This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
Hi.. I am leaving Wikipedia, so you can find another person to adobt. Thanks for your help. Please reply on MY talkpage. Skibden (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete "Chase Oliver?"
Why did you delete Chase Oliver????? I HONESTLY was not trying to break the pirvacy policy or create the attack page!!!!! Netgerr (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)NetgerrNetgerr (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Attack page, it should all be explained there. Your page was unquestionably an attack page. — GorillaWarfaretalk 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WestNet Wireless
Hello, I am trying to restore the westnet wireless article that was deleted about 2 years ago for nto being "notiable" i am new to wikipedia and i am doing my best, i was told to put hte hang on article, and i was trying to move the article from mobileman2009/westnet wirleess to where it should be. can you please restore the article, it is a very notible company in Alberta, and the third largest internet company here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calgarypower (talk • contribs) 06:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stating that when written about in articles by Barrons, NY Times, Forbes, The Sunday Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc etc the company is not on par with thousands of others I can quickly list here?
Are you stating that a company that saved the largest real estate project in the WORLD is not worth mentioning; If you go to the ownership structure of the current Canary Warf you will see that Glick Family is the largest single private owner, valued at approximately 3 billion dollars. ?--Eliveliv (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. If you look at the explanation I left on your talk page, you would see clearly that I am saying neither of those things. My reason for deleting the two pages is that they are promotional. I have made no assertions regarding their notability. My reason for userfying the pages instead of just outright deleting them is that I think they could be rewritten and moved back to the articlespace once the promotional content is removed. At the time being, they sound like advertisements, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Once they are rewritten neutrally, I think they could return to the articlespace. — GorillaWarfaretalk 07:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fisheyesawr's block
Do you know how long Fisheyesawr's block is going to last? Thank You. Brownsand (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
workingseth
I've recently added a page "Seth Morgan Romero" and you'e deleted it. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Workingseth (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't fit the notability requirements for creative professionals (found at WP:CREATIVE). Also, are you him? If so, you have a conflict of interest, something that needs to be handled carefully when editing pages you're involved in. — GorillaWarfaretalk 03:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Freedom5000, it's just this IP of yours that wasn't blocked yet. Many others of your sock usernames and IPs have already been blocked. Now this IP just been blocked for 48 hours. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Brangifer and Fetchcomms. — GorillaWarfaretalk 03:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Highlights
Membership grows to 503 editors
2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives
Hello, GorillaWarfare/Archive 4! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Just for your information. I requested an article you deleted (American Rescue Workers) be moved into my user space for editing and restoration to main space. I am aware that many articles are speedy deleted simply because they fail to assert the importance of the organization and my request is not a comment upon your deletion of the article. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I researched the organization in Google Scholar, Google Books and on the web in general, and it appears perfectly notable, so I've simply moved the article into main space, with editing, categorizations, project banners, etc. Again, no reflection on the original deletion. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's much better than it was when I deleted it. It would still strongly benefit from some more sources, though -- maybe try some primary sources like [1], [2], [3], etc., as well as strong secondary sources. I'm having some trouble finding secondary sources, but [4], [5], [6], and [7] might all be acceptable. It definitely needs to be expanded, but at the current moment seems to fit notability guidelines. — GorillaWarfaretalk 21:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, [8] and [9] look to have potential as secondary sources. — GorillaWarfaretalk 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will expand it a bit in the near future. The topic is deserving of a solid medium-sized article, and a couple of the sources you list look pretty good. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C-SPAN archive
I accidentally re-created User:WWB Too/C-SPAN Video Library while you were moving it. Sorry about that. Would you mind deleting it per CSD G7? --Pnm (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Pnm (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Literature
Wikipedia rules clearly state "Since both Wikipedia and Wikitravel are now licensed under the Attribution ShareAlike license, appropriate content can be shared between the two." Why have you deleted this content? --Orestek (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the page because it is a complete copyright infringement of this page. — GorillaWarfaretalk 17:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mon ami, THAT page is a mirror of the WIkitravel page, and not the other way around.--Orestek (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you are quite correct. They aren't following our rules on licensing! I'll deal with that... I've restored the page -- it could still use some serious work. Good luck! — GorillaWarfaretalk 02:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The best to you and your family in this New Year.--Orestek (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I just wanted to make sure that all is clear here. The "Wikipedia rules" quoted above are actually the articleWikitravel. Our content was copied from Wikitravel, which isn't a Wikimedia Foundation project, and though the contributor here is also a contributor to that article he is not the only one. Accordingly, I've provided attribution as required by license. It's actually Wikitravel, not Wikipedia, who was infringed by that other site. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I realized that. Probably should have changed this message. I left a message here for WikiTravel, although I don't know if action's been taken. What do you mean "I've provided attribution as required by license"? Thanks! — GorillaWarfaretalk 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In our article, [10], since we don't have any more right to use it without attribution than inusa.us does. :) Good of you to give them a heads up. I wonder if they'll follow up. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Great, looks good! Thanks for following up with me. — GorillaWarfaretalk 20:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiSmile
Hello GorillaWarfare, Logan 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
first of all, let me just clear this up. I named every source I got my information from none more, none less. so......? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timo313 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! To be honest, I prefer copyediting work over the public policy stuff simply because I know more about it. I'm excited for this semester! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 23:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the messageSuzanne10 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgiveness
I forgive you. I am glad that you reconized my right to encyclopedic racism. May Lucrio praise you! Bonelayer12864 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New email
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi,
I am a student at Western Carolina University in North Carolina working on my Masters of Public Affairs. I just started working on wikipedia and I would like for you to be my online ambassador if you could.
Thanks,
Smile234 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011
This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.
Sorry, by my mistake I run bot for testing purposes under my account here on en.wiki. First I made some manual edits and then I decide to run the bot for testing pruposes. Since my account, brest, was bloked I use brest-bot account now to made conversation with you. Please help me to sove this situation. Best regards. --Brest-bot (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you don't mistake. brest account act as a bot for testing purposes, by my mistake. Sorry. --Brest (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you! I used the AfD closing script and I guess I didn't notice that it doesn't do those. Fixing now. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 03:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response :) --Falcadore (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain
Please explain how my edit constituted vandalism, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.251.118 (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a very large chunk of text, much of which was useful information. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True meaning of beauty CSD to PROD
Hi GW, Thanks for the advice. I thought it came under web content under A7:. But your probably have more experience than I have with this. I'll defer to your judgement. Thanks. :P --Visik (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB explains web content as: "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals." I don't think just because something is published on the web, it can be considered web content -- otherwise every Wikipedia article would be speedyable by this criterion. I'll keep an eye on the PROD, see where it goes. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 05:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tricky part was determining if it was a phrase which belongs to wikidictionary e.g. beauty is in the eye of the beholder or redirect to Beauty as I couldn't find any references for it to determine its best fit. I re-read the WP:WEB, reading between the lines, your right, it probably doesn't fit in there. These articles in the grey area always need a bit of scrutiny. Just one question, if there is ambiguity on a article (falls in the grey area), its better to tag it with PROD? --Visik (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't belong anywhere on the Wikimedia projects, really. It's pretty much all original research. And yep, a PROD is generally a safer alternative because it allows for a more thorough explanation of your reasoning. With PRODs, though, make sure you watch the article so that if the user or someone else removes the template, you can AfD it. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 05:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moberg
Discussion with John J. Bulten on my closure of the Elsa Moberg AfD -- collapsed to facilitate navigation of my talk page.
