| Revision as of 16:05, 25 February 2010 editVerbal (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,940 edits →User talk pages: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:38, 26 February 2010 edit undoLirazSiri (talk | contribs)595 edits blanked talk page. Too much noiseNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Be calm, be patient == | |||
| My condolences on the DRV. Wrong issue, wrong time. Let me see what I can do. Aspects of this incident have been noted. (For more than twenty years, I've watched on-line actors seem to not realize that, in some cases, as here, every action is recorded; some depend on the weight of traffic and laziness of observers to bury it, and it sometimes works, and these writers, with this dependence, will lie about the history or blatantly distort it. But it's all there, if someone is motivated to dig it up.) Let me see what I can do. Basic rules for survival on Misplaced Pages: | |||
| *You can't force anyone to do anything, no matter how right you think it is. | |||
| *Never fight consensus, true consensus is more likely to be right than you are, and be patient with local consensus, it's tricky to move beyond it without being disruptive. | |||
| *Follow ] to the letter and spirit, which means, among other things, ''very slow'' escalation of an issue. | |||
| *Don't argue with others beyond a clear decision point by the editors. | |||
| *If tempted to be uncivil, resist. Thank apparently hostile editors for their comments. Thank admins for considering your request, even if they reply "Go away, spammer!" | |||
| *More words rarely convince anyone. I'm often criticized for tl;dr, but that's when I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm simply exploring or discussing or explaining or just being sociable. Some like it, some don't. | |||
| *You can often find a way around stubborn opposition. Don't butt heads with ]. Instead, toss them some hay and walk slowly in a careful modified manner. | |||
| *There are admins who engage in bad behavior. Don't imitate them, instead, lead by example. You can do just about anything legitimate that an admin could do, without being one, except that you'll have to convince ''one'' admin to do it. If you can't convince one, and you had the tools, you'd be tempted to use them, and then you'd be using them against consensus, even if you might get away with it for a while. | |||
| Good luck, and thanks for trying to improve Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 18:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for taking the time to speak out and restore some of my faith in Misplaced Pages. I think you are absolutely right in all of the points you raise. I made mistakes in how I handled this issue and I share the blame for how it turned out. In retrospect I payed for the price for being a bit of a hot-head. I felt singled out and the personal attacks got under my skin. That led me to be much more aggressive about defending my case in a way that was probably counterproductive and could never be justified by any possible benefit in winning. On the upside there are a few lessons for me here and I have a much better handle now on how things really work on Misplaced Pages than before, especially regarding some of the less desirable aspects of the community. ] (]) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Okay, baby steps. The article is now at ]. Because of expressed concerns about advertising, etc, I have blanked the page, so Google won't find it, except, of course, indirectly, i.e., here or any other indexed page. The latest revision before blanking is at . If you care to, you could go to where references were to the article, possibly the Talk page for Deletion Review, for example, and put a link there, so that people can see what was being talked about. But the page really isn't the issue, the issue is, indeed, process. Bad process is bureaucratic and inefficient. Good process is both efficient and accurate, finding consensus with minimum disruption. Guess what kind of process we saw here? Speedy deletion is intended to be efficient, but when it is applied in a contentious manner, it's the opposite, it creates disruption as offended users scream, the wagons circle to defend, inflammatory comments are made, etc., etc. You were probably right that the article should have been AfD'd. An AfD would not have been as disruptive as the CSD, DRV, AN, Village Pump, and God knows what else process. AfD would quite likely have ended up in the same place, unless, ''first,'' some standards are developed. You properly raised that issue on the Village Pump, you are to be commended. I'll give you a barnstar if I find one in the drawer here, I know there is one someplace. | |||
| But the issue won't be resolved on the Village Pump. Premature. Let me walk you through a couple of things, you made some mistakes. Instead of what you encountered, you should have been taken gently by the hand, welcomed, and ''guided.'' Now, I haven't read everything yet, and never will. Perhaps that was tried. Perhaps you are an evil spammer, out to promote your own interests at the expense of the encyclopedia, in which case I'm wasting my time. But it's my time to waste, and yours to read this, if it's a waste. Reading this is certainly not obligatory. Your first mistake, or maybe not the first, haven't read enough yet: | |||
