User talk:Jhamez84/archive4

Just took a quick look at the map and I must say I'm impressed! I particularly like the inclusion of the physical geographical features (i.e. rivers and bodies of water). I know it is going to appear that I am obsessed by the Wigan area, but I would like to draw your attention to the exclusion of the Orrell area to the west of the M6 and the adjoining Higher End area. I take it the shaded areas correspond to urban/built up areas? If so a significant urban area is missing. Thanks. Man2 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Adding my views, I also like the map, though it seem unclear what the grey lines are representing. I am going to assume they are railways? If so, then I would be tempted to support their removal - I think the map should focus to geographical and political features, with major motorways such as the M60 orbital taking precedence over railways. My reasoning for this is that people can locate themselves relative to motorways much better than they can relative to railways due to the dynamic interaction we have with motorways in comparison to just sitting on a train. Other than that, I think it's very good. DJR (T) 02:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Please replace it as soon as you like so we can do some testing on it before rolling out. MRSC • Talk 07:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your map. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps has some (suggested) default colours. Some of the motorways look a bit dodgy. The M602 from the M60 to Eccles seems to have disappeared, and the junction of the M60 & M67 isn't right, for example. Mr Stephen 11:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the motorway/railway confusion comes from psychological assumptions about colour schemes. Railways are usually in darker shades like black or grey, while motorways are (on UK maps anyway) thick dark blue lines. I'm not sure whether the universal blue colouring is appropriate for this map, however, and an alternative would be to make the roads black and the political boundaries some other colour. The political boundaries are excellent though - once you've finished with this one perhaps you might consider doing a similar uplift on the London map? DJR (T) 13:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the map, and I think there is some merit in the ideas about changing the colours slightly. The association between colors and what they represent will be a largely culturally-bound one, in which case, there may be no universally suitable choice with which to illustrate boundaries/railways/roads, etc. One change that might be useful, however, is the choice of marker (the red dot as it currently is). I don't find the contrast it has with the rest of the map's colours particularly good, and I wonder if it could be changed in any way? I suggest a lighter red or even a yellow if it can be changed. A more radical change may be even better to make it stand out more - say a "crosspiece" with the cross-point with crosspice "tips" in one coloyr, and the central cross bit in another colour, indicating the location. the choice of colours could be made to satisfy a number of crietria for contrast and visibility/noticeability. I appreciate, however, that this may contravene some kind of policy or guidelines, but I do believe it would conform more closely to various isssues concerning visibility that can arise from various perceptual-based research findings. But I don't want this point to obscure my thoughts that the map is good as it stands.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could do with a key to describe what the lines represent. Like this map I made of Warwickshire Image:Warwickshiremap 700.jpg. G-Man * 21:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many many thanks for the work you have done on providing an outline map for Cheshire. I think it will be a good addition to the resources we have in the Cheshire WikiProject. I'll try to get some discussion about it going on our project's talk page, and lets take it from there. Once again, many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jhamez, nice work on the updated map. I think it will be a great addition to the articles. What is your policy on including motorways that are only partly in Greater Manchester?. The Wigan end of the M58 ends at Orrell is inside Gtr Man's boundaries. Could I also make a small suggestion regarding Orrell (sorry!), the two shaded areas to the west of the M6 (and south of the M58) need joining together as the Orrell and Higher End areas at the south of the M58 are contiguous (and is all built up), as are the sections north and south of the M58 at the western side of the M6 (i.e. Orrell and Orrell Post). Thanks for the work you've done, good job! Man2 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Hiya, look for junction 26 of the M6, in Orrell, you will see a motorway to the left of the junction, this is the M58. South of the M58 and west of the M6 you will see the main 'body' of the Orrell and Higher End areas (it may help to use the zoom function to see this more clearly). You will see that the shaded area is one mass of grey, this is the Orrell/Higher End area. You will also see that a shaded area is present from the northern side of the area south of the M58 linking with the area at the northern side of the M58. No part of Orrell is disconnected to any other. All areas are connected by built development. It may also be helpful to you to consult Google Earth as it gives a clearer picture of development than the map and allows you to scrutinise the areas via the zoom function in the program. Thanks Man2 17:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Yeah, that's perfect. Again thanks for producing it, looks great. Man2 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Not that I want to start a row ... but ... a large section of Billinge Higher End is in Merseyside, not Greater Manchester. To be precise, the area west of Upholland Road and south west of Crank Road, it comes to a point across from Billinge Hospital entrance. I think the original plan of using the motorways as boundaries between administrative areas would have been much simpler, rather than using a brook or a hedge between two fields, (it is 2007, not 1507), or, indeed, dotted white lines down the middle of a road. If the Royal Mail can use straight lines to deliver letters why can't the government use the same for administration. Sorry, I forgot to consider the 'greed factor'. Anyway, Jhamez, you only have to look on Google Maps/Satellite to see for yourself where is 'built up' and where is 'greenbelt'. (not that I thought you wouldn't know already). 80.192.242.187 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Hiya Jhamez. I'm not sure what Jemmy is concerned about, but in terms of the built up areas you can see them on the Wigan Urban Area map and Google Earth. Also all of Billinge Higher End is in Greater Manchester. Billinge Chapel End is on Merseyside.Man2 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I'm tempted to say I'm not getting involved!, but I guess it's too late for that! If JemmyH refers directly to the new map, then I'm afraid that this is based upon at least eight sources now! Anything beyond Greater Manchester is no longer included in the map, and so contiguous or non-contiguous, we can't see anyway! Jhamez84 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I'm not sure what the problem is either!. As far as I am aware all of Billinge Higher End is in Greater Manchester and has been since 1974. As for the built up areas the map looks totally correct to me. Orrell and Higher End are 'built up'!. Man2 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• Read the 'explanatory notes' section,.....

