User talk:Caknuck/Archive 6

< Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)

Clarification

Thank you for the welcome message! I know it may sound a bit ... well ... unorthodox for us to be editing information on our Wiki about ourselves ... but we're striving to maintain accuracy on the site. We recently looked at the Wikipedia page as we were exploring what all was out there in cyberspace that talked about or mentioned us. We're hoping to make some clarifications, some additions and subtractions, and all-around make the information on the page look better. I'm working hard to not pitch anything (no pun intended) on our team's Wikipedia page, and we view this as a place for factual information only. We invite you to please take a look at the edits we make and moderate them somewhat, if that would make our edits more appropriate for this forum.

Regarding the addition of links to our facebook and twitter sites, as I understand the exemptions for these otherwise less-than-appropriate links, these are sites controlled by our organization completely. Wouldn't they be OK, then, for inclusion at the bottom of our Wikipedia page since it invites the reader to see what the organization is saying about itself?

Otherwise, the historical data we're changing comes directly from the official Texas League Media Guide, which unfortunately is not in a digital format. That, and team archives. We're trying to ensure this information - particularly historical data - is completely accurate. We're also hoping to include items of interest, such as single-game ticket prices and a current stadium seating chart.

Please let me know if this is OK! Thank you so much for your attention! Samissions (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)samissions

Thank you for the insights - and I'll be sure to follow the guidelines the best I can. And, naturally, I'm always up for a discussion about our posts.

As far as changing names ... our intent is, indeed, to have a "group name". The nature of the baseball industry is that we are transient in our employment - most of us are with a team only 2-5 years at a time - and I'm hoping to set up the account in such a way as to provide a smooth, seamless transition for those who may follow.

If a group account isn't appropriate - and we do want to be among the very best in the Wikipedia community here - what other suggestions would you have for us? Bear in mind we are still very new at this whole Wikipedia thing.

Samissions (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)samissions

Thanks - I'll get to work on eliminating the group account immediately.

As for the reliability of info ... the info I'm using comes directly from our league media guide, as I have said, or from news releases, box scores or player stat pages from the San Diego Padres, Major League Baseball or Minor League Baseball. How do I cite these sources on the wiki page? Is there a code I need to know to add footnotes to make the material credible?

Thank you for the help ... we really are pretty much bumping through this as we're trying to improve our online presence and the information available about us out there. And we want to comply completely with the Wikipedia rules - no sense getting into this unless we do it right.

Samissions (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)samissions

I've placed a username request to change to a personal account. I have an issue, however.... The "Samissions" user name is attached to a general e-mail account here with our baseball club, and if I'm changing it to a personal account I'd like to switch the e-mail - AND the password for the account - over to my personal account.

Then, ideally, I could contribute to Wikipedia on my own time on a variety of topics.

So the big question is ... where to I go to change my e-mail address and password on the account? Is that even possible?

Thank you for the assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samissions (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Samissions (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Samissions

Question

Is your "resolves to be more canucky" supposed to link to something? If so, it doesn't, for me at least. And I was way curious about what it means!!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is neither meant to link to anything nor have any apparent meaning. Enigmatic... it's how I roll. (This year at least.) caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, enigmatic is good. And as a Canuck who has wandered the world myself, thanks for giving me the liberty to project my own experience into your epigram. And I have done so! --Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A message from LDE...

Hello there. This message is about an article you locked in which only administrators can edit until further notice. I'm talking about the article for the upcoming new channel Disney XD. Because it's been protected, nobody but admins can add that Static Shock will be on the new channel. I saw that on a two-minute promo for the new channel on YouTube. Could you put in that Static Shock will be on the new channel, please?
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 02:25, 7 January 2009 (EDT)

Rachael Ray

You indicated on WP:RFPP that the article was semi-protected for one month, but a sock just restored the WP:BLP violation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: The page is protected now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I guess I didn't click through from the protection page. It should be fixed now. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

thanks for your help [[Ben Carella]] (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sims 3

I started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#The_Sims_3 regarding the semi-protection on Sims 3 page. Perhaps you'd like to share your view on the subject since you're the one who added the protection. Thanks. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded at WT:RFPP#The Sims 3. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I have never seen so much vandalism on the page since the semi-protection. This is really weird. Perhaps we should start to reconsider. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I count three clear-cut instances of IP vandalism since I removed protection. I'll check again tonight, and if there's more, I'll re-protect. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but perhaps not for 7 weeks ;) -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any more outright vandalism since yesterday, so let's play wait-and-see another day or two. I still have it watchlisted. Cheers, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Caknuck's Day!

