User talk:Bearian/ArchivesOctNov2010

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

List of fictional birds

Hi, I've gone through all the cleanup I'd planned at "List of fictional birds" and I think it's time to re-open merger discussions. I'd love to have some input on the ideas proposed. I've summed up the arguments here. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

We've been waiting for your input at the list of fictional birds, but if it's all right with you then I think we'll just proceed with the planned changes anyway. Is that OK with you? -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

advice

Hi - I am not a newcomer to wikipedia really, but I have recently been encountering some what I consider to be hostile behavior. You seem like a level-headed, experienced user, so I would appreciate your insight - and if you're too busy, I apologize.

  1. At Talk:Menage a Twang, I got into a long discussion (argument?) with a user about interpretation of speedy deletion policy. When this discussion ended with the article not being speedy deleted, the user then nominated another article I created for PROD, and another (the one you just commented on, Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar, for AfD. I was surprised at this series of actions - and wondered if something I said might have angered the user.
  2. Now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Smith Will Teach You Guitar, a user has been acting very strangely in my opinion. They are removing references from the article without discussion - which I think is strange to do after I suggested a COI at the AfD - and also refusing to take part in the talk discussion I created there regarding what I think is a misuse of a Popular Culture tag. Then, here [1] they posted what I read as a somewhat hostile and condescending message, which is also vague and not helpful - all it does is basically say that I must not know what I'm doing. They've also stated this in an unhelpful way on the AfD. I do not want to be harassed here, but I also don't think they are justified, and would like your opinion on the matter. You can reply here, I will watch your page. Thanks. Tduk (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
  • An addendum - I should AGF about this one, right? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Matison and not see it as a reaction to what has occurred previously, even after the 'dove'? I want to contribute to wikipedia but I am feeling very hounded at the moment. Tduk (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions in this matter. I am a bit concerned, and maybe you can understand this: I saw a statistic that said that most actual knowledge contributions to wikipedia come from anonymous IP users or infrequent contributors. Most countable contributions are from 'regular' users, but most of these are grammar, categorization, reverting vandalism, etc. This makes sense, since it wouldn't be reasonable to expect that this huge body of knowledge would only come from a few established users. Given this, it seems in wikipedia's best interest to treat new users not as people who need to be 'whacked'[2], or even educated, but guided with a belief that they may never contribute again to wikipedia. It may even make sense for wikipedia to follow a model of the experienced "full-timers" (one of which I can never be due to time constraints) _fixing_ newcomers' edits in complete good faith, rather than reverting them (possibly to never even be noticed by the one-time contributor). This is similar to the concept of a "needy" new pages vs. one that should be 'speedied'. Tduk (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I want to add that the reason I create so many new pages is precisely because I know people are afraid to do so. In the past, I've created new pages and been joyful at having seen people who know more about the topic than me fill out the information I don't have the time to look up myself. (In other words, if something I want to know about doesn't have a page, I try and create it, and I DO try to adhere to the notability requirements! I figure if I can create a stub that does that, then people who really know about it and/or have the time can do the rest). Isn't that the point of wikipedia? I want to contribute in what small way I can, but I do NOT want to be forced to contribute in ways that I don't have the time nor patience to do. Isn't it better to accept what I can contribute in whatever way I can, rather than turn me away because I don't have the time to keep up with wikipedia's ever-changing policies? Tduk (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Eagles247's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"RS"

I take it that "RS" refers to reliable sources. I have looked and looked in wikipedia's policies, and I have not found somewhere that said all sources in REF tags needed to conform strictly to the RS guideline. The RS guideline says "should", not "must"; I believe in interpreting that word literally, as if they meant "must", it would say "must". So, is there somewhere that says all ref's must be 100% confirmed RS's? I am trying to understand the justification for removal of all the blog and newsfeed references that I added to the Dan Smith article. I was under the impression that it should be left up to the reader to determine how much they want to believe from a given source - that is the point of supplying the ref's, isn't it? Tduk (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As interpreted by the consensus at AfD, "should" in this case means "must" for BLPs. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Hmm.. All I see is this: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed.. What did I miss? Tduk (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. I see, and already understood that any even remotely controversial material could be problematic. What confuses me is that a number of sources were removed with the reasoning of "not RS" or such; in almost all cases, only the source was removed but not the actual material[3][4][5][6][7][8] (which seems to result in a worse state?), and in none of the cases that I see was the material in the wiki controversial in any way. As far as how I interpret the wikipedia policy, these sources were not excellent, but were sufficient in this case, and may even prompt someone with better skills to find better sources at a later date. Am I missing something? Tduk (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Follow-up

Hi Bearian, recently you signed up to help with assessment on Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. It's a lot to digest, and totally understandable if it's not what signed up for. However, there are also some exciting perks to this project: 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating, and 5) other interesting benefits you will find with participation.