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930436_en_1.htm

80.192.242.187 23:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

I see what JemmyH means but its a very small part not a large part of Higher End in Merseyside.Man2 23:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• No? It contains most of the housing in Billinge Higher End. Theres only Billinge Hospital and a few rows of old stone properties before you are in Orrell. 80.192.242.187 23:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Hi Jhamez, I've added my name to the Manchester Project. Thanks for informing me of the project, I too would be especially interested if the project was county wide in its scope. Please let me know of any help I can give on the Royton article. Thanks Man2 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Hi Jhamez, I've just added my name to the Manchester Project stating that my interests and expertise mainly involve celebrities and entertainment, mianly films which are set or filmed in the Greater Manchester are. I also agree with Man2 on the Greater Manchetser comment. I do not live in Manchester but rather in the Greater Manchester are (the North- Bury, Bolton, Radcliffe etc). Now I am very naive so could you please tell what being part of this editing community would entail. Thanks :-) Ecco1983 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup your comments made it clearer. Thanks Ecco1983 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. After the great work you've done with the Manchester map, I can't help thinking that our London one could do with a bit of work. I dunno if you'd be up for it, but if you have any spare time it'd be great if you could do a similar job with it! Cheers, DJR (T) 00:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it'd definitely be nice if we could get mapping of that quality for the metropolitan regions of the country. As you say, London is in need of all sorts... the canals look like motorways, the motorways look like railways, and the boroughs are non-existent! But I'm sure you're up to it! Thanks a lot, DJR (T) 00:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job - looks great! DJR (T) 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ...... that 'The world's first true railways started operating from Liverpool Road railway station in Manchester' is not correct. The world's first 'Passenger Carrying' railways started operating from 'Edge Hill Station, in Liverpool'. 80.192.242.187 12:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

• Reply, to Reply to Above ...... That's a load of crap. It's purely Manchester Promoting Itself. The date given in that reference is exactly the same date, 1830, as the Liverpool and Manchester Railways opened their 'first scheduled passenger service' from Liverpool, Edge Hill to Manchester, Water Street.

This is a paragraph from [[1]] .... 'At the start of the 19th century Britain had 2400km (1500 miles) of industrial railway - the next 50 years were to see a massive expansion of the railways that revolutionised transport in Britain and across the world.....'. Further ..... [[2]] According to the 'museum of science and industry', construction of Liverpool Road Railway Station was only started in 1830. That was the year in which the 'Worlds First Scheduled Passenger Railway Service' was launched FROM LIVERPOOL.

