Jump to content

User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2011/04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfA fun :)

[edit]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Good man. Orphan Wiki 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Carr

[edit]

Hi. I think I understand why you closed the Emilia Carr AfD the way you did. However, the range and depth of coverage has not been significant enough to establish notability, and that includes the section on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in Wikipedia:Notability (events). There has been no coverage beyond the local media. The incident (which is ongoing, so the coverage is ongoing) has attracted no in depth or case studies as mentioned in WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. My reading of the AfD is that there are 20 deletes to 13 keeps, and that the deletes are correctly citing guidelines while the keeps are using their own notions of notability or are incorrectly citing guidelines, as in the case of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I understand why you would think that mentioning coverage for a number of years would apply to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but a careful reading of the guideline, in particular the final paragraph, will help to clarify that that is not what it is saying: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." The initial coverage has not died down (the argument for her notability is that she is in prison, she is still in prison, it's ongoing). The incident has not been cited as a case study in any sources, let alone multiple. It remains a local story of no interest beyond the local community. Our guidelines advise us fairly clearly against covering local interest only media stories. If the case ever does get taken up by reliable sources beyond the local media, then the article can be revived, but for now it's one that we delete. Let me know what you think. SilkTork *YES! 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that the initial wave of coverage has not died down means that we cannot base our decision on whether sources have actually cited it as a case study, and therefore must speculate. If both sides are based on unsupported speculation, the article would get deleted since there is nothing to indicate that she will continue to be notable. But there are multiple sources emphasizing the fact that she is pregnant, so there is good reason to believe that it will be cited as a case study in multiple sources related to pregnancy and the death penalty. We don't know for sure, hence the "no consensus" close. Think about it this way: Even if comparisons to California did not surface until months later, if 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami were nominated for deletion now, would it be deleted? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I don't quite follow your reasoning. You based your close on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, though that section of WP:EVENT doesn't support keeping the article - the wording is such that it supports removing the article. You now appear to be saying that at some point in the future there may be a case study. If there is such a case study then the article can be revived, but our policy (WP:CRYSTAL) is not to keep speculative articles.
I understand the difficulty of the AfD. I was asked to get involved, and at that point it was snowing with Keeps based on a belief that women on death row are inherently notable. It was only when I began looking into our actual guidelines and policies that I could see that articles on local events which have not attracted attention outside of the local media are specifically excluded from Wikipedia. It appears that people have been misunderstanding or misquoting our guidelines.
Would you want to look again at the AfD and the relevant guidelines, or are you still comfortable with the close to keep the article? SilkTork *YES! 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of articles about recent events that have survived AfD with no case studies simply because they have not had the opportunity and time for those to develop. (Note: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here; its implication is that other stuff exists because no one has bothered to nominate it for deletion, or other stuff doesn't exist because no one has bothered to create it.) In a similar vein, we do not need to already have these case studies for this recent event to be notable. WP:CRYSTAL generally refers to speculation about content, not in-universe speculation. Since this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources and is still ongoing, the best we can do is "no consensus." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a DRV as I feel that a wider discussion might be helpful. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 2. SilkTork *YES! 22:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperblySpiffingPerson block

[edit]

I know I reported them, but I was hoping that we could find some more productive method than just an outright block. I really believe that they are simply just not understanding yet how Wikipedia works. -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose we help them understand our policies, if repeated attempts to talk to them don't work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Is there any way to block edits to articles only, and leave the ability to Talk? -- Avanu (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I unblocked and then implemented an article-namespace only block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They might just be away from Wikipedia, but it appears Superbly has completely stopped editing for now. -- Avanu (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's not much we can do about it, if they refuse to use the talk page and continue warring on the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming accounts with few edits

[edit]

Hi. I was under the impression that accounts with few edits should rather create a new account than renaming, as noted in the username policy. Cenarium (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "few" is ill-defined. IMO this user has more edits than just "a few." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Cenarium (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

Haaaaaaaaaai

[edit]
Hello King of Hearts, Eduemoni has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

kthxbye

SuperblySpiffingPerson

[edit]

User:SuperblySpiffingPerson has an obvious: sock. noclador (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SuperblySpiffingPerson confirmed the above; clearly trying to get round the article editing block. --Errant (chat!) 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit test cleanup bot

[edit]

Hi there. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump regarding a proposed bot that would clean up the "example"-type edit tests discussed in edit filter discussion you commented in. Your input is invited! 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Biggs

[edit]

