Wikipedia

User:The ed17/Archives/45

< User:The ed17 | Archives

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

edit
 

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by   Miyagawa (submissions),   Hurricanehink (submissions) and   Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

edit
  The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

alt-text

edit

I'll read the piece you linked to... but doubt I'll end up agreeing that alt text is unwarranted (and I know who Matt Cutts is). Alt-text is a good thing for a bunch of reasons; it's not just about non-sighted users, it's also for users wo/images on (few, I know), for users with trouble getting the images to load, and especially for tools like GoogleBot. As a test, I Googled the alt-text I'd added: "Black and white photo of battleship at sea and steaming to the 'left' with a noticeable plume of smoke trailing from the stack" and got the above linked image of the U.S.S. San Pablo (from The Sand Pebbles (film)). Ok, it's a color image of a gunboat, not a battleship, and it's on a river, but it's going to the left, and it has a noticeable plume of smoke trailing from the stack. Captions are for readers, are certainly important, but alt-text is fundamentally about associating descriptive data with an image. Such information should part of the description on the file's page, but when people Google for images, we want them to find the articles they are used on, not the file-page. Alt-text helps this, as well as those with vision impairments.

Pleased to meet you.  —Portuguese Man o' War 22:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm pleased to meet you as well. I understand where you are coming from, but the alt-text is not meant to literally describe images. See [1]. Wikipedia's captioning suffices for 95+% of the cases I've come across. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff

edit

Hello Ed and congrats on becoming MILHIST Coord. I was hoping you would have some time for an interview for the WPConservatism newsletter, The Right Stuff. Just a few questions about what makes MILHIST so successful. Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Given the current political environment out there, I'm a bit leery on taking political positions (perceived or unperceived) on Wikipedia ... what do you think? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand. Why don't we revisit sometime in the future. – Lionel (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. My apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jutland

edit

I saw your edit on the article on the Battle of Jutland,[2] and checked.

  • Either different editions of VE Tarrant's book Jutland, the German Perspective are paginated differently, or the page number was wrong. What I have done is to assume the former, got rid of the cite template and inserted a reference that enables one to explain.
  • Tarrant's text said "hard to starboard", and the diagram showed the ship turning to the right.

Of course this means that all the other citations to VE Tarrant's book will be 'wrong' for any user who has the same edition as me. Maybe citations should say what edition is referred to?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article should certainly include the edition, as page numbers will almost always vary between editions. Doing so is mandated by Chicago for this reason. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RfCs – October 2011

edit

Hi Ed. Would you be able to close some RfCs:

  1. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations
  2. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections
  3. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts
  4. Talk:2005 Ahvaz unrest#Merge with Khūzestān Province.
  5. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

These RfCs are from the this revision of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Some of the RfCs are easier to close than others, but if you don't have the time or the inclination to close any RfCs, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cunard, I will try to get to these tomorrow UTC-time. If I don't, you can safely assume I don't have any time. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Glitch in the system?

