This 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.

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of townlands in County Laois, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of townlands in County Laois until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. : pep per 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please consider joining the discussion at talk:Connaught Rangers. -- Red King ( talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Advertisements for Myself first edition.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 09:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there was a thread at the BLPN about this and the weight of discussion was that it did not belong attached to the radio station. please see the comment on the article talkpage. If he is notable create a BLP for him if not then the issue is not noteworthy as a section on the radio station article, he was not working at the time and it is a bit negative coatracking to add it there. There is a thread at the WP:BLPN for comments , thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you've edited quite a bit on Irish roads articles. There's a question at Talk:Kilkenny that you may be able to answer. I confess I still don't quite understand what's being queried. Thanks. RashersTierney ( talk) 13:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. RashersTierney ( talk) 15:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one impressive response. Never dreamed I'd asked such a big question :- ) RashersTierney ( talk) 04:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither did I, but the question nagged at me and I realised there ought to be a proper resolution of it so people won't just re-hash it and speculate ad nauseam. I understand that we say it is 40 kilometres to a place, citing the lived odometer experience at ground level, but is that "proper" in a reference work? Now I want to know. See what you started, Rashers! — O'Dea 04:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing a templated invite message recently on Sarah777's TP about a Roads/Highways project. If it's really nagging you, perhaps someone there could settle it. RashersTierney ( talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Spideog. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
Message added 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Another -- G W … 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Cheers for the barnstar! You've given me the impetus to put the article forward as a GA. - Joe King ( talk) 23:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Montpelier Hill is now a GA! - Joe King ( talk) 20:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{ Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{ User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Odea,

You recently edited the "People's Park" article and changed "University" to "university." This may seem a small change, and I have no great stake in it myself, however I believe previous editors were correct to insist on "University," since capitalizing this word makes it clear that we are talking about the University of California as an official state entity. I wonder if you might consider changing it back. Thanks. Apostle12 ( talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It was unnecessary to capitalise the university since the article dealt with one university only, it was made explicit at the outset that the park belonged to the University of California, and common noun references to it such as "the university" are uncapitalised, which was why I applied the correction. I have just visited the article talk page to read about this "insistence" you mentioned but I see no trace of it; it looks like it hasn't been discussed at all. — O'Dea 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I have no great stake in this, though I did understand why some people felt capitalization was appropriate. The discussion took place several years ago and has probably been archived. Apostle12 ( talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just spent four minutes scrolling through the extensive archives and I cannot find the discussion you mentioned. I also performed a search for the word "capital" with no results. I can give no more time to what seems like a fruitless hunt; I made a good faith effort. In any case, if one establishes a narrative about a shop or police station or playground or museum or university, one then proceeds throughout the narrative to mention the object as a common noun institution: "He returned to the shop"; "She left the police station with her document stamped"; "The children abandoned the playground at sunset"; "The museum was founded in 1937"; "The university guaranteed that no unilateral action would be taken". — O'Dea 23:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Peace. Apostle12 ( talk) 07:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#4 Abbreviations says that in British English, "no full stop is commonly preferred" for "Abbreviations formed by truncation (Hon. for Honorable), compression (cmte. for committee), or contraction (Dr. for Doctor". So one should have "St Patrick" not "St. Patrick". So you might use "St." as an abbreviation of "Street". Laurel Lodged 14:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I respect the established authority and unimpeachable erudition of the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary more than I do the often arbitrary fashions of style manuals, which vary so widely in their frequently dubious recommendations. A shortened word is assigned a full stop at the end to indicate its condition. Contraction is not to be confused with the omission of letters, the absence of which is often indicated by apostrophes. — O'Dea 14:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Contraction is not to be confused with the omission of letters, the absence of which is often indicated by apostrophes" so is "Dr." a contraction or an omission of letters (o c t o )? I've never seen a D'r. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. — O'Dea ( talk) 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

When elected to the review board of the OED, feel free to do as the OED does. Until then, when in Wiki, do as the Wikipedians do. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Do not presume to dictate behaviour to me in that snide tone. I note you have not apologised to me for your lying accusations before you were banned from editing for your continuing obstreperousness. See also: WP:IGNORE. — O'Dea ( talk) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." (see [1]) Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting at Flight Avia Flight 7100 re the table of victims. However, you signature is not in accordance with WP:SIG, which states that it must link to either your user page or user talk page at minimum. You signature links to File:Usher statue - closeup.jpg. How is a newbie editor going to reach you from there? It is hard enough for those of us who know our way around to find you. Your assistance in ensuring your signature complies with WP:SIG (I know it says it's a behavoural guidline, but it is de facto a policy) would be appreciated. Mjroots ( talk) 10:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing your signature. Mjroots ( talk) 07:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Three cheers for writing the South County Dublin article. Exiledone ( talk) 20:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad you're enjoying it. — O'Dea ( talk) 20:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Spideog. You have new messages at Talk:AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird.
