User talk:David Fuchs/Archive 31
 | This page 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. |
Images
I was wondering if you could do me a favour: some free use images were uploaded to Wikipedia, and since they were free use I uploaded them to Commons so that other Wikipedia projects could use them as well. The images are: File:Yasunori Mitsuda.jpg, File:Yoko Shimomura.jpg, File:Hiroki Kikuta.jpg, and File:Shiro Hamaguchi.jpg (I uploaded them with the same file names). I know you're an admin, so if you could delete them I'd appreciate it. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
GAR
Thanks, I'll get to addressing the issues either tomorrow or later this weekend. Thanks again for reviewing another one my articles, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't mind at all. I've been waiting a long time to have the articles reviewed, and I look forward to addressing issues that I don't notice as well as basic issues (I've let some of my older GAs deteriorate some as I've focused on newer articles). I'm all for seeing the Sweeps done, hopefully by the end of the year. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Throw a GAR in the hopper!
Final Fantasy character classes was improved recently to be not be immediately removed from GA, but very much needs to be reviewed, just thought I'd tell my fav GA reviewer! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
featured article
might have reverted over your constructive edit accidentally. if so, sorry. -Shootbamboo (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Why was the info on porn star Derek Anthony removed? It was factual and there are many other porn stars on here with brief bios? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da90027 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Snap-dragon
Cheers for the review - I agree with the assessment, and have noted directions that an article edit could go on the talk page. Ziggurat 03:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
- News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
- In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
RFA spam
| Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
|---|---|
| |
| Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing | |
Halo: Reach
I am requesting that low-level protection be placed on the Halo: Reach article. There has been an edit war stretching several days about whether it is DVD-DL or DVD-5... then over whether or not it should say DVD-DL or unknown (rather than not use the field altogether). I have reverted the last "unknown" edit.-- OsirisV (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. That was partly my fault. This user and I have been arguing for some time and it has been transferred, at least partially into our edits (though, at least for my end, I've made sure only to revert edits that I believe are unneeded rather than simply because he made them). There's a discussion going on on Xeno's talk page. Sorry. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
- Interview: Interview with John Blossom
- News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
- In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Halo: Reach and the FT
Erm, I'm not sure how I missed this article, but it should have been PRed and added to the Halo media FT by sup nom by the 1 September. It would be good if you could do this at some point soon - rst20xx (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
recall
I think I fixed your entry in Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria, but now it occurs to me that I may be mistaken as to your intentions. Please verify. - Altenmann >t 17:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Smackdown vs. Raw reassessment
Since the purpose of any GA review should be to help improve the article, I am wondering if it would be possible to give a one-week hold period on this GAR. If the article is failed as-is, no improvements will be made. However, the professional wrestling project is very active, and I am confident that people from the project would be willing to work on the article over the next week if a hold period was given. Several articles have been placed on hold during the GA sweeps; all issues have been resolved, and all articles have been kept as GAs. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- If no chance is given for improvement, the encyclopedia doesn't improve. Delisting simply because people are tired of the sweeps doesn't make sense. If you're not willing to let people fix the concerns during the GAR, would you at least be willing to delete your review and allow someone else who is focused on article improvement to perform a more helpful review? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
- Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup
- Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia
- Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report
- Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway
- Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Edward Drinker Cope
I was compiling a list of scientists published (or mentioned) in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, and one of the better-written articles I came across while doing this was Edward Drinker Cope, so I looked in the history and saw your name there. If it is of interest, there are 17 papers that mention him in the search link I've just given from the AMNH publications. Those are in fact posthumous references to him, not his actual papers, and I see he published 1,200 papers in his lifetime, so those papers might not be of much interest, but I thought I'd drop a note off here anyway. The AMNH (which isn't linked in the article) may, however, be a good starting point for more about him (it seems strange he was turned down for a job there and at the Smithsonian), but these two pages ([1], [2]) do say that the Cope collections purchased by the AMNH were the core of the museum's paleontological collection. I can see from the article (and the Bone Wars article) that Marsh and Cope were competing at the time to build up