I would put to you, Sir, that you are wrong! 80.192.242.187 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jhamez, the guy is clearly working to an agenda. I cannot understand why he felt the need to amend the article to include the phrase 'Muslim Asian men'. The problem is that given his political views all you are likely to get from him is the racist ramblings and propaganda of a fringe party rather than anything useful to the article. I hope we can get him blocked. Man2 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• May I give my opinion on the edit made. 1. The riots were instigated by and involved Asians. This is clear to see upon reading reports of the incident. 2. Reading the vote count from the two wards referred to, it is also clear that the BNP are the only party to have approached Labour in the count, the rest being well off the mark. I think, therefore, that the edit was factually correct. 80.192.242.187 20:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

• Thanks for the reply, in which you point out that you did not ask for my opinion, but thank me for it regardless. You are welcome. However, I feel I must admit to a wrongly stated comment in my above opinion, and I will rephrase it. '1. ... The riots were instigated by and involved British youths of Asian descent.' Does that make the reading any easier? Please don't take the opinion that I am racist, as you would be wrong to do so. 80.192.242.187 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

According to records, the original sheds which the trains left, to pick up passengers for the opening of the L&MR passenger service from Liverpool to Manchester on 15th September, 1830, was Edge Hill, in Liverpool, not Liverpool Road, Manchester, which had not been constructed at that time. The 'warehouse' at Liverpool Road Station, was built as a direct result of the success of the passenger service. 80.192.242.187 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Hi Jhamez, I've been taking at look at geograph.co.uk (the site you suggested for pictures of the area). I've selected several that I think should be included in various Wigan articles. Can you send the instructions on how on add these. Thanks. Man2 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Do the England infoboxes work for Scotland? I have not been able to get the maps to work for Scottish villages and towns, using an infobox like the one on the "Baginton" page. The Scottish infoboxes (different for the England info boxes) that I have been using, say for the "Gretna" page rely on a stock of maps for major places only. I have used some that give a point near by, but there does not seem to be a suiteble map near "New Galloway". Snowman 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jhamez. Sorry to appear petty during the following comments but I think they must be made. After a long period of constructive and valued editing, JemmyH appears to have moved back into his previous practices. He removed the phrase "#### is a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" from all the Borough articles (a phrase both you and I had agreed on) without raising it with us first and made extensive changes to the Orrell article (mainly removing any mention of the 'dreaded' word 'Wigan' from it). I will of course not be drawn into a petty edit war with the guy but I feel that after such a long period of calm and dare I say consensus with the articles, it would be a shame for it to return to the way it was. Thanks. Man2 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

He has also amended your edit to the history section of the Billinge Hospital article (I have since reverted it back to your edit) despite the fact it says "Please do not edit this without raising it on Talk as this is the current consensus". This is not on. Man2 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• Please realise that Wikipedia DOES NOT BELONG TO Man2 and Jhamez. There was a consensus on the Billinge Hospital article AND Man2 agreed to agree a compromise between the Billinge Hospital article and the Orrell article but didn't stick to it. All I want is FACT, and the fact of the matter is that Billinge Hospital served the SURROUNDING AREAS, parts of St.Helens Metropolitan Borough INCLUDED, so WHY did Man2 remove the mention of Whiston Hospital and Ormskirk Hospital from the article, yet include obscure hospitals ie. Hope (Salford), Chorley and Bolton? .... NOW .... when Man2 proposed putting the phrase '#### is a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' to all the towns that happen to be in that borough, there was a negative reaction from myself and other editors BUT it did not stop Man2 from carrying out his 'PROMOTE THE NAME of WIGAN' plan, did it? Finally, Wikipedia is for EVERYONES ENJOYMENT, not just yours! 80.192.242.187 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

• Remember this ....

Hi Jhamez. I have an idea regarding the wording of the intro's for the Wigan articles. I think the areas that are contiguous to Wigan (these being Pemberton, Orrell, Ince, Platt Bridge, Winstanley ) should start with the phrase "##### is a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, Greater Manchester" and then include the phrase "##### serves as a residential suburb contiguous to Wigan", omitting any references to the previous status as town's or villages (i.e. Ince goes from 'small town' to 'component area', Platt Bridge from 'village' to 'component area'.)

And these ....

