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.

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 6, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or one of his delegates ( Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), Gimmetoo ( talk · contribs), and Bencherlite ( talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 6, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening is a 1993  action-adventure video game developed by Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development and published by Nintendo for the Game Boy. It is the fourth installment in the Legend of Zelda series, and the first for a handheld game console. What became Link's Awakening began as a port of the Super Nintendo title The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, developed after-hours by Nintendo staff. It grew into an original project under the direction of Takashi Tezuka, with a story and script created by Yoshiaki Koizumi and Kensuke Tanabe. The protagonist Link begins the game stranded on Koholint Island, a place guarded by a creature called the Wind Fish. Link then searches for eight musical instruments that will awaken the sleeping Wind Fish and allow him to escape. A remake called The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX was released for the Game Boy Color in 1998; it features color graphics, compatibility with the Game Boy Printer, and an exclusive color-based dungeon. Together, the two versions of the game have sold more than six million units worldwide, and have appeared on multiple game publications' lists of the best games of all time. ( Full article...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I left a comment at Talk:Myst (series) requesting that my non- MOS:QUOTEMARK changes to that article be restored. If you think my other changes were also unacceptable, please tell me so, and tell me why. Thanks. — Frungi ( talk) 01:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 11:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a yell. GamerPro64 14:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• So BG&E's Peer Review closed. If you still want to look at its prose and sources let me know and maybe put them in the talk page. GamerPro64 13:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking over the article David. I'll try to that care of your concerns when I both get free time and when I'm done purging Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates. GamerPro64 20:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej ( talk) 04:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.-- Dom497 ( talk) This message was sent out by -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 153rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

	Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej ( talk) 16:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, David! You may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Star Trek III: The Search for Spock#Themes, though it is probably a bit concluded by now. I was looking at the film article itself and was wondering if you'd consider a cast table like the one at Panic Room#Cast. I don't know if the prose needs to be changed, but I think a table would help readers look up an actor or a role right away. I'm trying to undo the backlash against cast lists (since they create white space that editors find yucky) and find ways to restore them in a way that fits articles and boosts navigation. What do you think? Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2". PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey David Fuchs/Archive 45, you have a reply at my talk page, for when you have a moment czar  ·  · 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi David! You mentioned a full review at the FAC for In a Mirror, Darkly, but I don't think you ever got around to posting it. Just noticed this and I wanted to remind you if you had forgotten. The article looks like it's in pretty good shape to me. ceran thor 19:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm taking not getting a bunch of opposes as a victory. :) I'm also thinking that possibly Tasha Yar might be worth a nomination at some point too. Miyagawa ( talk) 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey David. I think I have successfully adressed your comments and recommendations. If you could take a second look, I'd be very appreciative :) — ΛΧΣ ²¹ 02:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I'd really like if you can take another look, given that your comments are the only ones left. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ ²¹ 21:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

File:SAAM facade.jpg American Art Museum

Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian American Art Museum You're invited to the Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon, part of a series of edit-a-thons organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum to add and expand articles about American art and artists on Wikipedia. This event will include a catered lunch and special tours of the Luce Foundation Center for American Art and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. 9:15 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, 2013 Smithsonian American Art Museum Meet at G Street Lobby (9th St. & G St. NW, Washington, D.C.) Capacity is limited, so please sign up today! If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from our distribution list. Message delivered by Dominic· t 00:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC).