their collections, but I'm wondering what the comparisons are like now - what is the legacy considered to be nowadays? It would be interesting to know where precisely Cope's collections ended up - I don't think the article makes that entirely clear - did everything go to the AMNH and the University of Pennsylvania (I can't find references to Cope specimens at UPenn), or did some of the specimens go elsewhere? I found this source (www DOT suite101 DOT com/article DOT cfm/paleontology/26564 - site currently blocked by the spam filter) that says "Today, Cope's collection of fossils is housed at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, PA.". There is confirmation of that here: "Cope described over 300 species of fishes between 1862 and 1894. His entire personal collection of fishes, reptiles and amphibians was bequeathed to the Academy in 1898. Most of Cope’s type specimens are in the Academy’s collection, with others in the USNM." (USNM = National Museum of Natural History). That's fishes. The herpetology collection is described here. More obscurely, there is a mention of nematode worms from his collection here. As I said, I don't know the full story of what happened to most of his collection, but the bit earlier in the article "The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia's foremost museum, did not bid on any of Cope's sales due to bad blood between Cope and the museum's leaders; as a result, most of Cope's major finds left the city", may give the wrong impression, as it seems large parts of at least some of the collection did end up back there, unless by "major finds" you mean the dinosaur finds? Also found this collection of Cope material. I should have put all this at the peer review - feel free to copy it over. Hope it helps. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Oops. I see the Haverford College Library link is already in the external links. Oh well.
- Tagging on here, Dave. I will take a look at the article and give some thoughts but it will take me some time (in light of my real-life commitments and the current situation at Battle of Bosworth Field). I will try to give opinions at the peer review by next week. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Request assistance
I new editor has recently begun replacing the title card images on the main page for television shows with fan art of the series. Myself and others have attempted to inform him that fan made art is basically not allowed on the mainspace, especially as the primary image of a page. We've tried to get him to follow WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, but he continues to revert back to the fan art claiming that there isn't a policy that says he can't have fan art. There are at least two discussions at File talk:SmallvilleNewOpeningCredits.png and File talk:Season Five Title Card.jpg that I'm aware of, and am taking part in. If you look at the Smallville image link, you'll see that it's need of serious file clean up now, because there are like 10 needless file uploads. I'm not sure if there is a policy/guideline specifically identifying fan art as a no-no for main page images, but I'm pretty sure we'd largely unacceptable and would appreciate either enlightenment that it is fine to use, or assistance in better explaining it to this new editor as to why it isn't. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I never said that there isn't a policy that you can't use fan art. I asked where is the policy that says we can't use fan art. Since there is then, no fan art. But original images can still be used. It's just that you don't like change, especially since it is a better and simple one. Some one tries to change something and you find any means to get rid of it, even if it's a good one. --JKSarang 22:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKSarang (talk • contribs)
- Apparently he doesn't understand WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE very well, because he continues to add a group shot of all of the DVDs for a show, and adding them to articles, even though it's been explained that there is no critical commentary from reliable sources about the cover art for those DVDs. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- David, you need to look at this editors contribs. He's just uploading image after image after image (being reverted by numerous editors). He either ignores consensus about which image to use, or just ignores the policies regarding non-free image uploads. His edits are becoming extremely disruptive, because he doesn't want to just discuss he wants it his way. I went to bed and came back to find a dozen new uploads for the Smallville title credits, as well as for the season 4 cast image that's being used at Characters of Smallville. I don't know what to do about his behavior. I've asked him repeatedly to just sit down at the talk page and discuss until a decision is made, instead of repeatedly uploading whatever image he likes regardless of what others think. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, apparently BlackKite blocked him for his edit war with those other editors. If it isn't too much to ask, could you clean up the image files so they don't have all those extra images please? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you clean up File:SmallvilleSeason4fullcast.jpg as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
- New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol
- German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists
- Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris
- Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November
- News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more
- In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more
- Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Sarlacc
