Jump to content

User talk:DC/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DC
Talk • Edits • Count • Reviews • Playbox
Talk Archives
Aug-Dec 2009 • Jan-Apr 2010 • May-Aug 2010 • Sep-Dec 2010


GAN for Harvard University

I believe your nomination of Harvard University for Good Article is entirely premature for several reasons. In the future, (1) build a consensus among the article's editors for such a nomination so that we can all be prepared to respond to reviewers' critiques/criticisms, (2) notify members of relevant Wikipedia communities (such as the WikiProjects for Colleges & Universities, Boston, Massachusetts) so that you can recruit potential readers/editors/reviewers, and most of all, (3) review each of the good article criteria in good faith to ensure that you believe that the article passes the "smell test". Madcoverboy (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the steps listed at WP:GNGA. ~DC Let's Vent 17:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you didn't because the article still has Clean up tags present and has had substantial changes in content in the past week. In the future, let other editors know that you're intending to nominate the article for peer review or GA so you don't waste editors' time in scrambling to respond or reviewers' time in providing feedback on an unprepared article. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to question how I spend my time and expertise as volunteer here? ~DC Let's Vent 18:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think anything I've done is in bad faith, take me to WP:ANI. If not, shut-up and leave me alone. ~DC Let's Vent 18:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're not going to edit Harvard or any other university article, it's likely we're going to continue to interact in the future so I, in fact, would not be able to "shut-up and leave [you] alone". Can I suggest that you remain cool when dealing with disagreements such as this one? Madcoverboy (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem dealing with you, I just don't appreciate being accused of acting in bad faith. ~DC Let's Vent 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

If someone tagged your contributions with "Citation needed" and you disagree, discuss the matter on the article's discussion page. If it is common knowledge that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state you would be able to provide at least one reliable source. --Hm2k (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Talk:1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/GA1

I have responded to your concerns at Talk:1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I responded there. ~DC Let's Vent 20:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider my further response.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answered ~DC Let's Vent 04:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for another look.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The only objection I have left is that Morrison doesn't have a title in the coach's box. ~DC Let's Vent 04:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

ITN: Pope Benedict XVI visit to the United Kingdom

-- tariqabjotu 05:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Andrew Cuomo Village Voice Article

I disagree with your position that this article with a pointed opinion is forbidden on the basis that it lacks a neutral point of view as defined by Wiki.

"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view."

As to the point of Undue Weight I have reduced it to the barest of citations and summary. The Village Voice is a reliable source and certainly not known for Right Wing bias. It was a substantial and important article worthy of citation.

Mojofan1945 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Jimbo Wales himself, as quoted on WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." If you'd like another opinion see WP:BLPN#Andrew Cuomo ~DC We Can Work It Out 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a second source from the NY Time with two authors and another from the Wall Street Journal.

Alright, I'll work on incorporating them together. I think the WSJ piece is a column, and either way I can't see it since I'm not a subscriber. Also, please just don't put headlines in the article, they need to be written in prose paragraph. If you need help just give me a link and I can blend it in. ~DC We Can Work It Out 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I replaced the Wall Street Journal one with another. Are you saying headlines are against the rules? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojofan1945 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it needs to written in prose. I'm working on it right now. ~DC We Can Work It Out 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finished it. [1] ~DC We Can Work It Out 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite looks good! As long as there are footnotes to the articles this works for me. Mojofan1945 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Swedish general election, 2010

--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whooo! ~DC We Can Work It Out 03:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

ITN

--Mkativerata (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grazie ~DC We Can Work It Out 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong

with asking Jimbo a simple question about a current event?76.177.47.225 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Kevin Kolb GAN

Hi, I have made the changes you have suggested in the GAR to Kevin Kolb. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give it a look over. ~DC We Can Work It Out 19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It passed, congrats. ~DC We Can Work It Out 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McGovern GAN

Thank you for the review. —Designate (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHACK!

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For making the ITN Canidates disappear with this edit! Please be more careful! :-) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the suggestions page in an <includeonly> is just a dastardly trick. I wonder if someone really has transcluded ITN/C somewhere? Modest Genius talk 22:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll remember to check the preview more closely. ~DC We Can Work It Out 04:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Ottoman slap

Hello DC. I am just letting you know that I deleted Ottoman slap, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for contesting neighborhood move requests

This is obviously after the fact but I just noticed your note on my talkpage wondering why opposed your proposal to move articles on neighborhoods in the US. I wasn't opposed to the moves, I just thought they should be discussed since naming conventions call for most US places to include a state name whether the name is ambiguous or not. I hadn't noticed the exception for neighborhoods. Sorry for the interference. — AjaxSmack 04:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's fine. Thanks for getting back to me. ~DC We Can Work It Out 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

ITN for 2010 Chicago Marathon

--Excellent work, mate! It wouldn't have gone up if it weren't for your efforts, even if it is halfway down the template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ~DC We Can Work It Out 16:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

In addition to some Manual of Style issues, this revert restored some simple typos, so I presume it was a mistake. Art LaPella (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Hey David, just letting you know that there's a discussion about your change of the ITN guidelines (the one you did back in January). The discussion is here. DC T•C 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I saw that thread, but it didn't seem to cover much that wasn't addressed in the page's other discussions (in which I participated). I also revised the wording in question to address Kevin McE's and Physchim62's concerns. —David Levy 01:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