| The article was speedy deleted by ]. Efe is just a janitor, taking out what has been labeled trash, or what this admin thinks is trash. I'm a little concerned that the nomination came from an IP address. I don't think this was mentioned to Efe, though I'm not sure what effect it would have had. However, calling into question Efe's competence was, shall we say, counterproductive. At this point it was just you and Efe. Efe could reverse the decision, no fuss. But attack Efe's competence, what's likely to happen? Hint: it did. Don't worry, it's not something that thousands of editors haven't done before you. But if you face a situation like this again, well, don't make the same mistake twice. Once should be quite enough. | |||
| Then, you moved the article back into mainspace without finding some consensus first, at least a few editors who agreed with you. Because of your ''potential'' COI, you really should have become much more hands-off. COI is easy to identify for employees or owners, etc., but it also exists among people who are associated with a thing and presumably love it. Moving the article back under those conditions, without a DRV, or the ''prior'' consent of Efe, or some extended consensus, was quite equivalent to wheel-warring among administrators. Simple: someone else should have restored it, if it was going to be restored. Not you. | |||
| That's as far as I'll take this right now, I need to pick up the kids. I will, ''later,'' get to what Misplaced Pages did to you that was a problem. Believe me, though, it could have been worse, I'm dealing with worse situations. You have raised some valid issues, and I think they deserve being addressed, but without the shouting. You stopped shouting, for the most part, but others didn't. --] (]) 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the insightful analysis. If you'll review the history of this whole sordid affair you'll see that in fact bad-faith was assumed from the very start, unfortunately. Efe knew that an IP had flagged the article and that didn't seem to raise his suspicion. I was definitely taken by surprise by the level of hostility I encountered. Especially from the administrators involved. Before that I really looked up to Misplaced Pages Administrators. What kind of person gives so much of himself for no personal benefit to a great cause like Misplaced Pages? The best kind of person I thought! It turns out that was a bit naive on my part. I was really sad to discover that some Administrators on Misplaced Pages can be quite nasty if you get in their crosshairs (for whatever reason). Worse, the bad apples seem to gang up together, intensifying their destructive influence. They'll calling me to come to dinner now, so I'll have to pick up on this discussion later. When I have a bit of free time I would like to work within the system to try and make progress on the various issues I encountered (e.g., standards for notability of free software projects), with your help. Thanks again and cheers! ] (]) 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've seen the worst behavior come out in people who are volunteers in noble projects. In straight business, people are out to make money. It's a simple motive, and most people realize that incivility and other negative traits interfere with efficiency and just plain reasonable life. Certainly there are plenty of exceptions, but in the business world, ''most people'' are kind and fair with each other. But when a "good cause" is involved, something strange happens. I think that people tend to identify the problems of any good cause as being due to bad people. The task then becomes identifying and getting rid of the bad people. The bad people may be the members of a nonprofit organization who want to change something that the person thinks essential. Once a problem has been generally personalized, i.e., the problem with Misplaced Pages is promoters of "fancruft," or "POV pushers" or "spamvertisers," or rank "inclusionists," then specific personalisations happen. Suddenly the "enemy" is in front of us, trying to wreak his damage. I have seen the worst kind of behavior on boards of nonprofit organizations, all volunteers: lying, fraud, and scapegoating of, for example, whistleblowers. All for a good cause, of course. We have to protect the organization, the "good cause" justifies leaving normal civility, good manners, expectations of cooperation accompanied by cooperation, all that, behind. | |||
| ::Naturally, if we can just get rid of these deluded people, everything will be fine! | |||
| ::Just kidding! No, the problem is the ''structure,'' that was my realization years ago, the problem isn't the individuals. Each one of us is responsible for what we do, the structure isn't an excuse, but, systemically, the structure leads people to act the way they do. If they don't do it, someone else will. | |||
| ::I do think we can do something about it, not just here, everywhere. It may be much simpler than we think. --] (]) 23:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, I've seen bad-intentioned IP editors lead the community by the nose before. Communities can show intelligence above what is possible for any individual, but they can also show something far less than that, less than individuals might show, on their own. Community process makes the difference. A culture of quick comments, impatience with depth, coupled with the ready scapegoating mentioned above, leads to some pretty bad decisions. There are some very, very bright editors active, all the way up to ArbComm, but some of our administrators and editors wouldn't last long in any actual editing job. They drive away the writers. --] (]) 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Drive away writers? No kidding. I took a break myself for a few weeks to get some perspective and distance myself from all of this drama emotionally. ] (]) | |||