Hi, I saw that you mentioned on the Star Wars Project page back in August that the Sarlacc article was in danger of losing GA status, and according to the articles talk page it is now a "former GA". But I didn't see any reasons on the talk page as to why it was delisted and what we could do to get it back up to GA quality. I looked for talk page archives but there doesn't seem to be any. Was there a discussion about this on some other page? Perhaps a GA assessment page or something? I'm not trying to debate whether or not the article is GA status as it stands now, I'm just wondering where the discussion took place so I can see what issues were raised, and need to be addressed, to bring up the quality of the article. Thanks! Colincbn (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions - I've fixed the image issues and the other issues you highlighted, so I'd appreciate it if you'd revist your comments. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
RE:Q4 newsletter
I think Gary King would be a good choice. He was too busy last time; maybe if we catch him early enough he'll have time. Another option is the group interview with Mrwojo, K1Bond007, and Thunderbrand you suggested a while ago. Or maybe MrKIA11 and SharkD would be up for a joint interview about project statistics and maintenance. Any of those would be great in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any more comments on the article that I can work on? There's still one unreferenced statement left in the article, but I can't find a reference for it and quite frankly I doubt it is true. I'm not really sure what to do with it. Theleftorium 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Good day. I was wondering if you could take a look at the above article and peer review. Xeno directed me to you, seeing that you are a frequent VG FA writer. Thanks a bunch! BlazerKnight (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Woah, that was more comprehensive than I'd expected. Thank you! Perhaps you could watch the article and peer review while I try to address the issues raised, so you can provide feedback, but I don't want to be too much trouble. Thanks again! BlazerKnight (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ping for your feedback, thanks in advance. Still have to expand the reception section though. BlazerKnight (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Spiritualism in Star Trek II
Is there a source that addresses the biblical symbolism of the Genesis Device of this film in depth? Constructing an article that references this one and I'm not well-versed on Trek lit. --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
David, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sly & the Family Stone/archive2 is getting close; would you be able to do an image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Second Opinion
Hey David, can I get a second opinion on Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance's GAR? I question if the article is still worthy for the GA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I fixed all the issues he raised; altered or deleted all the missing links, added some pointless images. H1nkles said he was about to finish up. I don't understand what else was needed. Serendipodous 22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
- Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins
- Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award
- Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing
- In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more
- Sister projects: Wiktionary interview
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.
There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Word up
User:Word11, User:Word6, Special:Contributions/96.25.235.199, User:Word61, User:Word38, User:Dingbat2007. Not sure if its anything worth reporting but while those accounts are blocked, the IP remains. « ₣M₣ » 18:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
- Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts
- Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24
- Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues
- News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more
- In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Re: Re: Edward Drinker Cope (does he live up to his middle name?)
Dave, I believe you have resolved most of the points I raised in the peer review. I believe the following needs clarification or action:
"... today one of the most recognizable dinosaur recreations of this time period."- Is "this time period" referring to "today"?
Cope: Master Naturalist: Life and Letters of Edward Drinker Cope- Requires origyear to be filled unless Osborn's work was not published until 1978. You might want to check the other publications for their original year of publication as well (if needed).
- File:Edward Drinker Cope’s study in 1897.jpg
- Unfortunately, US works do not qualify for the conditions of {{PD-old}}, since US laws focus on date of first publishing. If this photo was never published before 2003, then commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished is what you are looking for.
File:The Snake-necked Elasmosaurus.jpg- Knight's illustration is certainly "free" but I think Cope's mistaken concept would be the "needed" illustration here (Knight's can still be included to show the difference). Cope's published illustration of his concept (The American Naturalist Vol. III, Pl 2, 1870) is available at http://www.hmnh.org/library/cope/cope1870.html; it is most interesting to see his initial version of Elasmosaurus to say the least.
Good luck on bringing this guy to FAC. Jappalang (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Dave, previously in the peer review, I brought up the point of the sudden Marsh-Cope rivalry in "Family and early career". I apologise that I have overlooked if this was resolved in the follow-up. As recompense, I suggest perhaps we can change:
- "Cope had visited Haddonfield many times in the 1860s, paying periodical visits to the marl pits. The fossils he found in these pits became the focus of several papers, including a description in 1868 of Elasmosaurus platyurus, Elanliosaur and Laelaps. Marsh accompanied him on one of these excursions. Cope's proximity to the beds after moving to Haddonfield made more frequent trips possible."