Thank you for closing the Moberg AFD, and please pardon the length of my response. I happen to agree with David in DC that your close as "no consensus" was not the best solution, and I wanted to know if you would consider reclosing as merge, or if I should request a WP:DRV. My reasons for DRV would be as follows:
It is clear that the merge position, as a compromise, had great power to draw in migration of commenters from all sides: OlYeller changed from keep to merge, John J. Bulten said delete then allowed merge, Dr bab changed from comment to merge, and Ryoung122 started his position with "keep or merge"; WP:CONSENSUS is intended to be rough and does not require that "decision was agreed upon" in some formal way. It is significant that Ryoung122 and John J. Bulten have been perhaps the most vocal editors on each side.
Closer's confusing reference to "valid" N and 1E concerns on "both sides" implies that two wholly contradictory views of policy can both be valid and correct. Perhaps closer means to say "good-faith" concerns: if so, WP and AFD work to gain consensus to resolve such concerns, rather than to defer them from a good resolution-process page back to the inactive article talk page. To be sure, even if deferred, consensus might be achieved by a bold merge if nobody objects, but it has risks; but a bold close would have been a much better and less risky consensus-building solution rather than to continue the probability of entrenched positions interacting out of process. Additionally, as shown below, the N and 1E concerns are not as evenly balanced as might be inferred from the closure.
Closer commented on John J. Bulten using two consecutive paragraphs to nominate, and alludes to seeing Ryoung122's point, but did not similarly comment on Longevitydude using two disparate paragraphs ("Keep" and "please keep"), which has a much greater appearance of double-voting. As stated at AFD, two-graf noms are frequently used in AFDs because the {{afd2}} template "text=" parameter is often harder and/or less reliable to use than placing the bulk of the argument and markup in a separate graf. Closer's imbalanced reliance on this point in a gray area and lack of reliance in a much clearer appearance of double-voting suggests nonneutral close, especially considering the points below.
Closer did not appear to weight editors appropriately. Separating out the 4 merge-acceptable positions, there are also 4 delete (David in DC, BrownHairedGirl, Galloglass, Kittybrewster), 3 uninvolved keep (Ret.Prof, Heymid, Uzma Gamal), and 3 SPA keep (NickOrnstein, Longevitydude, Cam46136). Closer was specifically advised via link to a WikiProject COI list of the SPA parties. That COI summary, prepared for the ArbCom case mentioned in the AFD, notes Cam46136's very extreme SPA nature has already been flagged as a probable sock, while NickOrnstein and Longevitydude are admitted members of chatgroups with longevity-advocacy purposes contrary to WP's encyclopedic purpose. Also, Longevitydude gives the appearance of double-voting for completely non-AFD reasons. Answering the SPA arguments on the merits, however, it should be obvious that NickOrnstein uses (3 consecutive) arguments to avoid, WP:INHERITED, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and WP:CRYSTAL, as answered within the AFD; Longevitydude charges, without any proof, the strawman that someone claims Moberg never held a record (apparently another appeal to WP:INHERITED); and Cam46136 adds these arguments to a sweeping appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thus the SPA comments may be discounted entirely both on their SPA nature and on the merits. Further, Ret.Prof's bare "keep" comment, unanswered when charged, can clearly be ignored (it is one word away from an exact quote of WP:ITSNOTABLE); Kittybrewster also made an unanswered "delete" comment, but at least cited policy and thus can be considered as building on the other arguments rather than being completely ignorable.
Closer also did not appear to weight arguments from non-SPA editors appropriately (counting Ryoung122 as non-SPA for the nonce, despite inferences that may be drawn from consulting his history). Having dealt with merges, SPAs, and bare votes, you have 3 delete and 2 keep remaining. David in DC, BrownHairedGirl, and Galloglass all make cogent policy-based "delete" arguments. Ryoung122 makes rarefied "keep" arguments laced with personal attack (see below) and appeals to a view of policy contrary to WP:WOP guidance developed by consensus that included him, while Uzma Gamal makes a good-faith attempt to begin article rescue (repeating Ryoung122's contrarian view without having interacted with the consensus guidance development at the project), to which John J. Bulten responded with a comprehensive list of what additional work he would consider as being necessary for rescue (compare WP:HEY, which was not met). As stated at AFD, Ryoung122's views of N and 1E are contrary to project consensus, and Uzma Gamal's rescue attempt failed to demonstrate that the claim of RS sources met V or GNG (i.e., readable text with more than one-sentence mention), or that the claim of V sources met RS and GNG, or (in two cases) that the dead links provided met any of the above. In general the "keep" arguments are characterized by a failure to source either the subject or the claims made about the subject. Without even accounting for John J. Bulten's voluminous "delete" arguments, there appears to be a clear policy-based weight in favor of "delete", with "merge" as a clear backup.
Closer also did not appear to consider potentially disruptive comments neutrally. Ryoung122 begins by charging a double-voting policy violation and fails to cite policy when asked; he charges false accusations generically, substantiating it only with the phrase "raw data", which is a judgment call (based on WP:RSN) rather than a true-or-false claim; he charges contradiction based on, as shown later, his misreading a quotation of David in DC as being John J. Bulten; he states "unencyclopedic" is a WP:WEASEL word when it is not and he does not reflect the policy; he charges David in DC with a hatchet job when the sources removed by David in DC were found unreliable at WP:RSN; he calls John J. Bulten "her" (possibly confusing him with another active editor not at this AFD); he charges John J. Bulten with (see WP:LAWYER#Misuse of the term) Wikilawyering, merely for collaborating on WikiProject guidance (to which Ryoung122 also contributed) and then applying that guidance; he charges John J. Bulten with lying that "WP:SILENCE is consent", when that is the guidance (he also says this in response to a statement that did not invoke it: rather, John J. Bulten stated that NickOrnstein's silence about citing his claim of "references, categories, and some biographical information" invalidated his claim); he accuses John J. Bulten of not notifying him of policy changes, when Ryoung122 has collaborated on the changes; he charges Galloglass (who has never been involved in longevity articles) with substituting personal opinion for policy (yet Galloglass cited WP:BIO and later WP:N), which Ryoung122 affirms neither side should do ("not established or disestablished"), when in fact he makes just as opinionated and unsourced a statement about Moberg being some kind of (hint: OR) milestone; and he does not retract his statement that "raw data" was "false" even while he amends it to "misuse", "disparage"ment, "misbehavior", un"educated", "problematic and detrimental", which is not only engaging in additional attack but assuming bad faith by failing to apologize for the former, refactored attack. Most all of these are personal attack on their face, although some rely on context to prove that. Yet both of closer's comments "see Ryoung's point" without noting his disruptions.
