User talk:DePiep/Archive 2

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.

Hello, DePiep. I'm trying to be helpful instead of cynical, and I believe that I didn't do anything cynical, assume the good faith and you'll be alright :). MLK works are not free, they're copyrighted by The King Center. Even those which are not copyrighted to King Center, they do unfortunately have "owners" who restrict its use. We are not allowed to link an illegal video on Youtube or any other sharing websites. After 75 years of MLK death, his works will under public domain, then we'll be able to add or link his works, but we got more than 29 years until that day. :) It would be very helpful if you asked a copyright holder to release a video or an audio under CC-BY-SA or GFDL.--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, in response to your questions, I am now channeling my former life as a librarian. Now that I am in the zone, here goes. The use of referencing format in Wikipedia does not exactly follow standard formats but seems to be an amalgam of many styles. Basically, what I have seen is an effort to provide assistance to Wiki editors who are not familiar with academic referencing through the use of a "house style" guide which has been continually revised (perfectly understandable given that here is no fixed guide in Wickywacky land to begin with). The other means to assist emergent editors and "newbies" is the template system that I personally find completely "buggy" and tend to ignore it in lieu of using "scratch cataloging (or cataloguing, since I am a Canadian with all the adverse traits of leaning on Canadianisms and Canajan spelling variants)". However, I would not necessarily recommend that other Wiki editors attempt this method unless they are prepared to actually understand how a bibliographic notation style actually works. There are a number of style guides in existence and although the Wiki templates are written in the American Psychological Association (APA) style guide, I find that the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide is more complete and is best suited for social works such as history topics in which I tend to dabble. The easiest way to explain how the MLA bibliographic style should look is in following: Author (last name, first). Title (italicized for main entry, in quotations for secondary entry). Place (of publication): Publisher, date (most recent or current date). The example in MLA style would be: de Seversky, Alexander. Victory Through Air Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1942. The APA guide would write the same title as: de Seversky, Alexander (1942). Victory Through Air Power. Simon and Schuster. Due to the egalitarian tenets of WikiWacky World, both, either or any other number of style guides are accepted including the Chicago style guide, ad infinitum... Referencing a quote or verifying the source of a statement for Wiki can then simply provide the entire bibliographic record along with an exact pointer to a page or section within the sources, such as: *de Seversky, Alexander. Victory Through Air Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1942, pp. 212–214. or *de Seversky, Alexander (1942). Victory Through Air Power. Simon and Schuster, 1942, pp. 212–214. Because of the cumbersome nature of using a full bibliographic notation for each cited passage, a "shortcut" devise such as the Harvard Citation is often employed. Then the following appears in the text: Alexander de Seversky predicted that air power would be "employed as a method of diplomacy."1

Citations (or Note, in reality, it is a listing of foot or endnotes that is used)

• 1 de Seversky 1942, pp. 212–214.

Bibliography

or

Notes

• 1 de Seversky (1942), pp. 212–214.

Bibliography

Sorry, I do run on. Please read this note in edit mode to see where the coding occurs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for posting at WP:EAR. You were quite right; the account was only being used for vandalism and has been blocked. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you've marked your request as resolved, but I still don't understand what exactly you were requesting in the first place. Were you just requesting that an administrator add that snippet of code to those templates in question? Honestly, as the templates were all unprotected at that time, there were only a few, and you made it clear you knew exactly what needed to be done, was there any point to asking at WP:EAR? I don't mean to be rude- I'm just kind of confused as to what you wanted in the first place. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

First: I surely did not receive it as being rude. No problem there. I'll reread my own reply, to learn & prevent any suggestion so in the future. And if so, I am sorry.

RE: Other templates in that category are protected, like {{Lowercase title}} for 'eBay' etc. Editing such a template is tricky, because of the huge effects. Main point: the code should go in the template-page itself, the /doc page is harmless. So I thought, if I edit such a template it is tricky, being out of my league. Even sandboxing requires serious thinking. That's why I WP:EAR'ed, just to get someone involved who knows about stacked templates and noincludes etc.

