User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 41

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Edits of Har Gilo article

Why do you feel it necessary to discuss the "international legality" of Har Gilo, and term it an Israeli "settlement"? It is a town, where people live out their lives, built in an area conquered by Israel in the 1967 war in which Israel's Arab neighbors attempted to destroy the fledgling country. How is linking to another Wikipedia article about "International law and Israeli settlements", containing citations by some guy named Robert Adams who apparently speaks for the "international community" considered a good citation? I believe your political leanings should be left out of an article about an Israeli town; compare it to the article on Bayonne in France. The Basque claim it for their own, yet this is not randomly mentioned in the sovereign French town's article.

62.219.125.7 (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of political leanings, it's more a matter of policy; there was an edit war going on, which is disruptive. If your edit is undone, you should start discussing on the article's talk page, not keep on blindly reverting. That's why the page is now protected. If you want to propose a change, please use the article talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so I checked out the talk page, and there is one guy (Babelfisch) claiming he is right in keeping all of the misleading, non-relevant information because it is "NPOV" and asserting it is relevant but giving no explanation as to why. One other user supports Babelfisch, while three other users disagree with him/her. Despite this, the article remains with this biased, non-relevant information. So even though we are all aware the Arabs' supporters are much larger in number than Israel's, why in this microcosmic case of this article, based on the talk page that you led me to believe should be the deciding forum and where the majority opinion is to remove this clearly not NPOV, non-relevant information, is there no change allowed?

62.219.125.7 (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were made in 2006, the article has been edited quite a lot in the meantime... You should start a new discussion. Here on Wikipedia, we decide by WP:CONSENSUS, which means by discussion. When this is not possible, we use WP:DR, Wikipedia's various methods of dispute resolution. Discussion on an article's talk page, if it fails there are other venues. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arthur Rubin

Hi. Arthur Rubin has requested unblock, promising to wait for consensus on the article Talk page, and I'm sure he's genuine - are you OK if I unblock him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe him too, so yep, definitely. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - unblocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks for re-assessing my application. I'll use this feature with care. Cheers ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Proposals by Buster7

Can you hat the conversation behind Evidence#Proposals by Buster7. One pertains to a mistake I made about abbreviating Editor Malleus' name. The other, started by Collect, is more an attempt to rehash some ancient history that has absolutely no bearing on the case and does not forward the conversation. I feel that those two tetetes' preclude active response to a forwarding proposal. Thanks either way.Buster Seven Talk 02:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just collapsed your conversation with Collect, as it was entirely off topic; I have left the other one, because I believe it is relevant and because it also explains your usage of "editor" to refer to another user. Regards. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was the Collect talk that needed to go. Buster Seven Talk 13:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my honor

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For excellence in dealing with obnoxious IPs, humanely but firmly. --Djathinkimacowboy ^{chase me thru the cemetery} 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For not collapsing or losing cool in the face of vandalism. --Djathinkimacowboy ^{chase me thru the cemetery} 10:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Djathinkimacowboy, you're too kind!

I've already added these barnstars to my collection! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a (necessary) pleasure and about time, too.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{chase me thru the cemetery} 13:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my reasoning

I'm concerned that leaving this edit [1] unrebutted (under the "silence is consent" theory) -- which contains vague generalized, unsubstantiated accusations, might trigger an escalating response from editors purplebackpack has been in recent conflict with. Concurring with 28bytes opinion that ANI is not the forum for the discussion and not wanting to edit across, or revert, their closing tag, I was hoping that a "fast" archive would avoid such escalation.

No offense taken for the archive rollback /vandal edit summary. Nobody Ent 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, TParis plans to reopen the discussion. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for disappearing, she who must be obeyed called... I understand your point, NE, but I dislike the idea of archiving threads so fast; it smacks of an attempt to sweep things under the rug, in my opinion. After all, ANI threads are archived quite quickly as it is. Personally, when I want to avoid escalation I hat the thread; it usually works...

