User talk:Valenciano/Archive 5

The Unsung Heroes (band) Hi how can I change the page The Unsung Heroes (band) to save deletion!!! Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiinform2009 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, im sorry for vandalize.... i really wanna change...

Good bye, thanks for your work ;)

--190.158.197.189 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is possible, as in a Pyrrhic victory... I am not going to say which of the articles I started had that tautology, because I would never make a mistake like that... Thanks for catching it. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of King Pyrrhus' misfortunes but arguably that's successfully winning the battle but (later) losing the war, a bit like a football team needing to win 3-0 etc to avoid relegation and winning 1-0. Valenciano (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me - the IDS edit was originally removed by <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rrius> - he flies the 'Liberal Democrate Supporter' flag - you merely rubber stamped his edit using several inappropriate tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.235.51 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're still totally missing the point here. Even if Rrius has photos of himself on his user page in lib dem boxers shorts with tattoos of Nick Clegg visible, he's still correct in removing your post. Wikipedia has a very strict policy on what can be written about living people (see WP:BLP) and you're continually violating that.

When no less than five separate editors remove your posts as inappropriate, then maybe it's time to stop shouting censorship and consider that maybe, just maybe, what you're adding is inappropriate?

You claim our removals violated some kind of policy? Which one? WP:NOTFORUM is clear enough: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article."

WP:TPG says: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

Here's an example of one of your posts: "Personally I think £11m charity would be better spent in the third world, particularly as she's religeous."

You really don't see how that violates that guideline?

Ultimately if you have a problem with editors removing your posts, you can take it up at the Administrators noticeboard. Before you do that though, have a good read of WP:BOOMERANG, i.e. there's a strong chance that you'd find yourself blocked as a result. In the meantime, simply readding the posts back is a waste of your time as they will be removed. Valenciano (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk about this Valenciano? The posts regarding suicides caused by DWP policies and inept Atos assessments was changed to comply with all the wiki policy breaches you cited, and yet you have simply removed it again? The other editors who were asked to remove it are ok with the last posting, why weren't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.231.241 (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Valenciano - the page appears to be heavily biased, one wonders why you personally find a 'controversies' section, or even the suggestion of one, so offensive as to censor it? Several similar edits have come from IP addresses within the Houses of Parliament - from users who's talk pages fly 'conservative' or 'liberal democrat' supporters flags.

I'd really like to write an article for the Mail on Sunday on this issue - and since you personally (along with several people working inside the Commons) feel so strongly that a list of 13 suicides by disabled people (attributed by impartial Inquest juries have attributed to either DWP cuts to benefits, or inept Atos assessments that have led to benefit cuts) should not be put on Wiki, I'd be interested to know a) who you are, and b) why you feel it imperative to repeatedly remove this list of suicides under a series of wholly unsupportable ruses without even attempting a discussion? - it breaches none of the Wiki policies you have cited to date. And certainly, blocking pages carrying this content on the eve of the LibDem conference does seem to indicate you feel you have a censorship role.

For all we know, you could be IDS yourself :)

We went through the last posting of this list of benefit cut and Atos assessment related suicides with a fine tooth comb to ensure it breached none of the Wiki policies you have cited to date, and yet its been removed by you again? Why is this? Along with removing my other edits on totally unrelated pages- would you like to open up a discussion of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.231.241 (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you above why, yet you completely ignore my post and my advice to you, while simultaneously complaining that no discussion is taking place! Your posts are a blatant breach of both the talk page guidelines (particularly the part that says that talk pages are not a forum) and the policies on what we can write about living people. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve there? Do you want us to add to the IDS page that ATOS benefit assessments have resulted in suicides? I'm not sure what exactly that's got to do with IDS. If you believe it does then go ahead and edit the main page itself (not the talk page.) However you need to have very good sources that say exactly that, not chaining sources together and drawing your own conclusion from them as that is specifically prohibited per WP:SYNTH.