Can I ask you to reconsider this AfD close? While technically there was no direct response to the one keep !vote, normally if people are saying "the sources are not enough for notability" even after someone brings up new sources, it can normally be assumed that they are also not considered notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only subsequent "delete" !vote was WP:JUSTAPOLICY. If you believed that the sources were inadequate, you should have responded. When there are no sources provided, the burden is on the "keep" side to provide sources, since it is impossible to show that sources do not exist. Likewise, when sources are provided and has given a reasonable argument as to why they are sufficient, the burden is on the "delete" side to refute the sources, since that !voter has already provided his best possible one-sided argument. If there had only been two relists at that point, I would have considered relisting it a third time in contravention of our usual two-relist guideline. But four relists would be rather excessive, especially since nobody bothered to comment after the third relist. Indeed the "keep" side is very tenuous, which is why I am allowing speedy renomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Evil (film)

[edit]

I just de-prodded this one. It sounds like a hopelessly bad film, but technically may be notable. Feel free to submit to AfD, of course. I am not sure if the sources are all that good. But I suppose notability of a work has nothing to do with any judgement of the quality or importance of the work, just whether it has been noted. It has to be that way. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Leaves

[edit]

Thank you for closing the AfD of Wind Leaves. Now that the redirect has been executed, I looked at it again and I realized it might need some additional clean-up. The problem is that there is a more notable public sculpture in Milwaukee by the same name (but a different sculptor); the WP article for the Milwaukee sculpture is called Wind Leaves (Kahn). Someone searching for the notable Milwaukee sculpture and typing "Wind Leaves" is going to be taken to the Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Public Art Collection, and may have some difficulty navigating from there to the article about the Milwaukee sculpture (or even figuring out that there is such an article). So maybe the Wind Leaves redirect ought to be renamed Wind Leaves (Kister) (or maybe Wind Leaves (IUPUI)) and Wind Leaves ought to lead to the Kahn piece instead. What do you think? Can I do that without admin assistance, and should I? Thanks very much,--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05 rollback

[edit]

Pls see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Where would I request rollback/Twinkle rights re-added?. (Just letting you know). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 31

[edit]

Would you add a link to the new CfD? Cunard (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see you've just done that. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale Expansion

[edit]

It is pointed out that Keeani meets the PORNBIO criteria as someone who has been nominated for multiple AVN awards. Hullaballo Wolfawitz says "PORNBIO no longer enjoys clear consensus support," as a way to refute this claim. His point seems valid to me, she was nominated for scenes, but at the time of this AFD there was split consensus on how legitimate PORNBIO was as criteria of notability, and that was the main concern here. Therefore, no consensus. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 14:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

(Untitled)

[edit]
Hello, King of Hearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadway (band) (3rd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warpath (Transformers) Deletion

[edit]

You deleted the article Warpath (Transformers) even though it had mostly keep opinions based on the fact that it lacked many reliable secondary sources. I worked on it in my userspace User:Mathewignash/Warpath (Transformers). It now has many reliable third party sources, backed by some well-cited primary sources. This should be good enough to get it reconsidered, since it had keep support in the first place. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?Mathewignash (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I get so many messages that some shorter ones get missed. I think it would be best to do it by consensus, so go to WP:DRV and ask if recreation should be allowed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠
FYI, the DRV was listed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 21#Warpath (Transformers). Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues of Ultima (2nd nomination) weird closure

[edit]

Hi! It seems like you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues of Ultima (2nd nomination) weirdly. I'd fix it my self but I'm not sure I'm allowed. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's weird about it, so you can go fix it yourself. I'll adjust if there's something I find disagreeable about it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blue "do not edit inside of this" frame thing only goes halfway down. Not sure it really matters though I guess?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the trouble!--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback rights

[edit]

Hello King of Hearts, i would be grateful if you could grant me rollback rights as this would help me to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I have read the various guidelines on vandalism and understand them. I have been on Wikipedia since 2007. Thanks. Crosstemplejay 10:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with your record, but you currently don't have any experience in vandal fighting. Use Twinkle to fight vandalism for a week, and then ask me again then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attila

[edit]

Although I like the band, you forgot to delete the articles for all their albums when you deleted their article. - GunMetal Angel 22:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd request regarding AfD closure for Seventh Day Christians - Norway

[edit]