Message added 08:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I see we have created duplicate page for Paul Óg Connaughton! One will have to redirect to the other. I have to point out that Jr is an Americanism, and that Jnr is what we use on side of the Atlantic, e.g. Brian Lenihan, Jnr. Snappy ( talk) 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of redirecting yours to mine, hope you don't mind. Snappy ( talk) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jr. is an Americanism? Someone ought to tell Larry Mullen, Jr.! Although I am an avid reader, of a great diversity of old texts and new, who studied English at university, I have never read junior abbreviated as Jnr. before. I was mildly startled that you thought Jr. is an Americanism so I consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, the big comprehensive one — pretty definitive. The online version is both bang up to date and contains all historic variations of a word. It had an entry for Jr., but nothing for Jnr. After a great deal of searching, I finally found a British English dictionary online which acknowledged Jnr., but said it was both British and American English. I also checked the Guardian style guide and it recommends Jr. for Junior ("abbreviate to Jr not Jun or Jnr"). I am not as influenced by style guides as by dictionaries, they can be capricious and trendy, but that's what this one recommends. — O'Dea ( talk) 01:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Which part of "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." is unclear to you? Snappy ( talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But has it been understood? You really are showing your true colours now, and they ain't pretty. Re-opening a discussion I closed on my talk page, is rude. Continuing to leave messages with no purpose on my talk page is borderline harassment. *Lofy edict alert* Kindly stop it! Snappy ( talk) 23:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask you one last time, stop leaving message with no purpose other than to harass me on my talk page. *Imperious command alert* This is your first and final warning. Leave one more message (the talkback is for genuine useful informative one, not ones that only make a tedious point) and I will report you. Snappy ( talk) 23:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Usertalkback template from MY user page so you would have no further cause to leave messages on my talk page, or so I thought. Then you re-added this template to my talkback and then left me yet another tedious pointless message. Last time I checked, a user decided what went on their own talk page and not other editors. Its vandalism to revert such changes to another users talk page. Please stop vandalising my talk page. I have now removed the talkback template again, so if you want to reply to me yet again, then please do so here on your talk page which I will monitor and not on my talk page where the discussion is closed and the talkback template has been removed. Snappy ( talk) 23:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked you not to leave any more messages on my talk page. Why do you persist is doing so? I specifically said that if you wanted to talk to me again to leave a message on your talk page which I would monitor, yet you ignored that request and continue to leave messages on my talk page. No doubt you will reply to this one on my talk page again, even though I'm asking you yet again not to leave messages on my talk page but to reply here on your own talk page. I note that you did apologise for vandalising my talk page by re-adding a template I removed. The moron comment was not about you, why would it be about you. It was a comment about me. Once again, if you wish to reply to this message, (and I'm sure you will because you just can't leave it alone), please do so on this (your own) talk page and not on mine. I will monitor this page to see if you have have left a message. There is no longer a talkback template on my talk page (since I have removed it, twice now), so there is no need to leave a message there, ok? Snappy ( talk) 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I'll have to give up asking you not to leave messages on my talk page because every time I do you leave another one. By replying on my page, you are not keeping that discussion together for the record, if you replied here like I asked it would be in one place. It seems you just can't leave my talkpage alone, can you? I'm sure you will reply to this on my talkpage too, since you love it so much! Snappy ( talk) 00:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a typo. Now we're having a discussion about our discussion. Isn't that great? Snappy ( talk) 00:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You do realise you've spent most of this evening since 8 pm leaving messages on my talk page. What a wonderfully fulfilling life you lead! Snappy ( talk) 00:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Remark: The comments in this section Comments by Snappy are part of a conversation which began at Snappy's talk page. Much of it was erased from that page but can be found in the talk page history. — O'Dea ( talk) 00:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

All of it has erased but yes anyone who wishes to die of terminal boredom can trawl through my talkpage archives to see it. Have fun! Productive night all around eh! Snappy ( talk) 00:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Still leaving comments on my talkpage, despite repeated requests not to. I'm not the slightest bit interested in your long winded explanations of how you edited my talkpage. I never realised my talkpage was so interesting that someone would spend 5/6 hours leading messages on it. What an interesting and fulfilling life you lead, how I envy you! Again, please don't reply on my talk page as their is no talkback template. As if you can resist it! Snappy ( talk) 08:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Could you stop the slow-motion edit war please, and engage in constructive discussion. It takes you only a fraction of the time to make the necessary corrections to the image instead of trying to assert yourself. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 12:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Didn't realize that you have meanwhile corrected the animation. Good day. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:St John of God Irish postage stamp 1979.