User talk:Rwendland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Algol 68
Fantastic quote Dennis Ritchie on Algol68. usenet quote. What prompted is discovery/realisation?
NevilleDNZ 00:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've been around a while :-) I was an avid Usenet reader at the time, and as I'd worked on Algol 68 and C compilers I naturally took great interest in that article at the time. I had thought A68 had influenced C more, until Dennis posted that article. C struct is A68 struct pretty much, so it was always clear the C type system was heavily influenced by A68. When a Quotes section was added, it seemed the obvious quote to me - the C type system is probably A68's most major lasting direct legacy.
Dennis mentions A68 in a fair few posts: [1].
-- Rwendland 08:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also went the Algol68 to C path. I was an easy transistion. C was a bit closer to the actual machine, hence my knowledge of Fortran helped too. Later Ansi-C typechecking pushed C closer to Algol68.
Somewhere I held the suggestion that Algol68 failed to enter the US because IBM was pushing PL/I. Do you know of any quotes on this theme?
NevilleDNZ 14:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think lack of early good compilers, especially in the USA, contributed a lot to failure. And I suspect PL/I had a lot to do with that in the USA. Also many people thought it difficult to implement, and inefficient; the early Algol 68R compiler which ran in 108KB (code + data space) producing efficient code disproved that, but the message didn't get around.
Another dmr quote is pertinent [2]:
- A68C also compiled and ran on the PDP11! ... Steve Bourne wrote interfaces to all the Unix system calls, and recoded enough of the standard utilities of the time to demonstrate that it was comparable to the C of the time in object size and running speed. However, he couldn't find enough fans locally to make it worth while to continue work on it.
Shame!
-- Rwendland 10:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was a long time ago, but I did quite a bit of number crunching in Algol68. IF I recall correctly Algol68Cs performance (even via zcode) was fine. NAG was even publish in Algol68. (I'd love to have a copy of algol68 NAG now!) NevilleDNZ 00:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted
Heya Rwendland,
- I reverted the page on leukemia since I don't have a very good source for it. Sorry about that. Still, I am of the personal opinion that such claims are nonsense ;) I was taking a look at this page, I'm not sure that any of these sources are as credible as the one you mentioned, but from a physics standpoint the idea of such minimal electromagnetic fields having a non-trivial effect on cancer rates seems absurd. Thanks for the correction though, just food for thought.
--Meekohi 15:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Magnox Reactors
Might be worth pointing out that, despite the variety, there are some rather surprising similarities. eg Dungeness (steel PV) and Oldbury (concrete PV) have essentially identical core designs, I think. Linuxlad 5 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
- Don't think Dungeness and Oldbury cores are that similar, take a look at Table 3 in http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/magnox.pdf which shows every site operating in 2000 had a different core height, operating pressure and number of channels except the identical Calder/Chapel. Dungeness in fact is an odd-man-out with 7 fuel elements per channel rather than the usual 8. - Rwendland 5 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
Fair point - I'll chase on these. (my dim recollection is that the loss of the 8th element at DNA was late on, and after the key elements, fuel design, core neutronics were done).