28bytes, thanks for your note! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diff count on that minor arb com case

How does the diff count work?

Taking just the top two persons we have

Mkativerata: diff count: 10.

Counting manually I see a few more diffs then that.

Then we have

My76Strat: diff count: 1.

But I see 13 of them.

So I thought ok, let's look up the definition of a "diff" - [2] "A diff shows the difference between two versions of a page. A particular version of a page is called a "revision"; each revision has a unique date and time of creation which can be seen in the page history."

But even with that definition My76Strat still has 13 rather than 1. So this "diff count" is clearly wacky.

Anyway, I'm asking because I was just wondering about the total number of "diffs" provided in this case.VolunteerMarek 01:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, diffs, links and words are counted by HersfoldArbClerkBot, so I believe you should ask Hersfold... I haven't checked whether the bot is malfunctioning, because I don't really wish to manually count words or diffs, so, purely out of laziness, I take bot at its word.

Furthermore, you'll note that I've just removed your evidence. Aside from the fact that it was of a more commentary on other people's evidence and so belonged on the talk page, its tone was inappropriate. If you wish to repost it on the talk page, feel free, but please try to remain serious and constructive (mentioning refrigerators, kicks in the nuts and masochism is not helpful). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 02:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that in starting the section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence#Not_evidence_but_opinion, I was not referring specifically to Volunteer Marek's evidence, but raising a general concern about ongoing misuse of the evidence page. I accept that there is a gray area here, but there are several other recent posts which do not really contain any evidence. Geometry guy 02:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed Marek's section I was actually unaware of your posts – I usually read the case's talk pages after reading the main pages –, which I have read only afterwards. What sections were you referring to in particular? Most of them appear to me to contain evidence, though it is mixed with opinion and comments... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 03:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's good: I trust your judgment, and am confident you will only do as you think best. To answer your question, I see very little in the way of evidence in the contributions by ClemRutter, Montanabw and WereSpielChequers, although I find many of the comments they make very insightful. Several editors have noted in a positive way the contribution by WSC, but it is almost entirely a proposed outcome rather than evidence. There are a couple of other posts which contain a section or segment with evidence, but outside that segment are largely discussions of the issues. Maybe Arbcom is willing to tolerate that. Geometry guy 03:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence section was as much "evidence" as anyone else's. Nor were my responses to Geometry guy on the evidence talk page an endorsement or a dis-endorsement of his evidence statement. You seem to be confused. Please do not remove my evidence again. I have as much right as anyone else to present it and it was very much within the text limits allowed, both in terms of diffs and its length. Thank you.VolunteerMarek 03:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "not evidence" about it? Despite the fact that it has some innocous jokes in it, I've actually spend some time thinking it out and as far as I can see it is far more cogent than most of the shit on that page. Give a valid reason for removing it or stop it.VolunteerMarek 03:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I self reverted the last one but frankly this is beyond ridiculous.VolunteerMarek 03:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, that was an (interesting) commentary on other people's evidence/opinions; first of all, it belonged on the evidence talk page. Second, what you call innocuous jokes was inappropriate humour: this case is not really the right place to make funnies. While the underlying principle was correct (keep away from people who annoy you), the way you phrased it, it was bordering on trolling. I'm sorry I had to ban you from participating to the case (by the way, I've asked for review myself, but if you want to do it too, feel free), and I wish we could have had a more peaceful conversation, but you kept reverting my edits, despite my asking you to stop and discuss the issue with me. Now I'm going to bed (it's pretty late where I live), so I'll not be able to reply for a bit, I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 03:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fedora needs YOUR help....

Sal, hope all is well. Would you please weigh in on this[3]?~If we don't do something this is going to become a much larger problem.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 12:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You advised me about your limited time, I know, but would you please reconsider looking in on it at least? I've begun a dispute res over the list of people who wore fedoras. It's only me and one other editor. I say no list is needed, other ed. wants it left in....