| Woah, congratulations on the restoral, man. Looks like I was mistaken in my assesment of the sources! --] (]) 00:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks Enric. I was a bit surprised myself that the decision to restore was unanimous. I was expecting some opposition from a few people I had rubbed against the wrong way (or their friends), but the community looked past all that and did the right thing in the end. It's nice that the project has been officially knighted as notable. ] (]) 06:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope I was helpful here, in reminding LirazSiri to be patient and to address the issues raised in a deletion discussion or a deletion review, and in getting the article userfied, instead of railing about the unfairness of it all, which can merely make things even uglier. Congratulations, LS, great job. There are never any guarantees here, but I doubt that the article is at risk any more. I presume you should continue to consider yourself COI, but you can do just about anything you want if nobody objects and it isn't outrageous. Just respect the rights of other editors, no matter how stupid they might seem, and get help if you need it. Don't do anything contentious alone. If I can be of any help, let me know. --] (]) 01:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Dear Abd, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind you were most helpful here in your role as an educator and mediator. Regretfully, much of my engagement with elements in the Misplaced Pages community prior to your involvement generated more heat than light. I cleaned most of that up now from this page but preserved your advice for the benefit of others who may find themselves in similar circumstances, at least until we find a better home for it elsewhere. Unfortunately that currently includes editors on the majority of open source articles on Misplaced Pages, but I hope they'll be left alone for a little while longer while the community evolves towards a new consensus regarding notability criteria for open source software projects (fingers crossed). Also, will take your advice to heart and will be especially careful regarding potential issues with real or perceived COI edits. Again, many thanks! ] (]) 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == JEOS == | |||
| I added some stuff to the talk page there. Best wishes. ] (]) 14:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC on JzG == | |||
| I think you'll be interested in this: ]. JzG finally getting some scrutiny for his behavior. ] (]) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi LirazSiri. Thanks for dropping me a line. Yes I was aware of the new RfC and have been following it with great interest. However you say that JzG is "finally getting some scrutiny for his behavior" - you will note by the title of the RfC that this is in fact the 3rd RfC filed against JzG and I do believe if you look within the first two you will see "countless" references to incivility, and personal attacks made by JzG which would have had any other Wikipedian banned in a jiffy, and yet, he was let off with a slap on the wrist. In other words this is definitely not the first time the JzG is getting scrutiny for his behaviour, and while I share your distaste for his behaviour I have very little faith that the outcome will be anything more than perhaps another slap on the wrist. I did read your Outside Comment and think you did a great job - well thought out and very true, especially for a new Wikipedian such as yourself (it can take ages to familiarise oneself with WikiPolicy and you appear to speak quite relavantly on the matter - I think your comments were constructive). I on the other hand won't make an outside comment because a) I've been involved with JzG in the past, b) I have been totally uninvolved in the Cold Fussion debate and this incident, and c) I don't think I'd have anything constructive to add. | JzG apparently believes that he is beyond reproach and his cronies seem all the while willing to sanction all of his behaviour. What is in fact the most frustrating to me is that in ANY debate about JzG be it a Request for Comment or a notice on the Administrator's Notice Board, they will make it their mission in life to detract from the discussion at hand and try to twist the discussion into something it is not - this happens not just with JzG issues but with many deletion reviews and debates. If you go into court the judge and the lawyers would all be cognizant of the protocol and what is relevant and what is not and the judge would throw out anything that is not relevant (often subject to an objection from the defence). It is disappointing to see some ad hominem attacks and sidetracking taking place. All of this is par for the course on Misplaced Pages. Is it the system that is broken or is it the people? Well I say both. Firstly I have a strong opinion that the Articles for Deletion and Deletion Review system stinks because there is a culture that incentivizes deletions - admins put boxes in their profiles bragging about how many articles they nominated for deletion - people browse "Articles for Deletion" not to save them but to delete them - so there's definitely a bias. But beyond the