Caknuck has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Caknuck's day! For your helpful use of the admin tools and work in baseball-related articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, Caknuck! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How can I not care? I'm glad you liked it. :) bibliomaniac15 21:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

MLB 2K9

We are having issues again on the release date of MLB 2K9. 2ksports.com/games clearly states march 2nd as the release date by a user keeps putting it back to the 3rd. Please help us out here. Jwjkp (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Extra input... The user is claiming that was 2ksports clearly states is the release date is actually the shipping date. This may or may not be true but it is being released according to 2ksports on the 2nd of march. If I'm not mistaken, that is what it should say. Jwjkp (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just do not see or understand how you can deny (not use) information coming straight from the people who are going to release it. The other dude is getting his information from 3rd parties which contradicts what 2ksports.com/games says. Jwjkp (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One more source: http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/142/14299423.html Jwjkp (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed his request to look over WP:VG which he claims clearly states that it should be the "date its available in stores" not "ship date". I do not see this. Nor does 2K says its a "ship date". They say its a "release date". If I'm wrong, please tell me and revert it back to his version. If he's wrong though, please inform him to stop changing it. Jwjkp (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:JAF1970#MLB 2K9 Release Date. I am not going to protect the article for something this minor. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not requesting protection. I was just merely asking for your opinion. Basically, should my source stand. Jwjkp (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked JAF for some clarification. In other words, we'll see. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, JAF has started a mediation process on this. I don't think this is neccessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Major_League_Baseball_2K9. Should I agree to this? Jwjkp (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think so. The MC has plenty of experienced neutral editors who have tons of experience resolving content disputes. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, looks like they already declined it because not enough prior action was taken. Other wiki members though are helping me out and trying to set JAF straight on this issue. Appears I was correct on it after all. Jwjkp (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Shannon Rose

The editor Shannon Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has returned, and is using questionable edit summaries again. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a new warning on the user's talk page. I'll keep an eye on them to make sure they behave appropriately. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Home Improvement Article

Looks like one of the vandals is back now that your protection period is over at Home Improvement. You told me to keep you updated. Jwjkp (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the one IP editor. Keep me posted if things get worse. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another guy is adding that spam link back again: User_talk:Al's_Pals JeremyWJ (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Al's Pals (talk · contribs) and semi-protected the page for a month. Thanks for the heads up. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully the dude will stop after that month is up. Is this the same dude (IP/IP range) or is there multiple actual people doing it? JeremyWJ (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser access, so there's no way for me to tell what IP address is being used when a registered account edits. The specific pattern leads me to suspect that it's one person who has an axe to grind and/or too much time on their hands. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, less than 24 hours after protection is up... The guy is back. JeremyWJ (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a different vandal, your usual drive-by juvenile vandalism. If it keeps up, let me know and I'll re-protect it. Thanks, caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 07:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. JeremyWJ (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that same vandal is back for sure. I honestly don't think is ever going to end without protection. JeremyWJ (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 months. Thanks for the updates. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 22:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the 72-hour block on User:EEMeltonLol. However, the user name is a play on my old user name (User:EEMeltonIV) and its edits seem entirely aimed at being disruptive. Would you please consider an indefinite block? --EEMIV (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EEMIV. That account should be indefinitely blocked as it is clearly meant to harass EEMIV, which is unacceptable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I see the definite connection, I'll set the block to indef. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. --EEMIV (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Disney XD

Please unblock Disney XD, im not going to vandalize Disney XD. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.117.52 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection ends on Feb 1. I'm sure you can wait until then. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 20:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nestor Aparicio saga continues

The WP:LIVE remarks that were in the main article are showing up in the discussion page. I'm not sure what to do about it... delete them? Please check. What's the right thing to do? --Mtd2006 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fans of The Ticket, a Dallas sports talk radio station with a rabid following. The morning drive hosts have a long-standing radio feud with Nestor that always flares up during the week prior to the Super Bowl. I've semi-protected the talk page for 3 days. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 07:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

my user page

you deleted my user page for blatant advertising, I don't understand. Can you please explain in more detail?--Koolkittie (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The contents of the page were an advertisement for a dermatologist's laser. The page was created by User:Newsdog01, so I don't know if it was intended to be a joke or if they were simply confused. Either way, it wasn't content that was suitable for Wikipedia. (Don't worry, this has no bearing on your standing as a member of the project.) caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 07:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello. You recently warned me against vandalizing the Decline of Roman Civilisation page and I can't remember modifying that article. I think there's been a mistake. Do you think you could tell me how i vandalized it?--Timblank (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. That article doesn't exist and I've never posted any warnings to your talk page. In fact, I don't see any warnings having been issued to your account. Was this under a different account or IP address? caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for repeat long-term block