No rest for the truly cool, that's what they say.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{what now?!} 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik defacing RfC

Hi slakr, Salvio, & Ed,

User:Ruslik0 is now defacing the RfC, and even edit warring over it. Could you speak with him? There's something very wrong here.

1. As the RfC page recommends, I set aside a section for "Threaded discussions". I also created sections for references and quotations. I specifically asked that comments be kept to the discussion section, because we need to keep the refs and quotes spare and accessible so we can refer to them easily, and I knew there would be someone like Ruslik who would not be able to allow a ref or quote pass without pasting his POV all over it. (Actually, I figured it would be him, because he has in the past said that quotes are "lies", even when they are accepted as legit by everyone else, and linked to their sources online, as these are.) And voilà, he pastes his comments all over the quotes. (He is, of course, welcome to add any bits I overlooked, or to correct any errors I made, or to add completely new sources that support his POV: that's what these sections are for.) And he posts comments like "You are again lying here" where I literally clipped and pasted the lines out of the ref. Does he not understand what a quotation is?

2. There is a discussion section dedicated to the tables and 4 bodies Brown says are DPs but the IAU does not. It's called "The tables"—a neutral title, where people can say whatever they like. Ruslik added a new section, called it "Remove Orcus, Sedna, Quaoar and 2007OR10", and put it at the very top, presumably because he thinks it's the most important. It says the same thing he already said in the tables section, and so is completely redundant except for pushing his POV into the structure of the RfC.

And, of course, when I clean up his mess, he edit wars over it.[4][5] (I didn't do his work for him and separate out and save his legit edits. He can do that himself.) If we cannot have a serious RfC, we'll need to go to mediation. But maybe I'm unduly pessimistic and he really doesn't understand how this works, or is one of those people who comments on references without actually reading them, and might respond to instruction from you? — kwami (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kohana (web framework) recreated as Kohana Framework

Greetings! I see you closed the most recent (3rd) AfD for Kohana (web framework). This is a courtesy note to let you know it's apparently been recreated as Kohana Framework. I'm about to delete the article under CSD G4; if anything, the article is in worse shape than the article that went through AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop! Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion closed again

Beyond My Ken closed the ARS discussion on AN/I claiming no admin action was request, even though there were in fact several kinds of admin action requested.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North London County

I do not see why our page had to be deleted, it is a perfectly informative page about a local 7-a-side football team. I believe that it's notability is sufficient because enough people edit and update it. Please re-evaluate your decision to delete it as it is a very important source of information to many people.

P.S. It was userfied, so it was under User:Sam4731/North London County . If possible could we also have it reinstated as a main article.

I'm sorry, but I can't do either. I can't restore the page because it was deleted after a community discussion; as the closing administrator, my duty is to merely assess the consensus and enact it. If you believe my closure was made in error, you can appeal to deletion review, but, considering the page quite clearly violated WP:FAKEARTICLE/WP:NOTWEBHOST, I don't think you'll have much success. And I can't reinstate it a main article because your football team is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Enforcement Arbitration case, Evidence and Workshopping period closed

Dear Clerk, per Risker's extension of time on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement there's a reasonable expectation now that the Evidence and Workshop pages will cease being edited. One of the parties to the case has [expressed concern] about these pages still being edited. thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the evidence and workshop pages are kept open until the start of the proposed decision phase, which has not begun yet. And I think that it's not within my province as a clerk to unilaterally close them. I have shot ArbCom an email, though, relaying your message and indicating that, in my opinion, the best thing to do now would be to just close both the evidence page and the workshop. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that. I had the edit window open for a long time (I was at work and working on my response off and on in between meetings), so didn't see your "closed" message. No worries, I'm confident that folks can read the history diff if needed. --El on ka 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the corresponding talk pages also considered to be closed as well? ... or just the project pages? thank you — Ched : ? 02:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the talk pages closed as well. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and apologies for my response there. FWIW, I actually did wait several hours before responding. — Ched : ? 11:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry about it's no biggie. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

Seeking closure

Hi Salvio,

Showing respect: You saw that I just repositioned a short note, to which nobody had responded, rather than changing anything substantial, I trust....

