User talk:Churn and change/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Welcome

Hello, Churn and change, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUp_6n8x3D0) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


DYK for Ira Nadel

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Chunks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chunks. Since you had some involvement with the Chunks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Churn and change (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

POV

Your edits to Paul Ryan appear very biased. These types of edits make the article more of a resume. Greatpumkin (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am adding resume-like information. Not clear how that is biased. Others should add non-resume-like information. Churn and change (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

well just try and be more un biased otherwise it just reads like a political advertisment. regards Greatpumkin (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Paul Ryan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MrX 04:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

By my estimation, you're in violation of WP:3RR. In fact, you've broken the bright-line 4RR rule, which means you could get blocked right this moment. Lucky for you, I think blocking is pretty stupid and I reserve it primarily for vandalism, so I'm not going to report you. Instead, I'm going to politely ask you to stop. You can't win this edit war and it'll only get you blocked by someone else. Instead, go to the talk page and see if you can change some minds. If so, you win. If not, move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See? Someone else put up an "official" notice. And they may well report you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Please check WP:BLP. It is not subject to 3RR, nor is a discussion or consensus required to remove BLP material. "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced;" Churn and change (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this. However, this did have sources, just not ones you like. Unless the administrators agree with you -- and I expect they won't -- they're not going to give you a free pass for reverting. Trust me on this one. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that the LA Times citation is in, I agree it should stay. No, Huffington Post is not an RS for BLP issues. It is sensationalist and misleading. 04:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say it depends on who wrote the article, but so long as we've come to some sort of compromise, that's fine by me. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Irving Gottesman

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Paul Ryan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. This is a courtesy notice. Please consider taking this argument to the BLP noticeboard. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited George Armitage Miller, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Free Press and Bandwidth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

07:47, August 13, 2012

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 07:47, August 13, 2012

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran

Why did you remove the category Neuroscientist? The lead-in claims he is one, and that has been my impression. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He is in the category "Cognitive neuroscientist." All cognitive neuroscientists are neuroscientists, so the first category is included in the second (I verified that). We should always use the most specific category and check it is included in the more general ones. That goes for the category "Psychologists" too which I removed. He is now in the category "Stanford University Department of Psychology faculty" and the faculty are all in category "American Psychologists" which, in turn, is included in "Psychologists." Churn and change (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoa!

Your contribs show that you are misspelling (or mis-capitalizing) lots of category names! Please slow down, go back and fix, and get it right. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am fixing "Stanford University psychology faculty" category. Was there any other category you noticed? Churn and change (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The school of engineering one. Click "my contributions" and look for the redlinks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup, I think I fixed them all. Looking through the psych. ones. Thx. Churn and change (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you explained some place what you're up to? Changing case of categories on purpose? Per what discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I didn't change the category name. The engineering people were in the category "Stanford University faculty" but they should really be in "Stanford University School of Engineering faculty" since they are in the School of Engineering (CS & EE departments) and we use the lowest subcategory. Churn and change (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, good. But you made a new category for the Psych department; or two, really, with different cases. Has there been a discussion of making new department categories, and how they should be capitalized? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The two psych. categories are a mistake, there should be just one. As to discussing it, where does one do that? The talk pages of the categories have nothing. The idea behind the split was to have the "scientists" separated at least in part. There is a category "Scientists of California" which not many people add to, but seems destined to be a mess if people did use it. I was looking at making the "psych. faculty at Stanford" a subcategory directly of that to avoid at least a part of the issue. Churn and change (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You could start at the talk page of the category that you're subclassing, even if it appears inactive. We might need to notify a wikiproject or something to get some attention. Or start by looking at how other schools are divided. Seems to me like one would want to use the names of schools or departments, which are proper names, as opposed to generic "topic" names. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
All the category talk pages are empty. As to other universities, there is no consistency (I checked Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Princeton). I don't have a problem with the name being "Stanford University Psychology faculty" instead of "Stanford University psychology faculty" or having a "Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences faculty" since that is how they administratively divide the school. Churn and change (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I added the above argument to Category talk:Stanford University faculty#Creating a subcategory "Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences faculty". We can continue the discussion there. Churn and change (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I applaud your efforts in trying to curate the academic hierarchy. I still agree that we need to have a consistent nomenclature going forward. Chrisvanlang (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this?