Luce Foundation Center

Things have been very quiet here. Have you been busy, or are you being thorough? I don't mind either way, but I'm just checking. You did say you could be "pinged" if you weren't back in a couple of days. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 12:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost sorry to do this but, "ding-ding". -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 17:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, maybe nothing, but... Are you sure it's "Sports and Recreation" and not "Video Games"? Or is it something that will change later? Just need a little clarification. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 20:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You commented (they) have acted like colossal blockheads; then recommended they could use an expanded vocabulary. As an Arbitrator and Administrator, I really wish you had said something like: Both parties have acted with impropriety. That is sort of using an expanded vocabulary, don't you think? A rhetorical question for you: Did their actions in this case outweigh their many positive contributions? It's rhetorical. Please do not respond. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang ( talk) 19:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Since you were very helpful a few months ago when I nominated " Triangle" for FA, I was wondering if you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/X-Cops (The X-Files)/archive1 and cast a vote/provide suggestions. Thanks!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just droppin' you another line (per your request) so you don't forget!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Heya! I just thought I should let you know before I go any further that I've ruthlessly stolen/borrowed the paragraph from Star Trek: The Motion Picture on Star Trek: Planet of the Titans to expand into its own article. I found some additional sources and considered adding to to TMP, but I didn't think it was relevant as it was all stuff about the production (specifically design) related to the film. I've always had the film idea sort of stuck in my head as I read the Hughes book several years ago in my pre-Wiki days and I thought that there should be enough information out there to warrant its own article. I've got the draft over at User:Miyagawa/sandbox4. I've got the book on Phase II which I haven't gone through for Titans stuff yet, but I'm sure there is plenty of references in there. I intend to get it into a good enough state for GA before putting it into mainspace. I also spotted an image on Flickr last night of one of the Enterprise concept models too from a display at a Star Trek convention (which is actually why I started on the article this morning). Miyagawa ( talk) 11:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you make sense of this? [1]... because I can't. 68.75.17.95 ( talk) 14:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear David Fuchs

I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 21:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))-- Boyabed ( talk) 08:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I consider myself in the same bag as KC here and made a comment on the "proposed decision". Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I received a notice from Callanecc today that there was a proposed motion on an ARBCOM case that affected me. [2] Penwhale notified me of the case 16 July. [3] I did not reply because no comments were made about me. AGK, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Silk Tork have voted to ban me. Could you please explain why I am part of this case. TFD ( talk) 05:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Hello, David Fuchs! I'm a Golden Sun fan and translated your article Golden Sun into my homewiki two years ago. This article has a great impact on me, from this article I learned a great article should have the real world context, rather than a lot of in-game stuff. This Barnstar might be very late, anyway, thank you very much! Wangxuan8331800 ( talk) 09:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat| Contributions02:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey David, So, since you were the guy that got the DotA page to be a Featured Article, I thought I'd let you know that I'm opening up a peer review for Dota 2, with the incentive that I want people to offer constructive criticism that will allow me to fix up any weaker areas on the article to the state of being ready to become a FAC. Others have advised that I discuss this with you as well, so, if you have time, would you be able to offer the most brutal and helpful critique to the best of your abilities? DarthBotto  _{talk• cont} 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Which statistics would you say I should remove from the intro? I'm under the impression that you are eying those last two sentences in the third paragraph, concerning the Steam statistics and The International, but doesn't the inclusion of those only build up the notion that Dota 2 is successful? What are your thoughts on