Finally I'm concerned with your statement that: "We went through the last posting of this list of benefit cut and Atos assessment related suicides with a fine tooth comb to ensure it breached none of the Wiki policies you have cited to date." Who is the "We" you refer to? It doesn't seem to be the royal we and therefore it looks as if you're editing on behalf of an organisation or group and the fact that you're devoting so much time to this issue suggests you're editing solely in order to push a POV.

Going forward, I'd suggest you register for an account, which takes a few seconds and read the policies I've linked to above. Finally your speculation about my identity, while amusing, is pretty wide of the mark. Valenciano (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciano is absolutely right Wikipedia is not a place for democracy or freedom of speech, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and this is a topic for journalism not an encyclopaedia. The problem with the disabilities issue is that the evidence is being deliberately suppressed by the inertia and secrecy in the system - in five years everyone will know about it but by then hundreds of people really will be dead. There are people I know who I doubt will get through this, but then they are insignificant and so are basically non-people to those making a profit from this. The rumour going round the support groups for the mentally ill is that Atos are getting something like £1,500 for each disabled person they kick off benefits. Lucien86 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've absolutely no doubt that you're right regarding ATOS, they're a business like any other and in it for the profit, not for humanitarianism. The problem is as you say that this is an encyclopedia and we can only report what people have said in reliable sources, not use it as a vehicle for attacking companies or individuals or if you prefer, exposing the truth about them. It's up to journalists, the media and the blogosphere to do that. Valenciano (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to let you know I replaced your WP:CSD A7 tag on Bradley Hagen with a WP:BLPPROD. In my view, the article makes a sufficient assertion of importance to survive criteria A7, based on the labels that have released work he has contributed to, and the the other places such work have appeared. He may still fail the notability guidelines, but I don't think its a good case for Speedy Deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 02:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Good day! This is to inform you that I undid your revision of the Wikipedia article on Magallanes, Cavite in line with keeping the encyclopedic nature of the article since your version promotes the location heavily, which is against Wikipedia's guidelines. Please do not attempt further revisions of the article to its old version. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PechayBaguio (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for your monitoring of the article. The IP editor is deleting cited information. In addition, he is adding new information as a type of revision to factually based history!! Again thank you! JunoBeach (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on Leslie Daigle article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chow559 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

July 1979 Madrid bombings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to San Sebastian

List of ETA attacks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to San Sebastian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually created many of theses articles, and none have been tagged for deletion. Also, please don't do that :) Oakley77 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, all these articles you are trying to delete are needed on Wikipedia. The mayor and the city manager are very important, so the information regarding them also is. Agreed? Oakley77 (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How big of a city does it need to be for the mayor to be notable? Since their is no scale, that's pointless.Oakley77 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These people HAVE received media coverage in their local areas. That right there passes the guidelines. Again, there is no scale or rating system to determine what level of coverage is enough for an article. It just says significant coverage. So if someone receives significant coverage locally, that means they meet the criteria. Now do you see?Oakley77 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Valenciano. I saw your recent copy-edit of UEFA Euro 2020 bids and wondered if you'd be interested in doing something similar for Parma F.C.. In a failed GA review, I was advised this would be a good idea. Absolutely no worries if you don't want to, of course. mgSH 19:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. mgSH 22:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, will have another look over it later. Valenciano (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rufus Youngblood, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Rufus Youngblood used his body to shield Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson during the assassination of John F. Kennedy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rufus Youngblood.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Daigle an article that was nominated for deletion recently in which you presented your opinion is again on the chopping block and this may or may not be an agenda item of concern for yourself.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some additional sources to my TimberTech article, I hope this adds enough verification to legitimize the article. Thanks, Deckinginformer (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Successfully qualified" is not a tautology in the NASCAR context - 'qualifying' is the act of going out and setting a qualifying time, which may or may not be successful in being fast enough to make the show. Hence 'successfully qualify' if it was, 'unsuccessfully qualify' if it was not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, will keep an eye out for that in future, thanks, Valenciano (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article September 1982 Rentería attack, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the killing of four policemen in an ambush in Rentería was the Basque separatist group ETA's deadliest attack of 1982? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/September 1982 Rentería attack. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined to speedy Teared up because it is not an obvious hoax but I have listed it for AfD on the basis of your concerns. --RA (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I've commented in the AFD. Valenciano (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed to be removed from the Teviot Creative page to save it from deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoc87 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you had put a {{db-hoax}} request on the Charlie Hollister page. The author of the page removed the template and I added it back in per Wikipedia rules, but I wasn't sure why you thought the page was a hoax. I think it might have been more appropriate to put a non-sourced BLP deletion request {{subst:prod blp}} on the page. I don't think it met the criteria for speedy deletion in this case, but I did put your template back per the rules.TeaganK (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? To the best of my recollection, I didn't add any db hoax template to that page, which is why it isn't in my csd log. I'm pretty sure I added a BLP prod, since it was an unsourced BLP, another editor presumably overtook me and added a speedy template. Can you check the page history and let me know? Valenciano (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