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor ( talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse ( consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not change any of my personal preferences, automatically or not. They are my decisions and must not be overridden. They are decisions made behind the protection of my login ID and password, and I deny anyone the authority to violate my private arrangements which concern no-one but me. — O'Dea ( talk) 22:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Jarry's doing – the preference is being removed from user preferences entirely. If you'd like to keep marking all edits as minor, the JavaScript option is open to you and linked above. Demanding that this preference not be removed isn't going to change anything. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not consent to changes being applied to my preferences. I was not consulted, but provided with a fait accompli, which is rude. I should not be obliged to understand Javascript to maintain the preferences I have set. The script, in any case, is provided as is, with no explanation of its implementation. The entire thing is peremptory, no matter how sugar-coated with weaselly insincerities such as "Thank you for your understanding and happy editing". It is always impertinent to presume someone's attitude in advance in this way. I repeat, I do not want my preference changed to false. — O'Dea ( talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion linked? That was one of a number on the topic last year when the community decided that (with reluctance) it preferred to take away the preference than to keep it. So if you wish to hold onto your preference, you are welcome to go back to the community and file a new WP:RFC to try to change things. Consensus can change, but I don't think it has here. To use the script, simply paste it into your Special:Mypage/vector.js file (or change as appropriate to your own skin choice). Incidentally, when I said "happy editing", I was most definitely being sincere-- please do contact me if you have any further queries, or post here and drop me a talkback. Regards, - Jarry1250  ^{Who? Discuss.} 17:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I just remembered your questions about not placing photo galleries in the biography articles of musicians (at least, biography articles-- my focus is on musicians). I have ADD and am not fond of looking things up on Wikipedia but here is a tag for pages that have such issues: [2] Specifically, there's a tag {{Cleanup-gallery}} Hopefully this helps answer your question. I seriously still can't recall where there's a specific mandate about photo or "image" galleries. I really would have liked doing so for the Rory Gallagher and other articles for Irish musicians. Pity. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep your crappy grey boxes and stale place articles in that case. Some collaboration would have been nice as a constructive way forward and proposal how to improve the design of the current template not your "unremittingly negative" comment towards efforts to improve it. I was prepared to standardise all of the Irish village/town articles, find coordinates of the missing ones and improve article standards. Your attitude has prevented any form of progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Odea,
Plastikspork has agreed to implement the changes to the Ireland placebox (see here), altho Dr Blofeld has proposed it for deletion. I've told Plastikspork what changes we agreed on, but if I've forgotten something or you have other proposals you should add them to the discussion a.s.a.p.
Thanks. ~Asarlaí 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Look again. It literally says "It is highly unlikely Bieber would be given permission to enter North Korea" below the uppermost picture. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10506482 for easy reference :) -- Rogington ( talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. This is the first time I have ever seen a citation supplied from a caption! It is still just a reporter's speculation, however. No source is even cited or quoted. — O'Dea ( talk) 19:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello there O'Dea. I think I remember your off color stories about the saddle sniffers and the skydivers from last year. Now you're giddily quoting Joyce about heartburn on the arse, edit summaries about fingering and references to George Clinton along those lines. All of it is real cute, but I am removing your addition to the Talk:Illicit drug use in Ireland page. My suggestion, if you want to send Sarah a message, don't use live article talk space to drop your breadcrumbs or whatever you are doing. It is inappropriate, unfunny and unwise to take the path you're on. If you want, put a note on her talk page, but please keep your obtuse pursuits off of that illicit drugs discussion page, it is a serious subject and serious editors should not have to skip over your postings to utilize the talk space. I'm explaining this to Sarah, on her page. I hope you will do the right thing and just leave it for what it is intended. Ciao. Sswonk ( talk) 03:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your lack of a sense of humour appals me. I will leave my Joyce quotation off the talk page since you made such a bloody issue of it. It was a joke for Sarah777, sympathising with the frustration that led her to paste that text on the talk page. It was my intention to leave it there for 24 or 48 hours to give her a chance to see it, then I intended to wipe the whole thing. There is another thing that burns me: it is appropriate for an editor to change an article, but a talk page is where people talk, and you should leave talk unmolested unless something seriously egregious has been written there. Quoting Simon Dedalus about heartburn on the arse as a token of annoyance cannot be considered to fall within that definition but to my mind, following your grim presumption, I consider you to be a burning case of heartburn on my arse. My comment concerning saddle sniffers to illustrate a certain Irish type elicited an amused reply of recognition from Sarah777 and that conversation is simply none of your business — so butt out of mine. "It is inappropriate, unfunny and unwise to take the path you're on" — that is pure bullshit; you have no authority to speak to me like that. People like you fuck up Wikipedia for everyone else. I reject your attempt to shape my conversations with other users: it is none of your business. Your comment about the seriousness of illicit drugs is