- I'll update the annotation on the diagrams as you suggested and upload the new versions accordingly Emoscopes 13:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] AGR / Magnox Images
I have made the changes that you suggested for the AGR and Magnox reactor diagrams. Emoscopes 03:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Telecommunications Research Establishment
Please see Talk:Telecommunications Research Establishment -- Philip Baird Shearer 22:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Yongbyon or Nyongbyon
I've reverted your edit in the article on the Yongbyon nuclear reactors. IAEA documents actually use the following three spellings: Nyongbyon, "Nyonbyong" and "Nyongbyong". Both "Nyongbyong" and "Nyonbyong" are just wrong, and I don't understand how anybody can take the IAEA serious if they can't even spell correctly the place they are supposedly so concerned about. I've actually written to them several months ago, but never received a reply. — Babelfisch 05:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] United Nations Atomic Energy Commission
Thanks for correcting my initial attempt; it's not an area I know much about, so I got my information from various Web sources (which said that the Soviet Union had vetoed the proposal, so I just parotted it). I have changed the external link back, though, as the date was part of the title of the Web page (and I'm fairly sure that the comma in the date doesn't do anything; the formatting puts in or leaves out a comma depending on the reader's preference, regardless of what's in the code). --Phronima 21:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kim Jong Il
there is now a poll at Talk:Kim Jong-il on "leader"/"ruler" for the Kim Jong Il article. maybe this will finally put the silly, protracted debate to rest. thanks in advance for taking the time. whatever your view, i think the article just needs a bit more attention of outside parties.Appleby 21:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq
Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iran Air Flight 655
From your edit summary regarding the George H. W. Bush quote I understood that you checked the actual Newsweek issue, is this correct? - Dammit 12:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've answered this at Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Source_request. I haven't checked the source, just stated on Talk that was given as the source eleswehere and suggested someone check it. I didn't reinsert it, and presumed the editor who later did had checked. Rwendland 14:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Six-party talks page
Hi Rwedland, I see you've been an active member on the six-party talks, but I've given it a whole revamp, added tons of information including participants, objectives achieved, purposes of the six-party talks, how and why it came about, etc. etc. Please have a look and let me know what you think! Jsw663 12:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EPR - Air crash
Hi,
Page 48 of this document may give the answer to your request :
http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/EPR_US_%20May%202005.pdf
Lessay
[edit] Euston Manifesto
Hello, Rwendland! In re: my change to your change: you're welcome. Once again it's nice to have another civilised and thoughtful interaction with a fellow Wikipedian.
[edit] Jon Snow edits
Rwendland - Haaretz is a respected Israeli broadsheet newspaper not a 'gossipy source' AND I have linked to the interview in which Jon Snow made the remark. Explain your edits....Blanking vandalism? Disillusioned-
- Just to notify you that the user above has continued to insert the same WP:BIO-violating section despite not even attempting to answer any of the 5 points given for its removal on the talk page. I can't think that this is the proper way to go about things. -W guice 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- It just doesn't stop, does it? Ah, well. Don't become disheartened, i've only browsed over yr edits but there's very ample very useful stuff there, matey. Anyway, as to the matter in question i've done my best to add some more pertinenet contribution to discussion on the talk page. word -W guice 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Everyones Internet
Hi, I think you're running a spelling checker on Everyones Internet "sp (2): Everyones→Everyone's". "Everyone's" is correct English, but unfortunately their trademark is "Everyones Internet" with the bad spelling. Could you disable the spell check for this. Thanks. Rwendland 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about that, Rwendland. I've added it to my exception list. Cheers, CmdrObot 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese atomic program
I see your recent addition to this site. Some contend that the Japanese had no need to go to the trouble and expense of developing nuclear weapons post-WW2 because the US was probably willing to supply Japan (to the consternation of the Aussies) on the same terms as to other allies, esp in the NATO area, including former enemies, Germany and Italy. See [3] page 2. The sort of weapons Japan might think they had a need for might well be those related to SAM defences, anti-submarine weapons (NDBs) given Japanese geographical proximity to exits from the USSR's Siberian naval bases to the Pacific Ocean. Brian.Burnell 13:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Yongbyon-5MWe-top-of-core.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yongbyon-5MWe-top-of-core.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dijxtra 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PW Botha
Do you have a reference for how long Botha remained Minister of Defence? The Magnus Malan page says Botha appointed him to that role in October 1980. Zaian 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:130.159.248.1
The thing is that 130.159.248.1 (talk · contribs) also makes a lot of very good edits. Even when a school IP is used for only vandalism (so far), the current practice is against blocking them for more than short periods. We don't like to drive away everyone at that school just because of a few vandals. Especially since number-changing like that is relatively common, and rarely goes unnoticed, the potential harm from blocking the University is considered greater than what the vandals that use it can do. If they go on a vandal spree, then certainly a short block to interrupt the spree is in order. Otherwise, we just revert... — Saxifrage ✎ 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal or clumsy editor?
