush was completely unnecessary? After all, what harm is a 2 sentence info gonna do to an article that is already way too long? dirty but clean 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:Trivia any section that lists miscellaneous information is considered non-notable and out of place. Besides, you answered your own question, if the article is already too long, why add trivial information and inflate it? Wisdom89 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

• The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

• The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.

• Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.

• Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.

• Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cell signaling project tags

These tags and headers should be placed within the respective talk pages for each article that falls within the category - not at the top of the page. It's a general consensus and wiki guideline that such tags are obtrusive and altogether distracting to the reader. Cheers. Wisdom89 03:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I've checked "What links here" on that template page, and moved the template to the Talk page of all the articles I found where the template was transcluded into the main page. - Biochemza, 21:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What about when placing the Project Banner (with class=Category) on Category pages? I mean, really, who looks at Cat:Talk pages? Biochemza, 11:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Hi, Wisdom. Nice text move: [1]

I was thinking of doing the same thing, but you beat me to it! :-) --Uncle Ed 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

blink-182 page edits

Hello, I noticed that you mentioned something about my edits on the blink-182 page. It has been widely confirmed by both remaining members of the band that Tom Delonge decided to quit to form a new band, and as such I edited the page to reflect that. I'm not sure that I understand how adding that information, straight from the horse's mouth, is a biased edit.

Thank you - 75.69.236.254 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Claims should be backed up with evidence

In the Conservapedia article, the claim that Conservapedia has the "stated goal" of being oriented toward right-wing Christian views is not verifiable. Anyone who bothers to visit Conservapedia and look for such a statement will come up empty-handed. It is indeed obvious that this is what Conservapedia is all about, but there is no such mission statement at Conservapedia.

Thus, the correct way to note the site's bias is to say it is "apparent" rather than to say it is a "stated" gaol, when no such statement is made. To say the goal is stated, when it seems not to be, constitutes "original research" on the part of the editor. Where does Conservapedia state such a mission?

My correction was in perfect order. Please revert your revert.

--The Oracle of Podunk 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: thanks for the edit...it's definitely better now —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oracle of Podunk (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I prefer this lead-off line as well. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GA noms

Just a note on passing GA noms: [2] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sherman ES

You placed a speedy delete tag on my talk page regarding Sherman Elementary. Please let me know whether or not you're going to follow this up. Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems it has been redirected and in its current form there seems to be no criteria for SP - I have removed the message from your talk page. Cheers! Wisdom89 (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

inuse

Hi Wisdom89 - please do not edit pages that are displaying an inuse tag as you just did at CANT 18. You can - and in this case - did cause another editor to lose a considerable amount of work. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When I added the SPD tag, the template wasn't present - if you look closely at the diffs you'll notice. Trust me, I wouldn't have added it had I seen the inuse tag. Sorry for the confusion. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings. But actually, the tag was in place --Rlandmann (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Guess I just tagged to hastily then - darn trigger finger Wisdom89 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your username report

I removed your username report of User:Ashu software engineer because I couldn't see how it violated the username policy. The reason you gave through TWINKLE doesn't appear to be true; when I google for "Ashu software" I get nothing relevant.

It's important to provide something other than a stock TWINKLE phrase (which tend to be vague or inaccurate) as your report. Is there still a reason you think Ashu needs to be blocked? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a google search and it seems that Ashu might just be the name of a software engineer, and not an actual company which is what initially fooled me. No, the username does not warrant a block. TWINKLE can be helpful, but yes, the preprogrammed report can be inaccurate. I'll use the comment box for clarification. Thanks ɹəədsɹ . Wisdom89 (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Harbor Elementary

Hi, I agree fully with your delete !vote because, when you saw it, the page demonstrated no notability. The points made by the earlier commentators were well made. The page has now been fully rewritten to address these points and established notability. I wonder if you would revisit your assessment, please? TerriersFan (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reconsideration. TerriersFan (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Stony Brook University

Thanks for correcting my photo comments. I took photos, during a one day trip there. I went there together with my friend who is a PhD student there. That's why I dont know such details about the photos I've taken.

• Are you student at Stony Brook now?