this? DarthBotto  _{talk• cont} 19:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your critique, by the way. I have one question, (well, maybe two questions), to shoot your way. With the quote "The game maintains the record for the most-played Steam title of all time, with its concurrent player base outmatching the top ten most-popular Steam games combined.", would you recommend I keep or delete that? DarthBotto  _{talk• cont} 07:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Like always, I truly appreciate all your help, David. I have one last question before I can let you go: if the gameplay image were replaced with something crisper and current, would you say that the Dota 2 page is ready to become a GA? DarthBotto  _{talk• cont} 05:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise. Hope all is well, David. · Andonic ^contact 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The "evidence" was closed, but "dung" and "(mental) health" appeared afterwards, - is that rehashing? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you David. — Ched :  ?  03:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting you: "As Gerda has herself noted, she's been adding far more infoboxes as of late than Pigsonthewing; it hasn't been very constructive, especially when adding ones unilaterally is clearly going to create a kerfluffle." - Please tell me which of my additions of an infobox in the 53 debated cases you found "not very constructive"? And which by Andy "tendentious" (whatever that means) and disruptive? Eager to learn, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoting you once more: "Short answer yes. As has been noted all over this case, these infobox battles have been going on for years. All the parties involved know that it's contentious." Please kindly note that "for years" is not true for me who was "converted" to infoboxes being useful only last September. I learned that infoboxes for classical music bios are unwanted and - repeating - never added one unless I wrote the article. I did not foresee that infoboxes opera would be considered "contentious": the project made an infobox available in June 2013, for me that was liberation, for others the end of civilization. This battle is quite new, was probably the reason why the case was started, and seems not to be reflected in the findings. See above for Siegfried where I humbly suggested an infobox on the talk page. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Gerda is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes" - I can only hope that this will find not enough supports, because it would not permit me to add infoboxes to my own articles, right? - I would never delete an infobox ;) - "No more than two comments": would that include asking for clarification, as here today? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Since you've been of help to me the last few times I've nominated articles to FAN, I was wondering if you could peer-review " The Unnatural". THe article is very near to where I think it should be, I just need another pair of eyes to look it over. If you are busy, I totally understand. Thanks!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 12:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 19:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm genuinely puzzled by your most recent comment: [4]. None of the other participants have shown any sign in changing either, yet no one else even faces sanction, let alone a site-ban. I'm also troubled that you apparently think it's okay to ban someone for his "opinion," given that his opinion is shared by many others and is no way an outlier nor unusual. I'm deeply concerned as well by the precedent of the committee taking sides in a content dispute; by ruling this way the committee will foreclose an editorial question best decided by the community. I hope that's not your intention but that will be the outcome. I'm looking forward to your reply, and perhaps a reply to several questions I've raised on the discussion page. All the best, Mackensen (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I left controversial projects opera and classical music, no more "battleground". I said so on the case. (I can take a lot, but there are limits. Ched ( talk · contribs) deleting his pages was too much for me. His talk was restored. I lost one of the oldest friends I had on Wikipedia.) - On the positive side: I promote " peace and reconciliation" on the Main page. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in. [5] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is my first warning also my final warning? That doesn't seem particularly fair to me. And I have no idea what you mean by "a collegiate level of discourse in your interactions with other editors". I mean, I'm being ganged up on by guys siding with someone who is engaging in PURE speculation, and nobody is even acknowledging that! They're ignoring the speculation and focusing on my ... whatever. My non-collegiate discourse. I thought Wikipedia was a place where the truth wins out, not a politician's ability to smile through his teeth as he debates.