edit

-- Greetings Ed, first, just out of curiosity, how did you come by the notice I left MRG about the same 'glitch'(?) problem I am having on the Stephen Decatur page? Just thought it sort of a coincidence that you stumbled upon a message about the same problem.
-- In any event, I am wondering who is the 'grand-guru' regarding Wikipedia's software/system management. Thought perhaps he/she would be the one to address with the problem, that is, if MRG isn't the one to best approach.
-- Also, I am thinking about joining the 'Military history WikiProject', if anything, just to get some feed back on the Stephen Decatur page, which I will be nominating for FA sometime soon, that is, if there isn't any problems that still need addressing. I have rewritten it almost from scratch. A few months back it was a fraction of the size it is now, had no bibliography or RS's and was lacking citations throughout the page. I am also working on and rewriting the Thomas Macdonough page and hope to make it a FA also. It too was in sort of a sorry state a couple of months ago. There are a number of other naval officer pages that are in dire need of attention also, as I suspect you might know. In time I hope to get some of them up to speed.
-- Was checking out the page you've been working on. -- Nice!! If you're a ships and sailing history buff for amusement you might want to check out my gallery of Ships on stamps In full view they often show some great detail. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I watchlist her page. I left a comment about the glitch at WP:VPT, which is where most things like that should be noted. :-) Feel free to join! We have an A-class assessment process that can give some very useful feedback prior to FAC. It's less rigorous and much less stressful, I've found. Re South American dreadnought race, thanks! I looked through the stamps and they look good. I'm not sure how many are suitable for articles, but in certain circumstances, they'd be an awesome addition. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
After reading your note here I went to 'VPT' and my first reaction was 'Oh-my-God ... it will be weeks, months(!), before they get around to our little problem. But when I checked out the effected pages -- lo'and behold -- they were fixed! WP sure works in mysterious ways (to me anyway). Left a thank you note. -- The stamps? Well, most of them work with the philatelic (stamp and postal history) pages, and many work on the President's pages, esp in the legacy sections, as every prez (not living) is honored on US postage, esp Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson. (I created and wrote the US Presidents on US postage stamps page.) DYK that Lincoln is the only US president ever to appear on an airmail stamp? (yep!) Enough about stamps. Will look into 'Military history WikiProject' and see what's brewin'. Thanks for your help and feedback, Ed. Keep in touch! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I meant their suitability in ship articles. My mind didn't think about the other 3.5 million articles we have. ;-) Anytime! Hope you like the project! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia ITN posting

edit

Ed, a few editors have directly questioned your decision in light of strong opposition since you added this entry. Could you please take another look at the comments at ITN/C and review your decision? Thanks in advance. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it now. I've been offline for most of the night, sorry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I just want to post to support both your decision to post and decision to pull. At the time of posting, a lot of the opposes were spurious. Since posting a stronger argument was made that the wiretapping bill would have been a non-event were it not for the actions of the Italian Wikipedia. I still disagree with those arguments, but in fairness those opposed did belatedly explain their position. You were put in an impossible situation, but nonetheless handled it very well. Regards, —WFC— 12:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks WFC, that means a lot. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to add here, I wasn't having a go at your decision and I'm acutely aware of the difficulties admins face in determining consensus on controversial issues. I think you acted in good faith at all times. My last comment on defending the navel-gazing votes was an objection by principle, since I think arguments that don't specifically contradict a policy should always be considered in determining consensus. I apologise if that came across personally, it wasn't intended that way. I would have made this reply in that thread but with accusations of treason (of all things) thrown around by one editor, I don't think it's wise to add anything more to it. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, we're all allowed to civilly disagree here – that's what Wikipedia is built on! Thanks for leaving a note here, it's appreciated (and good thinking in leaving it here rather than at that thread...) :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

National Archives

edit

...is, in fact, not the Library of Congress. ;-) (Wikipedia:Meetup/NARA_2#Other_requests) Did you mean to ask about something else? Dominic·t 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

HAHA. Nope, that's what I meant to ask for... whoops. Thanks for correcting me. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Joined Military History Project

edit

Hi Ed, (permission to come aboard, sir!) I just signed up and joined the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Maritime warfare task force. Hope to make some new friends. I was perusing through your talk page and noticed some impressive awards -- looks like you've been at it for some time. (Salute!) I hope to bring attention to a number of pages covering Early American naval commanders, as many of them are in need of work. As I mentioned I have brought the Stephen Decatur and Thomas Macdonough pages up to speed and will soon be building the bibliographies on pages like Oliver Hazard Perry, James Barron, William Bainbridge, Edward Preble, John Barry, John Rodgers and others, and aim to bring in depth coverage to these pages too. I've already started on a few of these. Your input is of course always welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Gwill! You may want to watchlist the main project talk page (WT:MILHIST), as that is where most discussions will take place. You can normally get help and/or help others there as well. Otherwise... welcome aboard! Glad to hear some of these more-neglected figures in naval history will get some attention. Good luck and let me know if I can help in any way! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Goldblooded