This is third day of seeing either vandalism or clumsy editing on carrier related articles from now 3 different similar IP addresses. The latest being User talk:144.139.59.173. Only one or two edits seem to be genuine, the rest remove the same images over and over. I have tried to follow this activity and summarize the activity with warnings on the successive tak pages, but have gotten no response from whoever is doing it, I saw you reverted one of the "botched" image jobs so thought I'd point out what I'm seeing as you may well be first see the next "session". If the person involved is moving to different computers, then the warnings may not be seen before he moves on. This is getting old to say the least. Cheers, HJ 11:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, seems like he is not keen on images of UK carriers near larger US carriers! The image in the one I reverted is quite awkwardly placed, so I had some sympathty with its removal if it had been done correctly - I was being kind with my "botched inage removal" comment! Looking across all his changes it does seem it is akin to vandalism. Rwendland 12:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Concur...not sure if this is intentional or not? Without a reason or substitution, it's hard to tell, but 3 days in a row tend to make me agree with you on not liking the image for some reason. HJ 13:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hazel Blears
Hi. I just noiced your edit to Ian McCartney. I have been trying to do the same sort of thing on those titles - see also Charles Clarke and John Reid. I cannot edit Hazel Blears as I am not registred. Can you edit the following in there instead of the two current boxes? Thanks.
- Done. Good to unspin this name confusion! Rwendland 17:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] George Galloway edits
The best way to get an edit to a protected page is to use the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page. Sam Blacketer 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologise, I should have realised that the editor you guys were trying to revert was the one who had filed the protection request. I hope it's all OK now, and if you want anything else out, please give me a yell. – riana_dzasta 11:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for deleting the whole section. Note I wasn't one of the editors involved in the edit war, just a watcher sometimes tidying the edges. I don't have the time & energy for these wars, and it is unclear to me what is best to do in the long run. The George Galloway article has been a battleground for ages - it is somewhat depressing. Rwendland 11:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] David Blair and Zimbabwe(3|4)
Cheers for reverting this guy's uncorrection of my correction to the sentence on the Galloway libel case.
Just for fun, do you think that this is Blair himself?
- Blair is roughly 33 or 34 years old now
- Blair lives in Zimbabwe
- Zimbabwe33/Zimbabwe34's claim that they 'never questioned the authenticity of the documents' is not a million miles away from "First, Mr Galloway's lawyers did not challenge the authenticity of the documents.", a sentence which appears in one of Blair's own articles
- this edit directly quotes the judge - since this quote is not apparently on the internet, it means that it's either in print, or this Zimbabwe33/34 person was, or was in contact with, someone in the courtroom that day.
The evidence is a bit circumstancial so I'm not yelling 'conflict of interest' yet, but I felt I had to share my suspicions with someone! --Aim Here 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Brentry
Thanks for spotting my error on constituency & grid ref on Brentry (which I've now fixed), but putting the "coor title dms" back in means they overlay each other top right of the article & make it unreadable.— Rod talk 14:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good find on the W76 warhead source
Good find on the W76 warhead source. - Davandron | Talk 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. You might also be interested in the "The Future of Britain’s WMD", Dan Plesch[4]. e.g. he points out the NAO reported that for warhead development and production, "Most of the development and production expenditure is incurred in the US" (page 15). I'm sure that should go in somewhere. Rwendland 03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPT / 6-pty talks
Only the NPT's Article X:1 gives non-nuclear states (i.e. all except the P5) the right to pursue nuclear energy peacefully, in return for vowing to give up nuclear weapons. India tested weapons + used nuclear power for military (non-civilian) purposes in total violation of the NPT, but were never part of the treaty. North Korea was part of this treaty (due to pressure by the Soviets, see 1985), but subsequently pulled out (2003). Nobody 'gave' a state the right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy nor can states, under international law, award itself any right it wants to. It's just that some states choose to do so DESPITE international law (i.e. disregarding it), but there is no legitimate (i.e. legal) basis. Jsw663 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've given a rather lengthy reply on the 6-pty talk page, which is in effect very similar to the courses taught at UK universities teaching Arms Control / Security / International Relations (including the one I teach). Also note the difference between a self-given right and a legal right. I'm not saying the DPRK CANNOT do something it wants to do (e.g. nuclear weapons test). I am saying it is merely not authorized to do so under INTERNATIONAL LAW. There's a difference there that you must appreciate! Naturally by your stance I'm assuming you think that the international law is completely useless and helpless to govern the actions of states, but note that I am not completely disagreeing with you. Rather, you are mistaken in the details, and if you don't believe me, invite you to read the textbooks that exist out there writing about this topic. Please don't just revert while discussing, unless you want both of us banned. Usually I'd just let a matter of opinion go, but this is not opinion - it's a fact. Jsw663 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re Talk:2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel
Did you really mean to delete user:Impi's comments as well just now? David Underdown 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops. sorry. Thanks for telling me. Don't really understand how I did that - must have edited in an old Firefox tab. Rwendland 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just occasionally the edit conflict detection doesn't seem to work, I've had it happen to me once or twice. Thought I'd leave it up to you to restore the comments, jsut in case there was something I was missing. David Underdown 07:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] George Galloway
- Hi, as you have taken part in past discussions, please discuss your take on the disagreement at this page WP:ANI#George Galloway so we can move forwad with this thing at the Galloway art. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 01:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm off on a week's holiday today, so can't join in. Rwendland 09:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you get a chance, please take part here. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm off on a week's holiday today, so can't join in. Rwendland 09:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US/Korea Framework
I tagged it because of the nuclear proliferation aspect, a tenuous link i must agree. I tagged it as part of a drive and went from the category root. Looking at it again i agree it is a tenuous, if non-existent, link to the military and does fall outside the project scope. Perhaps a nuclear project would do? I am sure one project must cover it! Feel free to revert. Woodym555 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Removed it for you. Thanks for alerting me! Woodym555 00:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ? Wikiproject Somerset
Hi, Have you seen the proposal to create a Somerset wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals ?— Rod talk 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Severn Barrage
Thanks for taking the debate up to FIG on the Severn Barrage. He dominates the debate to the point that factual information other then his own is excluded. Tidalenergy 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] invite to Somerset wikiproject
Hello, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Somerset.You may be interested in joining WikiProject Somerset. This WikiProject aims to improve the standard of all articles relating to Somerset, which includes all subdivisions of the county, major buildings, roads and other related articles.
You can help by:
- Creating new articles.
- Expanding stubs.
- Adding photographs.
- Referencing articles.
- Research topics.
- Anything else really...
For more information, see the project page, and if you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somerset and someone will get back to you.
— Rod talk 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Stig
Sorry, but the HSE report mentioning Ben Collins being a high speed driving consultant is irrelevant to this article. It is your own research/interpretation to suggest there might be a link, and this is not the place for speculation. Top Gear is a car show primarily devoted to high speed cars - the fact they employ high speed driving consultants is not a surprise, and I don't doubt that some of them sometimes put the Stig costume on. This topic has been discussed on Talk:The Stig, please take it up there if you want to discuss reinstatement. Halsteadk 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tribune flier 1941.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tribune flier 1941.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:ISAS rockets.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:ISAS rockets.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Corax UAV.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Corax UAV.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tribune_flier_1941.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tribune_flier_1941.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Tribune flier 1941.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tribune flier 1941.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warofdreams (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I'm not an expert on copyright, but as I didn't get any reply at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, I decided to be bold and rework the template in line with the one on Commons. I think that for more complicated situations such as this article, you should be able to put a full rationale in Template:PD-because. Warofdreams talk 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for resolving this. Warofdreams talk 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ricin plot Daily Mirror.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ricin plot Daily Mirror.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Image:Fairfield.jpg
Hello. On 18:12, 1 May 2008, Grarap uploaded a new image titled Image:Fairfield.jpg, which was redundant to Image:Fairfieldadsad.jpg. I went ahead and deleted Image:Fairfield.jpg because I did not think the overwritten file was actually being used in any articles. If any of the deleted content needs to be reproduced, let me know and I'll be glad to help. Thanks! Brianga (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