Greetings Caknuck - back in November 2007 you slapped a 1-year block on User talk:217.180.28.173. Could you please do it again 'cos that particular IP address is still, and has been from way back, a permanent vandal. I get the impression that so many dire warnings issued by other editors/Wikipedians/administrators are just laughed off as empty threats - if anyone at that particular IP address ever gets to see 'em. Sorry for dragging you in, but I'd rather appeal to an admin who¡s already applied a ban on that/those particular user/s. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor hasn't had any activity for a week, so I can't issue a block at this moment. I will, however, keep an eye on them and if they start up again, I'll deal with it immediately. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...--Technopat (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Blatant Advertising

Hi there. I'd like to calmly discuss the deletion of Lloyd Luna profile. I'm one of his biographers here in the Philippines and I'd like to post his autobiography. However, it was deleted after I did one for him. Please let me know what to do to come up with a reasonably acceptable page. Thanks very much in advance. Cheers! Mastervator (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Mastervator's talk page. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user

A user that you had blocked last night, User Talk:76.166.31.163 looks to be back at a different IP, leaving nice messages about you: [1]. Whois has them from different ISPs in different states, but I figured I'd give you a heads up. 36.x.x.x was given a 4im for his comment. --Terrillja _talk 19:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Blocked by another admin for 31 hours. --Terrillja _talk 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! caknuck _° is a silly pudding 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too quickly, back from another IP now, this time from NJ. Some sort of funny business is going on here.--Terrillja _talk 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I protected the page. I expect them to wander in here next. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here or my talkpage. Thanks for protecting that. --Terrillja _talk 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the newest of the IPs. Let me know if they start up again. Cheers, caknuck _° is a silly pudding 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Suck It.

Suck it long. Suck it hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.15.79.196 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Alex Trebek. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for deleted text

Hi! Could you dump a copy of the text that was in (I Need You Now) More Than Words Can Say by Alias into User talk:Pdfpdf/More Than Words Can Say please? (There was some stuff on that deleted page that's permissable that isn't on the More Than Words Can Say page, and in the past, I and others have gone to some effort to turn it into readable english. ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
(And yes, trying to guide enthusiastic good faith editors towards MoS guidelines without annoying or discouraging them, and without sounding patronising, is hard work and requires delicate choices of words! Pdfpdf (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Responded at Pdfpdf's talk page. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hi again. Thanks for your interest in the Rick Neigher page, but I don't understand this edit. Could I bother you to explain why the reference is unnecessary please? Or probably more useful, could you suggest how best to highlight the fact that the album went to #2 on Billboard? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and whilst I "have you on the line", in the table at Rick Neigher#Songs composed by Neigher, I'd like to link (to WP pages) the contents of the "Artist" and "Album" columns. Because the table is sortable, linking the "first" mention is difficult, because depending on sort order, there can be up to four different "first" mentions. What advice can you give me? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Pdfpdf's talk page. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks helpful. And thank you also for the offer of assistance - most appreciated.
However, "She who must be obeyed" is demanding my presence behind a shovel; I'll digest your advice later. Cheers, and again, Thanks, 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdfpdf (talk • contribs)

That's interesting! 3~: Pdfpdf (talk) 4~: Pdfpdf (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 5: 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(You learn something new every day!) But I digress.

Sorry, but the More than words can say page contains some rubbish that had been corrected on the page you deleted (e.g. in the info box, some idiot changed the release date from 1990 to 2008.) And there was some other stuff that I can't remember the details of too. And as I said, I and others have made other edits which are now lost.

Could I bother you for a copy of the deleted page so that I can "synchronise" them please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (Yes, there are 4 this time.)

Done. Let me know when you're finished so I can delete the copy in your usertalk space. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 03:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

<od>Thanks. Let me know ... - OK, will do, but it will be at least 12 hours. (There's a shovel outside with my name on it ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Wainhouse

On February 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dave Wainhouse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And Then There Were None

I noticed recently that you placed semi-protection on the page for Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap. Please could I ask you to do the same for the page And Then There Were None? I've been contributing Christie edits to this page for some two years now and barely a day goes by when some form of vandalism doesn't occur. The most recent case deleted the first edition image, added or changed data that was incorrect and took the page through eighteen differing versions from the "correct" one.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for two weeks. Let me know if persistent vandalism resumes once the protection lapses. Cheers, caknuck _° is a silly pudding 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to Help

Hi, I got your message. I would be happy to help with the Baseball WikiProject. I will start looking into it. And sorry for the overkill on the stats it was my second Wikipedia edit.

Sincerely Anik C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anik C (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

YOUNG-TT Deletion Query!

I am Jonathan Morgan, acting president of the Youth of United Nations Group - Trinidad and Tobago organisation. I wish to calmly inquire as to the reason behind the deletion of the YOUNG-TT page that served as an information medium for our members and prospective members alike. As all content about our humble Caribbean-based group was factual and in line with the terms and preferences of Wikipedia, I am at ends as to the possible purpose for its deletion. I respecfully would appreciate some clarification in the matter at your nearest convenience. Thank you for your time.