edit

This user has been blocked for 48 hours by Spartaz for violating 3RR. Would you consider reestablishing your indefblock from July, which I only just now found out about? You originally blocked Goldblooded for constantly attacking other editors, and recently, he has been constantly attacking other editors. Please see his recent edit summaries here, his attacks on the admin who reported him for edit warring here and here, his attacks on me here (although if you don't want to read through all that I don't blame you), his attack on Cameron Scott here, and his attacks on Binksternet, Parsecboy, and you here. I don't know if anybody came across his previous blocklog or those (now-archived) discussions from July, but I feel like if that whole debacle had gotten brought up earlier, we wouldn't be talking about a mere 48 hours off. CityOfSilver 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively we can just give him to User:Worm That Turned, and hope that his reputable system of mentorship succeeds in this case. →Στc. 00:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
He had mentorship from Zscout; that was why he was unblocked back in July. I'm not optimistic that he can come back and be a true editor of the encyclopedia. Being able to write and/or edit articles well is one part of that, but civilly interacting with people is another part, and he has not had a consistent pattern of civility since he started here. Having said all that, I'm too involved at this point – even if I thought I wasn't, he certainly thinks I've played a big part in his troubles. I would suggest going to ANI to find consensus and get what will probably end in an indef block. Feel free to quote me if needed, but I'll probably comment there anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Message of apology

edit

Hey there Ed, now without a doubt we did have a dispute several months back but I shouldn’t have kept that as a grudge against you, as I have said to many users I have by now learnt my lesson- long story short I apologise for my foolishness I should of posted it on the talk page and waited not just blitzed ahead. I hope we will be able to tie up the loose ends and continue to help with the never ending task of improving Wikipedia.

However, in my humble opinion I do think what cityofsilver said to you about me was rather cruel and cold.

“I don't know if anybody came across his previous blocklog or those (now-archived) discussions from July, but I feel like if that whole debacle had gotten brought up earlier, we wouldn't be talking about a mere 48 hours off”

Particularly since it was on the sole casus belli of “getting his own back” and it was rather upsetting someone could say that about me. At any rate, I have apologised to him and I am waiting for a response. As I stated on my talk page I am going to find a new mentor, since Zscout sadly doesn’t edit as much as he used to. Anyway , I hope you will be able to shake my hand and we can move on. Thanks :) Goldblooded (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. City of Silver's message was not cruel or cold, just mere fact – if Spartaz had seen your block log, I suspect your block would have been longer. I'm perfectly willing to move on, but you have to be civil at all times, not just after a block. You may be young, but that doesn't mean you can't be mature. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ed, glad you acept my apology :) But yeah , you wouldnt think im 15, paticulary if you met me in real life; I guess its down to the simple fact i have had a tough upbringing (paticualry in my younger years)and instead of turning to drugs and drink , which tragicially (and foolishly) a lot of my peers these days do. i have instead turned to things like history and work in search of a better life :) Goldblooded (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

edit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CityOfSilver 21:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2011

edit
 


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ping

edit

Email about FT. Tony (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Got my book back!

edit

Good news: I just got my book back! Nest weekend I'll start adding the second references as you asked. See you later! --Lecen (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks Lecen! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iron Ore (Ishpeming, Michigan)

edit
 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Iron Ore (Ishpeming, Michigan) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Iron Ore (Ishpeming, Michigan)

edit

Hi The ed17, you recently removed a deletion tag from Iron Ore (Ishpeming, Michigan). Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, something I didn't know. Apparently page creators can remove PRODs but not CSDs. Oh well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnship

edit
  Barnship
For your collaboration with Tony1 on a story in the Signpost, "Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power". This was a great way to let people know about your work! - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Dank, but I can't take much credit – Tony approached me, not the other way around :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Review, etc.

edit

Hello, m'dear! I was wondering if you might do me a favor... I just sent my completely rewritten version of The Satanic Bible live, and was wondering if you might give it a once-over. I've quite literally never written an article about a book/film/anything requiring any type of plot summary, and am wondering if it is too in-depth. Thoughts?