spurious sanctimony, a very unattractive quality. — O'Dea ( talk) 03:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Busybody is not the word, you are reading what people write the way you want, without considering what it says. What the fuck is the difference, if it is on a user talk or article? Everything, if you took the time to read before you got your fucking hooligan prick hair on the back of your head up about it. I said, and mean, and said the same to Sarah, this place is fucked up enough with out having people I like trolling like the rest of the assholes, which is what you were doing. That is the path I am referring to. Both you and Sarah left inappropriate, obtuse and off-topic comments which had nothing at all to do with the article, were obstructions to genuine discussion, you knew it and now you are acting like your space is being invaded? Why is it you think I need an explanation about what saddle sniffer meant, or didn't appreciate it as well as Sarah at the time? Certainly there are more people who are literate and appreciate humor besides you and your confidants, O'Dea. And any comment you make anywhere here is under license free and visible to anyone with a browser, so what the fuck is that, like a billion people, so calling it a private conversation which is none of my or anyone's business is simply not believable. Your intelligence is better spent writing than defacing article talk pages, which is what the both of you did. You had a chance to let it go, you failed. Piss off. Sswonk ( talk) 04:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Busybody is certainly the word because you inserted your unsolicited tuppence-ha'penny worth into a conversation that did not involve you. I already explained the difference between an article and a talk page but if you wish to be obtuse to suit your purposes and refuse to acknowledge the distinction, I will not be drawn to repeat myself. You have misused the word "troll" entirely: a troll is one who deliberately makes provocative comments to stir the shit and create outrage. That is not what Sarah777 and I did; the tone was more like whimsy. Your idiocy that our brief remarks on the talk page obstructed discussion by others is more of your invented and self-serving sanctimony: Sarah777 explicitly left a comment that she was happy to have her offering deleted, while my remark was a mere one-liner, so your attempt to characterise these as "obstructions" and "trolling" is off-target and spurious. I know it is theoretically possible but do not believe that all of humanity reads my scribblings on talk pages but, again, you have adopted an obtuse attitude to avoid the point that I did not claim my conversation was "private"; I said it was a conversation in which you were not a participant, which did not address you, and which was none of your business. I don't give a tuppenny damn what your opinion is of my remarks to others. — O'Dea ( talk) 04:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not, it was not only not private, these are not even conversations. This is a forum. Not 3chan, but still a forum. Where you get the idea that there are walled gardens on these user pages, where no one can chime in, I have no idea. I think that maybe that is what your particular psychological bugaboo about Wikipedia is at the moment. I was not and am not making anything other than light of what you ever wrote in the past to her, using a word like breadcrumbs. Not, repeat, not making light of reverting the additions the two of you made to the article talk page. If even one good writer, a young person not yet in college but deeply interested in learning research for example, went to start a thread on that talk page as a first attempt at Wikipedia and saw Sarah's wall of text from Giano and then your quote from literature, he or she might not at all get the humor. That is not what an article talk page should be doing, potentially turning good people away to satisfy your private whims. It is really inappropriate, you can only push the walls of humor so far, and by the way fucking Jaysus wept to you! about this concept of it being between you and Sarah. That is entirely inappropriate, you are editors of an encyclopedia not denizens of it. Article talk spaces aren't your rooms at a villa to move to and from. I didn't think that was her intention but your edits speak for themselves. Go ahead and curse what you call my sanctimony, but if you have shit on your shoes I'm going to tell you. Just as patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, belittling the best advice of nearly all ages to keep excessive pleasure seeking at arms length is a false way of championing freedom. That may be your goal. Instead by shouting down lessons learned and risking the repeat of mistakes, and denying others the ability to consider several sides of these issues by immediately crying Censor!, you invite repeated enslavement. And, dude, the act is tired, so fucking tired. Yeah, you're the great Lenin or Dev or John the Baptist of freedom, but the first thing you want to do is deny that you fucked up a community tool like a talk page with your selfish little humor asides. You are the one that is sanctimonious and proud, get over yourself and maybe we can actually get to understand the world and share knowledge here. In the meantime, what you did, what you are still doing and the path you want to lead is not worth shit. Preachers on forums are a dime a gross, let alone a dozen. Sswonk ( talk) 05:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaah...thank you! I actually feel better now — this gave me a small laugh. I confess I didn't follow the coiled, serpentine improbabilities of your diatribe as I skimmed through it, and I will not study it to try to derive sense from it. It is clear now what the problem was all along — you're just stone mad. There is no other way to account for someone simmering about remarks made seven months ago that weren't even addressed to him. Bye. — O'Dea ( talk) 07:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the entire section. Catfish Jim  & the soapdish 11:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please move the page back. As an established page, such a move needs to be discussed and I don't think you're actually right, looking at some of the sources, the G tends to be capitalised. Thanks. Akerbeltz ( talk)

Actually, I just moved it back. Opening thread on talk page. Akerbeltz ( talk) 10:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This 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.