Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:32, 14 April 2009

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

"Mein Kampf" in Berghof (residence)

"Political book" is an unecessarily bland and somewhat misleading description of this volume. A "testament" is "a profession of belief", which is a perfectly accurate and appropriate desciption of Mein Kampf. It is neither POV nor either inflammatory or celebratory, and should remain. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it too PoV, understanding that some readers would not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While there are a number of terms which could be applied to the book that would be both accurate and POV (i.e "screed", "harangue" etc.), "testament" – which is after all related to "testimony" – is really not one of them, it's just straightforwardly descriptive of the contents, and should be acceptable to people who hold all different opinions about the book. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The etymology of testament is Latin testamentum, spot on with Anglo-Saxon witness. Calling Mein Kampf a witnessing is PoV, it's still only a political book written by yet another budding and ruthless politician who wanted to stir folks up into falling for his scams, whatever they were. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Testimony" and "testament" are related, not cognates. As I said, a "testament" is "a profession of beliefs", and that's precisely what the book is. That doesn't in any way address Hitler's purpose in writing the book, which was, indeed, to stir people up and to pave the way for his entry into legitimate German politics so that he could grab power through that means as opposed to trying to overthrow the state via a putsch. If you can think of another word which accurately describes the book without alarming your POV-detector, I'm all for it, but "Hitler's political book" is simply too bland.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that you might think that "testament" has connotations of acceptance and inherent value – maybe because of the Old and New Testaments of The Bible –, but that's really not the case. The word is neutral and descriptive and not inany way laudatory.Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Political manifesto would be ok with me. As an aside, one should be wary about calling anything AH said politically, a "belief." Even his "belief" in German nationalism spun out to be rather hollow when he found himself cornered in that bunker and ordered that Germany be laid to ashes for having failed its calling (which is to say, for having failed him). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Manifesto" works for me.

I take your point about Hitler's "beliefs" being mutable, especially when it came to his desire for power, but I don't think his wanting Germany to die is necessarily an indication that he wasn't a nationalist - he just had very skewed ideas about the meaning of concepts like "honor". I suppose to him, wanting Germany to die was a parallel with his taking his own life. That's bizarre thinking for those of us who regard love of country, and wanting what's best for it to thrive within the world community, as the height of nationalism, but it's not very much out of line with what nationalism has meant historically. Fortunately, at the end, there were those who ignored his "scorched earth" decrees (Speer and Himmler among them) and prevent the worst of it. Unfortunately, none of the generals were of similar temperment, or a lot of unnecessary bloodshed would have been prevented in the endgame. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Speer. Meanwhile, if we were chatting somewhere else I'd want to tell you a thing or two about my thoughts on "nationalism" and "world community" but I shan't here. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

May I offer a comment? If not, don't read the rest of this statement. Simply describing the book as a "testament" (aside from the question of this specific article) seems reasonable to me: we speak of a "last will and testament", the latter of which is simply a personal statement about what one wants to speak, generall yabout the world as the author sees it. In the same way, Mein Kampf is in large part a statement about how the world was as Hitler saw it. That being said, "manifesto" is surely a good description also. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my first post to this thread, I find it too PoV, understanding that some readers would not. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(aside: rhetorical theory analysis and other b.s.)

• (Let it first be noted that I never disagree with Gwen Gale unless she gives explicit permission to, which she has, so I will, theoretically :)
• Kenneth Burke, in his 1939 piece "The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle" (See: The Philosophy of Literary Form, p 191) refers to Mein Kampf thusly:

COMMENT:

• NOTE: The (dictated) "book" ... was a (successful) "move" (... in the power game of German politics).

• NOTE: A "political book" almost universally refers to mere commentary by impotent kibitzers, i.e., non-players. I.E., Framing Mein Kampf as such ... is very close (if not completely) a category error.

• NOTE: It was offered (the title frames it as such) ... and publicly accepted at the time (unfortunately) ... as a (dictated) passionate personal assertion of political belief (note note: whether the player actually believes any of it, is of no consequence in our analysis political rhetoric).
• I.E., "political testament" is sounding good to me.

• manifesto? — has implications of a carefully "written" document ... persuasive by its thoughtfully arranged coherence.