I noticed your category edit to Vijay Pande, and then I also noticed that you have a lot of knowledge in biochemistry and computer science. Related to Vijay Pande, could you take a look at the Folding@home article and perhaps confirm that I have things right? I don't know how much you know about that project, but I'd like to make sure the article is accurate and thorough. I haven't taken any classes on biochemistry, so I've had some troubles pursuing things in that area. • Jesse V.(talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, right now I am busy with a bunch of psychology-related articles. Since Folding@home is a GA, it probably needs focused work to get to FA status. I won't be able to look at it soon, but I will check it once I get more free time. Churn and change (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I know it needs focused work, but I'm sort of running out of ideas so anything helps. • Jesse V.(talk) 22:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Stanford?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion continued at User Talk:Churn and change/Category Discussion

<discussion>

Why are you removing the "american historian" category from all the Stanford professors? They are pretty famous historians and that is the best category for them Rjensen (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I am removing it only from the "Department of History" professors. The entire "Stanford University Department of History faculty" category is included in the category "American Historians" directly. Churn and change (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
that seems a bad idea--it removes the individuals from the category listing of several thousand historians which is a very useful tool in historiography.Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The category listing "American historians" contains "Stanford University Department of History faculty" in it. So all the faculty are still part of the category "American historians," there just is no need to include them explicitly. Churn and change (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
yes there is a need-- we use the category to find individuals not departments, and now all the Stanford people are missing from the lists of 2300+ historians at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_historians. Nothing has been added but good info is lost, so I will put them back in. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
From the WP:Category guidelines: "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." We should be adding people to the most specific subcategory. The category "American historians" is not the most specific category in this case since it includes the subcategory "Stanford University Department of History faculty." Churn and change (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, they are not missing. They are here on that page:
S
► Stanford University Department of History faculty‎ (34 P)
Churn and change (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but category:Stanford University Department of History faculty is not, or at least should not be, a subcategory of category:American historians, even if all individuals in the first cat are also in the second, because there is no reason there couldn't be non-Americans in the first category (actually, I'd be surprised if there were not). Just because you work at Stanford doesn't make you American. The correct fix is to make the Stanford faculty not a subcat of American historians (if it is currently a subcat, which I haven't checked).
I noticed you've started on mathematicians now. Please stop. --Trovatore (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
American Historians aren't historians dealing with America, in analogy with "American Methameticians." They are historians/mathematicians working in America. 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No, they're historians who have American nationality. --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, we need consensus on that definition. Churn and change (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
the names have been removed from the main page where people usually look, and buried in a page that is not quite appropriate and much less useful. The key characteristic is not Stanford--many come and go in different departments--the key characteristic is American historian. As Trovatore points out, The Stanford category is not the same thing at all because of the citizenship issue. The bottom line is that useful information is being erased for no gain whatever. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Has this been discussed before? The definition of what the category is supposed to be? The talk page is empty. Churn and change (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure which talk page you mean. I don't know of a specific guideline, but just look through some bios. Almost all of them give prominently what the person is known for, and his/her nationality. I'm kind of anti-nationalist myself and I'd be just as happy if nationality were de-emphasized, but it's pretty clear that all the <nationality> <field> categories are talking about nationality, not place where the work is done. --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a problem putting that back in. But since these pages are distributed and likely to be modified by many people, it would be good to get a wider consensus on the definition. In cases of visiting faculty, etc., yes, the issue of nationality may be clear. But in other cases it may not be, since secondary sources seldom report if somebody is naturalized or not. Churn and change (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Also note that citizenship is not a criteria for membership in professional organizations such as the American Psychological Organization. Churn and change (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but being in the APA doesn't make you an American psychologist. If nationality is not clear, no problem, just leave that person out of the nationality cats. --Trovatore (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you add the description to the Category page? Right now there is nothing there. There is a talk page associated with the cat pages, but there is no discussion at all there either. So it is impossible to know what is meant or to find out. Churn and change (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
What, for hundreds if not thousands of these categories? --Trovatore (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The top category "Category:American Academics" actually states: "This page lists both academics who are American citizens and academics of any nationality who have been based in the United States." Churn and change (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. That line seems to have been added by Mayumashu in February 2008. Might be worth asking him about it, and in particular whether this was part of some more general discussion. I think it's unlikely to be intuitive to most readers. --Trovatore (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, "Category: Faculty by university or college in the United States" has been a subcategory of "Category: American Academics" from day one. I see your point, but that is a discussion you should have on WP:CFD. As things stand, my change would be consistent with how the whole thing is organized. Churn and change (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. No, there wasn't a discussion back in 2008 on how to define 'American academic'. I gave the cat the descriptor for the following rationale: It is a sub-cat of Category:American academics, which is about the work done in American academia (ie. at American academic instituations), much of which is done by non-US citizens. It true too though that the category in question is a sub-cat of the category tree for Americans, ie. U.S. citizens, by their occupation. This is one of a number of cases, given the merging of category trees, where WP catting simply cannot 'give a satisfactory outcome' (not so well said, but you know what I getting at). Mayumashu (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jon Krosnick