I have previously requested help with this diff regarding your closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians - Norway which was a redirect to Church_of_God_International_(USA).  I explained to you why I should not be interacting with a certain editor, so I did not find your response constructive.  To say it again, this editor has announced bad-faith intentions.  I previously documented that this user was tracking my contributions and here, for example, he/she has picked a target.  Wikipedia:Don't take the bait notes, "a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition–while carefully remaining superficially civil...this tactic is nearly risk-free...There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained".  This essay recommends a policy of avoidance.  You or someone needs to deal with the AfD closure for Seventh Day Christians - Norway, which also will protect the editors that did the work to move the material.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's the best way to deal with this, so you could post this on ANI. This way the community can decide whether there is consensus to implement your changes and whether there is wrongdoing on the part of the other editor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh, what?--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had a good chance to review all the intricacies of this conflict, so I am suggesting a resolution at ANI. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know, that wasn't a response to your response, which seems logical :)--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Yakupov - Not Notable?

[edit]

I have provided ample evidence in the deletion review that he is notable. Winning the Emms Family Award is notability enough for the purposes of WP:NHOCKEY, he has received coverage under WP:GNG. Some endorsed original deletion before changes had been made to the article. I have responded to the single opposition comment since then with this evidence, he never came back to defend his opinion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz originally endorsed deletion, then later said he saw no reason not to keep the article; thus, his first opinion needs to be discounted in some way. Barring approval of restoration of the current version to namespace, at least relist it at today's DR log. He is notable enough and there have been enough people agreeing with notability that it still needs to be considered. I thought there was enough support to overturn deletion, hence I think you misread it. CycloneGU (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in respect of open disclosure) - Hi KoH. Cyclone asked me (on my user talk) for my opinion on "how do you protest a deletion review", and to help resolve it if possible (as a neutral third party). I'm happy to try and help do that. I have not yet familiarised myself with the background to this 'case', so all I said - for now - was, that the first step would be discussing it with you. So I'll a) await your response here, and b) when I get chance (possibly several days from now), I'll read up the events leading to the DRV (and then be able to give an opinion, if it is still unresolved). Best,  Chzz  ►  03:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your post on my administrator review, I thought you had wanted it salted. I can unsalt it if you wish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear there. I had wanted it salted to prevent recreation if there was a consensus to delete (based on ROY supposedly not making him, per se, notable enough). I disagree with the no consensus call which resulted in the action because more were in favour of keeping the article than deleting; based on the comment of another admin. in the review who had closed other reviews that week (I think, unless he did non-admin closures like my one from the April 14 log), the article should never even have been deleted because he's been getting news coverage. I don't know if The Observer in Sarnia qualifies as an independent source (I think it does), but if so, he's met GNG for some time. Rookie of the Year is a high honour in any of the CHL leagues and deserves notability; heck, any name getting that award is being automatically Wikilinked to the article for that player, so whoever does that is at least making that assumption. If we removed it for Yakupov on the Emms Family Award page and someone else came along, I guarantee you they'll get the name unsalted and write it themselves too. But overall, he meets GNG which is enough IMO even without winning ROY, but because he won ROY he's doubly notable. We also have a change in opinion from a regular contributor whose first comment wasn't struck; my bad for not asking him to strike it before closing. I think we need to revisit the decision made regarding this consensus. If I may summarize the opinions:
Condensed summary
Opinion summary
  • IP user, no opinion (quote: "this gets moved back to mainspace and then can be nominated for deletion if anyone still thinks ROY isn't enough").
  • Hullaballoo endorsed; later, after I'd made edits, he revisited by my request and posted the later comment, which possibly should have struck this as I have.
At this time, I completed edits while the article was still in my userspace, adding ROY. It might be most notable to check the consensus only from this point onwards as the article had been changed, further verifying a possible strike of Hullaballoo's earlier comment. I removed this editing note - possibly a bad call on my part. It's in the review history.
  • postdlf had no opinion as the closer.
  • Canada Hky said recreate; he agreed it was closed properly at the time, but now the article ought to be returned.
At this point, another much shorter version of the article was produced at the original location; I quickly had this A4ed and put mine back due to the recreation attempt, adding the category to mine that had been Twinkled on the new one before deletion.
  • Ravendrop simply said oppose (in other words, endorse and do not recreate), citing his view that OHL, WHL, and QMJHL aren't notable enough.
I replied with clause #4 from WP:NHOCKEY proving it is. He never returned.
  • Jclemens (the other closer I mentioned earlier) said restore to mainspace.
  • Hullaballoo returned to say "I see no reason not to retain the current version of the article" - a restore opinion to me.
  • The IP returned and still didn't really give an opinion, replying I think to Hullaballoo. I'm not 100% sure what happened there.
In summary, three opinions to keep the article and one opinion to not keep it from the time I had made the changes to the article. I see no problem with restoring the article to the mainspace, and if someone still disagrees, they can take it to AfD again. However, given he is now notable, unless Ravendrop comes in to push his opinion that major junior league awards are not of note, it shouldn't go there; if it does, I have what I need to argue for keeping it.
Also, I never claimed wrongdoing in the AR post, I just said that was the action and I would be following up with you and commenting further. I left it open to the possibility that it might remain salted if you were to give valid reasons that I can't refute for doing so, even though I don't think that is a possibility here. Sorry if you took it to mean wrongdoing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After careful reconsideration, I have decided to amend my closure to "allow recreation." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. That was in my view the correct decision based on the discussion. Many thanks. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