But seriously: First Warning = Final Warning? That doesn't sound right at all. I'm not calling people names, I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence, I'm not lying, not even cursing, and I'm trying to get the article into better shape! The same guy has been reverting my edit over and over -- I thought there was a rule against that, as well.

Sincerely,

-- Ben Culture ( talk) 13:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your WP:V, the truth is absolutely verifiable. It's a film. You watch it. You watch and see that the man never takes a single drink, or any drug of any kind. The other gentleman was reverting me based on his theory that "copious drink or some drug" was being used off-screen. That's wrong, isn't it? Naked speculation? If that's not wrong, I don't want to be an editor anymore. -- Ben Culture ( talk) 19:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello David,

I have just been undoing vandalism by user IP 202.40.137.201, per: Special:Contributions/202.40.137.201 ( Li Keqiang article) ... but I see other articles also vandalized by the same IP. I realize that this may be more than one person. I have identified this as coming from Hong Kong, actually, from a government office in Hong Kong, per:

• http://myip.ms/view/comp_ip/3391654345/202.40.137.201

Seems like someone bored at the office and making mischief. Also, some of the edits are in Chinese, and so I feel that someone Chinese should probably review edits from this IP...

Is this something you can help with? If not, how should I proceed?

TIA Enquire ( talk) 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you participate in these at FACs? I'm in dire need of one here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nintendo DSi/archive5‎. Last one was in archive3. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Whelp, don't forget David. Btw thanks for doing this on such short notice. I prefer not to ask anyone for these sort of things, but nobody is interested. « Ryūkotsusei » 01:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[6] « Ryūkotsusei » 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 06:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I did reply ... we need to talk. — Ched ZILLA 21:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ya know David, this isn't personal. But I sat there and watched all that bullshit go down with Rlevse. And not one single arb spoke up to defend him. It's a joke. Jimbo recently went anal on Bbb ... who was trying to defend the BLP stuff. NONE of you spoke up. How the hell am I supposed to respect the committee? I know all you folks are great as individuals ... but for the love of god ... you guys absolutely suck as a group. You're gonna chastise me for putting in an infobox on an article that Andy created? Are you freaking serious? What in the hell are you thinking man? Shit .. Andy went and researched that and CREATED that article. WTF? Un-freakin-believable. — Ched ZILLA 01:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What a surprise that as normal your altering the Star Trek movies articles to how you see fit....

You have a history of this!

Alphacatmarnie ( talk) 15:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is true that BASC doesn't hear appeals for those? I rather doubt it myself. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 22:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that I've commented on the page. Risker ( talk) 03:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Kirill's finding of fact 7 subtly misrepresents the close. The admins did analyse the arguments during the RFC that BLP required a move of the article, and rejected them as insufficient. That's a normal part of WP:CONSENSUS. Describing it as a "super-vote" is dismissive and cheapens the work that went into evaluating the discussion.

I've proposed an alternate finding of fact 7 at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision#Analysis_of_change_of_article_title_by_closing_administrators . Multiple arbitrators have been pinged, but none have responded.

If you need Boz, BD2412 and I to explicitly insert the sentence "After carefully evaluating the comments about BLP in the discussion, we have concluded ..." into point 3, we certainly can, but that's a part of closing an RFC. I find it insulting that anyone thinks that we skipped it.— Kww( talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a word or two missing in "I do not that our own pages for WP:BASC and the arbitration policy don't go into such details" ? I can't quite parse out what is meant. NE Ent 02:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 04:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

76.226.78.241 ( talk) 18:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't appear to have any relevant new messages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I thought I sent something to you. 76.226.78.241 ( talk) 18:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Still nothing showing up--might need to try again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill  ^[talk] 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please check the BASC mailing address list - I have sent multiple appeals and I'm not receiving any response from you guys (my en-wiki user name is "Dy" plus 5 "1"s). Please leave me a reply as I would love to constructively contribute. 216.11.222.27 ( talk) 17:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi David, just wondering if there's any updates to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#Hurricanefan25 unblock request procedural question that can be communicated to the user in question. Thanks, Nick ( talk) 11:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I've noticed that you're the biggest contributor to the Myst series, with you bringing the related articles to FA status, I was wondering if you had thoughts on its upcoming spiritual successor, Obduction? DarthBotto  _{talk• cont} 17:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that I'm excited! DarthBotto  _{talk• cont} 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey David. I was wondering through weird Wikipedia corners and stumbled upon User:David Fuchs/draft. It seems to me like it is in a good enough shape to be moved to mainspace... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to dislike userspace drafts; your article is already pretty good, and much more helpful to the readers than our red link. It is actually not uncommon for editors to create good drafts and forget about them; we probably have hundreds of decent quality articles forgotten in userspace drafts :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Uru: Ages Beyond Myst know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 21, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite ( talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 21, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Uru: Ages Beyond Myst is an adventure video game developed by Cyan Worlds and published by Ubisoft. Released in November 2003, the title is the fourth game in the Myst canon. Departing from previous games of the franchise, Uru takes place in the modern era and allows players to customize their onscreen avatars. Players use their avatars to explore the abandoned city of an ancient race known as the D'ni, uncover story clues and solve puzzles. Uru took five years and $12 million to complete. It was initially conceived as a multiplayer game, but the multiplayer component was delayed and eventually canceled, although an online version ( Myst Online: Uru Live) was available in 2007 and 2008. Uru was not as well received as previous Myst titles. Critics admired the visuals and new features of the game but criticized the lack of multiplayer in the retail version and clunky controls. Uru sold poorly, while the first three games had sold millions of copies each. The game was a critical and commercial disappointment for Cyan, causing the company financial troubles; nevertheless, it has attracted a cult following. ( Full article...)

UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi David! Would you be willing to help out at an A-class review? I'm trying to get Neverwinter Nights 2 ready for FAC. Any pointers you have for getting up to FA would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Mr. V ( t – c) 15:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could examine the arguments made in the discussion regarding the use in general of the manual scan image; as it stands three users feel the image should not be used while one user feels that it should and has disputed the quality of arguments made by the other three users. I'd appreciate it if we could get your opinion on whether the consensus is a proper one. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 15:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

At that discussion I'm asking user Masem here to explain why he favors the 3D render in the lead over the manual scan that was discussed by Crave online. As you have expressed a similar position, could you detail your preference and justify it? That would help to finally establish a consensus. Diego ( talk) 17:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You advised me to drop a stick. How do you advise me to politely react to this? I made one comment on the article talk in question, not as a group member but my personal opinion, and was cited to ANI, where I can't believe what I see, - but I get to used to the feeling. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI was closed, but it spread to AN and FAC, I try to stay out. - I was challenged by the statement "diffs are there, please read them", to which I responded to please show me one example. When that was archived I asked the other way round if this edit would be considered "normal" (as I thought) or "bold" or "disruptive", and why. What would you say? Trying to learn, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, - please understand my different view. The whole issue since 2005 has been perceived as disruptive by some, but I fail to see how this edit - I add an infobox to an article I created - can be perceived as bold or disruptive, and the situation as "contentious", as the "Proposed decision" still has it. - It saddens me that the case didn't look at compromises in the making: I have an agreement with Nikkimaria (July), Smerus installed a short infobox to a symphony (August), Brianboulton tries an identibox. But I drop it now. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ps: more entertaining: a user name suggestion ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

ps: my own, finally, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• How do you recommend to react politely to the Idiotboxes? Ignore? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you know Mark Williams-Thomas? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of trust for Andy, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days! In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00. At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!-- EdwardsBot ( talk) 03:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here-- EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.

The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.

Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to conduct a review on The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim! I would like to attain GA-Class, and I know there's problems with the article, but I've put so much effort lately into getting Grand Theft Auto V GA ready that I haven't had time to sit down and work out where to start. Comments are greatly appreciated. CR4ZE ( t) 13:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Another buzz about the peer review. Please don't forget about it. CR4ZE ( t) 09:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the article. I have left some comments at the review page. CR4ZE ( t) 05:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. I have left for you another comment at the review page. CR4ZE ( t) 06:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You or someone may need to lock the Turok: Dinosaur Hunter [7] page from IP address users like 31.52.175.181 [8]. 108.82.4.206 ( talk) 15:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi David

I note that you have voted to support this motion, but you might not be aware that TenOfAllTrades ( here), Sandstein ( here) and myself ( here) have all raised serious objections to it. There is also a limited discussion on NYB's talk page.