COMMENT: Mein Kampf does not seem to be a manifesto. :)

• Hitler was an evil orator, not an evil philosopher. Our modern education system trains us to be little philosophers, and therefore tend to miscategorize what orators are doing — which is (rarely) logical argument, but rather (in the case of true orators, word flows improvised in the moment based on the current field of information and perceptions with the goal of shaping that field of information as perceived by those addressed) rhetorical moves.
• NOW: Is "testament", a good descriptor of a (profoundly successful in the most awful way) rhetorical move? Hmmmm.

• NOTE: Kenneth Burke thought so in 1939.
• NOTE: Kenneth Burke is God. :)

• I think that covers it. lol

(LASTLY NOTE: This commentary is completely rhetorical and therefore immune to logical response. It is also to be considered humorous. And if you don't know, Gwen Gale is never wrong either. So leave it to her and God. :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Can't go along with "Our modern education system trains us to be little philosophers..." since in truth it is meant to (and mostly does) train children to be clueless, heedfully programmed serfs. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. ...

NOW ... thinking of serfs and education ... and the bicentennial of Tennyson ... and the upcoming art film (May 2009) of "The Lady of Shalott" :) ... here's some high school students who have managed some sweet (visio-musio:) rhetorical flourishes ... amidst the Pythonated and helium-intoxicated sins of youth. :) (A one and only posting of YouTube link on your talk page ... because of the grace of the lady on your user page ... which made me stop here the first time) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Watched it at last, fun with helium and copyright violations :) I wonder if whoever did it understands that the pith of LOTR is the telling of Anglo-Saxon tales and that Monty Python had a knack for blending those into later British music hall bits. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether their teacher has the breadth of insight of one of these with the grace of one of those

(And I'm glad I kept talking until the magic appears ... as it always does in this realm.) Such elegant concision ... Hear hear, milady. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Editors that helped create the Election version of Sara Palin

The following retrieved from Editor:SBJohnny's talk page:

How do I inform the following editors that there is an important discussion relating to Sar Palin at her talk.

The editors are; Steven_J_Anderson, Sitedown, Appraiser, Atom, BenBurch, jossi, SWAT Jester, Ron John, sheffield steel, Aruhnka, Aunt Entropy, Phlegm Rooster, JamesMLane. TVoz, Factcheckeratyourservice, Spiff1959, Bobblehead, Parsecboy, Neutralis, Aprock, LamaLoLeshaLa, Eric the Red, Rktect, Wikidemon, Writegeist, Evbwiki,jcdenton, and probably another dozen that Ive forgotten.

I don't want to be accused of canvassing but this is important.--Buster7 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The worry with canvassing is that an editor might (even unwittingly, in thinking they're posting to editors whom they see as neutral) post to a sampling of editors who are altogether more friendly to their own PoV than a truly happenstance swath of editors. Editors who are truly keen on the topic still have it on their watchlists. Hence, post in a highly neutral and settled way only to WP:VP along with all the project pages listed at the top of Talk:Sarah Palin (click on the show link in the This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects box). This can even bring in new eyes, which is always helpful. Don't post to more than one user talk page (please do so neutrally, but if it's only one user, there will be no worries if it's someone who shares your PoV). Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Gwen :-). I left a reply on my talk as well. Just wanted to chip in that while the editor lists from the toolserver would be a big improvement over a hand-made list, the village pump or another forum to attract the attention of uninvolved editors would be a much better way to go. While WP:OWN doesn't exactly apply to this sort of issue, you might think about it a bit: a history of contributions to an article doesn't give anyone more or less say or stake than someone with no such history. In some ways, people without any history on the article can be more helpful than those who've already butted a head or two in the past. --SB_Johnny | 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes! This is spot on why building an editor list from the contribs and "spamming" it can stir up a skewed batch of editors and why I didn't even bring that up. WP:OWN is canny wonderful for writing one's own stuff, but not for building an open, sourced encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't link to the ts results as a way of suggesting that, which is why I wanted to clarify here. If new blood is needed to break an impasse, it's better to recruit on fresh ground. --SB_Johnny | 14:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your advice is well-taken. That is why I asked. Happy Easter to you both.--Buster7 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See also. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Paul James (Canadian musician)

On July 26, 2008, you deleted this page, as I found out when I considered writing on the same topic. I would like to try to get an acceptable page up here, but would appreciate it if you could provide me the link or text to what you deleted, so that I can see what didn't work. I can't find it through your "contributions" section, though maybe I am missing something here.