Closer naturally had no formal duty to consult the ArbCom, but it is certainly valid to describe it as DRV evidence for context. In the ArbCom, the 4 SPA/COI editors and others are charged by several parties with a wide variety of evidence-backed violations of the exact same behavior just observed. In the same case, John J. Bulten and David in DC (with mention of BrownHairedGirl) are charged, often unsourced, with a few disruptions: significantly, the longest such charge, over 1000 words, states that an off-wiki identity "JJB", impersonating John J. Bulten, made two disruptive posts to an off-wiki chatgroup. While this seems to support my conclusions, I would be happy for DRV commenters to weigh in on their views of the ArbCom evidence.
Anyway, GorillaWarfare, I know that is a lot to wade through and may include some charged language, but I trust that having taken on the closing job you will also be able to answer it appropriately; I believe strongly in laying down all my cards at once. Thank you for your consideration, no talkback necessary. JJB 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, JJB. I'm just letting you know that I am currently working on responding to this rather daunting wall of text, and that it's not being ignored. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 20:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It is rare for one to have your consideration in reporting same; others often use their dauntedness much less appropriately. JJB 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Response
Goodness, that is a wall of text. I've made a subsection here just for navigation's sake, as my response is quite long as well. Regarding your concerns:
First of all, I've noticed that your link saying you agree with David in DC points only to him adding a signature and "NCDK" to the deletion suggestions section. I may be missing something, but how is he expressing disagreement here, or even an opinion on the subject at all? It looks like he's just recording the result of the discussion.
Second of all, I'd like to point out that I'm aware how deletion discussions are closed. My comment that "no decision was agreed upon" was perhaps not as well-phrased as it could have been. I did not intend to sound like I thought everyone needed to come to a unanimous decision, but rather meant that some indication of consensus needed to exist.
"Valid concerns were voiced by both sides regarding notability, 1E, etc."
Regarding my comment regarding valid concerns, I'm not sure if you misinterpreted, so I will explain. First of all, I don't believe that notability is a binary quality. There are different levels of notability. For example, someone like Ghandi is clearly notable for many, many reasons, whereas someone like Elsa Moberg is of much more questionable notability. Thus, with articles like these, reasoning can often be shown to say that she is notable and that she is not notable. It is less of a question of "Is she notable?" and more of a question of "Is she notable enough?" For example, the points made by you and David in DC in the nom regarding the lack of sourcing are valid -- it was and is a little weak. Uzma Gamal's response to this about the Swedish sources is also a good point, as there are concerns surrounding the systemic bias caused by both Wikipedia's geographic imbalance and by the difficulty of integrating non-English sources. Neither entirely refutes the other position, yet both are valid. Same goes for the 1E issues: Moberg's claim to notability is her age. Many users (such as BrownHairedGirl, as well as others in comments) mention 1E as a reason for deletion, but other users such as OlYeller21 and Ryoung122 have valid questions about the applicability of 1E to a person's lifespan. WT:WOP#Deletion recommendations is mentioned several times, but it is not a policy and concerns were raised about the consensus at the page.
Double voting
I'm not entirely sure what to think about your view about the "double voting". I did step in here to clarify what Ryoung122 seemed to be trying to say. I was not discarding the entire rationale as a double vote, but rather trying to help you for future discussions. When closing, I took your rationale there into account as much as I would take into account the nom reasoning on any other discussion. Regarding Longevitydude's double posts, I'm almost offended by your implication that this was weighing on the decision. Here is where I feel I must point out that AfD's are closed by consensus and not by head count. I see many instances in this message where you refer to a number of !votes in one direction or another. Although I do not completely discount head counting as a tool to get a general idea of the discussion, any head counting I do in this manner a) does not influence my final decision and b) does not count !votes that lack valid reasoning. "its my birthday and nick ornstein's birthday so please keep it as a present to us for our contributions" is by no means an example of valid reasoning. Regardless of whether or not this user said "keep" twice, I would have disregarded this !vote anyway. Your implication that I used something that's far closer to vandalism than a !vote to decide the outcome of this discussion is concerning.
SPAs
You hold many concerns about SPAs in this, most of which seem to be at least partially valid. I've seen the list of COI editors that you provided, but I must say I was a bit wary of taking that as absolute truth. Out of the editors in this discussion, I see Ryoung122, NickOrnstein, Longevitydude, Cam46136, and yourself listed there. However, this by no means appears to me to be a reliable list. I can see that Ryoung122 has had many COI issues, and general issues in this area. Regarding his incivility, I ignored all of that in my decision. His point about 1E, however, was interesting. I can see that NickOrnstein edits almost exclusively in articles related to WOP, but that is not a crime in and of itself. Longevitydude has certainly had some issues here, and I've discounted his/her edits purely because of their content. Same goes for Cam46136. I've already mentioned that I did consider your nom and subsequent comments. WP:SPA itself states that "Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area, may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus." Just because a user is an SPA does not necessarily mean his/her opinions should not be considered if they are valid. The COI issues I took more seriously, but many did not seem to come through in this debate and, as such, were not a cause for concern for me.
I have seen the arbitration case going on now, but it doesn't change my decision. His attacks, incivility, etc. were all detrimental to this AfD, but I have not completely thrown out his reasoning purely because of this. If a user has a good point, I consider it regardless of the user's background.
Arguments provided
You have analyzed more or less each !vote, so I will do the same.
Delete
John J. Bulten - Nom, !voting delete because of significant referencing concerns, as well as notability, 1E, and undueweight concerns. Ryoung122 brought up concerns about weasel words and deletion of sources, but I found the nom's wording more or less acceptable. Regarding the removal of sources, I feel like this has been an ongoing issue. I read the discussion between David in DC and Ryoung122 regarding this, and I'm not sure I know enough about the issue to pass judgement on the issue. Going through the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People page, I see repeated concerns about the two sources that were removed. I'm confident enough that the removal was not a "hatchet job", as Ryoung122 described it, but perhaps could have been better explained. I'll reiterate that I did consider your reasoning in the nom as part of my decision, not throwing it out as a double !vote.
Galloglass - Suggested speedy. Doesn't meet BIO, not encyclopedic.
Kittybrewster - Only said "Fails WP:NOTABILITY". HeyMid mentions that this is a vaguewave vote, and rightfully so. Because she never fully explained her reasoning, this !vote didn't hold much weight in my decision. You said that her mentioning policy made it a legitimate !vote, but I personally don't see this as much more helpful than "She is clearly notable.", something both you and I discount.
Keep
NickOrnstein - Argues that she is notable for her age, and says "There are references, categories, and some biographical information about her." Regarding the arguments to avoid that you presented, I'm not sure what he said that makes you think he made a WP:INHERITED argument. I didn't see that. Regarding the WP:CRYSTAL, I can see how you would interpret it that way. However, I personally think he's saying that the article has potential for improvement -- something that WP:NOEFFORT supports: An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion.
Ret.Prof - "She is clearly notable." Again, the user was asked to explain the reasoning behind this, but the did not respond. Again, this !vote didn't hold much weight for me.
Longevitydude - "Theres a difference between a record being surpassed than someone popping up and showing that said person never had the record to begin with." I didn't see this as being entirely relavent to the discussion. What is this difference? Does this make her notable or non-notable? Because it was never explained, I didn't pay it much heed.