By the way, there is a town in LI named Melville, it is named after the same person as a Library at Stony Brook? Happy New Year!!!! GK tramrunner (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, no problem with the captions. Yeah, I'm still a student there, graduate actually - in the Basic Science Tower. To be honest, I'm not sure about the name of the library. I'd wager it is though. Happy New Year to you too! Wisdom89 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed your template from my page

I made it clear in my reversion's edit summary at Gregory House that I had no problem with the information being removed if I wasn't correct in my interpretation that standards weren't quite as stringent for T.V. series/characters. There was no need to template me, simply for reverting your change. Leaving an actual message (not a template) would have been much more effective, and a lot friendlier as well. Bellwether ^B_C 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates aren't inherently unfriendly - If you wish to remove it, that is fine. You'll get no objection from my end. However, the article just passed GA review - and the main issue was original research, hence why I have reverted you twice. Anyway. there was no ill intentions by using a quick template reminder. It's just expedient. Wisdom89 (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• We can agree to disagree about templates, I guess. I just find a friendly reminder, personally written, would probably be more effective, and a bit friendlier. As for the GA process, I can fully understand why you reverted it. I was just under the impression that TV-related articles were held to a less-stringent standard. I'm no longer under that impression. Thanks for responding to my note. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

TV Shows and movies are kind of a gray area - It's inevitable and not all users are going to agree fully on how to treat summaries or plot overviews. I just wanted to reiterate (even though you do not agree), that the template was just out of haste as a reminder. I always try and be as cordial as possible - I apologize for the formal "no-no" tone that those tags sometimes convey - totally not what I was going for. You make an excellent point though, forsake expedience with a personal reminder. I just wish we could find reliable sources for these things! Wisdom89 (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was recently watching House, and he definitely does the things mentioned in the excerpt you removed, but I don't know how they would ever be "reliably sourced" to an out-of-House universe source. I'll have to see what I can find. Bellwether ^B_C 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Username policy

Hi! Just thought I'd stop in and give you a tip on usernames. While the username policy prohibits names like "sysop" or "bureaucrat", names that sound something like Wikipedia aren't prohibited. I'm referring to this edit. While it would be a bit funny to see Wikipedia edit articles, I don't think any confusion would arise, nor would anybody think that user was a head honcho. Anyway, that's just my two cents. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted you the rollback tool. Please use it wisely. Please read up at WP:ROLLBACK. 1 != 2 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and I definitely will. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Temazepam

I am completely confused as to why you are taking out nearly half of the article? You are minimizing. Temazepam is benzodiazepine with a lot of history, it's the most abused BZD worldwide, and it is a very common drug throughout the world. Everything is refereced. I will revert it back. GoodSon 8:19, 10 January, 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who initially gutted the article - however, I definitely agree with the user who did, as the article was extremely bloated and confusing. I think expanding from the trimmed pointed would be better than trimming down the bloated version..if only because it had organization issues as well. I will not revert you if you choose to roll back to the larger version. We'll hammer it out on the talk page. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wisdom. I appreciate your input on the temazepam article and would like to request that you weigh in on some of the recent discussion brought up about it. It looks like you too have an advanced life sciences degree, and it would be great to have your input. I just began a discussion on "building a consensus" on the temazepam talk page. I would like to ask a favor -- would you mind throwing in your 2 cents? Unfortunately, the present conversation might be a little bit for you to read and I do apologize, but at this time, the only people in the conversation are GoodSon and myself -- and another party would be wonderful.

I'm about to write another paragraph that doesn't so much address the biology and content issues I brought up, but rather tries to make the case that the other editor isn't adhering to Wiki guidelines, so even if you don't feel like you're a subject-matter-expert on temazepam, your contributions suggest you're a very articulate, valuable contributor and I'd love to have you back in the discussion if you can spare a little time :)

Thanks so much, RJSampson (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there RjSampson. I fully plan on entering into the discussion and helping you and the other editor(s) reshape the article and come to a consensus. At the moment I am pretty busy with non-virtual things :), but soon will be availble to weigh in my own thoughts on the process. I don't mind if the discussion is dense or lengthy, I can be just as verbose. My two cents will be made public very soon. Wisdom89 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wisdom, I'm looking forward to it. The discussion that's taken shape on the temazepam talk page will be quite an interesting read, when you're ready :) RJSampson (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