Hello Churn and change. If you click the red link above, you will find my reasoning to delete that page. Let me continue here (I've noticed that you are interested in the subject): ... it is better and safer for Wikipedia to delete the copyvio and start from scratch. Thanks for your understanding, and please let me know if you have any objections. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No objection; I objected only to the WP:GNG deletion claim. I tagged the article because didn't know where to start cleaning it up; all of it had no secondary sources, relied on an autobio, and plagiarized from that autobio. Meanwhile have pulled together a set of links here: User:Churn_and_change/sandbox/Krosnick. Is it possible to keep the talk page up even with the article deleted? I would then transclude my page over there; might help somebody else who wants to recreate the page (since I think notability isn't in question). Churn and change (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to keep only the talk page, it is not a standard practice, orphaned talk pages are usually speedily deleted. You've compiled quite a lot ... What about creating a short stub mentioning his major achievements and contributions + some of the sources to back up the claims? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Energy Storage paper!

Got it! —Cupco 07:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For the copyedits on Sadler, they look pretty good to me. We need skilled editors like you around here! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. The article looks great, especially considering the nature of the subject. Churn and change (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Double thanks for the peer review on meth mouth, your comments were very helpful there. It's a tricky project since I haven't written about similar articles in the past, but I think it's moving along well now. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

page move historic district article

Hi, i saw your move in this diff of article for "West End Historic District (Dallas)" to "West End Historic District, Dallas". I tried to move it back, and succeeded. It's not a community. It is an NRHP-listed place, in particular one of many NRHP-listed historic districts. See West End Historic District (disambiguation) for others of the same NRHP listing name. The usage for many similar cases is that we use "Name Historic District (City, State)". For Dallas and a few other cities per U.S. naming convention in wikipedia, we leave out the State. Hope you don't mind my moving it back. If you wish to discuss, I'll watch here. If you want others to consider, you could open a formal wp:RM about it, but i'd rather just discuss it with you here. Cheers, --doncram 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually maybe the article should be moved to a different name, such as perhaps "West End, Dallas", if "West End" is really the common name for the area discussed. If the article is about the registered historic district, it should be named "West End Historic District (Dallas)", IMO. But if the article is about a bigger neighborhood that happens to include the listed district, it would be fine by me for the district and its boundaries to be covered in a section, and for the overall article name to change. I am not familiar with the area, though. Is the area the same as the NRHP-listed district, and is the local historic district the same or different? --doncram 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
If it is not a community, I am fine with your revert. As to your specific questions, I have no idea. This was a general cleanup. If the title says "Historic district" makes sense the article should be about the NRHP-listed place, whatever it currently contains. Churn and change (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Brown

I've finished my new edits to the article for now, if you see any more hiccups, feel free to tweak. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles on the Balkans

Hello, I got the 4 articles you uploaded from my request at WP:REX, you can remove them at your leisure now. Thank you very much!--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tax articles

Thank you very much for for Jarass and Obermair (2006), which I got. I wonder if you were also trying to give me the JSTOR article, because you listed the same URL twice. —Cupco 20:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Got them both now; many thanks! —Cupco 20:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And the "Shortrun" paper just now. These are a tremendous help and again I'm so grateful. —Cupco 01:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of George M. Stratton

Hello! Your submission of George M. Stratton at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BigDom (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You might enjoy working on these

Hi Churn, I've appreciated your help on the W.R. Brown article (which should be at DYK pretty soon), and thought you might be interested in helping me out on two others. Russell and Sigurd Varian and Henry Babson. Babson I did some time back and is pretty rough, the Varians I am prepping to go GA, perhaps after Brown. In both cases, your ability to access genealogy would be much valued, I cannot find good RS on these people's wives and kids, dates of marriages, etc. On Babson, it's been tough for me to find stuff on his family company. Any links you can find or other good info, just plop it on the talk pages in question, or add it in yourself. Have fun! Montanabw(talk) 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi C&c.