Many thanks in advance.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd put it in your userspace but there was nothing to it, the whole article read:

'''Paul James''' (born April 4, ], ] (ON), ])<ref></ref> is ] ] and vocalist, heading the ]<ref></ref>.

Neither reference cited can be taken as reliable for showing notability under WP:MUSIC. Also note the botched syntax. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for this information; I can appreciate why the article (or, more precisely, short description) was deleted.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Account password

Dear Gwen, is there anyway I can have my account back, I have lost the password when I left Misplaced Pages few months ago. Thanks! — 69.140.252.216 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (Orion11M87)

At the login page there's a button which says "email new password." If you didn't give an email address with your account info, you might want to ask at WP:helpdesk. There are sundry ways to handle this but I don't know them all. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I will see what can be done. 69.140.252.216 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:You Know the Truth

Could you please delete and salt it to prevent it from being recreated?— Dædαlus 20:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

regarding this

this jimmy has seen it now and although he said he wasn't offended , the fact is it is not suitable for an encyclopedia and needs removing .I'm not sure how to do it but I can blank it or you can do something ? I left a message on Genius 101 talk page User talk:Genius101#regarding_this.. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

It's been up far too long for me to speedy, otherwise I would. I think WP:MFD is the way to handle this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can get the user to put up a {{db-g7}} tag, any admin will speedy it straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your advice, I put the MFD template on the page .There is a vote regarding the page at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#User:D-Day.2FThe REAL Jimbo Wales Story. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

See my note on the snowball close. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

possible attack page

User:Mike_Doughney I fear could be read as an attack by referring to another editor as " legitimization and support of editors such as this one, who think this bit of delusional defiance of basic logic is a valid argument to make when editing an article" which I think just might be considered beyond the pale? Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Collect has made ten tendentious edits on one page today, but i can't bring Mediation misbehavior to Arbitration. VirtualSteve addressed the issue and but Collect refuses to stop an onslaught of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TEND despite numerous requests over the past four months. I am requesting administrative action, as much as can be allowed in privileged mediation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? This is about a userspace page possibly being seen as an attack on a third party. I doubt it has anything whatever to do with you for sure. Is there a reason why you followed me here? Collect (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you didn't learn when VirtualSteve told you to apologize last time for your conflict-junkie games, and i am showing your pattern of frivolous distractions and disruptions. User:Collect has now made twelve tendentious edits today while refusing to retract lies which they inserted specifically to disrupt our mediation, and i have told them repeatedly that i would request Administrator intervention. Collect believes they can get away with these games because Mediation is supposed to be privileged, but they reneged privilege by coming here and trying to canvass for attention on another user in the mediation who opposed the Disruptions and WP:TEND and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and administrator User:Kevin already warned Collect about what basically amounted to WP:WABBITSEASON because of the pattern of perpetually disrupting proposed edits without providing WP:V nor WP:RS. We've been begging Collect to desist for four months, and now when they are finally being properly ignored and dismissed, they come here hoping to find sympathy for "attacks". ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mike Doughney put this up on his userpage over three weeks ago to illustrate how Lyonscc and Collect were playing games with the Mediation system, after Firestorm, Kevin, VirtualSteve, Benccc, Phoenix of9, and myself asked them for nearly three months to collaborate on a disputed article, and it was obviously just a matter of time until Collect would run out of gaming moves and be forced to turn to these sorts of distractions. It's the modus operandi Collect has been using for so long, VirtualSteve had to call you on the carpet but you never answered his question a month ago, and i am asking you to answer it now. Either reply to VirtualSteve's question, remove your lies from our Mediation page, admit your WP:TEND ten times today and throughout the last four months, or i will ask Kevin and VirtualSteve and GwenGale to examine the need to chaperone your role in our article construction and mediation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 22:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Collect has now made their thirteenth edit tendentiously to that Mediation page, without retracting their lie, without recusing themself from the Mediation. VirtualSteve told them a full month ago "this question is not rhetorical", and i have asked them a similar question to which they tendentiously show WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT thirteen times. Is there a way to temporarily topic-ban or topic-block them, until we work out our Mediation without their WP:TEND please? ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314 I don't have time to wade through those above posts. If you want to start another thread below and in one short paragraph, with some straightforward diffs, tell me what you're unhappy about, I'll have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuzzy thinking is allowed in "retirement" blurbs on UPs. I didn't see the diff link. That's a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