I object STRONGLY to this suggestion! ..... (JemmyH)

Anyway, with regards to your suggestion, I personally think it would be a mistake to roll out a formulaic approach exactly like that. ..... (Jhamez)

Have to agree with Jemmy on this one ..... (Regan123)

(For clarity's sake, the above additions after the signing by 80.192.242.187 (JemmyH) appear also to be from 80.192.242.187 (JemmyH). The person who added this clarificatory parenthetical comment is:  DDStretch  (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I apologise for the above disruption to your talk page. Man2 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

JemmyH has broke so many rules, just looking at the warnings on his talk page is hilarious. I also find it quite comical and pathetic on the wikipedia moderaters behalfs that they haven't yet permanently banned him. As for Man2 promoting Wigan, JemmyH is very anti-Wigan, looking at his past comments proves that. Anyway better not waste time typing anything else as nothing will be done about it. This website's name may as well be changed to JemmyHipedia as it seems to revolve around what he says whether right or WRONG! 80.193.169.137 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Sock Puppet ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..... Man2 ??????? (check this users talk page and contributions, then make your mind up).

Jhamez, please read my reply to Man2's latest attack, on his talk page, and try to understand my way of thinking. 80.192.242.187 02:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

No I'm not Man2, that guy controls himself very admirably considering the way JemmyH speaks to him. Although I will admit 100% that my contributions have been utter sarcasm and vandalizm aimed towards JemmyH and have also been 100% against the wikipedia rules, hey if JemmyH can do it then so can I. Now, I bet JemmyH can't own up to the fact that he's vandalized pages and constantly breaks rules in nearly every post (politeness etc). This should be interesting. 80.193.169.137 09:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure all that the above unregistered editor is not me and I will take any necessary steps to confirm this. Thank you. Man2 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Hi Jhamez. I have put forward a proposal on JemmyH's talk page in order to prevent any possibility of continued editing and re-editing of the Wigan Urban Area article. I propose that in both the WUA article and the Wigan article itself we drop the phrase "tightly" integrated conurbation (as per JemmyH's objection) and replace it with "an integrated conurbation" (i.e. "The historic core of Wigan forms an integrated conurbation along with the areas of Pemberton, Orrell and Ince-in-Makerfield") Do you have any objections to this. Thanks. Man2 16:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

I propose ...... 'Wigan is within the Wigan Urban Area' for Wigan, and '**** is within the Wigan Urban Area' for EVERY town/village/district which IS in the Wigan Urban Area. This should include Skelmersdale and Upholland as they are also part of the Wigan Urban Area. I object to the phrasing 'the historic core of Wigan'. Wigan is a town. Called Wigan. Let's leave it at that. To keep referring to Wigan as 'Wigan town centre' and 'historical core' is clearly trying to make Wigan sound much bigger than it actually is. Wigan is a placename, Wigan Metropolitan Borough is a unified council controlled area. 80.192.242.187 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Apologies for using up your talk page, Jhamez. Let us amend the sentence altogether how does everyone feel about "The town of Wigan forms an integrated conurbation along with the Metropolitan Borough areas of Pemberton, Ince and Orrell this is connected by ribbon development to the Metropolitan Brorough areas of Standish and Abram. These areas, together with the Lancashire town of Skelmersdale, are defined by the Office for National Statistics as the Wigan Urban Area, with a total population of 166,840". I going to be bold a suggest that this is a fair compromise. Thank you. Man2 20:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• Wigan consists of more than the town centre (shops etc.), to say 'town of Wigan' makes people believe that Wigan is only shops etc.. Wigan has a small town centre but extensive residential areas, all named, which form the 'conurbation' which IS Wigan. 'Wigan' is Wigan, it is NOT the centre, town centre or core of a much larger area. The Ordnance Survey have identified an area, consisting of 'Ince/Wigan/Pemberton/Orrell/Upholland/Skelmersdale', and it has been titled 'Wigan Urban Area'. This collection of districts, for 'statistical purposes', make a conurbation, agreed, but it includes all places listed. Why are you trying to change it? What reason is there to connect Wigan, Pemberton and Orrell as one? They are separate places, connected only by road. Their boundaries do not run through developed areas, they are, mainly, open greenbelt land with connecting roads. Man2, the ONLY way you are going to make Wigan any bigger is by buying, or winning via. feud, the whole area and renaming it to suit yourself. You'll then be entered into the history books as 'Man2 de Wigan' and live in a big hall. (in Worsley Mesnes). Good luck in your quest. 80.192.242.187 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

PS ... I hope you all get the jist of what I mean. Jhamez, you may remove my postings, to your page, whenever you like, if you feel they are intrusive.