Are you already sure the Legobot/Psychologists work well? You're completely right: "manually adding each entry is a hopeless task." However, I was creating the new category "Experimental psychologists", and I simply corrected the holes in that list, without knowing anything about other initiatives. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The bot itself works quite well. People have added stuff to the categories incorrectly at places. Nevertheless considering that list has entries in the 1000s and the "List of Psychologists" in the 100s, that list should be taken. I was specifically referring to your addition to "List of Psychologists;" the additions are all quite accurate, but may not be fruitful. Churn and change (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for George M. Stratton

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Article request response

Ok. But next time please do not remove someone else's comments unless it's uncivil or constitute personal attack. Otherwise, you may be subjected to blocks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The problem wasn't the comment. It was the link. Could be construed as copyright violation; we need to be extra careful with that page to ensure it doesn't get shut down, leaving us all in the lurch. Churn and change (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You could rescind the link, but you crossed the line by removing the comment in its entirely. This is just a cautionary note so you don't do this again in the future. And FYI, since the discussion was initiated by you, I assumed you have read bullet #2 on my talkpage. I rarely watchlist/check another user's talk page to see if they replied my comment. The orange box "You have a new message" is there for a reason. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

PONY!

Pony!
Congratulations! For your assistance with the William Robinson Brown GA, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw(talk) 19:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: wind and solar papers

Got them both. Many thanks as always! —Cupco 18:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

...and the biofuels reviews, too. These will be a huge help in literally dozens of articles which are generally 2-5 years out of date on wind, solar, and biofuels. —Cupco 20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Vinayaki JSTOR link

Thanks. Took a local backup. You may remove it from the net. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles

I have these articles now. Thanks again for making them available -- it's very kind of you. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Thank You for Stigletz Economics article

Thank you for getting https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TZkU5ZU8wQURJdmc 

[Let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)}

Gene EugenePatrickDevany 20:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 248TaxBlend (talk • contribs)

Clarification on RSN re: Cohen

G'day, I'm hoping you will clarify so I'm clear on what you are saying? We also seem to struggle to get a consensus of several experienced RSN editors on this one. Is that normal, or is it just the repellent nature of Balkans shenanigans? These things just come up again and again if we can't get some firm guidance we can rely upon. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is normal on even mundane issues. I think you did get the summmary fairly straight. It would be better if you can find higher-quality sources, but I guess people do have constraints on how much time they can afford to spend on WP. So, yes, the Cohen source is ok for facts, and, with attribution and rebuttal, for opinions. Churn and change (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Request

I've put in a request for that source you offered, many thanks. I do a lot of research when writing articles and as I'm no longer in academia find it difficult to get hold of some. Would you be able to help out with a few others? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for sharing that source, someone pointed me to where I could find it. I read it over lunch and it was an extremely interesting piece of work. Can I just draw your attention to p.300 "Indeed, within three months, two British warships arrived at the Falklands with orders to expel the Argentinian garrison." Please note the additional comments I made at WP:RSN. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
But page 306 says "Argentinian inhabitants" were expelled. See my response on RSN. That is probably not a mainstream view, but considering this is a Yale professor publishing in a prestigious journal, and considering I found the reference within minutes of looking for an article with this viewpoint, I would say it is not a "fringe" viewpoint. I don't think I can afford to go into much more detail on this one; it isn't a subject which particularly interests me. Churn and change (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The point I was making is that if the language used is imprecise, subsequently other authors can make an inference that was never there. Yes the garrison was expelled but not the settlement. In this case, if you refer to the expulsion of Argentine inhabitants subsequently other authors will read that to mean settlement. Again thanks for bringing this to my attention I really enjoyed reading it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity have you ever come across WP:BEANS? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Tenedos Edits