Jonathandkmgn (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Jonathan Morgan (YOUNG-TT---President)

Responded at Jonathandkmgn's talk page. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ThunderBay IP vandal on Winnipeg Folk Festival and Bird's Hill Park

I see the Thunder Bay IP has been adding his long story to Birds Hill Provincial Park as well as to Winnipeg Folk Festival and Folk festival. Unless there's a lot of legitimate editors from this IP range, perhaps more comprehensive measures are in order. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Wtshymanski's talk page. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Congressional-name account block

Looks like it's properly done now. Thanks for the catch on the Congressional IP range. (If it really is Darrell himself, he'll have to satisfy OTRS.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Orangemike's talk page. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 06:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WFF vandal

Hi, I've been clearing up some vandalism by the "Winnipeg Folk Festival vandal", and I came across your note at User talk:Wtshymanski. He's at it again from 216.211.51.170 (talk · contribs). I got that IP blocked as well, but please could you look into a rangeblock. Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Astronaut's talk page. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 06:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

RE User:Nordicwarrior3

Hi, I'm not an admin, nor do I have a lot of experience when it comes to blocking policy, so it is with a degree of deference that I ask the following question: why so lenient with Nordicwarrior? He perpetrated repeated (if short lived) vandalism including profanities, ethnic slurs, personal attacks and revelation of someone else's personal details.

I don't know whether you check the diffs yourself or merely respond to the WP:AIV reports, but in case it's the latter I'll give you a taster (asterisked so that Cluebot doesn't revert me right away): F**k Wikipedia, F**k jews, F**k N*ggers, the President is a n*gger, John Smith [insert sexual acts here] and his number is 123-4567. I have a feeling that in 72 hours we might experience another flurry... Hadrian89 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked most of the diffs, but I admittedly missed the one with the ethnic/religious/homophobic slurs and the pledge to continue the vandalism. I have changed the block to indef, and have e-mailed the Oversighters to remove the revision with the name & phone number. Thanks for clearing this up for me. caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 19:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Chance of Undeletion?

A while ago, (7 August 2007) you deleted the article Hank Green. The consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Green was that Hank Green could not be considered a "notable" person. Quickly, I'd like to refute this and have this matter resolved. Hank Green is easily considered notable, following the guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC

WP:BIO

Satisfying Basic Criteria Hank Green has had over twenty articles written about him and several of his projects (Brotherhood 2.0, Project for Awesome, and Ecogeek). To name a few:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
(A list of articles mentioning Hank Green has helpfully been provided by JoinTheMadVender, at User:JoinTheMadVender/Sandbox#References that you can easily peruse for further examples.) This easily satisfies the basic criteria (he has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject", Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria).

Entertainers Hank Green can be considered to have "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." Hank Green's channels on YouTube have both had thousands of views and subscribers ("theecogeek": subscribers, 3795; channel views, 11058. "vlogbrothers": subscribers, 84936). His and his brothers videos have collectively been watched over 20 million times. There are over 20, 000 members of the site Nerdfighters, which Hank Green started for fans. There are over 39, 500 members of his other fansite, My Pants.

Creative professionals Hank Green is both an editor and a journalist. He is the editor (as well as the sole creator) of the extremely popular environmentalist site "EcoGeek", which was heralded as "the leading blog on green science and technology" by The Nature Conservancy. He also writes environmentally-friendly articles on EcoGeek (along with the other long-term writers), which are among the most viewed on the site, that broadcast information about all things green. He also, often times, wrote articles for Mental floss.

WP:MUSIC

Hank Green can also be considered notable as a musician. He satisfies qualification #2 on Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles ("has had a charted single or album on any national music chart") by having his album "So Jokes" clock in at #22 in Top Revenue Sales on the Billboard. (Cited here: Billboard.com)

So, please consider undeleting Hank Green. Below is my reasoning as stated in Talk:Hank_Green, reprinted for your convenience, for the return of the article.