Hi Jhamez. The following is a copy of my last post to JemmyH's page. It is an attempt to explain the integration of the Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan/Ince areas and why they need special mention over and above the wider non-integrated conurbation of the Met Borough of Wigan. Again apologies for the use of your talk page on a matter not strictly related to you, but I thought the post may be of interest to you. Thanks Man2 22:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Jemmy, I'm not trying to show that Wigan is just a 'town centre'. Swinley etc etc are areas of the 'town' of Wigan (i.e. the residential areas that are integral parts of the town itself). The boundaries of Pemberton, Orrell, Wigan and Ince are not separated by green belt at all. This is especially true of the eastern Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan/Ince area. The connection is not made simply be 'road'. Take for example the eastern Orrell/Pemberton boundary, the boundary is marked by a roadsign, where houses on one side of the road are 'Orrell' and the other side is 'Pemberton', you don't get much more 'connected' than that. I would ask that you understand what any aerial photo shows i.e. that the areas in question are not clearly separated as (for example)Coppull is from Standish or Abram is from Wigan. The point I'm am obviously (badly) trying to make is that the Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan/Ince areas are 'interconnected' i.e. they are not totally separated from each other and their boundaries are differentiated only by a road sign or other such indication. This is different from driving through green belt on either side of a country road to get to each separate area (i.e. leaving one urban area, driving through countryside, then driving into a completely new urban area). The areas, whilst together with all parts of the 'conurbation' of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, are different from the other areas of the borough in that they are all directly interconnected. None of the above is an attempt to make Wigan any 'bigger'. Wigan is a distinct town within the integrated conurbation of Orrell/Pemberton/Wigan/Ince, which itself is a a part of the wider non-integrated conurbation of the Met Borough of Wigan. Do you understand where I'm coming from?

Hi Jhamez, thanks for your input (and your patience) with both me and JemmyH. On reflection I would not blame you for nominating this for 'lamest edit wars', however I would just mention that not 'edit war' has not actually taken place. I posted the above (and its related post's) to prevent the onset of an edit war. Thanks for the nod towards the user 'Fingerpuppet'. I again apologise for using your talk page for the discussion, this in hindsight was the wrong thing to do. Again your final point is correct as regards the issue of citations for this matter. On an unrelated issue I hope the issue of Royton can be resolved a.s.a.p. Thank you. Man2 01:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• Dear Jhamez, I have mentioned your name in a reply to Man2, on his talkpage. I would like you to take a look and give us your view on what is said. 80.192.242.187 13:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

The new Greater London map you've done is a big improvement on the old one, but it shows a lot of roads that aren't motorways as motorways (see Image_talk:Greater_london_outline_map_bw.png). It'd be great if you could correct it. If you need a reference, Google Maps has them correctly. --82.45.163.4 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamez84,

With regards to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/80.192.242.187

Are you a moderator? if so, you really are a crap one to let this happen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.193.169.137 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

* Man2 .... Please grow up! 80.192.242.187 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Please refrain from continuing these uncivil personal attacks on this talk page. ~~ Peteb16 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jhamez, I'm concerned about the above user. He/She has amended a number of articles inserting the phrase 'JemmyH' and/or made personal attacks on him. I think we need to look at getting the user blocked. Thanks. Man2 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• The reason why I link User 137 with Man2 is that all User 137's vandalism occurs within the same timescale as Man2's entries, some at most unusual hours. You don't need an 'enigma machine' to work it out! 80.192.242.187 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Hi Jhamez, I'm struggling to understand JemmyH's position on this. If I were in fact the above user, why would I advocate the user's banning? Man2 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Hi Jhamez. I've told JemmyH that I am happy to report the user on his behalf. You will also note (on JemmyH's talk page) that my i.p. address is there on the end of a post when I had forgotten to sign in (I signed the post). My i.p. is different from the above user. I may not always agree with JemmyH's opinions but I will not tolerate personal attacks and vandalism by the above user. Thanks for your help. Man2 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• Reply to Jhamez, Re: '.... would you like me to archive it? - it is a simple process. Jhamez84 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)'

Yes, OK. 80.192.242.187 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]