HeyMid - One valid point (WP:NTEMP), two arguments to avoid (WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFF). I didn't discount his first point because the last two were ATAs, but I did not take the last two into consideration.
Cam46136 - Says she was notable, but doesn't provide reasoning other than WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also tagged as a SPA.
Uzma Gamal - Meets GNG, many references are available, but not English. The improvements to the article since the discussion began have improved it sufficiently. This was met with a lengthy response, which I will not try to sum up in a few sentences here. I would, however, like to point out that "All but one person commenting at the WikiProject agree that cases like this satisfy BIO1E (or WP:BLP1E) and are appropriate for merging or deletion, not retention." is a good point, but this is limited consensus that is not to be taken as policy. I thought this was one of the stronger keep !votes, although your refutations were strong as well.
Longevitydude !vote #2 - "its my birthday and nick ornstein's birthday so please keep it as a present to us for our contributions." As I explained above, this was completely dismissed.
Merge
OlYeller21 - Changed from keep to merge. NTEMP, more references exist. I didn't consider the references comment to be an ATA because the references were provided, again in Swedish. You mentioned in your comment that "Some parties disagree repeatedly in AFD but have never commented on the project guidance in place", but I would imagine this would be due to lack of information. I personally had not heard of WOP until this whole deal, so something like the 1E consensus could be missed easily. OlYeller21 seems to have changed his opinion mostly because of 1E, but also because of other unidentified opinions expressed in the discussion.
Dr bab - Suggested merge because of notability concerns.
Keep/Merge
Ryoung122 - Argued that extreme age is not 1E and that her story was "well-covered in journalistic sources." No response when asked to explain further about the "journalistic sources". The 1E point was an interesting one that was not directly refuted by any editor.
Conclusion
If this were a !vote count, you would see 3 delete !votes (4 including the nom), 4 or 5 keep !votes (depending on Ryoung122), and 2 or 3 merge !votes (also depending on Ryoung122). This would suggest no consensus, but again, this is not a head count. So for this, I weighed the concerns that were raised:
Notability: Many claims that it doesn't meet the GNG, BIO, etc. Many were not backed up, but many people saying she DID meet these guidelines did not back up their arguments either. Clearly the reliable sources were an issue here, and 1E, both of which I addressed below. WP:NTEMP was brought up a few times, and never really refuted.
1E: Delete !voters mostly said that living to a record-breaking age with no other real notability fits into 1E, supported by WP:WOP#Notability and sourcing. However, the WOP page has had questions raised about whether or not it's truly consensus, and it is by all means a limited consensus. Because it is not a policy nor a guideline, this argument was strong but not overwhelming. Concerns raised by others addressing whether or not record-breaking age is 1E, or if a lifetime is truly one event, were also valid.
References: Concerns brought up about lack of sources, partially refuted by the existence of Swedish sources.
Any sway towards one side or another seemed to balance out in other categories, to what I see as an almost even no consensus. Regarding the merge discussions, I can see that that could be a good idea. However, the idea behind closing an AfD is not to cast a super!vote, but rather to read the arguments and decide based on that. The merge arguments more or less echoed the delete arguments, but said that a list would be better suited. However, only three people !voted for this idea. It was not so much as mentioned by other users. Bolded for TL;DR purposes: In order to justify a merge here, I feel like the idea would have at least needed to be tossed around by more than that minority of editors, and the !votes to keep would have needed to be more thoroughly refuted. So, to wrap up, although I appreciate your thoughtfulness in your response here, I am standing by my decision on this one.
I apologize for a perhaps even longer response to a long message, but I feel it was required. Cheers! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 23:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
You are commended for your conscientious answer, rare on WP; we detail types do tend to assume everyone else is like us. That said, I do have both comments and concerns.
See David's edit summary to answer your question about him.
Notable-enough vs. not-notable-enough is a binary and at most one of the two will be valid in any case; but if you mean "good-faith", they both can be, so (when I AGF) that's a wash.
You say neither argument was entirely refuted, but instead of Uzma Gamal's actual arguments you place WP:BIAS and "difficulty of integrating non-English", issues that were not raised by Uzma (which explains why those arguments were not rebutted). Uzma said only that much material is Swedish, which can be interpreted in several ways other than as an allusion to bias and difficulty, which suggests to me that you are reading into his arguments. It primarily reads to me as an appeal to the sources Uzma inserted, viz., 3 Swedish sources as external links without anything cited to them, two of them dead and one containing only one half-sentence related to the subject. So even if you divine an argument from bias or difficulty, if Uzma perceived any bias that perception was not consonant with Uzma's three selected sources' complete failure to add anything notable whatsoever (as fully stated in (6)). So the idea that a bias argument was unrefuted misreads the debate.
On 1E, you refer to OlYeller's 1E opinion selectively, before OlYeller said "I'm changing my opinion". Of course Ryoung122 disagrees with the consensus about 1E, but he has had opportunity to sway that consensus of several other editors at the project page, and has failed to sell his novel interpretation of 1E to others. You again misread a position, stating Ryoung122 applies 1E to a person's lifespan, when in fact he applied it to the one year of being a record-breaker (and in other cases has applied it to the record-breaking event, any subsequent birthdays, and the death, as separate events). The subsequent news reports have no notability except residual from the one event of record-breaking, which is generally considered coverage related only to the one event. Thus you seem not to note OlYeller's migrated position nor Ryoung122's failed advocacy.
I'm simply saying that you called me out for double-voting and not Longevitydude. I don't believe I said this was weighing on your deciding the outcome; I said instead that your not treating similar cases similarly suggests nonneutral close, i.e., that you were swayed by other factors than the debate, and that the nonneutral treatment of similar cases is evidence of that (incidentally, as is your improving Uzma's and Ryoung122's arguments above). Please accept my affirmation that your inferences taken from my words were not intended.
Gross incivility should not be "ignored" in an AFD decision. Period. Even if a grossly incivil editor has a logical argument otherwise, the incivility should be weighed against the validity of the argument to determine if it indicates the argument has risks of hidden speciousness; to do otherwise is selective use of evidence (cherry-picking). In this case, you neglected the fact that Ryoung122's 1E position, though probably firmly held in good faith, was advised as being previously vetted by non-COI, non-SPA, civil editors and found wanting, which suggests that however cogent an interpretation of 1E policy it may be to you, it has not passed muster in wider discussions that take more than a week, and it should be discounted given that consensus.
Your by-editor analysis is instructive, and I am thankful.
To answer your question, Nick argued that oldest-in-country is (inherently) notable.
NTEMP is a strawman, not an applicable argument, because nobody argued that she ever lost notability; we argued that she never had it. I see one reference to NTEMP (by OlYeller); then I stated "those points", including NTEMP, don't address WOP conclusions; then OlYeller changed opinion. Longevitydude's comment might be considered an appeal to NTEMP, but I hope you're not saying a strawman must be refuted every time one is brought up. Yet you say NTEMP was brought up "a few" times, and that it was not refuted, both of which are contrary to the evidence.