The edits seem to be going good in Tenedos; however, I would like to ask that you integrate in your additions into the article content as it already exists if possible. So you added two mentions to the Iliad, which is great, but that adds to the already existing mention to the Iliad which makes three separate mentions of a key mention to the mythical island. The editors have been editing the page for the last month to reduce such circular mentions and your edits are undoing some of that. Just keep in mind that we have all read both of Takaoglu's articles too and so, most likely, his point is already contained in the article somewhere. Thanks! AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Added. I'm actually now quite concerned with the edits because a lot of them come from one source and follow his wording (and structure) a little too closely. For example:
  1. From the new edits: "As per Herodotus there was a town populated by Aeolians in Tenedos during this time, but no archaeological evidence exists to prove this" From Takaoglu: "Although Herodotus mentions a town populated by the Aeolians on the Island, no archeological evidence has been identified at the site to show the arrival of these newcomers."
  2. From the new edits: "Tenedos remained prominent from the Archaic to the Classical period of Greece. Burials were rich with items showing a prosperous island" From Takaoglu: "The archeological evidence from the excavated cemetery demonstrates that the island flourished from the Archaic to the Classical period. The richly furnished burials identified during the rescue excavation clearly illustrates the level of prosperous life on the island."
These are both probably violations of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and most of the other edits are as well. While I don't think it is a copyright problem, and your attribution is spotless, I feel that it is too close for comfort. Also, if we follow the same structure as Takaoglu even if we change his words, that for me is still close paraphrasing. The enthusiasm to expand the content of the article is great, but building it from one source with such close repetition of facts is problematic. I think these are good faith edits that I don't want to revert, and you can of course go to the Tenedos Talk Page and explain the edits, but if these edits stay so close to Takaoglu in both wording and structure, I will undo them. Just giving you a head's up. Thanks for taking my concerns into consideration. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixing the specific issues you brought up. So far I have been just dumping material; haven't either organized or edited it much. Also Takoglou is used in just the initial paras; I switch to other sources later. Churn and change (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks man! Good luck and I'll be looking over that shoulder, but in a good way. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the article Tenedos! Chrisrus (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tenedos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Andronikos, Darius, Nestor, Aulis, King Philip II, Illiad, Spartans, Macedonians, Negroponte, Peloponnesians, Persians, Hegelochus and Pharnabazus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaving PDF links on the resource exchanges board

There is absolutely no difference between leaving it on a public noticeboard or user talk page. We just prefer to categorize a page as noticeboard when in fact it could be any type of page. And this is in no way systematic distribution. Systematic distribution applies is only if you intentionally distribute on a wide scale (e.g. entire volume of the journal, all articles within an issue, etc.) Since this is on-demand request, it is not systematic distribution. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Got It!

Thank you for getting the Trilobite paper!--Mr Fink (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Strabo

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to Tenedos article. Referring to this edit of yours, I think the information you moved to Mythology section was not that of Strabo himself directly but of Walter Leaf based on Strabo and other sources. Therefore Mythology may not be the best section for it. As a separate comment, I would like to say not all information given by ancient historians would fall into mythology. Some of those may shed light to history or even prehistory and may be used as genuine historical sources, if they are also used as such by secondary sources. Filanca (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though I do think we should weigh more contemporary sources higher. Can you add Google books URLs to the cites so that it is easier to access (from the title, looked like it was just Strabo, not a commentary/analysis of him)? You can move it back; I will probably edit it (probably use direct attribution, instead of "some sources"), but I think that can be done directly on the page. Churn and change (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Done, sorry for the mix up. But please do add Google URLs wherever you can. Thanks for finding that source. Churn and change (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I will do as you asked about book references from now on. I will also look for more recent sources about prehistory of the island. Filanca (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Help request

(Thanks for your contributions to the Bozcaada article.) If you're still there could you help me with another island article: Cyprus. I messed up the refs. Ref 43 will be in Spanish, and, after one sentence should come ref 44, in English. I asked an admin but sometimes they do not like to enter into content issues (although mine is a pure lack of technical experience). See my Note to Bbb23. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it so the refs show up as 43,44, not 44,43. But I can't fix the numbers; those are automatically decided by where the citations are. Your English reference is cited the first time before the Spanish reference, and so it gets the lower number. Churn and change (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I tried again to complete what I was really trying to do: Put the English ref at the end of the paragraph, while the Spanish one just at the end of the previous sentence. I think I could do it but only as 44, 43. Never mind; there are people who keep an eye on this article. They will be happy that I added an article from a Greek Cypriot official source and not mind that detail... --E4024 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The English ref is used right at the top of that subsection. Then you have the Spanish ref and then again the English ref. So 43, 44, 43 is the correct way to number the notes. Churn and change (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to put only 43 and 44 but forget it. Thanks again. --E4024 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bribe in dollars