system, for whatever reason, the problem also lies in the people. There seems to be cronyism and corruption amongst the ranks of the admins: they tend to stick up for eachother and turn a blind eye to eachother's transgressions. Power corrupts and seems to be corrupting here. Some admins seem to believe that they are beyond reproach. Over the years that I have been members of online communities I have learnt time and time again that they are outlets for personalities in the world where there can be a dissonance between who we really are and who we would like to be, in other words in an online community such as wikipedia you will find a great concentration of individuals who spend hours and days selflessly contributing to the project, but who subconsciously feed off it in ways that ultimately hamper the project. Anyways look at my rambling off here using this as an outlet perhaps just like our tainted admins!! -- Thanks again for dropping me a line and let's see what happens! ] (]) 00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, Rfwoolf, this RfC is different. First of all, it was narrowly framed. There really are three questions presented, and the evidence regarding them is overwhelming: was JzG involved, did he use his tools while involved, and is this a violation of policy? The answer to all three questions is Yes, and there really isn't any substantial disagreement about this. His defenders, together with some neutral parties, seem to be saying, "Yes, but." However, what they may not realize is that if the RfC doesn't find consensus, and I mean real consensus, not merely what some arbitrary admin decides, which may or may not represent consensus, this goes to ArbComm, because it's a crucial issue, admin action while involved is not some technical detail, the prohibition of it is fundamental. If precedent is followed, and if JzG doesn't acknowledge the problem, i.e., show that he understands the policy and will follow it, which is impossible if he doesn't admit that he made the mistakes, his admin bit is almost certainly toast. Accusations of incivility and the rest don't have the clarity of this. Most of JzG's problematic actions didn't have the depth of involvement as his involvement in ]; he finally went too far. His supporters, as expected, are trying to divert attention by focusing on me (or are simply unable to understand what is happening), but that is actually a rather stupid strategy, if they have a goal of protecting JzG, and the fast close that some might want will simply speed up the RfAr filing. By openly and repeatedly claiming that "JzG did nothing wrong," they basically impeach themselves on the point of administrative recusal, and will be far less able to defend him when it comes time to determine sanctions. Sure, nothing is certain, but I wouldn't have risked my account on this if I didn't expect not only ArbComm validation, should it become necessary, but also, in the end, community consensus, once it is all out in the open. | |||
| ::And I'll say this as well: if the community lets this slide and if ArbComm, somehow, goes along with accepting what JzG did, which seems quite unlikely to me, Misplaced Pages, instead of JzG's admin bit, is toast. And the sooner I find that out, the better. I don't have a lot of time left, and I'd prefer not to waste it on a project that has become locked in the whirlpool and will go down the drain. I don't expect that, which is why I'm still here. I'm not here to push some POV. --] (]) 03:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Rfwoolf, Abd: Let's hope Misplaced Pages does the right thing here in face of shameless cronyism. Certainly we can't take for granted that will happen - JzG has many powerful supporters. ] (]) 16:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LirazSiri, your Outside View on the RfC includes the statement "JzG does properly restrain his use of administration privileges on Misplaced Pages." You might want to check whether you've accidentally left out the word "not". Just trying to be helpful. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 13:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, that was a typo. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! ] (]) 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for supporting my section in the ] == | |||
| RE: ] | |||
| Thanks for supporting my section, I moved that section to the talk page, along with your endorse, because the creator of the RfC, AbD advised me that it is not a good idea to focus on personal attacks in this RfC. ] (]) 15:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. FWIW, you're welcome. I will say this though: if any administrator on Misplaced Pages is deserving of attacks on his personality it is JzG. The man has earned it. ] (]) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image (File:Turnkey-logo-blue-alpha.png)== | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 18:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Image Spam == | |||