I'll probably keep expanding the criticism and, if possible, influence sections... Then maybe see if I can go for a GA.

Hope things are well with you! :] – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello my beautiful ... gorilla of a friend. Yes, your suspicion is correct; the plot summary dominates the article too much. Are there any major themes prevalent in the book that can be spun into their own section? More influence/impact would be good too :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hrr, I wondered if that was going to be the case... The problem is that the whole book, particularly The Book of Lucifer, is sort of scattered and piecemeal, so I feel like I'm synthesizing if I just choose bits and pieces to summarize. I'll give condensing it a shot, though... Thank you! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome and good luck :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Response

edit

Thank you kind sir for seeing my potential , as indef blocking me wouldnt solve the siutation; chances are in the long run Wikipedia itself will be deprived of a decent, young editor. Something it soley needs.

It wasn't really a revert war since i didnt revert anything. It started off as me posting a query about his username and he deleted it and said it was rubbish/nonsense which i was a little annoyed about but i merely posted a new message asking him why he reverted it. He responded by plastering a rather strong toned message on my talk page (some of which i didnt actually understand or know how to interpret)and i was genuinelly offended by it and i said it was ironic he was pointing the sword at me (i was still perfectly polite) and i pointed out that himself had already been banned for 3RR, vandalism , annoying others and also about his username (he was even indef banned) and i urged him to stop this madness otherwise it will be both our downfall, and i ended the message with something he put on my page; there is no further discussion. Thus ending the matter.

However, for one reason or another he decided to report an already closed matter breaching WP:LETGO or even WP:DEADHORSE and further fueling the aready tense situation, and making an unessarary judgement. Could you point out the exact source of what i did wrong, or better still what would you of done if you were in my shoes?

On a more important issue, I absolutely can interact with other editors , provided they wish to interact with me. If you check my contribs i have welcomed and assisted new recruits (which in my opinion are the most important aspect of wikipedia since without them wikipedia will soon become useless) and its rather sad that some more experienced members trample on them (as i was when i was new) or help them for the sake of furthering their own prestige. Also i have been encouraging retired members to rejoin wikipedia, most notably User talk:Barts1a and i was helping him resolve a dispute he had with another editor (which caused him to quit in protest/disgust) diplomaticially and encouraging him to move on.

I have also made good relations with my mentor, Lionel who i get on very well with; along with other editors who i am great friends with, notably User:Σ and User:Jasper Deng whom have helped me (and i have helped) to progress in wikipedia. User:Goldblooded (Return Fire) 20:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And also , you might be interested to know that while i was up for editor review i received some paticulary good reviews;

"Your contributions to articles and the patrolling of new pages seems to be very good work (I say this as someone who's knowledge of European history post Roman Empire is 95% from Wikipedia). However, you seem to be taking an overly combative tone in your edit notes when fixing vandalism or POV issues; for instance "(Undid revision 455580990 by Candi81 (talk) Dont vandalise pages)" when simply saying "reverted vandalism" would have worked. While diplomacy can be difficult, you should try to resolve it yourself as much as possible, rather than involving a third party (but that is not always possible, and the very fact that you can see when there is a dispute is an excellent thing).

You seem to take care to copy-edit the articles, but you are much more haphazard elsewhere (edit notes, this page, etc.). (Incidentally using "+" instead of "and" is something that grates on many a raw nerve, including mine.) Overall your mistakes are small and easy to correct, and your contributions many and excellent, so keep up the good work"

User:Goldblooded (Return Fire) 20:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

edit

Ed, I'm deply sorry but I'm out of free time. I'm having some issues here at Wikipedia that are demanding my full attention. I'm not even able to work on my articles. But dont worry, I won't let you down. Just give me some time. --Lecen (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat – have you seen my [very limited] contributions lately? I still haven't even been able to finish the Milhist newsletter, and it's almost the end of the month. :/ Whenever you can get to it is fine by me. Thanks for letting me know what's up though! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

edit
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

edit
 

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello The ed17! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

edit
 

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle in the Signpost

edit

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/45&oldid=1083648823"