Bribe has always existed; also in the Ottoman Empire. However, the latest edition (or better addition) of yours on the Ottoman Bozcaada depends, I think, not on a very RS, because the writer talks about dollars even before the establishment of the USA. He might have changed whatever value he had at hand, but to me this shows he is not qualified enough to write on the Ottoman Empire. Do you know of any serious authors who write about the -say- Habsburgs mentioning "dollars" in those centuries? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that was more like a tax the church had to pay to the emperor, not a bribe. It was a public thing. Steven Runciman, with a degree from Cambridge (he won a fellowship there for his work on the Byzantine empire), was the professor of History at Istanbul University. The work is published by the Cambridge University Press, one of the top academic publishers. I don't think there is much question of this being a reliable source. Churn and change (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I think he (PBUH) was not immune to critism though. I found this in the internet: "One reviewer, George S. Bebis, however, notes that Runciman clearly “confesses his personal sympathies” with Byzantium (The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 2 no. 2 Christmas, 1956, 102-104)" Although this critism is in a context of East-West political/theological discussions (the Crusades, the E-W Schism etc), looking at a list of his works I see that they are mostly about Byzantium and the Crusades; the Ottomans seem never to be the main concern of his studies. I may also be wrong though... --E4024 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
A reliable source is not one that has never been criticized. This part is about the "Byzantine" church, which had its roots in Byzantine, and continued to be there after the Ottomans took over. Churn and change (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish tea

Working hard, have some Turkish tea, drink it from this link. Enjoy it... --E4024 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Almost done. Churn and change (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN overflow to Talk:Chetniks

Hello, Churn and change. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Talk:Chetniks regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Which source

Are you asking, Islam Ansiklopedisi? Very famous and serious "Encyclopedia of Islam", a collective study, published by the Turkish Foundation of Religious Affairs. This one? --E4024 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not this encyclopedia though... --E4024 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
35 volumes with around 16.000 articles, published since 1988... --E4024 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we should discuss my specific issue on the article's talk page. I have created a section there. Churn and change (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Fishing in Bozcaada.

Sorry, I saw a reference to fishermen in the Population section and edited there "fishing", then I saw that the same info was already in the Economy section. (I think I have found a more specific source though). Maybe we should eliminate the arts and professions from the Population section and use the sources in the Economy s. --E4024 (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't think we really need to discuss specific edits; we can just edit the page and if there is no compromise get to the talk page. Churn and change (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. It looks better now, I think... --E4024 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
There was another number for artisanal fisherman, this is why I said "professional" for the registered fishermen/boats. These are rather big boats with a lot of technology (fish radar etc) and special machinery. The others, united in a "kooperatif" are artisanal fishermen. Of course I was not referring to "professionals" to separate them from friends like Abstract, who said he would go fishing there next year, but to separate them from the traditional small craftsmen... --E4024 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"Professional fisherman" just means those who have fishing as a livelihood (a profession), which doesn't get to the meaning you imply. The source also doesn't say only the more "advanced" boats are or have to be registered. Since we can't use personal knowledge, you would have to dig up sources which say these things. Churn and change (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for educating me; I am always very grateful to everybody that teaches me anything. The source that I had used (and now is not in the article) is this one, a quite detailed specific report on fishing in Bozcaada. (Reading it I learned some miniscule details on Bozcaada's fishing practice like the types and dimensions of fishing nets etc. :-) BTW I also acknowledge all the recent editing effort on the Bozcaada article, especially by yourself, Astract and N-HH, partly due to the discussion on how to name the said small island... --E4024 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, can you provide a rough translation when you add the cite? Just include it in double quotes in the citation. As things stand, I can't say anything since I can't read the article. "Professional fishermen" won't mean what you want it to mean though. Churn and change (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. --E4024 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Aeolian colonization of Tenedos

I can't understand why you removed this part in ancient Tenedos and in Tenedos added that this is not supported by archaeological evidence. Also in 1100 B.C., according to ancient Greek chronology, we have the beginning of the Dark Ages. Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But the section where you added is "Prehistory" which is well before 1100 BCE. That time period is under the "Archaic Period" section where this is already there. You can add the stuff there, integrating it into what is already there. Churn and change (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, moved it down for now, but there is still a chronological incosistency with Bronze-Iron-Dark Age information, which is mixed in that section. Maybe a split of the Archaic era is needed.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned on your talk page, I agree with you. We can discuss this on the article's talk page, after I set it up. Churn and change (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Slavonic Papers

Got it, thanks very much. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Churn and change. You have new messages at Fuhghettaboutit's talk page. -- ~~~~~

Cats...