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone your edit, I did not intend to undo it too. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellazione Beachgolf

In data 1 dicembre 2011 hai deciso di cancellare la voce da me creata "Beachgolf" Dopo una lunga diatriba con altri responsabili di Wikipedia, considerando che era stato bannato anche il mio username, torno a farmi vivo per chiedere un aiuto concreto, per risolvere questa situazione. Voglio riproporre la voce Beachgolf, questa volta senza dover incorrere in sanzioni o altro. Ti chiedo cortesemente di potermi aiutare, suggerendomi un modo idoneo a svolgere il mio operato senza andare contro le regole di Wikipedia, che credevo essere una enciclopedia libera e utile alla conoscenza di tutti, invece ho notato essere piena di blocchi e contraddizioni. Cordialmente--Lucapremier88 (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(in Italian) Be', posto che non sono del tutto certo che il Beachgolf sia uno sport degno di nota, parlando in gergo di Wikipedia, perché non so fino a che punto sia stato oggetto di sostanziale attenzione presso fonti attendibili e terze, il mio consiglio sarebbe quello di creare una bozza di articolo in una sottopagina del tuo spazio personale – per esempio, User:Lucapremier88/Beachgolf –, in cui indichi con precisione la notabilità dello sport e, poi, quando hai finito, chiedi consiglio qui, per vedere cosa ne pensano altri utenti, i quali ti possono dare consiglî e aiuti,

(in English) Well, I'm not really sure Beachgolf meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, in that I don't know how much substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources the sport has received; however, my advice would be to create a draft in a subpage in your userspace – such as User:Lucapremier88/Beachgolf –, making sure you emphasise the sport's notability and, when you're through, ask for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK, where other editors can counsel you on what should be improved or tell you that your draft is ready for prime time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ti ringrazio, procederò come da te indicato. --Lucapremier88 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

l'articolo è pronto al link che mi è stato indicato. Come posso sottoporlo direttamente agli altri utenti, per una votazione di consenso o dissenso? Posso sapere direttamente da te se la nuova forma, completa di fonti e citazioni, può essere pubblicata? Grazie--Lucapremier88 (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(in Italian) T'avrei detto di provare a chiedere qui, ché questo è il migliore dove sentire l'opinione di un paio di membri della comunità prima di pubblicare un articolo, ma tutte le fonti sono in Italiano; quindi, dubito che sarebbe molto profittevole. Il mio consiglio, pertanto, è quello di spostare l'articolo in mainspace e vedere se qualcuno lo nomina per la cancellazione. A mio avviso non rientra in nessuna delle categorie per la cancellazione immediata; di talché, ove pure fosse spedito in AFD, la discussione durerebbe una settimana. Ciò detto, a mio avviso, lo sport potrebbe essere enciclopedico e meritare l'inclusione.

(in English) Usually, I'd suggest you ask for feedback here, for this is the best place to gather the opinions of a couple of experienced users before publishing an article, but all sources are in Italian, so I doubt this would be very profitable. My advice would therefore be to just move the article to mainspace and see if it gets nominated for deletion. In my opinion, the page does not qualify for speedy deletion; so, even if someone were to send it to AFD, the deletion discussion would last a week. That said, in my opinion, the sport appears to be notable and qualify for inclusion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

L'articolo è stato riscritto ed approvato, mi si chiede solo di inserire alcune fonti necessarie, che ho recuperato, ma sono degli articoli di quotidiani e riviste e documenti ufficiali del Coni, scansionati, e personalmente ho delle difficoltà nell'inserimento. Potresti cortesemente indicarmi quale template, o altra forma disponibile, devo usare per caricare una fonte che non sia un link di internet? Grazie --Lucapremier88 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(in Italian) Per articoli di quotidiani e riviste ti direi di adoperare questo template:

{{Citation
| last = Smith
| first = Joseph III
| author-link = Joseph Smith III
| title = Last Testimony of Sister Emma
| newspaper = The Saints' Herald
| publication-place = Plano, IL
| volume = 26
| issue = 19
| date = October 1, 1879
| year = 1879
| month = October
| page = 289
| url = http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm#100179}}

Per i documenti ufficiali del CONI ammetto che, di primo acchito, non saprei bene che cosa suggerirti. Prova a dare un'occhiata alla documentazione di questo template, per vedere quale ti sembra più appropriato...

(in English) To cite newpaper articles, you can use the following template:

{{Citation
| last = Smith
| first = Joseph III
| author-link = Joseph Smith III
| title = Last Testimony of Sister Emma
| newspaper = The Saints' Herald
| publication-place = Plano, IL
| volume = 26
| issue = 19
| date = October 1, 1879
| year = 1879
| month = October
| page = 289
| url = http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm#100179}}

Regarding CONI's official documents, however, I admit that, off the top of my head, I would not know what template you could use. My advice would be to take a look the documentation of this template, to see which one looks appropriate... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quindi dovrei crearmi un file in linea, con gli articoli scannerizzati, e copiare l'url in quel template? credevo ci fosse un modo per caricare direttamente un file .jpg o pdf

spero di essere stato chiaro.--Lucapremier88 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(in Italian) Ah, ok, non avevo capito quello... In realtà, non è necessario che tu uploadi una copia degli articoli su Wikipedia – che, peraltro, sarebbe probabilmente pure una violazione del diritto d'autore –; è sufficiente che tu possa indicare una fonte per ciò che asserisci. Meglio è se questa fonte è reperibile in rete, certo, ma questo non è strettamente necessario.

(in English) Ah, ok, I hadn't understood what you were asking... Well, it's not really necessary to upload a copy of those articles – which, by the way, would probably also be a copyright violation –; you just have to be able to cite a source. Of course, it's better if this source is online, but this is not strictly necessary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

la cosa mi preoccupa, perchè non vorrei più incorrere in cancellazioni o altro, quindi visto che le fonti le ho, ma è materiale d'archivio, non sarei nemmeno in grado di dire il giorno di pubblicazione, o l'autore dell'articolo. La funzione upload d'immagini, a cui affiancare una nota, esiste?--Lucapremier88 (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(in Italian) Qui mi prendi alla sprovvista e non so come risponderti... Ti suggerisco di chiedere qui. Mi dispiace non poterti essere d'aiuto.

Hm, you catch me off guard, here, and I do not know how to answer... Try asking here. I'm sorry I can't be of more help... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problem possibly needing immediate admin action

Hi Salvio. I've done all the right things with Charles A. Hurley. But when it comes to WP:BLPs I believe a wearing both belt and braces approach should be applied. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, since the article is about Charles A. Hurley and not about Chuck Hurley and taking for granted that they are two different individuals – I haven't checked –, the best approach would be to remove all bits of info referring to Chuck, namely that he is supporting Santorum's candidacy, leaving a note on the article's talk page. Going a bit further, I think I'd also send the article to AfD as I don't think this person is really notable, but, again, I haven't checked, so I can't be sure... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there may be another Charley Hurley that people are getting confused about 78.150.207.234 (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How not to close a page

I am not sure if you read WP:AC/CN. (I think I have posted something there before and was told that most clerks don't, though I can't find my earlier post in the archives now.) So please see WP:AC/CN#How not to close a page. Hans Adler 12:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop

Salvio, please take a look back there. My impression (but I definitely could be wrong) is that talk pages stay open after the evidence and workshop pages themselves are closed. In any case, I object very strongly to letting another editor say what I consider to be insulting things about me after the "closure" but then not letting me rebut those things. Please either let me reply, or strike the comment to which I wanted to reply. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, sorry to bother you. Risker took care of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Citation Style 1. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]