The issue on 1E is that Ryoung122 is fully aware of the project consensus, written exactly for AFDs like this, as OlYeller in fact asked, and yet Ryoung122 rejects that consensus; NickOrnstein and Longevitydude are project members and should also be aware of it, but have not contributed. I did not call out any nonproject members for not knowing the project guidance.
Nick, Uzma, OlYeller21, and Ryoung122 did argue from improvement (i.e., potential or demonstrated sources), for which reference to NOEFFORT is appropriate: but the question for AFD is whether their belief in improvement is sourced sufficiently for GNG. (To state "there was improvement" is not to state "appeal to GNG was refuted".) OlYeller21 provided two sentences in RS's, Uzma provided another redundant half-sentence, and all other discussion whatsoever about potential sources referred to unverifiable claims of sources. This is a classic GNG fail. But:
You said claims of not meeting GNG/BIO were not backed up? That would be proving a negative! Even so, I analyzed all sources linked, and showed that, on their face, none were significant or independent and none had obvious reliability (unlinked sources were unverifiable and appeared insignificant also), which is as far as anyone can go in showing GNG was not met. This by the way is also my argument (7).
Your link to WP:CONLIMITED speaks of local consensus not overriding wider consensus; yet you found "no consensus", so citing this is a logical fallacy. The fact is that the project is the wider consensus and the AFDs, which are "local" to their subjects, have been widely charged with being consensus-hijacking opportunities for COI editors. Thus the project consensus has great weight, and the refusal of three project members to recognize that consensus also has weight.
Your statement that sourcing concerns were "partially refuted" seems not to note the fact that the nom noted the article relied on 2.0 sentences in reliable sources, and that one week's attempts added only 3 more Swedish sources containing only 0.5 verifiable added sentences, totally redundant to the 2.0. That is, the adding of the sources refuted nothing as it added 0.0 new notable sentences.
In all, your conclusion thus begins by requiring proof of a negative, continues with WP:ATA#Denying the antecedent at least twice, and concludes with a faulty "partially refuted" judgment: you state that GNG and BIO failure was not backed up, then state that NTEMP and 1E were not refuted, then state that existence of sources partially refutes appeal to GNG (though sources were demonstrated to be unverifiable, nonindependent, insignificant, of insufficient number, not clearly reliable, and/or nonnotable). The biggest failure here is denying the antecedent: If the article fails GNG, it doesn't matter that notability is not temporary, and it doesn't matter even if more than one event was involved.
For completeness, GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" and lists 5 tests. Significant coverage fails (2.5 sentences); reliable had no attempt whatsoever to prove passage; sources fails, per footnote about "same region same occurrence" not being "multiple" enough; independent of the subject is weak due to local sourcing; and presumed is moot. I don't believe in quoting GNG every time (maybe I'll change that). No keep argument about N or RS proved significant coverage, reliable, multiple, or independent, and most arguments didn't even come close.
I don't TLDR, I generally respond fully, or regroup.
In summary, "to help you for future discussions", I count three or four factual misstatements of others' arguments (not counting whether you misstated my own analysis), two cases of selective use of evidence, two cases of argument from silence, one asking for proof of a negative, and two cases of denying the antecedent (ignoring GNG failure because 1E and NTEMP quibbles were raised). I suspect that, as a detail type, you will take at least some of this to heart and find it helpful. I can hope that we don't find each other on opposite sides of a question where it really matters.
The larger concern for me is, naturally, my belief that such closure, by a detail-type editor confirmed in a position, who I believe has committed several logical fallacies, still needs to be dealt with. In this case the "regroup" option arises: the question is whether, given the additional factor of such a closure as I describe, DRV is a likely process to result in sufficient consensus other than "endorse". I must (and do) accept the fact that WP is not fully what it would like to be, consensus-based content arising from "reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", but that it also arises largely from reasons based in convenience to editors (e.g., those who TLDR). So, while your argument does not convince me the close was proper, it does convince me that the likelier remedy (given WP's nonideality in this respect) will be bold merge, or 2nd AFD, either one performed after ArbCom closes. This is a disappointment, but perhaps we've both learned from the exchange. JJB 05:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Response #2
Ah, thank you. I see the edit summary now. Just a few things I wanted to clear up. I don't believe I "called you out" on double !voting, for one -- I was just mentioning how things are usually done. As for Longevitydude, I didn't say anything purely because I never thought anyone would actually think I took his !vote seriously. Additionally, I don't think this was a non-neutral close. I personally have no bias for or against keeping this article, and a vandalism-like edit from Longevitydude certainly did not add to one. I also don't believe I've "improved" Uzma's nor Ryoung's arguments. As for the rest of your points, I have read through them and do appreciate them. However, I have closed the discussion and am standing by said close. If you feel that I have committed logical fallacies, misinterpreted the arguments, cherrypicked arguments, etc., I suggest you take this to DRV. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 06:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GorillaWarfare, I am reporting this to you...I placed a warning message on TomBellBomb's talk page. TomBellBomb is a sockpuppet of Aawjgnekr. I was warning that user about two edits, identified as vandalism by last revision and speedily deletion tags placed on the Garry Bushell article. Then user Basket bal0991 sent me a message inquiring me why I placed that warning message about the Garry Bushell article on Basketbal0991's talk page, not TomBellBomb's talk. What does this mean? Please reply as soon as possible. Thankyou!
I'm not really sure what's going on here, but I'll do what I can. Out of curiosity, what made you decide to contact me about this (as opposed to another user)? It's no problem that you did, I'm just curious. I would say that Basket bal0991 is probably just confused. Maybe s/he saw your edit on TomBellBomb's page and mistook it for his or her own page. I can see in Basket bal's page history that you've not edited the page at all, so it looks like confusion to me. I would try to explain this to the user, if possible. Thanks for your work! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 23:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GorillaWarfare, I removed your comment from User talk:120.16.249.174 because that IP is part of a rangeblock - see here. I don't mean to censor you but just to ensure that the advice given to a new user is correct. Sorry to tread on your toes, but I hope my actions make sense! —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes complete sense! Someone mentioned that it was included in the rangeblock and I was in the process of fixing it when I saw you'd already gotten there. Thanks! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike "Munchie" Roeder
Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Visik's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Transformers earphones
Hi GW, having a difficult time deciding what to tag with for Transformers earphones. Should I just leave it alone and give the author the benefit of the doubt to see if it develops further or should I tag with a CSD/PROD under a specific criteria. Thanks for your help in advance. --Visik (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted per G11 (unambiguous advertising). Regardless of improvements, I don't believe it would ever be notable anyway. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 03:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thank you for the great help and advice. --Visik (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to request that Life's Sweet Breath be userified so I can continue work on the article. Thank you.