Hi C, your comment "Create a new section, "Related categories" to express this relationship" on the two categories you worked on; can you just do that, pretty please? I am not in a place where I want/need/or have time to deal with this sort of stuff, you know da rulz over there, I just want the navigability...  :-P Montanabw(talk) 19:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the standard way to do this is to use the {{Category see also}} template. I switched one of the categories to use that; if that looks ok, I will switch the other. Churn and change (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
On that one, it wasn't workable as there are 350+ horse breeds and they all in theory could add this cat, maybe on that one we can do a "never mind..." though for the other side, it COULD work... Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Most fields typically manage to find a way to break up large lists into manageable sets, each containing tens of items. But, anyway, I added the "Category see also" to the "Arabian horses and studs" since it should work there. Churn and change (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a very good reason we keep horse breeds as a massive cat; it's the only way we can keep an accurate count of how many horse breeds we have here; many breeds (particularly those developed in central Europe) can be listed in multiple "breeds by nation" lists (Lipizzan got put in five, I think, all justifiable ... ). Truth is, keeping to a strict category/subcategory structure isn't very workable -- I can think of many topics where there is a need for cross-cats... Montanabw(talk) 20:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothonotus darters

Hello,

thanks again. You may remove it as the paper had around 5% useful information and the rest was jargon :). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I downloaded the book chapter, I'll let you when I get the article in decent shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Churn and change (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tenedos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Side note on WRB

Just a heads up that it's OK to leave the edits of Br'er Rabbit in place, he's a major formatting and wiki syntax person and while I don't always "get" why he makes some of the changes he does, he's a proven contributor who knows how not to screw up coding, (which I screw up on a regular basis) so I usually just let him work his magic. He'll explain his reasons for anything he's working on, I just don't always understand the explanations, either... but I can copy and paste, which is good enough... (grin). Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my change with the AWB was standard stuff-replacing old template names with new and so on; I think it did find one typo somewhere; yeah, I did see Br'er Rabbit set up William S. Sadler Churn and change (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see the

stuff; looks like the first redirects to the second, so not sure why

; will check with Br'er directly on user talk page; don't want this silly stuff to be a "dispute" for the GA review. Churn and change (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We've got Malleus for the review! Eep! He'll do a great job, but we will have to behave ourselves and be ready to do some serious work if he flags something; he usually does FA reviews! Montanabw(talk) 17:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Closure

I noticed you closed Prop 8. Have you been closing RfC's for a while? I'm not commenting on the validity or logic of your closure, just curious about your experience. (Please don't think I'm being hostile). Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed a few, mostly those lying on the admin noticeboard for a while, and on articles where I won't be working any time in the near future. The experience has been positive; it is a lot of work though, reading through multiple times a debate one is not really participating in. Churn and change (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to sound rude but after reading your closure several times, I'm not sure if I agree with the analysis. Any chance you could run this by another set of eyes and see if they concur? It won't kill me to accept this closure, but I'd sleep better knowing someone else endorses this. Frankly I don't know much about RfC closures, so that's why I asked about your experience and was hoping it was much greater than mine.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you have several options: just revert the closure (I, for one, won't bring you up for any 3-RR etc even if you are at that point), wait to see if others disagree, undo your edit which put the summary there into the article (the RFC summary isn't binding) and see whether other editors agree with the revert to status quo, and so on. However, those who close Rfcs typically do not go around asking for more opinions; I, for one, stay off the article and any disputes there for good. Churn and change (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Meh... I'll let it play out and see what happens. Thnanks!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I was going to close it slightly differently, but got called away to do real-life stuff. I think there was consensus not to include the parenthetical comment in the opening sentence (thankfully, though nobody cited the proper policy). That said, the lead is supposed to provide and introduction to the topic and summarize the topic. The title and summary are allotted an entire section of in the body of the article and thus should be mentioned in the lead (per WP:LEAD which again was not cited [correctly] in the RfC). All-in-all, very poor policy-based arguments in the RfC so a difficult one to close. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The summary was of what was discussed. I agree with your points, but the editors there are supposed to make those arguments if they want it in a summmary of their discussion :-| Nobody mentioned that the lead is supposed to reflect the body text, and therefore analyzing the body text is the first thing to be done (one editor at the tail end mentioned in passing the lead was too long, but there wasn't much on what it should have). The discussion (is) largely focused on just the name/title issue in the very first sentence. Hopefully they will now focus more on the remaining sentences. I never edit articles where I close RFCs, so I won't be debating this directly. Churn and change (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Review