79.117.160.0/20

[edit]

Hi. I notice you lifted the rangeblock I placed due to Iaaasi. Was this because of a specific complaint, or on general principle? Iaaasi continues to continue his abusive behavior, creating socks and editing anonymously, and the filter you mentioned in the unblock doesn't seem to be helping. I don't see a lot of collateral damage; what am I missing? --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were two false positives, and no other edits, meaning he simply isn't using that range anymore. There's no point in blocking a range that no longer contains the abusive editor but may contain helpful contributors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask your help in a matter. The banned user Iaaasi is somehow evading the rangeblock placed on his range by Jpgordon. Here is a most recent example where he did so editing from an IP in his range [1] The original discussion was here [2], there you wrote that you will create an IP filter somehow. I didn't understand that part too well, as I'm unfamiliar with how IP filters are supposed to work (I tried to review the filter but it showed no edits even though Iaaasi definitely edited from his range). I imagined this filter will do the same thing as the previous rangeblock did, but I may have misunderstood how these things work on a technical level. Can you provide some clarification on how the original rangeblock set up by Jpgordon should be working, or how can I understand the inner workings of the filter, etc. Thanks in advance. Hobartimus (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated it. I'll email you a clarification. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

Release of Asian Games logo in Public Domain

[edit]

Hello King of Hearts, I want to know whether it is possible that the Asian Games logo (which actually is a symbol of OCA not a logo) could be in public domain. It was first published before 1950. I don't know much about the lifespan of copyright terms, so please enlighten me on this. I need a symbolic image for Asian Games portal, which is right now under-construction, thanks --Bill william comptonTalk 15:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What country was it first published in? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As much I know it was first depicted on the flag of 1951 Asian Games held in Delhi, India (flag is still with Olympic Council of Asia (OCA)) and each time it is handover to host nation of the Games). Symbol was also used on the official emblem of 1951 Games and according to my knowledge in India license terms exist for 60 years only. Please click here to see the emblem of 1951 Games, which had been held from March 4 to March 11, 1951, so it has been more than 60 years. Is this information sufficient? --Bill william comptonTalk 05:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That means the copyright expires in 2011. However, it must have been out of copyright in 1996 to qualify for {{PD-US-1996}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, can we consider it as in public domain (by only applying copyright terms of India)? If yes, then can we treat it like as Olympics' rings? --Bill william comptonTalk 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, at least not how I interpret it, because the copyright expired after 1996. I'm not a copyright expert, so you might want to ask people at WP:PUF what they think. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail for you

[edit]
Hello, King of Hearts/Archive/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

MacMedtalkstalk 04:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

Request

[edit]

Since you are an uninvolved admin., can you please make an assessment of this DRV for Last-minute rescue and perhaps give it an early close? I think the evidence brought up by postdif warrants an immediate early close and temporary blocking of the user who committed the copyvios while experts here check his other contributions, as I noted in the DRV. What is your opinion? (If it's closed when you get to it, thanks anyway, you were just the first person I asked.) CycloneGU (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add that this user has also been insulting of other users, though not by name, on other users' talk pages; here is one diff. as such. I'm thinking a block might be a possible punishment here, but maybe I'm jumping the gun. CycloneGU (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be still contentious, so an early close would not be very appropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it seems contentious only to the person who is guilty of the copyvio and is now adamently defending it. The page under review should in all rights be speedy deleted. Someone tagged it as such (despite the wrong userspace). Looks like the tag was removed by agreement, I'll wait and see. CycloneGU (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:King_of_Hearts/Archive/2011/04&oldid=1145233218"