two were by User:Zainmalik9 and two by User:Turyalazamkhan. I would have blocked them both, but the second editor has other edits, so I've just warned for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A BLPProd cannot be added to Tough's article as a reference, albeit unreliable, was present. A BLPprod requires no references whatsoever. I added a Prod tag as I couldn't find any reliable refs on the person. Bgwhite (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? WP:BLPPROD doesn't say anything about there being no references, it says: "the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." However you've removed it, and without adding a reliable source. The only reference in the article is, as you say, unreliable, therefore as far as I can see the BLPPROD is justified in that case (particularly since a WP:BEFORE which I did turned up nothing else. Valenciano (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about removing the BLPProd. I'm talking that you added it when there was a reference in the article. To quote WP:BLPPROD, "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag."

This is a common misinterpretation. I see it about once a week, but I've seen it three times this week. First editor this week was an admin. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, my mistake. But that being the case, then it seems that the WP:BLPPROD page does need clarified and rewritten as a first reading of the lead does suggest that only reliable sources count. Valenciano (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is not clear. Bgwhite (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited History of chocolate in Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	I'm so sorry that the Twinkle error ended you up with 2 level 3 warnings. Thank you for approaching the situation so nicely! Cheers! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Omar esa 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 band or musician, 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.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<Sigh>I didn't create the article Omar esa I merely redirected it to Omar Esa per WP:MOSTITLE. I had this problem yesterday as well with speedy delete warnings coming up on my page about articles which I hadn't created. Valenciano (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion - I became aware of this article from a discussion on the help desk, and used Twinkle to speedy the original just before you did the redirect; now I seem to have broken both versions of it :( Not sure how to proceed.. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, it's a twinkle error and I've asked on the twinkle talkpage to see what's going on. The Omar Esa page came up blank for me so I added a G6 to it but then the whole page magically reappeared. You might want to do the same then add the speedy template that you want? Valenciano (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions have been deleted now, so all is well with the world. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You see, these tags were meant more as a reminder to myself than anything else. It's me who added the tags, so I guess I can remove them. I do intend to expand the sections later. And actually, I have expanded the critical response section since then. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The style section has been expanded too. I didn't remember, but this was how I placed the tag. Moscowconnection (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind can you petrol my new article Deepthi Nambiar. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 17:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Valenciano. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ramesh, thanks for creating that page and for your contributions! One thing though to remember is that you've used Wikipedia itself as a reference and Wikipedia shouldn't reference itself. See WP:SELFREF. It would be great if you could replace that with reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Valenciano. Thanks for your information. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Standard 00:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you block this IP, plz? he making a lot of Mutilations... МаксФрад (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't as I'm not an admin. I'll have a look in a second and if necessary WP:AIV would be the page. Valenciano (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you could help. Thanks a lot! МаксФрад (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciano this may interest you. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 17:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I see the situation has been dealt with. I'll keep an eye on the discussion on JohnCDs page, but you all seem to have the issue in hand. Valenciano (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valenciano. I've reviewed this article, but I found a number of significant problems which are detailed in the review and so have failed the article for now. Please let me know if there's anything you wanted to discuss further, and best of luck with improving the article. Frickeg (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, would you be willing to have another look at it in a few weeks to a month's time after I've had a chance to work on it further? Valenciano (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than willing. If there's anything else I can do to help, I'd be happy to. (Although this would mean I wouldn't be able to review it again next time.) Frickeg (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old bio is full of inaccuracies, out of date and written like an opinion piece. It is not neutral. I am attempting to strip out all the opinion/inaccuracies and just leave facts. Any opinion about third party ventures etc should maybe have their own pages? Salary information and information about alcoholism etc has clearly been entered simply to cause harm. Also I am attempting to bring it up to date and you keep on reversing valid updates.