Call for the Reopening for the Hank Green Page

I believe that there is sufficient notable information on Hank Green to warrant the reopening of his page. I still don't fully understand why, if the information was insufficient, Hank Green's page wasn't simply marked as "stub". The redirection to "John Green (author)" is invaluable to those looking to learn more about Hank Green, because the article only mentions Hank Green in swift passing.
It seems Hank Green's standalone "notability" has also been called into question. First, I will mention his incredibly large following on the video sharing website "YouTube" (which, by the way, is not as isolated a community as some believe). It is unfair to understate the value of his "Project for Awesome" (P4A), which encourages people to spread the word on worthy charities through the internet. This project has encouraged donations to hundreds of charities.
Hank Green is the sole founder of EcoGeek, which (along with its sister companies Carectomy, Envirovore, and Envirowonk) is a large information blog, filled with articles on all things environmentally-friendly. It is "the leading blog on green science and technology", even, according to The Nature Conservancy. EcoGeek has been nominated for a plethora of awards as well. Also, notably, he was a writer for Mental_floss. This is an accomplishment within itself.
These are all things that Hank Green had achieved as of 20 December 2008, and yet, it seems not to be accepted enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (not even a "stub"!), which is, I think, outrageous. Fortunately, he has achieved much more, as of 28 May 2009. So, in addition to the following list:

- Conceiver of the "Project for Awesome", a project dedicated to informing individuals of charities in need of financial support
- Founder, runner, and editor of EcoGeek.com, which has been heralded as the "leading blog on green science and technology"
- Writer for the popular magazine Mental floss
- Co-initiator of the Brotherhood 2.0 Project, which remain among of the most viewed videos of all time on YouTube
- One of several writers for EcoGeek.com

Hank Green has accomplished even more. He has now co-founded a record company, DFTBA Records, which has released his album "So Jokes". "So Jokes" entered the Billboard's Top 20 in February 2009 for Top Revenue Generating albums sold through paid downloads and paid streams. He has been on tour, the Tour de Nerdfighters, and has had several concerts. He was released music videos for his singles "It All Makes Sense At The End" and "DFTBA".
And let's go back to the whole "DFTBA Records" thing for a moment: the record company has signed more than fifteen artists to its label (including Chameleon Circuit, Dave Days, Julia Nunes, Alan Lastufka, Tom Milsom, and Charlie McDonnell). It has its own forum for discussion of its artists (which is more than I can say for many, much more prominent, record companies), a radio show, and a "street team".
So, he's a record producer, singer/songwriter, environmentalist, and vlogger? Well, that seems pretty "notable" to me.

Thank you for reading this, and I hope this can be resolved. (And sorry this is so lengthy! I'm a talker. :P)
-- Madi, Madithekilljoy (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

With the help of other users, I have just finished the first draft of what would be the Hank Green Wikipedia page upon undeletion, which can be seen here . Madithekilljoy (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Theodore Kowal

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Theodore Kowal. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I need an unbias opinion on an article

I know this is probably not the most important article here at Wiki, but I find myself in an edit battle with a user named Zero_Requiem who continues to edit the Lelouch Lamperouge entry (for the Japanese show Code Geass) by changing the meaning of a November 2008 interview with the director of the show (Goro Taniguichi) in question in the Japanese Magazine Newtype which was repeated in a January 2009 article (in the Japanese magazine Animedia) by the company which made the show, Sunrise.

I've given links to the pages in the Japanese magazine [8][9][10], I've given verifiable links to the Anime News Network (a reliable source) printing of the official statement (by the company who owns the show; Sunrise) on this subject which contradicts the other evidence presented in the wikipedia entry/article (that being the opinion of the head writer of the show; Ichiro Okouchi).

I've given a link to the original Japanese document from Gekka's Animedia magazine.

Sunrise released a statemnent in Gekka's Animedia magazine which states; Scan of Animedia Sunrise Statement

Translation:

"You have all shown us a lot of kind appreciation in making the DVDs and CDs so popular.

We were truly blessed to have such passionate fans…truly, thank you all.

Like we have said before, Lelouch may have died (?) but Geass itself will not.

The show has just ended, yet we feel it might be a good idea to make something else.

In any case, we might be able to announce something in the near future…"

Sunrise is a reliable source of information (they own Code Geass) as is Animedia magazine and Sunrise's statement is in conflict with that of the head writer of this show Ichiro Okouchi.

The point of contention here is over Zero_Requiem's repeated use of the word tone in the article to describe what Sunrise and Goro Taniguichi have stated in both Newtype Magazine (November 2008) and Animedia Magazine (January 2009).

The entry by Zero_Requiem is as follows;

He also stated that he thinks of the ending as a happy one because there will be a better tomorrow for those left behind and that Lelouch would appreciate this,[7] though director Goro Taniguchi also notes that the tone of the ending is left for the audience to interpret.[8]

The bold faced portion changes the meaning of what the Director (Goro Taniguichi) actually said in the Newtype Article which was reiterated by Sunrise in the January 2009 article (which has a proper English translation at ANN). For it to be NPOV is should read;

He also stated that he thinks of the ending as a happy one because there will be a better tomorrow for those left behind and that Lelouch would appreciate this,[7] though director Goro Taniguchi also notes that the ending is left for the audience to interpret.[8]

The reason this is important is because the show's main protagonist (Lelouch Lamperouge) may or may not have died at the end of this show and thus the ending is left open (a common plot device in many movies/TV shows).