The material that was deleted was a simple observation of fact from the episode. Why did you re-delete it as original research? By such standards, most TV-related articles could lose 2/3 of their content. Bellwether ^B_C 22:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but I mean, it was paranthetical and just kinda thrown in there - kind of, oh and by the way, house couldn't diagnose his own infarction. Was it even mentioned in the episode? Wisdom89 (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of new articles

Hi Wisdom89, Regarding this edit [3] which you reverted and gave a warning for: The person who blanked the page is the person who created the article and the only person who has contributed to it. He was probably embarrassed to see the db-spam notice and blanked it in good faith. I have tagged the page with db-author. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I just saw that, thanks for the heads-up though. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF

You deleted most of the Tom Sawyer (song) page with your revert. Was it an accident? --220.237.201.189 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, complete accident. It is now fixed. But, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't address my talk page with "WTF", cheers. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rush

The newer band FAs (Radiohead, Joy Division etc) feature only studio albums under discographies because otherwise the article becomes too listy. Even the lengthy album lists needs to be shortened--it can have an article of its own. Its pretty much standard now. (And sorry for not discussing this before changing) indopug (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

could you reply on my talk page.. cheers indopug (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm changing it back. indopug (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-Dream Theater vandalism

Did you even look at the history? All I did was change [[Patxzord] to [[Patxzord]], [[4]] – Jerry^teps 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed in the history that I was fixing vandalism and I didn't notice that it was vandalism at the time. – Jerry^teps 03:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not my fault. It's yours. Make sure you're not "fixing vandalism" next time. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil Peart

Please do not keep removing citation tags. Especially in bios as any claims not backed up by a reliable sources can be removed, no questions asked. Just because there are 26 citiations doesn't mean much when the majority of the article has none. Thanks. ←Gee♥Alice 06:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that one should avoid tagging the top of an article with an obstrusive ugly template. There is no reason why you couldn't just add fact tags to those statements which you feel require sources. Thanks. Wisdom89 (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be obnoxious by adding fact tags, that's why I added the "ugly template" first. But, then you added the refs, so all is well, thank you! You're welcome re: combining the refs. I understand about working while tired. :-) I was tired too. Cheers! ←Gee♥Alice 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I took no offense at being labeled "obnoxious", in fact it made me chuckle. Because I understand people can be a pain-in-the-bum sometimes. ;p Although I am rarely of that type. ←Gee♥Alice 21:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hotcha

Hi I have put a hangon tag on the HotCha page. Please respond there. Benjwong (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! Wisdom89 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Immediate Help

ER (TV series)--User:75.3.192.102 See history and talk. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the situation. I have already reported the IP, but I fear he will be back to circumvent via socks. Wisdom89 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the IP and the hour, this seems to be the user's home. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

He's hit the House article before as well, as I'm sure you know - I've seen POV pushing before, but not to this degree - he must have a dynamic IP which makes it incredibly frustrating to deal with. Wisdom89 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I haven't really edited the two before, but I started a little on ER and ran into this person. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo Fair Use Rationale

Thanks for the "heads up" on providing a more complete rationale for fair use of the SLATE logo. I admit I'm still a bit puzzled, but I've given it a better effort. At some point common sense needs to come into play for an organization that has been defunct for 40 years, I have to think. But I appreciate the warning. Dwalls (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image copyright problem with Image:Face.jpg

Are you sure about that? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An image that does not exist which lacks licensing information, or, rather, an indication that it is ineligible for copyright and resides in the public domain - yeah fairly certain. It's usage is dubious. It also lacks source information. I'll wait until the image is re-uploaded correctly before taking any further action though. Cheers. Wisdom89 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There might have been an error which prevented the image from being displayed, but I just checked again and the image and file history are clearly visible. Anyway, use of this placeholder is explained at WP:IFN (which is linked to from the image description page). Its licensing status is not a concern. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see, thank you ˉˉ^anetode╦╩. Wisdom89 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)