The crux of the objection is that it duplicates a standard part of the definition of a topic ban and by doing so has potentially very significant implications for the interpretation of every topic ban on en.wp. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, just pinging you as you asked for the GAN review of Sentimiento (album). Thanks and Happy Holidays! - Diva Knockouts 05:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sup, David! So yes, Dota 2 has become a Good Article at long last! However, several individuals, including our friend Andonic, have suggested that the momentum for the article is still rolling and with the degree of scrutiny that has gone into both the peer review and GAN, that it should soon be nominated for Featured Article status. I don't really want to put myself on the line to look like an enthusiastic idiot, so tell me, with a quick read-through, do you think it fits the criteria of being well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable and featuring the proper style, media and length? DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 00:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I should note that while it is definitely close to FA material, it also does need more thorough rewriting than what we did for GAN. A lot of information needs to be reorganized, some stuff needs to be expanded upon or culled, and a few things aren't mentioned at all. It's a hard game to write about, since the community is so integral to its success--no other game is really quite like it in that regard. · Andonic ^contact 01:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey @ DarthBotto: and @ Andonic: (nice to see you still kicking around the wiki!), on a cursory look I do think the article is better than when last I took a look; I'm always hesitant to really say much more without digging back into the article again. In the next week or two I can try and go through and look for referencing issues or weak points and try to get back to you guys on the talk page or in a PR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I'd actually prefer to have your input directly on the talk page, as I'm a little weary of making peer reviews at the current moment. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 09:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, hell. I gave in and made a peer review page. Have at it! ;) DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 04:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You told me to threaten you with a wrench at this time. Well, here. I challenge thou to a pipe wrench fight! :D DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 00:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, I implemented most of the suggestions that are at my discretion as the requester. However, your first suggestion to implement more high-level overview somewhat confused me. Could you give me more detail for what you mean by "peer vs peer", or what you generally want to see? DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 12:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan Murphy case request comment [9] -- is that a decline? Or are you soliciting further comments -- if so, from whom (community or other committee members)? NE Ent 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is shameless lobbying, but having seen your reply to NE Ent, please let me suggest that you consider a motion, as opposed to a full case. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 15:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and declined, @ Tryptofish: and @ NE Ent:. If there were merit for a motion I'd certainly propose it, but I don't think that this is a case where it is warranted. I can't speak to the exact particulars of where my fellow arbs would parse the line between actionable and unactionable with all our actions with regards to the Sandifer case (I voted for the admonishment as conduct unbecoming, but did not vote in support of the desysop or ban), but I feel confident that the circumstances surrounding this case are suitably different that a similar action is not automatically apropos. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. NE Ent 22:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey David—thought you might be interested in this Polygon feature, either to add to the article or for old times' sake:

• Owen, Dave (January 6, 2014). "I, School Shooter". Polygon. Vox Media. Archived from the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved January 6, 2014. {{ cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) ( help)

czar  ♔ 04:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Many thanks for the heads-up! I'll hafta' see what I can use from it. Thanks @ Czar: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 15:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about whether or not to log alerts/notifications on the here. I'd be interested in hearing your views.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Because I usually don't know who to ask when it comes to something like this but you, I have something to ask involving GAR. I really find it disorganized and its reviews on the board right now aren't going anywhere. I don't know where I go to ask for something to be done about. Like do I ask to go to a Noticeboard or something? I really think its mismanaged and something needs to be done by it. If you don't know that's fine. I just want to see some reform for the process. GamerPro64 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Hey @ GamerPro64:, have you tried the GAR talk page first? Beyond that I assume going higher level and discussing the issues at the Good Articles/GAN pages would be best option. If you have a more formalized set of complaints than an RfC structure might suit you better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can start low and work my way up if I get no responses from any of the talk pages. GamerPro64 18:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

• Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
• Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej ( talk) 00:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you protect Halo Xbox One like you did at Halo (2014 video game)? (You may also want to move it back to Halo 5 first, which is whence it was moved.)  czar  ♔ 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think at this point I should nominate Dota 2 for FA status? DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 21:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@ DarthBotto: Sorry, I realized I didn't save my last PR comments (much have had the window open and closed it.) I had some concerns on the sourcing/referencing side of things; I'll try to write them up again soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your words! DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Damn, the peer review's been archived. DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, I'm sorry I'm being so slow. I don't really have time for anything beyond my arb hat duties and the occasional vandalism cleanup on my watchlist, I'm afraid. :( Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 19:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind! If you don't want to review it any further, you don't have to. ;) DARTHBOTTO  _{talk• cont} 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF to enable us to close the case.   Roger Davies ^talk 10:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How about we discuss it here or on the article talkpage? 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 00:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) @ 69.165.246.181: Talkpage is best methinks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 13:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK done started a discussion please respond there [10].

But please bear in mind that I will be busy and will not be able to respond so soon to every discussion. i may take as long as few days, but that shouldn't be a problem since peoples postings are not going anywhere. 69.165.246.181 ( talk) 03:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)