In the Newtype article Taniguichi doesn't say it was the tone of the end that was up to the viewer to decide, he states simply to the interviewer in Newtype that the END is up to the viewer to decide.

Therefore by adding that it was the Tone, or the feeling, or anything else, Zero_Requiem is using pure speculation and opinion on his/her part and thus may be in violation of the NPOV rules of Wikipedia.

Which is why I'm bothering you with this. Is it worth it to correct this article so that it is NPOV or at least accurate? Or is it of such low importance that I should just simply write it off as another poorly written and inaccurate Wiki entry? I'd like to simply edit out the phrase that Zero_Requiem is using but the guy/gal just keeps reverting and undoing it so it's become kinda pointless. You'd think this would be no big deal, but for some reason it is and to be frank he/she has worn me thin here to the point where I'm about to say F-it and leave the article in error. Please advise whether I should just let it alone or not.Tetragrammaton (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that this person is probably the user Zetsubou Bunny at the animesuki forums becaust that user has bragged over there about editing the Lelouch Lamperouge entry to reflect the animesuki viewpoint and shut out all other POV. This woman made the following comment today/tonight which is relevent to this argument which is rather unusual and coincidental. The reason this is relevent to this situation is that this person also claims that one of the favorite interests is engaging in Wikipedia Edit Wars. Just thought I'd provide a little background info on this user.Tetragrammaton (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. All of this is going on? How thorough and unnecessarily investigative of you. Yes I am Zetsubou_Bunny on the AnimeSuke forums, yes I made those comments, and yes I've been a dedicated guardian of the Lelouch Lamperouge wikipedia article for almost a year now. As it is equally obvious that you are the user 'NewtypeUSA2'. But I believe that is all highly irrelevant, and I'm not here to play spy games. I'm most certainly 'not' pushing what you keep referring to as "AnimeSuke POV". As far as I know, there is no such thing as "AnimeSuke POV" on anything; I'm pretty sure that anything which is debatable is pretty subjective on those forums, though I admittedly don't know enough about AnimeSuke to say for sure. At any rate, it's no one's POV, it's a simple fact.

-First and foremost, Lelouch's death is not open for debate. He did die; all of the official materials list him as dead, the staff have commented many times that he is dead, and in the new DVD that just came out C.C. laments that he is dead. There is absolutely 'no' canon evidence that even suggests that he may be alive, just pure fan speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero Requiem (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

-Goro Taniguchi and Ichiro Okouchi did not mean that the events of the finale are open for audience interpretation -they meant that the tone is open for interpretation. Hence why Okouchi interprets the end for himself as 'happy'.

Unfortunately in quoting their exact (translated) words here on wikipedia, the simple obvious meaning of their statements is lost since it has been largely obscured by an overabundance of widespread fan theory. Thus it must be clarified with the addition of the word 'tone' -which doesn't, mind you, change the original meaning of the message.

Leaving the word out changes the meaning from 'the fans are left to decide for themselves whether they think the ending is happy or sad' to 'the events of the finale are open to interpretation'. Which, of course, simply isn't true. Zero Requiem (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that here Zero_Reguiem. You see what I have to deal with Caknuck. The "Guardian of the Lelouch Lamperouge entry" (her words) has her own opinion about what this article says and will engage in an endless edit war with anyone who posts anything (legitamite or not) which contradicts what she believes. I've posted the information and the links which show my evidence that only the head writer of this show Ichiro Okouchi said anything about the ending being "good" or "bad." The head director only said the ending was up to the viewer to decide, he, Goro Taniguichi, said nothing about "tone" or "feeling" or "mood" anywhere in the article with regard to the ending. I'm not interested in the right or the wrong of this so much as the accuracy of what this man said in the Newtype Interview. Can you help here Caknuck?Tetragrammaton (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For just a minute, let's completely disregard the fact that (once again) 'all' canon material lists him as dead and doesn't have even one instance of hinting otherwise. Taniguchi certainly couldn't have mean anything other than tone or feeling, since Okouchi likes to think of it as a 'happy' ending. (And let's not forget that in that very same interview, Okouchi states that "it's undeniable that Lelouch's story has ended with a full stop".)