The first group of articles requesting your assessment has been posted. I was hoping to do a preliminary comparison of the data on 8 October 2010. The second assessment request, which is part of the same comparison, will go out about the same time. To help with organization, if you haven't posted any assessment scores on your assessment page by 8 October 2010, I will delete your assessment request and you will not receive further requests. I hope the unusualness of this assessment research does not discourage your participation; if you are not interested working in the research I hope you will continue to assess articles within the project. If possible let me know on my talk page if you don't wish to be a part of the research, or perhaps if there was some confusion or bad communication; what the public policy team, and I, in particular, can do to make it more positive for volunteers. Remember, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn the best way to research this project, to hopefully integrate the amazing resource that is Wikipedia onto more university campuses and classrooms. Thanks, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrongful Accusation of vandalism

The editing I did to the Page Income tax in the United States was not done in an attempt to jeopardize Wikipedia's integrity, nor was it to give weight to any political ideology. It was done to give a broader definition to the subject matter, thus, I used the terms Fiscal Conservatism and Capitalism instead of the more restrictive and specific term Libertarian, which is a category of the former. I had already stated my reason for doing so, yet these edits were reverted without explanation, so I reverted them back without stating the same reason over.

Please, tell me how this constitutes as vandalism, or please retract your notification. Thank you, Amodio11 (talk) • 05:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd Memorial

Thank you for that, it was very nice of you. Based on the history of that article and of the creator's talk page, it looks like xe made several efforts to create an acceptable article for xis school but just wasn't clear about the relevant Wikipolicies. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gastric antral vascular ectasia

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan
Last: 05/22/2010
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan McCray

AKA (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AKA (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While appreciating your search that allowed you to suggest a "weak" keep, I dug a bit further, finding that nearly all her filmwork was under her maiden name "Susan Sukman". Using that in a Find sources reveals that she received a surprising amount of press back in the early 80s for her work in casting. Adding the new results to your own, you might even wish to up your own "weak". Good job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Electric Power Company

Among other things, you wrote "the consensus is clear for a keep" in your summary of the close. I don't see how you get this:

  • nomination and one delete opinion
  • two unqualified keep opinions, including that of the article's author
  • one weak keep opinion

I don't suggest that there was a consensus to delete, but the idea that there was a clear consensus to delete is just inaccurate. I suggest you revise the close to "no consensus".

Regards, Bongomatic 21:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Bongomatic 08:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:USPP, still interested?

Bearian, you signed up to assess with WP:USPP. If you are interested in public policy or assessment, check out your assessment page, because there is a lot happening on the project. Most of the recruitment for the assessment team was specially targeted, so I know you have a lot to offer to the research goals of this project. I posted the second assessment request and there will now be a weekly update on the project assessment page. If you are no longer interested in working on this project, I promise this is the last message you will get, but I hope you decide to check it out. Wishing you good Wikitivity, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA....again, again

I've been thinking intently on it again.....CTJF83 chat 16:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd support you, but it was less than 9 months ago that you were blocked, and some will hold that against you. Can you wait a few more weeks? Good work at AfD recently. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, yes I can wait a few more weeks...I can hammer out some more possible copyright issues too. CTJF83 chat 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
...and my support me...do you mean nominate me?? :) CTJF83 chat 21:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, after Thanksgiving. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Angle Robocalls

I'm reluctant to remove the material you added to Sharron Angle outright, but I raised some concerns on the talk page. Seems like a bit of a NPOV issue to me. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Law Reviews -- RSs?

A discussion as to whether law reviews are RSs it taking place here. Given the apparent confusion and lack of familiarity of some editors with the review and fact-checking process of a typical law review, I wonder whether at some point it may be helpful to clarify at the guideline?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Blakeman

  • Thanks. I know from experience that you have a sense of humor, something that's not in abundance at Wikipedia. I have to agree with you, this was yet another "vote for me" articles. I'm looking forward to November 3rd. Mandsford 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Warren Redlich

Trim at your own will. My efforts and yours are/were in good faith so I do not object. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

79.30.76.91

Berian - I know you responded to the report at AIV that you've left the IP a warning. This seemed to clearly be the long term vandal that Elockid has documented here which means he's likely received thousands of warnings before, so I've blocked the account outright. I know it's annoying when people jump over your response, so please feel free to unblock without discussion if you feel this is not clear. Kuru (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pete Grannis

Hello! Your submission of Pete Grannis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blakeman again

  • I'm glad to say that my choice for magistrate won one of the five seats in my county's provincial legislature yesterday. If he helps gravel my driveway, reckon he'll be my choice for county prime minister. Mandsford 02:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My regards

Sir, although I disagreed with you till the end, I thought I'll leave this note to mention my regards for your point of view and issues that you brought forward. It did allow me to research more and learn further on the concepts of fringe candidates. Thanks, sincere. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking your input on my article draft

'Evening, Bearian. I recently put together a draft of an article in my userspace here, and realized that you had participated in a prior AfD discussion about an article on the same subject. Although I can't see what that earlier version looked like, it appears (judging from the AfD discussion) that it was not anywhere close to resembling encyclopedic content.