Jeffp1717 (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC) contribs 04:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Copy, also dealing with the deletion of Preciouscams page
Hi, I got a notice that the page was getting deleted. I say this page needs some information. Google is even hard to find info on the scammer site. There is little info on the scams from this site. People need this information. Its more helpful than its not being there.--Knighthonor (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the page. I'm sorry, but this page is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research, like you have at this page. You have no citations and, as you stated above, there is little info online about this scam. This shows that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are other places where you can make your complaints known (e.g. personal webhosting, complaints to the proper authorities, etc.), but Wikipedia is not one. I hope this is helpful. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 07:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GW. I realised you closed this AfD in GF but there have been comments such as a WOW! that it was not deleted. Seems you might not have had much choice (other than perhaps extending), but I don't think we really want totally unref stubs like this. Two options are open: an immediate CSD A7, or a WP:DELREV. Which do you thing would be best and would cause the least fuss? Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I've A7ed it -- it was a poor choice on my part. Cheers! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 13:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree with this one. It's not eligible for A7 after the keep, and there is no way that discussion was for deletion. Furthermore there are plenty of sources and we don't delete articles for being unsourced stubs (other than BLPs). Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was never able to find a policy that clearly forbids it, and even asking around some gurus of policy, I was unable to get a clear answer. It can certainly be undeleted, then offered for AfD again if it isn't smartly referenced to establish notability - we certainly delete articles for lack of notability. The irony is, that had this article simple been PRODed, it would have been gone now, with nary a ripple.--Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a few things. First we don't speedy things for a lack of notability, only for not asserting any. I'll agree this stub didn't. However from WP:CSD "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations" pretty clearly applies. And if it were PRODed I could go to WP:REFUND and get it back or one of the keep !voters could have removed the PROD. So at this point I'm going to ask that the deleting admin restore it, either as an improper A7 or (more creatively I guess) a contested PROD. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the page and am going to try to improve it instead of going through a whole other deletion debate. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hobit (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too, because I have no personal interest in the subject of the article, and everything was done in GF; and to you too Hobit for clearing something up - we've all learned a bit more today. It's odd though that I missed that in WP:CSD, and that none of the admins I asked were able to point me to it.Kudpung (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I'd not seen it either. Definitely good knowledge to have. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 13:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All thanks should go to GW for fixing the article (quite nicely might I add). That's the whole point of this place. Well done! Hobit (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011
Ok now. I encountered BoomBoomAK-47, who created a page, previously deleted by you, I think, as an attack page. This user also created another page that was vandalism. I, honestly, think this user needs to be blocked.
Slayer2448 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user has already been blocked by another admin for a different reason entirely: sockpuppetry. However you seem to be a bit unfamiliar with the general vandalism procedures, so I'll just tell you about that briefly. We have warning templates which you can see being used on that user's talk page already. Usually for first-time vandalism, we use a level-1 template. This is the "nicest" warning, and generally assumes good faith. If the user re-vandalizes, he or she receives a level-2 template, and so on up until level 4. If a user vandalizes after this warning, you can report the user at the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. This is much faster than telling a single administrator, as it's often unlikely that that administrator would be online at that point. If a user is reported before being adequately warned, the report is usually declined for that reason. There are cases in which a user doesn't need to have that many warnings before being blocked (for example, sockpuppets). This is explained pretty thoroughly at WP:BLOCK. Furthermore, if a user vandalizes in a particularly excessive way, the lower-level templates can be skipped. This is explained well at WP:WARN. I hope this helps you out. The long and short of it is: you don't need to post on a random administrator's page any time you find vandalism. Simply revert the vandalism, warn the user, and move on. If the user has been adequately warned and is still vandalizing, report him/her at AIV. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 23:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have uploaded of photo of Mac beer into the McCashin's Brewery Wikipedia page. Could you please remove this. Macs Beer is made by Lion Nathan and is nothing to do with McCashin's Brewery (since their lease finished in 2009). feel free to post a pic of Stoke beer, the Beer actually made at Mccashin's Brewery. Emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.127.214 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now. Thanks for letting me know -- I've removed it. You should know that you are welcome to remove something like this yourself if you see an error. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Integrative medicine
The whole Integrative medicine article was closely paraphrased from the linked source. Check under each section header to see how the wording and sources line up. It has been edited a fair bit in the last week, though, so it may be that it no longer qualifies as CSD as the original version did. Thanks for looking. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect that; that is why we get two sets of eyes on these, at least one of which is uninvolved. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article does need some serious work, though. I'd almost be tempted to suggest an AfD, but it looks like some of it is salvageable. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 06:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed the merger before I found the source page while trying to find citations for some of the unsourced bits. A bunch of it is out of date so far as WP:MEDRS is concerned, but enough people are watching that the content can probably be brought to heel wherever it ends up. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Marrante's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I punched this "delete" but I'm curious as to why you relisted it. Did you see something the nom and the 2 !voters missed? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I relisted just because there were very few people weighing in and because of the reference one of them brought up. Really just erring on the side of caution. I think by now a delete is completely fine. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 02:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Camilopinilla's talk page. Message added 09:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
FYI. By the way, the user seems to also have been doing a lot of forum shopping. Kudpung (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! That user doesn't seem to quite understand the idea of a {{helpme}} template... I see what you mean about the forum shopping too, but hopefully your quite thorough response will put an end to that. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 17:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RfA tranclusion
Hi. Judging by their Talk page discussion, it doesn't seem entirely clear to me that User:Slayer2448 definitely wants that RfA trancluded right now - are you sure they do? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear to me -- he seems unclear as to why he's not succeeding at RfA, and "I'm wondering if I will have trouble succeeding because other users have thought me to vandalize Wikipedia." seems to indicate he's still interested. You see it otherwise? – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 17:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as thinking about it, but not quite sure yet. Better undo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I think your interpretation probably was right, but just think it's better to be be absolutely certain. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!
If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that when a page is created, and you need to RevDel that first version, it is important to make sure to delete the edit summary as well, as the automatic edit summary for a page creation is the first 200 or so characters of the page. Courcelles 12:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that for me -- I completely forgot. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 16:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to stop by and say hello and thank you for all of your time and help. It all had become just one massive frustrating situation - but I'm so grateful for people like you that got involved - your patience and time that you all put into helping - I am incredibly touched by that.
Hello! I'm glad it's all been sorted out -- it was quite an unfortunate series of events. I apologize that your first experience with Wikipedia was rather negative, and am quite glad you didn't simply give up and leave! Please do stop by and leave a message if you ever need any help, etc. Cheers! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 20:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Adoption
Hello. You have a new message at Slayer2448's talk page.
Thanks!
Hi GW! I'm not sending out thankspam, but I would particularly like to personally thank you for your support although I opposed you on your RfA. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards continuing to mentor others, particularly the younger editors, and participating in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for editors who also need the tools, but who are too afraid to come forward. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin, and I have a feeling we might need to hold eachother's hands sometimes :) Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about the oppose. I'm really glad to see that your RfA was successful! Some of the oppose arguments seemed a bit weak to me, and I was pleased that WJBscribe recognized that. I'm sure I'll see you around, and hopefully we can work together on some things in the future! If you plan to be mentoring other users, you may see a lot of me. I spend a good deal of time responding to {{helpme}}s and in #wikipeda-en-help. Anyhow, congratulations on your shiny new mop! I trust you'll use it wisely :] – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi: I think I got this right. You wrote to my help request that I botched. So I redid it. I have a new message on my talk page for you with 2 questions, and can you undelete all my writing that elizium deleted? Not you personally, unles you see fit to do so, but I hope my writing is not completely deleted and can still be pulled up for concensus debate among a group of editors. Is that something you can help with?