Stop trying to push pure fan theories into the canon realm.Zero Requiem (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero_Requiem, go to my talk page is you wanna talk about this. Caknuck's talk page is if you want to talk to him/her. You appear to be talking to me, thus go to my talk page please!Tetragrammaton (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Home Improvement Article

The article Home_Improvement is being vandalized again. You might remember this has required protection many times in the past due to this same vandalism in which you have protected it on request. Unfortunately after a few months of being unprotected the vandals are back and appear ready to do like they use to, putting that spam link back in every day. Could you please reapply some protection to this article? JeremyWJ (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There have only been two such edits recently... not enough activity to warrant reprotection at this point. Please alert me if it intensifies. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 15:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, there hasn't been any since I asked you. I figured it would keep going like it has in the past, 1-2 times/day. We'll see. Thanks. JeremyWJ (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of IceRocket

An article that you have been involved in editing, IceRocket, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IceRocket (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Woogee (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Glendive TV

Thank you for putting protection on the Template:Glendive TV page. That will make things MUCH more easier. Many thanks! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

AIV Request

Could you take a look at the top two posts on AIV...they have been sitting there for over an hour and been overlooked. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tectonic weapon

I've removed the 7-day delete template which was inserted for a second time by User:Steve Quinn from Tectonic weapon. The template clearly says "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced". I have added to the article and discussed it in detail in the Talk page. If you think that it should be deleted please trigger the normal deletion process, with discussion. Do remember that the article, though somewhat expanded, is no more than an initial stub; we are discussing whether the article should exist, not whether it is reasonably complete or polished (which it isn't). As there are several people involved, maybe better to discuss this in the article's discussion rather than here. For the benefit of anyone who sees this comment, I'm not trying to say that these weapons actually exist, simply that the topic is notable. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Protections

Perhaps I interpret the policy more conservatively, but Shakira for six months? There is a lot of vandalism, but that's to be expected when the page is receiving 10,000 hits a day (the 218th most-viewed article)... Note that I'm not disagreeing with you persay; I am just trying to learn your rationale to see if I should alter mine. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the_ed17's talk page.caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two things to consider here. First is the protection log. The page just came off a 6 month semi-protection stint 2 weeks ago and already the IP vandalism is rampant. This has been the pattern with this article for the last 3 years. Secondly, we have to be extra cautious with BLP concerns. There isn't much flexibility on that front. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, compared to you, I'm definitely less worried about IP vandalism (at least when it's only 2-4ish per day). However, you have a point re BLP; I kind of forgot about that. Thanks! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Block this editor!

I made a foolish promise. I wrote (my user talk page) that if Finland did not win the women's hockey bronze, I would quit WP for 2 weeks. They won! Then I said if Finland did not win the men's hockey gold, 2 weeks. I should not have made such a promise. To enforce it, could you block me for 14 days because "Block according to agreement: Finland did not win the gold medal in men's hockey". I do not like to be blocked but a promise is a promise and this will help enforce it. Fuck! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a script you can use to prevent access to your own account which I can find if you want, but we don't block on editor request. I do though request an immediate release from any such foolish promises to stop editing, since it is so obvious that the Canadian team is such a powerhouse that they are already guaranteed a gold. In fact, I think we should call off all remaining games and just award them the medal. There's no possible way I could ever be wrong on this. ;) Franamax (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Give Finland the medal? They'd just melt them down and turn them into Nokias. ;-) Doc Quintana (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Sox

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

Doc Quintana (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Doc Quintana (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

First Draft of All Time Roster Replacement

If nothing else, I made a first draft of a sortable table with the info in there. Took me about an hour on Microsoft Excel. Still a few glitches, but otherwise, tell me what you think. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to block 豪庸

Discussion at ANI if you choose to participate.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

David Bradford (businessman)

If you wouldn't mind, go ahead and start the process. Thanks. Woogee (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. It's pretty obvious, but it's nice to have all of the i's dotted and t's crossed. Thanks. Woogee (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just let it run its course, I don't think anybody is going to get out of this. Woogee (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Caknuck. I'm requeseting that you unlock the page for David Bradford (businessman). I would like to add the references back to the article and help make it better. 71.219.155.218 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that last bit was from me. I forgot to log in before writing this. Not trying to sock puppet or meat puppet here. Jodimardesich (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops!

Sorry about this reversion [11], I must have hit the wrong button. Apologies, no harm intended. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I just re-removed the old report. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Type89

Hey, Caknuck. I took a look at this user's edits, and they actually do appear to have been valid edits. As their unblock request states, the text being removed probably should go per WP:BLP, and none of the images are acceptable per NFCC. If the user agrees to discuss edits before reverting in the future, would you be willing to unblock them? Thanks for your time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on them to make sure they don't go back to edit warring. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As will I. If there's any indication of this, or if they start deleting content without explanation, we should immediately block for at least a week. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Young Judea

Thank you for reconsidering the protection. It was, as you saw, a real problem and a hindrance to constructive editing. Hopefully this will get the IP addresses to register and discussion can be had. Joe407 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question for clarification

Re the Brian David Mitchell protected page or merge into 'Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping'. I realize that you turned down the request but I believe some basic info is overlooked there because a) the community discussion is rather outdated and b) there is a lot more info in public arena for it to not be a WP:1E situation anymore for Mitchell. I wrote this on the unprotected request,