Anyways, I've taken care to put together a draft with specific attention to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and it reflects all aspects of the subject (including litigation) in a neutral tone. I asked User:Cirt for his thoughts (User_talk:Cirt#Looking_for_your_input_on_this_article); and he recommended that I seek your input (as one of the AfD participants) prior to moving this draft to mainspace. Might you be able to take a look at my proposed draft and let me know your thoughts? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a reply :)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Contribution Team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ctrl+Alt+Del

Is Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) supposed to be moved there? If so, can you do it please? The article is move-protected. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Query

Can you please take a look at actions by Griswaldo (talk · contribs) here [9]. I commented at the talk page, here, Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#Sourced_material_removed_by_User_Griswaldo. Thoughts? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am afraid more of a response may be needed. The claims of "coatrack" have been responded to and negated by multiple different respondents who gave positive comments about the quality of the article, at the AFD discussion. And yet Griswaldo (talk · contribs) persists. Not sure what to do with regards to that behavior pattern of removing tons of sourced info from the page. -- Cirt (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Cirt, I've started a good faith discussion of the issues on the the talk page. I removed one part right away because it very clearly has nothing to do with the lawsuit. I also respect WP:BRD which means that now that you reverted me I'm very happy to discuss. Will you please join the detailed discussion I posted on the talk page, and linked to from the AfD, exactly because I wish others to engage it. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bearian, Griswaldo (talk · contribs) removed large chunks of the entire article unilaterally, despite multiple comments at the AFD that this is not "coatrack" or pov. -- Cirt (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF

Bearian I can't make heads or tails of your comment on the talk page, because I did not remove any material that provides background to the lawsuit. I only removed material about a 2009 Boing Boing publication of a 2009 leak of the old episode by Wikileaks. How on earth does that provide background to a 1992 lawsuit? Did you actually look at my edits or did you just assume something from what Cirt wrote about them? I would appreciate an assumption of good faith and an actual review of my edits if you are going to comment on them. Now, you might think the 2009 material belongs, and if you do fine, but please address it and not something I didn't remove. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The response of Werner Erhard's lawyers to that issue, makes it directly relevant. If Werner Erhard's lawyers had not responded to it, it would not have been as relevant to prior litigation about that exact same broadcast. But Werner Erhard's lawyers did indeed respond to it. They made it relevant. -- Cirt (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Current litigation is not related to past litigation just because it is litigation. The current litigation is not related to the lawsuit, it's just current litigation related to the same 60 minutes episode, but the entry is not about Werner and the episode, it is about the lawsuit specifically. If you rename it then maybe the content would be related, but presently it is not.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is contradictory. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't. If one person steals my copyrighted material in 1995 and I sue them, and then someone else steals the same material in 2005 and I sue them, the second lawsuit is not related to the first lawsuit. They both relate to the copyrighted material, and they are both lawsuits but they are not related to each other. If the entry had a broader scope, like "Litigation in relation to the 60 Minutes episode" then yes both legal matters may belong, but as long as the entry is about the initial lawsuit only the second has no relation to the entry. If you continue not to see the difference I can't do much more to make you understand. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Sourced material should not be removed from articles at XfD, period, until the discussion is over, that is, a consensus has been found. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Believer" magazine as RS source for legal issues?

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Believer. -- Cirt (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The small barnstar, for gnomish work

The Original Barnstar, for good deed #1 The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is for finding good sources for Arkansas_state_elections,_2006, with just a few clicks of the mouse. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)</

Wow, thank you! Bearian (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

2nd

The Original Barnstar
Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! Also a special thank you for getting me out of my slump, and making my break last only four days by showing you do appreciate me/care! Thanks! CTJF83 chat 03:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Please reconsider

[10]

I think you should reconsider your "strong delete" -- not only have more sources been provided, but the ones that were there were more than sufficient for a topic of this nature. Nail polish is a big deal in some circles.

-Best, futurebird (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC) PS. I'm from the Bronx too! Best place to live in the world, if you ask me! :)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Bearian. You have new messages at Invitrovanitas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MfD nomination of User:Adam Ginsberg

User:Adam Ginsberg, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adam Ginsberg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Adam Ginsberg during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kühntopf

Hi Bearin, I'am asking you concerning the deletion discussion of the article of Michael Kühntopf. Due to the fact that there appeared new facts and that there seems to be a new situation, what would you think about reconsidering your ruinous statement? thank you. 188.155.100.207 (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Next drive

As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising 0 articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators, WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bearian/ArchivesOctNov2010"