Cheers,
Beltshazar
Beltshazar (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your answer on my talk page where you answer showed up. Is this the way I should be doing it? Thanks for the clarifiction.
Hi: I posed a new rewrite of Soothsayer on my talk page. Let me know if it is acceptable. Thanks.
That was a very good job you did explaining each part of my comments. Thanks again.
Cheers,
Beltshazar
Beltshazar (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contradiction:
A contradiction has come up re Bible verse as a reliable source for Bible verse, especially prophecy.
Cheers,
Beltshazar
Beltshazar (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to discover in my watchlist today that the Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire) article had been speedily deleted. This was a fairly long-standing article that, though it may have appeared as blatant advertising to you, served a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. Would you please restore the article and instead initiate a proposal for deletion, so that other editors can have a chance to comment? I am certain I am not the only one who feels the article is worthy of remaining in Wikipedia. The amusement park is a significant tourist destination in New Hampshire, and I am sure the article could be rewritten to remove anything that smacks of advertising. I have no affiliation with Santa's Village or the tourism industry in New Hampshire, by the way. Thank you, --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am standing behind my decision to delete that page, and do not think it should be restored to the mainspace without some serious editing to remove the promotional content. I'd be happy to restore it to your userspace as a userspace draft if you'd like to work on it there and then move it back to the articlespace once it is purely encyclopedic. However, if you want the article restored as is to the mainspace, I'm going to have to refer you to WP:Deletion review. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, going to Deletion Review was going to be my next step, but I wanted to approach you first. I'd rather have the article out in the mainspace than be solely responsible for the content, so I will go ahead and pursue deletion review.--Ken Gallager (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you coming to me first. Thank you for letting me know! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Santa's Village (Jefferson, New Hampshire). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Districts in Thailand
You recently reverted some edits at the above, a little too hastily as they were still done by me but my log-in had dropped off. Can i suggest that you continue watching for spammers etc. but hold off if edits seem pukka, aions the edits will get scrutinised by those edtors that watch the articles in question.Petebutt (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I remember that reversion because I hit the "stop" button while it was reverting. I thought Huggle said that it had cancelled the revert, but perhaps it only cancelled the warning. My mistake! Thank you for letting me know. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 03:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GOCE March 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs
So far, 79 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 64 have participated. Interest is high due to a link to our event from the Watchlist page, and many new and first-time copy editors have joined us for the drive. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. We have assisted in the promotion of seven articles to Good article status so far this month.
Progress report
We have already achieved our target of reducing the overall backlog by 10%; however, we have more work to do with the 2009 backlog. We have almost eliminated May 2009 and we only have some 700 articles left from 2009. It is excellent progress, so let's concentrate our fire power on the remaining months from 2009. Thank you for participating in the March 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success!
Utahraptor resigns
The UtahraptorTalk to me has decided to step down from his position as project coordinator due to real-life issues.
I do understand your position. I don't have excuses, only hope. Thanks My76Strat (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
That is not a copy right problem: http://kimrudd.ca/meet-kim is the original biography also on: http://nqwliberals.ca/v2 which is the actual web page, not the one you linked me too. You have deleted this page after it took me a couple of hours to create, as I am not an experienced Wikipedia user. How do I get it back again and what do you suggest to do with these "so called" copy right violations?
Also, I do not understand why you deleted it? Couldn't you have just taken the information out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwakely (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how the fact that your text exactly mirrored that page is not a copyright violation. I deleted the page because all of the information was in violation of copyright. The last good edit before you added the copyright material was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Rudd, where it was decided by consensus to delete the article. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "consensus" doesn't make any sense. There are numerous sources confirming that she is a nominated candidate for the Liberal Party. It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.28.149 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Thanks...
Re your message: Ummm... Check the deleted user page. I think I was busy deleting it while you were blocking the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. Hard to say for sure. You know, you would be well within your prerogative to revdel that edit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on the IP. And yes, thanks. I've done so. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 03:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Though if it was the same person, the autoblock would have kicked in and the IP is essentially blocked for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, true. No autoblock, so probably just a coincidence. Thanks! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 03:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks back at ya for the revert. Lots of socks around today. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have been editing the fukushima nuclear accident article and noticed this morning that an entire section had disappeared. I might not have been paying attention, but looking back through the history for the last several days could find no trace of it. There was a subsection to the section 'fukushima nuclear power plant' which detailed reactor cooling. I noticed that there is a log entry about the page,'05:07, 20 March 2011 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of "Fukushima I nuclear accidents": removed content, edit summary for 1 revision (RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material) '. I was wonderng if this might have anything to do with it, or if you could otherwise shed some light on the matter. I would gather you know rather more about how to make information disappear than do I. Sandpiper (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what happened to the section you speak of, but the edit that I revision deleted is not the problem. A user blanked the page and replaced it with something very offensive, which I decided did not need to remain in the history. If you look at the diff comparing the edit before the revision deleted one and the edit after, you'll see that they are exactly the same. If you tell me which section is missing, perhaps I'll be able to help? – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 15:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back. Someone else found what I was looking for. For some reason if you look at the page history and click on a version, it puts up a screen with the appropriate header at the top, but the page displayed is the current version not the one required. If you ask for a diff, then it does show the correct old version. This still seems to be the case and is why I could not find any versions with the cut section in - because every time it was showing me only the current page and I didnt look at it closely enough to realise. No idea why this might be happening? now wonder if it might be a result of intervention on the page or a bug somewhere. If you click on a version a day or two old, when it comes up if you look in the summary section near the top where things are listed day by day you still see the entries for days after the date the version was supposedly made.Sandpiper (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I have no idea why it's doing that... I went to take a look and it's doing the same thing for me as well. Perhaps it's a software bug, but I'm not very experienced in that type of thing, so I don't know. I would suggest bring it up at WP:Village pump (technical) and getting some feedback there. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.
Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail.
Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active.
Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.)
Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee.