 Not unprotected The merge was done as a result of a community discus...04:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

back in 2007 one could've argue that Mitchell was a WP:1E but today there is more about him and more non related events as his children have made public; plus the discussion now archived centered on the biographical article for elizabeth smart and not Mitchel per say, but today there is a separate bio article on Smart anyway (hence that community discussion is outdated) but the Mitchell one reverts to the kidnapping article -seems to be incorrect that way. Also I had opened a discussion in the talk page a week before requesting unprotect but there were no responses so surely today in 2010, no one seems to oppose a new article for him, so can you please reconsider you decision?115.128.25.68 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)"

I ask again because the reasons you gave to deny the unprotect I feel are not accurate, since, as before, the discussion on the merge was more on Smart rather than Mitchell and it is way out of date today, since Smart has her own bio page. Cheers Wombat24 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Responded at Wombat24's talk page. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot

Did you make a mistake on protecting the article? Because it's not protected. • GunMetal Angel 04:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, we all make mistakes. • GunMetal Angel 06:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorraine Leckie and her Demons

Hello,

I recently posted a Wiki article about Lorraine Leckie and her Demons and it was deleted for copyright infringement. The website cited as the original post was written by me. So it can't be infringement - it would be me plagiarizing me! Can I talk with you about how to clear this up?

Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraineleckie (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the subject was not sufficiently notable to warrant an article here. Please review WP:BAND for the relevant notability guidelines. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 02:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I read the criteria you posted. Lorraine Leckie does indeed meet the criteria. Please see below:

Articles (not press releases or adverts) have been written on Lorraine and her music in:
The Aquarian (May 2009)
The Villager (June 2009) http://www.lorraineleckie.com/lorraineleckie2008_images/Villager-article-scan.jpg
Sadie Magazine (February 2009) http://sadiemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=294&Itemid=9
Beyond Race (Issue # 8, pg # 24, AND September 2007) http://lorraineleckie.com/lorraineleckie2008_images/Dirty-Old-Town-article.jpg
Boog City/Urban Folk (Issue 55)

She has been reviewed in/on:
Beyond Race Magazine
Village Voice
The Toronto Quarterly
Celebrity Cafe
Liccorice-Pizza
AcousticMusic.com
Amplifier Magazine

She is rated on The Village Voice's Pazz and Jop lists of 2008 and 2009. http://www.villagevoice.com/pazznjop/singles/2009/ AND http://www.villagevoice.com/pazznjop/albums/2008/

She has been played on public and college radio in the northeastern US, Georgia, and Ontario, Canada.

Because she obviously meets Wikipedia's musician criteria, can you please help me retreive the mistakenly deleted submission/article and give it any needed updates.

Thank you.
Carter Farmer—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraineleckie (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am still waiting to hear back from you about how to properly put up this page. Can you please respond either here or email me at:
lorraineleckie (at) hotmail (dot) com
Thank you

Hello,

I am still waiting to hear back from you about how to properly put up this page. Can you please respond either here or email me at:
lorraineleckie (at) hotmail (dot) com
Thank you

Follow up on Lorraine Leckie

Hello,

I am still waiting to hear back from you about how to properly put up this page. Can you please respond either here or email me at:
lorraineleckie (at) hotmail (dot) com
Thank you

This is what was previously posted:

Thank you, I read the criteria you posted. Lorraine Leckie does indeed meet the criteria. Please see below:

Articles (not press releases or adverts) have been written on Lorraine and her music in:
The Aquarian (May 2009)
The Villager (June 2009) http://www.lorraineleckie.com/lorraineleckie2008_images/Villager-article-scan.jpg
Sadie Magazine (February 2009) http://sadiemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=294&Itemid=9
Beyond Race (Issue # 8, pg # 24, AND September 2007) http://lorraineleckie.com/lorraineleckie2008_images/Dirty-Old-Town-article.jpg
Boog City/Urban Folk (Issue 55)

She has been reviewed in/on:
Beyond Race Magazine
Village Voice
The Toronto Quarterly
Celebrity Cafe
Liccorice-Pizza
AcousticMusic.com
Amplifier Magazine

She is rated on The Village Voice's Pazz and Jop lists of 2008 and 2009. http://www.villagevoice.com/pazznjop/singles/2009/ AND http://www.villagevoice.com/pazznjop/albums/2008/

She has been played on public and college radio in the northeastern US, Georgia, and Ontario, Canada.

Because she obviously meets Wikipedia's musician criteria, can you please help me retreive the mistakenly deleted submission/article and give it any needed updates.

Thank you.
Carter Farmer—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraineleckie (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am still waiting to hear back from you about how to properly put up this page. Can you please respond either here or email me at:
lorraineleckie (at) hotmail (dot) com
Thank you