- to
- "Cope had visited Haddonfield many times in the 1860s, paying periodical visits to the marl pits. The fossils he found in these pits became the focus of several papers, including a description in 1868 of Elasmosaurus platyurus, Elanliosaur and Laelaps. Cope and his family later moved to Haddonfield, and his visits to the beds grew more frequent. The Copes lived comfortably in a frame house backed by an apple orchard. Two maids tended the estate, which entertained a number of guests. Cope's only concern was for more money to spend on his scientific work. During one of his visits to the pits, Cope was accompanied by Marsh, whose secret negotiations with the pits owner for fossils ignited the first spark of a rivalry between Marsh and Cope."
- or such. Of course you might want to refine the suggestion or adopt another way to briefly introduce their rivalry. Jappalang (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin question
Hey David, since you are an Administrator, I wanna know, if an admin doesn't edit for months, what happens? The reason I ask is because User:TKD hasn't edited since July of this year. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI
Hello David Fuchs, you provided some helpful comments at the peer review for the article Bale Out. The article is now at WP:FAC, and your input would be appreciated at the FAC subpage for the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Vancouver
|
WikiProject Vancouver | |
| You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status. |
- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdwtalk 06:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks David. I never knew that about the image size for articles. In the past we had always had interactions with people wanting to make them ridiculously big. Is there anything else we can do with the images or do they appear WP:FAR ready for the articles needs? Mkdwtalk 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vancouver_Public_Libary_Atrium.jpg){kind=link}
Riddick comments
Hey. Thought I'd let you know that I've responded to points you raised at Riddick's peer review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Video clips, then
Hey David; sorry to bother you, but I think I've got a pretty strong rationale for using a video clip in the film article I'm currently working on. All that's left for me to do is to figure out the best way of going about it. I guess all I really need to know is which program you used to capture, edit, resize and create the .ogv files for those Trek articles—and of course, if you have any other pointers (such as recommended length and frame rate to comply with minimal use), that would be appreciated too. :-) Thanks, Steve T • C 23:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- 1 That's great; thanks for the detailed solution. I have QT Pro for Windows, so I should be able to follow what you did to the letter. Cheers, Steve T • C 08:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ahoy hoy! While you once implied to me that you don't rate American Beauty, at least that means you've seen it. Given that, I was wondering if you had time to weigh in at Talk:American Beauty (film)#Video, where I've submitted a suggestion for the addition of a fair-use video. No rush; I'll be off to sleep soon anyhow, but as you're the only person so far to have a FU video clip passed through FAC I thought I'd get your opinion. :-) Cheers, Steve T • C 23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
- Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
I've responded to your review, and left a couple of questions for you. Thank you for your interest in the article :) EyeSerenetalk 15:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words
Never actually expected to be on the main page any time soon, so quite pleased. We can always do a collaboration in the future if you want. Final thing, I don't know how the whole main page process works but would like this to be included with the blurb as it is one of the defining features of an arty album. And copyright-free obviously. I'd appreciate the help. Where do I go and who do I ask? RB88 (T) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. RB88 (T) 00:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
Hello! I don't know if this has any relevance or not for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination), which you closed as "no consensus," a close that incidentally I do not disagree with, but it has turned out that the nominator as well as the first delete "voter" (both of whom made multiple comments to others in the discussion) are actually the same person per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bravedog#Conclusions. Again, I just wanted to give you a courtesy heads up since you closed the discussion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
ISS FAC4.
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
- From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost
- Editorial: A digital restoration
- Election report: ArbCom election in full swing
- Interview: Interview with David G. Post
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured
This passed, so your FT(s) need more articles featured by 1 September 2010, or else they will become GTs - rst20xx (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
- You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
- Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.
RfA Thanks
 | Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 51 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals. | |
MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.