Then, on the PP-page the request was declined: counting the uses there appeared no big risk involved. From then I took the edit up myself, closing the request at WP:EAR. At the moment I am sandboxing, nice job to do. If you want to take a look: User:DePiep/Sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

- DePiep (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. I understand. You're right, that adding template documentation to those templates would be helpful. I don't exactly agree with the guys at RFPP regarding the low risk, but I suppose the volunteers there are more experienced with such matters. You were right to go to EAR in that case I guess. Thanks for quickly responding! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I started in {{Bracketed}} copyediting the code. Accidentatly I inserted the PP-image (red padlock) too. Someone had to remove it. ;-) (I think I can do the edits today, I prefer to have some time for the work-in-progress, i.e. please do not edit them today) -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) -

Actually, I believe what you did there may have broken that template. :-)

Check out the second code example on this page for how this is supposed to be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, could have broken al lot. Surprises me that Wikipedia is still up. Actually, I logged out and fled for some time. Thx for the usefull link, now I'll need two more days. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• The bug you fixed in Braketed, I suppose it means I should start from the code as it is now? Can do. -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unwanted threat moved to threater) -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend not doing that again. You are welcome to remove text from your own talkpage, but calling it a "threat" when both common sense and administrators have advised that it was certainly not is disruptive to the Wikipedia project. Do not presume that you are permitted to take that type of action on others talkpages - the editor properly engaged you in a discussion, and you failed to follow WP:AGF. This is a collaborative project,and your actions are certainly not collaborative.

You should also visit WP:WQA as an etiquette complaint has been filed due to your actions.

In addition, this type of edit summary is not welcome on Wikipedia:

• 20:07, 19 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Pro Evolution Soccer 2 ‎ (→Teams: fact. Look bullshit.)

Please let me know if I can answer any questions for you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I wasn't aware of that page. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your comment at my talk page, User:Doncram#On e.g. Valencia, actually my followup on the Valencia page to address the one NRHP entry is very much in compliance with past discussion at the Disambiguation Wikiproject. The big discussion settling it is available in this extended past discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation. The main point with the wikilink to an NRHP list-article, for NRHP items having no article yet, is to comply with MOS:DABRL, by showing a link to another article that puts the place in context. Happy to keep chatting. doncram (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For categories change the entry to add a colon like this: Category:Companies

For templates you can use something that is similar: {{refimprove}}

Just edit this reply to see what I did.

Vegaswikian (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, this I understand & use sometimes. But what when I want to test like Category:DePiepStrangeSandbbaoxCat? How to test and keep it within User-space? (suggest talk stays her). -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please comment again, now at relisted TfD Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 2#template:Church disambig. doncram (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will. Takes some reading time... -DePiep (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking whatever action you took. I honestly can't remember. :-) Tedernst | talk 06:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to U2, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Frozen4322 ^{Talk Stalk} 21:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You put back in some vandalism, whether by accident or on purpose, either way, be more careful, sorry for the trouble... --Frozen4322 ^{Talk Stalk} 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right: I intended to revert a singular vandalism, but there was a sequence in multiple reverts and vandals. We both understand good intentions, and now it's OK. Case closed, to me. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok the warn is striked out, should be easier though, the page is protected now. --Frozen4322 ^{Talk Stalk} 21:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx & OK. No big deal. (Well, I discovered a multi-vandalim on a starred mainpage-article). -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Criticism of The New York Times, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. OK. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added an Archive box to keep your archives more organized, to make the second one, make this page Archive 2 --Frozen4322 ^{Talk Stalk} 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for helping with the Wang Dan article IP-edit flood :) Joren (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your note on my talk page. But I realized it might make sense to comment a bit more. I think GHcool, while agenda-driven, is generally savvy enough to skirt the edge of 3RR and other policy violations. So I have doubts that will succeed in curbing his behavior. I've been thinking very seriously about a user-conduct RfC on GHcool. It's a tough case though: he's not an edit-warrior of the type that borders on vandalism (of whom I've encountered too many). He's just one of those misguided sorts who believes that every article is made better if it expresses the rightness of his zionist views (even if the topic isn't overtly related)... I'm sure he is quite sincere in believing the importance of his political belief, and he has probably convinced himself of its relevance to every article he encounters. LotLE×talk 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, You added a paragraph that relied almost entirely on personal blogs (i.e., not the blogs of institutions or of notable people. Another user (not me) then went through, discovered that the blogs you cite did not support the statements you had written, ad added tags. You the got belligerent and threatened "Do you want an edit war." Please, please, please study up on what is a reliable source and on how pages are properly written and edited. [1]Historicist (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not incivil. Reaction to his behaviour. The cycle he-put-in-10-inlines & me-improving went on three times. The templates were put in without any clear aim of improving the article at all. And take note: not once did the user start a Talk: so then I ask for the editors intentions (and not threatening as you can read). Strange b.t.w. that you too have not noted I added more RS tot the section. So writing today that it "relied almost entirely on personal blogs" is like reading last weeks papers. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did not remember you are the nom for the AFD. Having reread your intro motivation, I think talking to you might be superfluous. -DePiep (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You have requested the article Meaning of Dutch in the English language, but I think this topic should be covered by the disambiguation page Dutch and wikt:Dutch. Therefore I am planning to remove the request from Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Article requests. Rubenescio (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove the request there is OK with me, I won't revisit that. But, the way Dutch is described now on a Disambiguation-page may get some criticism. A dab-page is solely intended for a DAB: with multiple meanings for a single word, it gives links to the different article-pages. The article-like introduction it now has, is disturbing this pure DAB-idea (and WP:DABMOS). This type of page might better be changed into a Set Index Article (WP:SIA), which covers article+dablist as needed here. -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the requested article. I think the article Dutch can be changed to be more conform Wikipedia guidelines, since most of the information seems to be already in it. Rubenescio (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing Dutch into a WP:SIA would be a Great idea (am I pushing?). -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

08:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We are now at 5 reverts a piece over 4 hours. Totally unacceptable from two accounts who should (and do) know better. Please engage in constructive discourse on the talk page and no more reverts. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll find I didn't put in any reports about the edit warring, simply reminded the both of you that it wasn't kosher. I initially believed you to be a newer account (hence the templating, which I changed). The use of 'Kosher' is simply that. It is used in English slang to indicate something isn't right (outside of the Jewish religious connotations). --Narson ~ Talk • 23:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not write "kosher" on this page, only on CHcool's. You started the template here on 3RR before even a 3rd RR (4th not in sight). And none on GHcool's page. You withdrew it here, but the intent was there (If you thought I were new, you could have left it here; the template itself is not threatening). I never met such an eh 'suggestion'. Question: why are yuo running after GHcool's first qwack? -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. I count 5 reverts from you on that page in the last 5 hours all of which occured before my message to you. As for why I changed it from a template when I found out you weren't new, I am a firm believer in not templating the regulars. I no more endorse GHcool's behaviour than I do yours. People yelling WP:CENSOR generally get my goat and there is no good reason for breaching the 3RR on his side either. Why do the terms used in each differ? Because I didn't copy and paste, I wrote each out individually. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And in the same time ... you try to squash me on the talk-page of the artice with a kosher GHcool. When I trust you, I'll give you a message. Promise. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• So far I've seen you repeatedly edit-war, make personal attacks and generally make a nuisance of yourself. I note you've been blocked for similar behaviour before - I'd advise calming down. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Advise read. Strange you did not write on four personal attacs by two users, [here], right above your edit. Could you explain? -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They made comments, yes - comments based on your behaviour there, and comments that I agree with. The difference is that they're not close to being blocked for edit-warring, while you are. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Smearing someone being a bigot is not by behaviour, it is a personal attack. And agreeing with it does not make you a great judge. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi DePiep! Please refrain from removing the {{lang-he-n}} template from words. There's a reason it's there. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: I have also noticed that you made changes to two templates that are very highly-used, without providing a reason for doing so. Please refrain from doing this as well, without gaining consensus first. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was not removed, but replaced by a different one, and wrote the editsummary. And for the two templates: no reason? I did write the editsummary. And in general on these edits: when we write the article-title in alternative languages, we did not bold it (or write into 125%). It is Italicised. Anyway, were they that important to start a talk first on such a minor change, into MOS, I'd expect a doc for the template. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, a few points:

1. Your edit summary was completely unclear and did not provide a reason for changing the template. You must realize that highly-used templates should not be changed (i.e. should not be edited at all) without a good reason, because they are highly-visible and any edit may have a negative impact on the Wikipedia servers, and also changes things across many pages on Wikipedia which might not be appreciated.
2. Your assertion that the text was "bolded" is wrong, in fact it was not. Please look at the template again, there's no bold there.
3. Using a larger font for Hebrew gained consensus at WP:HE simply because Hebrew with nikud cannot be read properly at 100%, so a larger font is needed. Some editors have also done this for Arabic (using the <big> tag), but they have not made a guideline for it.
4. Hebrew does not have italics, and the transliteration from Hebrew is indeed written in italics. I'm not sure you realize the differences between latin/cyrillic scripts and most other ones. Each script has its own necessities to be viewed properly: Hebrew, Arabic, Japanese, etc., and provisions are made for that.

Therefore, please refrain from further changes to the templates without prior discussion. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, I did replace not remove, I wrote "not bold it (or write into 125%)" and I edited the "125%" in the doc what shows I knew, I did write all editsummaries (which you understood or did not read appearently).

Highly used termplate? If so, they could have a proper protection into that. And also, the documentation should be transcluded (especially when you think about server load). The documentation or even the Talk could be more clear (you wrote "there is a reason for it" - great). Plus, the name could be more to the point, instead of using non-english. Were one of these four points in place, I would have known about this high-use, and acted differently.