Is there a political agenda ? you see to have come under criticism for unfair editing of other conservative politician's pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaThorne (talk • contribs) 09:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what other conservative politicians have I come under criticism for editing? The only other one I can see on my talk page is Ian Duncan Smith and there I removed the insinuation that he had been responsible for the suicides of disabled people, as blatant a WP:BLP violation as you're ever going to get and which numerous other editors removed. This is an example of the type of over the top POV pushing that the editor we were reverting was responsible for, so your claim doesn't stand up and you'd be better placed checking your facts first before posting.

Purely for the record, I'd never heard of Massow until about an hour ago... why would I? I live in Valencia, Spain and Riga, Latvia and he's not someone likely to be in the news here. I spotted the page when patrolling recent changes.

I'm rather confused by your comments about alcoholism. A ctrl+f on this revision that I restored doesn't even bring up the word alcohol or alcoholism, so please don't accuse me of things I didn't do.

Information about Massow's business dealings and his political activism, referenced to reliable sources like The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and BBC News, is precisely the type of info that readers come here to find out. You seem to want to whitewash that in favour of having the article instead as a virtual press release from him, which is unacceptable, especially since you have a massive conflict of interest, being a salaried employee of Massow for over 20 years. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. Other editors have suggested that you use the article talk page to discuss concerns. I'd suggest you do so rather than endlessly reverting as that will only lead to your editing rights being removed. Valenciano (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the alcoholism - it kept coming back yesterday - i mistakenly thought it was you. I am not an employee of Ivan and haven't been for a few years. He's a friend and I know he is finding some of the comment and private details very hurtful. Many of his charitable entires are totally wrong. He never sponsored the Stonewall equality dinner for example (that was his ex-company after he left). Many of the roles he has been attributed are inaccurate - we're trying to clean those up.

Similarly, one years business losses are being used to tarnish his name and long business career which include many successes (non mentioned) but the reality is that even this loss was a planned loss: He raised venture capital a year earlier specifically to invest in new infrastructure and of course that shows as a loss during the early stages. ALSO- His salary wasn't a salary as such - it was tax payment due on incorporation which needed to be paid as part of the VC deal - it waa planned and accounted for - the money never touched Ivan's bank account. But the article suggests he was sunning himself while the business made losses- it is simply not true. The editors also won't let me add his new ventures, his current position in politics and his current charity projects - it is as if someone wants his career to stop in the late 90s+ I haven't been whitewashing - we just gave up trying to edit when it looks as if someone with an axe to grind has spent a lot of time subtly re-writing Ivan history to damage his career. he has been a controversial figure but usually in the name of change and equality. There are bound to be nasty articles in the press but these have been highlighted and the vast majority which are positive (thousands) ignored.

As a balance doesn't seem possible - all I am trying to do is reduce it to hard facts and dates without any positive or negative fluff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaThorne (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's reasonable. I'd suggest we all discuss it at Talk:Ivan_Massow to try and agree a version that it balanced and acceptable to all parties. As you've indicated that you will discuss, I've asked for this to be closed without any action taken against you. I'm taking you at you word on that and I'd ask you to reciprocate by discussing instead of edit warring. Discussion is far more likely to result in the changes that you want, edit warring will only lead to you being blocked as a disruptive user and neither of us want that. Valenciano (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the vandalism on my talk page, much appreciated :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since there have been any edits of issue at Ivan_Massow. The case appears to have settled down and I'd like to think that our corresponding editors now trust wikipedia a bit more with the articles. Very nice working with you and I hope to do so again soon. Cheers :) Fayedizard (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you did a great job there yourself. It's good to see that we've now moved to a version everyone is happier with. Valenciano (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]