more

= Thirteen edits to this page today, and still Collect refuses to retract a blatant lie, and still won't recuse himself from this Mediation. VirtualSteve has remained neutral and outside of all content discussions; VirtualSteve asked Collect on March 17th a "fundamental question", "And no, at this stage this is not a rhetorical question." but Collect never answers, and it deals with tendentiousness and edit-warring and obstruction of progress, such as in our mediation. It also addresses Collect filing frivolous charges of COI, Outing, etc, as a disruptive distraction whenever Mike Doughney or myself or any other editors demanded an end to Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:TEND trend. I wouldn't be able to take Collect's behavior to Arbitration because, for example, the thirteen tendentious edits today are on the Mediation page, which is supposed to be privileged. But when i asked Collect to desist in their assertions of disruptive falsehoods, and i pointed out their blatant self-contradictions where i caught them fabricating prevarications red-handed, they continued to ignore all polite requests for WP:V and WP:RS to support/defend their falsehoods. I want to know if Collect should be topic-banned, or banned from our Mediation, or simply chaperoned by outside neutral admins such as VirtualSteve, Kevin, and GwenGale or any other unattached volunteers? Because this pattern today, this pattern for the past few weeks, and this pattern for the past four months, have all been allowed to go non-stop despite our protests that it hinders our construction of articles. I've never been in a Mediation before, i never even made a non-Minor edit until four months ago, i am inexperienced at these committee situations, so i have been begging for some wikipedia experts to look at this administratively. Thank you very much for looking at the situation, i hope you will help our Mediation to proceed without these kinds of hindrances. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 23:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• You didn't give me any diffs.
• Paragraph not short.
• Please don't call good faith edits blatant lies, even if you think they are. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Which additional diffs are needed? I have used green and red text colors at the bottom of that long page to point out the thirteen edits where Collect wouldn't retract the falsehood in which i caught them red-handed, using their own talkpage records. I must not have given you both of the two URLs which help illustrate VirtualSteve's attempts to assist (serious question (why do you think that you are upsetting so many different people at so many different pages, or (if you prefer) Do you believe that all of these editors have no cause to be frustrated with you to the extent that they canvass for a possible RfC against you?) and summary here). The UserContributions for Collect which point to the months-long Mediation (note especially the bright red part i highlighted to show you what i mean about not retracting a proven lie which was inserted disruptively on purpose) and Talk:Rick_Warren are my focus, but VirtualSteve was also pointing out the applicability of the problem to Collect's other edit-wars and conflict-addictions. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring? Show me WP:3rr with diffs. You still haven't given me any diffs at all, not one, only links. Meanwhile my eyes glaze over when I see text like "not retracting a proven lie which was inserted disruptively on purpose." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i can see you don't want to read the pages for which i provided you the URLs and the colored highlighted text. I will wait for VirtualSteve to return from vacation, he was dealing with this for months, he will be familiar already. Also, User:Kevin was a neutral admin who admonished the WP:TEND in the mediation recently, but he seems to be semi-retired, so we can see if he still wants to oversee the mediation further. Your volunteering to administer in the event of incidents is probably only possible if you had the opportunity to be familiar with the four-month long case being disputed and mediated, so i can't very well expect you to suddenly telepathically absorb several dozen pages of conversations all at once, and i didn't mean to waste any of your time when i should have gone to the administrators who are already familar with the particulars. Thanks anyway ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to keep harping on diffs, but you never gave me any. This is a diff. Moreover, when I read the word lies, without supporting diffs, I'm not keen to read further. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the administrator who unblocked Collect when they were blocked for edit-warring. I am an inexperienced volunteer editor with no specialist skills at this type of administrative activity. I don't expect you to read dozens of Mediation pages, but i felt it was reasonable for you to acknowledge your own involvement with unblocking Collect after an edit-war, when VirtualSteve and Kevin had admonished Collect for disruptive behavior at around the same time. If you want to ignore my highlighted text on the pages i've presented, and you wish to continue "forgetting" which users you have unblocked for edit-warring, and you need me to show you that edit-war in order to elicit some administrative action from you, then i don't know how reasonable it is for me to keep asking you to do things you oppose. I can simply go to the admins who were already privy to the facts, rather than ask you to examine the actions of your friend whom you feel deserves to be unblocked despite behavior that includes edit wars, disrupted mediation, and fourteen contentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in one afternoon. The fourteen edits i desribe today are here as you can see, but perhaps you don't wish to see. Those are fourteen diffs. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BLOCK. Collect was unblocked because he agreed to stick to 1rr for a month. If you can give me diffs showing he broke 1rr between 3 March and 3 April, please list them. I didn't ignore the coloured text. Now you're going on the attack with me. If this is how you wontedly deal with editing disagreements here, I can see why you're not getting very far. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may request of this admin some attention re: Collect please. This user has become active on a page I have maintained and expanded for a long while, namely Drudge report, and has succeeded in removing a lot of valid material from the page by policy shopping, relentless reverting, warring any changes I make, reporting me for any minor infraction (real or imagined). He has added nothing to the article, only removed data from it, often cited data, on thin pretexts that I do not have time to argue about. I find that his edits are, in general, tendentious, and not aimed at improving the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest you heed the complaints of other editrs about this individual. ► RATEL ◄ 12:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Following me? I would comment WP:OWN at this point. I entered Drudge Report at the start of March in response to concerns raised on a noticeboard. You, on the other hand, even revert removal of repeated words in a single section title <g> ("Alleged CNN reporter's alleged heckling of GOP senators") . All I ask is that reliable sources be used for claims, that saying "self-evident fact" is insuficient as a response, that asserting "fair use" on copyright images is wrong, etc. You may note you did not have consensus on your side on thse matters. is a clear diff on how you viewed the article -- and I had not made many edits at that point. I have more -- but you appear to be the one seeking confrontation here. I stand behind every edit I make, and calling that "tendentious" when you now have 324 article edits on DR and I am all the way up to 57 <g> is interesting. Including typo corrections. It is of note, further, that this editor was upset when I pointed out the the Encyclopedia Britannica online accepted propsed edits from anyone -- and then was aghast thet the EB used my proposed edit on an article. He wrote to the EB making charges against me, which I found to be a teeny bit away from WP:AGF -- that is making off-wiki charges about an editor on an article. I refrained from any complaint, as I found it to be his usual m.o. As to the accusation of "policy shopping", he appears to be upset that his casual invocation of "fair use" is not actually accepted by WP policy. I am sorry that he was wrong, to be sure, but WP does think copyright means something <g>. And so do the courts, amazingly enough, which is why WP has the policy. Merci. Collect (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're both edging towards 3rr at Drudge Report. What's wrong with the talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Collect likes to make sweeping deletions of cited, long-standing material without using the Talk page. Secondly, he/she again charges me with making derogatory statements about him/her, whoever he/she is, to the staff of Britannica, something I have never done. Collect actually decided to try to change a citation we were using on the Drudge Report page. This is a serious malfeasance. You are not supposed to try to change sources according the the rules of wikipedia, but that's exactly what Collect did, and for which he/she has never been punished. I merely contacted them and pointed out that they were being manipulated by a wikipedia editor and directed them to the Talk page involved. They reverted the change. Note that as soon as Collect succeeded in changing the source, he/she trumpeted it on the Talk page diff and changed the article. ► RATEL ◄ 01:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart

An administrator accidentally removed the protection for this article and immediately it attracted some of the great unwashed. You have had an interest in this article in the past, can you restore its protection from IP atttacks? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Truth be told, the s-protection I laid on last October ran out. I've renewed it for a year. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, this will help. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)