Could you please e-mail me this paper?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What's next?

I see you closed this. You may want to make it clear what was the overall outcome in the heading; other than than I wonder if you know what happens next? The consensus was to implement the HotCat for all registered accounts, but how do we actually do it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to rearrange so that my "net: " summary at the end is highlighted at the beginning; will do it myself when I have spare time, but I don't think it should be an issue. I see you have posted at Wikipedia_talk:HOTCAT, but since this isn't a change to HotCat per so, not sure they are the right ones. See WP:BUGS; I think you need to file a feature request at [1] linking to the discussion and the outcome, and describing the specific change requested. Churn and change (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, done; moved up the final outcome and "bold"ed it. Your next step should probably be to file the feature request. Churn and change (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Would you please explain your close? I'm having a difficult time seeing this as widespread consensus. - jc37 23:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you opposed the very first proposal, floated an alternate proposal largely opposed, and then did not vote on the concrete proposals 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. In fact, nobody opposed concrete proposal 3. Two people noted it as their second choice, and two as their first choice, and all gave specific reasons for the votes. On this measure alone it was at the top (note that one of the second-choicers was the nom, who explicitly agrees with my summary). The only other candidate was proposal 2, with two first-choice and one second-choice votes, but the votes were largely just "I agree." My take is that makes proposal 3 what would be a "rough consensus"; please think of whether anybody else who voted there would (or has) disagreed with my summary. If the objection is not many voted, logically that means not many care any which way. My summary reflects these considerations. You, of course, can revert it, open another thread, or perhaps poll the others involved. Churn and change (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying.
And nod, making something "on by default" wiki-wide presumably takes more than 4 editors to support? When doing such a change, there is usually a broader consensus, with a lot more commenters. And does this mean that those who already opposed the initial request are thus ignored on the very question they opposed, merely because they didn't oppose again? - jc37 01:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The summary is a summary; it doesn't recommend a course of action, it just says this is what happened in the discussion. The exact number of votes is mentioned there. It doesn't use the word "widespread consensus" or "broad consensus" or even the word "consensus." Best I can make out what you are opposing is further action based on the discussion (on the basis that there were only a few voting on it, and that you were opposed to all forms of the proposal—generalizing from "those who opposed the initial request" boiling down to you, since the other objections were specific to the initial proposal). Looks to me those comments belong on the feature-request bugzilla entry. Note that those requests, per WP:BUG, are again voted on anyway to prioritize how implementors look at them. A feature request with few votes for it, or a feature request not discussed at all (nothing stops people from filing such), will just not get anywhere. But one way or the other, I don't see that as an isssue for the closing summary comments on the original discussion. You are reading "widespread consensus," "broad consensus" and all into it; it has none of those words. Churn and change (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Theory of Literature

Thanks for the link, I've got it. That compilation of reviews is likely to prove useful too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Afd of Thulasi Nair

Hi,

This is regarding the Afd of Thulasi Nair. The article didn't had any refs when it was nominated for Afd as well as when you voted. After that, I added three references from Times of India, a national newspaper. I believe the references establish notability of the subject. The closing admin didn't considered this and the article has been deleted due to majority at AfD. Here are the three refs: [2], [3], [4]. If you think these refs establish notability, please leave a note at this discussion at the closing admin's talk page. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The procedure, I guess, is the Afd review. Looking through, I see all three are the same publication and they contain just statements by her and her sister, so I wouldn't change my vote based on this. Churn and change (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You get this barnstar for your help here. Best, Tito Dutta ✉ 03:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Churn_and_change/Archive_1&oldid=1142455828"