About the effect of the remplate: the template does not use "bold" (I know), but it does emphasise the text, and 125% has the effect of bolding. And when giving the translation of title into another language, we do not write bold, full stop. See e.g. Moskow. That was what I changed (with motivation and editsummary).

Appearently there is this technical reason, which makes good sense for you reverting. But we are not supposed to be involved in technical matters in Wikipedia (as in "for speed, don't write long pages").

All in all I think you overreacted about a simple edit. And reading my editsummaries (a bit more carefully) would even have helped more.

-DePiep (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on his contributions, it looked like that editor was off his meds. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi DePiep!

I was browsing through your user page and found this one. It appears to be inappropriate per WP:UP#NOT clause #10. It is also of course a violation of the spirit of WP:BATTLE. Please address this. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated this essay in your user space for deletion, here, since I don't think the minor change you made in response to the above notice is sufficient. The page still calls out an editor by name, and still refers to another editor in a negative manner, through the use of a link to an off-wiki attack page. Personally, I don't think your user space is an appropriate place for essays of this type, but if it is to remain, you must thoroughly clean out any reference to other editors. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I missed that second name when cleaning up first time. As you might read, Ynhockey above was not that specific. -DePiep (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that. Your 'see also' section still refers to an editor (which is named in the link) as a "anti-Islamic editor". You should remove that as well. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into that shortly. First reaction: the text "anti-Islamic editor" is in the Camera-email itself, not a judgenment by the ei-site nor by me. Second: I presume for now that being "anti-Islamic" is just a term, not a judgement. Like someone being anti-war, or anti-blue. Not a negative judgement, just a description. -DePiep (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, don't we think it could be usfull to ask that user what happened? His/her name was used, was there any Talk here? -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There was indeed talk regarding that issue, and a sitting arbitrator concurred that removing that nonsense from this website was appropriate. Please don't ever put anything like that on this website again. IronDuke 00:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I read this as a re to my "by the way"-thinking, and meaning that somewhere some Talk was removed. Of course I cannot know what it was. -DePiep (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well technically its not no-man's land anymore. I once had lunch in Canada Park on a bus trip on the way to Hebron. What Israel did by planting the area with trees was attempt to redraw the border with the West Bank, pushing it further back and claiming that land for this national park. "The old will die and the young will forget", it was said. However, memories in the Arab world, where civilizations have been around for thousands of year, are very very long. Tiamut^talk 12:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. And new to me. Appearantly even the green line is being pushed around. The CBC-video (in the references) points to this same strange vagueness. What is Canada up to? -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The WP:DLR for Congo is a total mess. I've been trying to fix undetermined references to The Congo to at least point somewhere other than the DAB which is too general. That's why I felt that Congo (region) was a suitable replacement.--Alastair Rae (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"a total mess" ... I rebuilded it to this, some months ago ;-).

1. I restored the article Congo (region) into the state as you did (rv my own rv). I mistook it to be another DAB-page in this topic (wich would be unwanted), but it is a straightforward article.

2. I propose a merge from Congo (region) into Congo Basin: basically, and for merge-reasons, they are the same. The region-page would then redirect to the Basin-page.

3. The (whole) Congo-page a mess... maybe because it reflects the situation in reality (no pun intended). There are some hundred pages linking into this Congo (dab), because the linking articles are not clear about which country in the region/basin. Reducing these WP:DLR-links requires to research these articles. I was not able to resolve these, but you can take a look. (To be clear: most of these doubtfull which-Congo-country-links are redirected via Congo (country), which is correct, e.g. excluding the Congo river for these links). Please note that Congo was cleaned up conform WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. Doing a DLR-cleanup only (improve the incoming links) does not affect a dab-page! -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Yaakov Teitel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Yaakov Teitel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

While it shouldn't be speedied, some may wish to make a case that he is not notable as yet, at least; he's confessed but not been found guilty as yet, is that not the case? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the Speedy, and inserting the Improvable-template (PS did you find my expanded hangon before AfD?). However, I am puzzled by your second act, i.e. starting an AfD to get an answer to a question! I'd say: move the question to the Talk. I'd seriously prefer you'd kill the AfD, and start the Talk. -DePiep (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Continued at Talk -DePiep (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Forgot I'd left the tag on! Thanks for tidying up after me. AGK 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI Crafty (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi: You've been behaving really bizarrely and out of character tonight, and I've filed a report at [2]. If I have misinterpreted, please feel free to clarify things there. Ray^Talk 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edits on Felicia Langer have been helpful. Thank you for contributing to this page. Mhym (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)