| I consider your various TurnKey images to be spammy but lack the time and energy to do something about it beyond slapping this warning here: | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:|, such as the one you made to ],}} did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use ] for any test edits you would like to make, and read the ] to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Incidentally the category spamming is particularly antisocial. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry Sam, I don't understand. Could you elaborate what it is about the images that you consider "antisocial" and "spammy"? And is "spammy" a real word or just a substitute for "against my personal tastes"? Also I think your confrontational attitude is in violation of ] ] (]) 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Do we really need to have a logo for each of your virtual appliances (I count 10 so far), which were spammed into *many* inappropriate categories and which despite your claiming CC licensing, are in many cases covered by common law and/or registered trademarks? Please read the warning on COI below, the ] and my ] essay so as to better understand why your contributions, while quite likely well intended, are problematic. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Errrr, why are you labelling all your Turnkey logos with cc-by-sa-3.0? Do you realize that you are allowing anyone to reuse the logos at their own applications? Actually, you are giving permission to re-use the logos for any use. And they could use the logos in their original form or with any modifications they want to make to them. You are basically revoking your trademark rights over the logos.... | |||
| That I know, all free-software orgs have trademark rights on their logos, to prevent abuse and stealing by other people. For example, ] is a version of ], and it has to remove all the logos before distribution. ] is under the Apache licensing, Linus Torvalds had to trademark the "Linux" name because of abuse (see ]), etc. This is not by chance, it was done this way for the protection of the program, its programmers and its users. --] (]) 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I just noticed ]. You '''can not''' make a derivative work of a trademarked logo (]) and release it as Creative Commons. Please restore yourself the <nowiki>{{Non-free logo|regtrademark=yes}}</nowiki> tag. Ídem for other logos that use trademarked logos. | |||
| For example, in ], the Drupal logo is free, so there is no problem about derivative works. Only the same prevention as above: if you say that it's a CC work with no non-free trademark, then you are basically giving up your trademark protection on the image. --] (]) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR Warning == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:Template:Cloud computing|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The pot calling the kettle black. That's pretty cynical of you Sam. Note that anyone who reviews your edit history can see right through your behavior.] (]) 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Conflict of Interest Warning == | |||
| ] If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about {{#if:TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library|in the article ]|on Misplaced Pages}}, you may have a ]. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's ] policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should '''avoid''' or '''exercise great caution''' when: | |||
| #'''editing''' or '''creating''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; | |||
| #'''participating''' in ] about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and | |||
| # '''linking''' to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see ]). | |||
| Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to ], ], and ]. | |||
| For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see ].{{#if:| You may also wish to consider ], to avoid giving the impression that your account is to be used for ]. Regardless, doing so does ''not'' exempt you from the proscription against editing articles in which you have a conflict of interest.|}} {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}]{{Do not delete}}<!-- Template:uw-coi --> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 19:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :This is yet another thinly disguised Ad-Hominem attack. It is only natural that Misplaced Pages editors contribute to areas they are familiar with. I contribute to open source for the same reasons I contribute to Misplaced Pages. Appliances are a valid and important part of cloud computing. I have yet to see any arguments from you to the contrary. Instead you edit war and leave inappropriate templates on my talk page.] (]) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Files listed for deletion == | |||
| Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see ] if you are interested in preserving them. <!--isindex used on index pages --> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Drupal.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Joomla.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Lamp.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Mediawiki.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Wordpress.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Phpbb.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Rails.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:TurnKey-Tomcat-apache.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| *<span id="File:File:Mysql 0.png listed for deletion">]</span> | |||
| Thank you.<!-- Template:Fdw-multi --> -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == User talk pages == | |||
| Please note that a user can remove anything from their user talk page for any reason. See ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 16:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC) | |||