Just saw your dialogue with a s-o-o-t-h-s-a-y-e-r. My hat is off to you for the patience and graciousness you demonstrated in trying to explain the Wikipedia neutrality principle to someone who cannot see it. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help! I am an MPA student at WCU and new to Wikipedia, need all the help I can get. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvpolicy11 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
January 2011 (UTC)
Our assignment for this week was to research and list 3 articles we are considering for our main project. I have chosen Epidemiology of Domestic Violence, Murder of Pregnant Women, or Women's Shelter as my 3. Any feedback, comments, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. ThanksDvpolicy11 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can work with these! Murder of pregnant women is a good choice because it can definitely use expansion, particularly to include non-US murder of pregnant women (as shown by the template at the top). Women's shelter is another good choice because it could also use expansion. Epidemiology of domestic violence is a bit of a concern in that it's already a pretty well-fleshed-out article. Do you have ideas of what you would add to it? Sometimes really comprehensive articles like that one are difficult to improve. I've gathered that you're interested in the topic of domestic violence -- have you seen Category:Domestic violence? If you decide you do want to change any of your topics, you could probably find some more ideas there. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 02:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have decided on Murder of Pregnant Women as my Wiki page. I discussed this with my professor last week and we determined it could use some updates in the areas of current research, hard data, discussing the link between domestic violence and the murder of pregnant women, and include info about state policies (since this is a public policy class). Let me know what you think...thanks for your help.Dvpolicy11 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! All of those changes sound fine. I look forward to working with you on it. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 00:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need help determining how to cite and reference in-text. We have to begin a preliminary paragraph next week. Thanks for your help.Dvpolicy11 (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted my preliminary paragraphs in my Sandbox. Would you take a look at them and let me know how to move them to the Murder of Pregnant Women Wiki page? I have a graph (or a link) that I would like to add that shows state laws. Could you help with that as well? Thanks...Dvpolicy11 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they did not separate into paragraphs...how do I fix that?Dvpolicy11 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestions to my Murder of Pregnant Women Page...I have made changes as far as section headings...and will work on the quotes. Dvpolicy11 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll look at the article more thoroughly this afternoon. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 17:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citations
Sure, no problem. First I would like to direct you to two handouts: File:WikipediaReferencing.pdf and File:RefCodeHandout.pdf. These are probably more coherent than this explanation. There is also WP:Citing sources, although that might err on the side of too in-depth... Anyway, citations seem complex but are actually relatively simple. They are generally made up of a citation template enclosed in HTML tags. Then, at the end of the page in the "References" section, they are all displayed. The numbering and linking into the article is all automatic.
<ref>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|title=Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?scp=2&sq=wikipedia&st=cse|accessdate=11 February 2011|newspaper=New York Times|date=30 January 2011}}</ref>
You can see the <ref> and </ref> elements on either side of the citation template. That template looks complicated but it's really not. I highly recommend something called "RefTools". You can turn it on in My preferences > Gadgets. It's under "Editing gadgets". It's explained pretty thoroughly at Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0, but it's pretty self explanatory. Once it's enabled, you can click a tab above the editing box that says "Cite". There will be a dropdown box that says "Templates", and you can choose either web, news, book, or journal. It will then give you fields to fill in. It's incredibly simple, and provides nicely formatted citations like the one above.
Another useful thing for citations is the use of named references. This allows you to easily cite a source more than once. Say, for example, I wanted to use that citation above. I could provide a name in the reference tag that would allow me to reuse it:
<ref name=Cohen>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Noam|title=Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?scp=2&sq=wikipedia&st=cse|accessdate=11 February 2011|newspaper=New York Times|date=30 January 2011}}</ref>
Then, anytime I wanted to use that citation again, I would just insert <ref name=Cohen/> (note the slash) instead of the entire reference template.
To display the references at the end of the article, you add the References section (==References==) and then underneath that, either {{reflist}} or </references>.
I hope this helped! Your mentor will probably go over this as well. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...I have made some changes to the article on my user page...sandbox. I added section headings and would like some info on how to move it to the main page. Thanks for adding reference section. Will that section transfer to the mainpage intact?Dvpolicy11 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not ready to be moved to the mainspace quite yet. I don't have much time right now to help you out with it, but I'll give you a more thorough answer in a few hours. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 17:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi..I made changes to the section headings and will be doing rework to the body tonight. Thanks for your help.Dvpolicy11 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...I have made some changes to the body. Please look over it when you have an opportunity. I need to move the article (or what version I have of it) into the Wiki main space before Thursday. My professor knows that we are not going to have completed articles but he does want to see response from other Wiki users. Your on-going help is greatly appreciated.Dvpolicy11 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions...they are a great help. I am going to ask if I can delay moving my page until the week-end. I will go through each of your suggestions and then ask for more help. Thanks againDvpolicy11 (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My professor has extended the date that we must have our article posted on the main page until Monday. I have made some changes. Please review and give me some feedback! Thanks for all your help.I would like to keep the title of the article as is due to the fact that I am attempting to improve an existing page.Dvpolicy11 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific. I'll go through the article again and leave feedback on the talk page. As for improving the existing page: that's fine, just make sure you don't lose any of the valuable information in the existing article. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I have made more changes to the article and wanted to let you know that I apologize for borrowing your opening words and will change them if thats a problem. I would like to keep the original article title and just work my updates into it. There is some great info there already. Please review at your convenience and I will need your assistance in moving the article tomorrow. Thanks so much...Dvpolicy11 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. Don't worry about using my opening words -- this is Wikipedia after all, so I'm fine with anything I write being reused. I think choosing to add your article around some of the text in the existing article is a good decision. Because you're adding to an existing article, you don't have to use the actual move function. You will be able to simply copy and paste your text around the existing text, combining the two in whatever order makes most sense. This is known as a "selective paste merger", and is explained in detail at WP:SMERGE. Please note, however, that steps 3, 5, 7, and 8 of WP:SMERGE are not required because you are using text that you have completely written yourself in the userspace. When you save the page, you should use an edit summary like: "Expanding article using text from [[User:Dvpolicy11/Sandbox]]". – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I copy and paste do both articles need to be in edit mode? All the info you provided about the move is a huge help. ThanksDvpolicy11 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One other question...when I copy & paste my references will they automatically reformat with old and new info?Dvpolicy11 (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mentor...I have merged my article into the original and thus answered my own question about references. Thanks for your help and please look over the page when you get an opportunity.Dvpolicy11 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RA reform
Hi GW. You may find this interesting and perhaps you might like to consider joining the task force. The project is running following a thread I started at Jimbo's tp. --Kudpung (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail
Hello, GorillaWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You sent me a message concerning the image I cropped. By the time you replied, I was out and now I do see the one I updated. Thanks for your help it's appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GorillaWarfare! You are the one who wrote the retired template on my homepage when I retired, well I'm back now! But this time I Promise not to write Vandalism on Wikipedia. So Hello again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvalou (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good! I'm always happy to see users return. I'm also happy to hear you won't be vandalizing. Let me know if you need any help with anything! – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GW. I notice you haven't signed up for this. There's no obligation of course and I know you're very busy and it may take up more of your time, but your input would be most welcome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to pass on this. I only occasionally weigh in at RfA, and I'm not even sure what my opinion is regarding the whole reform thing. I also don't know how much time I'll have to commit. I appreciate the offers, though, and will definitely try to keep an eye on how things are progressing. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 12:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, but feel free to chime in any time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice you are an administrator and am hoping can assist on Ronn Torossian page. Slanderous BLP article there with blog mentions and sources claimed which arent in the actual references.
Regardless if or if not of Sockpuppet, does not allow a BLP to be biased in this extreme. Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
--greenbay1313 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You already have a discussion on this at many different places. Please stop personally asking every administrator you run across to help you. The discussion at the BLP noticeboard should be sufficient to help you. By posting complaints at editor assistance, RfC, arbitration requests, COI, requests for feedback, AIV, and the talk pages of all these administrators, you are actually making things more difficult. Please stop doing so, or your edits will go from being simply uninformed mistakes to disruption, and could even warrant a block against your account. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 19:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Done - You can find it at User:Jeffp1717/Life's Sweet Breath. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 15:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Slayer2448's talk page.