ITN for 2010 attack on the Chechen Parliament

--Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's much easier when someone else writes the article. DC T•C 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I see you've gone with the minimalist look for your sig. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please be a little more careful when rollbacking in future: do you really think that this edit, which you "identified as vandalism", constitutes a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the unexplained removal of content? Yea, fits my description of vandalism. DC T•C 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not entitled to personal definitions which conflict with established policy. Making bold edits, failing to use an edit summary, and disruptive editing are all examples of what is not vandalism. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 00:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you his lawyer? And the same page you linked to says blanking is vandalism; I'm entitled to use my judgment. DC T•C 00:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason" is vandalism. Removing six lines of infobox text in a manner supported by two editors on the talk page, while simultaneously correcting a table formatting error, is not. I wouldn't challenge your right to use your judgement, but there are constraints by which Wikipedians must abide when doing so. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts

In most articles, major candidates go into the infobox, such as the senate election with Scott Brown, and again most elections. The green party candidate didn't seem to meet that criteria based on other editors' alleged criteria. So how are my edits vandalism? You should probably assume good faith.--70.15.27.159 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, she met the criteria for the infobox. My bad.--70.15.27.159 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just check out the talk page first next time. DC T•C 04:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your GA nomination of Buddy Holly

The article Buddy Holly you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Buddy Holly for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Village Pump

Hello, DC. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 08:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: SpikeToronto

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

— SpikeToronto 08:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Kanye West My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy album cover 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kanye West My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy album cover 2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

page moves

Hi David. Please don't think I'm looking to cross swords with you on this issue. I'm just not sure how you stand on the general policy discussion about it at the VP.--Kudpung (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think page titles should default to the English cities as is currently the case. Sure, places like London, York, Manchester, etc. should standalone, but others are ambiguous and should be dealt with on a case by case basis. (Also, my name's not David). DC T•C 03:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Already voted, but thank you. DC T•C 09:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

renaming places

Hi DC. I sense that you a re concerned with the correct naming of places. If you are interested, your opinion would almost certainly be appreciated at Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger talk 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I already commented (and was already notified anyway). DC T•C 05:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

DYK for Runaway (2010 film)

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I missed it. Thanks. DC T•C 13:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your reversion of Vice

Why did you revert my edit to Vice? Vandalism? Non constructive? Neither seems appropriate to me but whatever, wikipedia is a screwed up place.

[2]

75.15.197.126 (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my bad. Sorry for the mix up. DC T•C 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but

Thanks, pal, but I've been on Wiki longer than you've been alive and I'm extremely active too, with many hundreds of edits, translations and articles. I felt a congratulation to Linc just bubblin' up inside of my pinko heart, tho' so I did it. I'd do it again. But thanks for your cordiality. NaySay (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. I'm sure he read it too. DC T•C 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Premature" Submission

FYI, the situation here, which you participated in, has been resolved. I expected one of the admin coordinators would have seen my reminder on our noticeboard and would have deleted it before it was noticed by anyone else. Sorry for the confusion, Sven Manguard Talk 19:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I really enjoyed your "statement" too. DC T•C 20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage

Thanks for fixing that. I have no idea when UTC DST changes, but I figured that they did when this week's live La Liga matches were an hour off. FYI, for personal reasons, I really hate DST. Sven Manguard Talk 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I like the new signature BTW. DC T•C 21:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article deleted by editor that created article

Not disruptive, just trying to end this thing Bridgetttttttebabblepoop 21:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. The correct thing to do is tag it with {{db-author}}. DC T•C 21:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is in the middle of an AfD, so we really shouldn't delete it; the suggestion has been made there of converting it to a redirect, which I would support and have suggested to Brigettttttte. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fair enough. DC T•C 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to Tiny C Compiler

Hello,

My edit was not vandalism. As I stated in the edit summary, the whole section was one sentence that directly contradicted the first sentence, which stated that it did, in fact, have support for inline assembly.

I realise it was probably just a mistake, but it really sucks to be an anonymous editor; people revert your commits all the time, no matter how constructive they are...

Could I please put my edit back? Thank you. 91.105.90.101 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you added it back. I also suggest you create an account if you feel stigmatized for not having one. DC T•C 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think giving up is a solution; I prefer to edit without any vanity name attached to my contributions. That's a personal decision; I don't mind others having accounts, so others shouldn't mind me not having an account. The answer to prejudice is not to tell those prejudiced against to stop being that which causes them to be prejudiced against. 91.105.90.101 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA
Hello DC, and thank you for participating in my RfA, which failed with 20 support votes, 34 oppose votes, and 11 neutral votes. All the feedback was much appreciated, and the concerns that were brought up are surely not falling on deaf ears. I will strive to listen to everyone's feedback in the days, weeks, and months to come, and I hope that I will eventually be able to gain the community's trust and receive the admin tools so I can further benefit this encyclopedia. Happy editing! –Access Denied (talk)

Article Must be written from a Neutral Point of View.

I might have guessed that you were an American.

Please refrain from replacing the non Neutral Point of View material in the article on the US Senate. It firmly breaches the Wikipedia requirement that articles are written from a Neutral Point of View. Refer to NPOV for more details. The phrase "Most Americans believe ..." is nothing more than weasel words to include something that isn't true - which is against the entire raison d'être of an encyclopedia

I could validly replace the sentence with "All non Americans and some Americans believe that the US Senate is not the greatest deliberating body in the world". I'm sure that you would object in spite of it being the logical dual to the jingoistic sentence you keep replacing. Also the citations are also against Wikipedia policy as they are not neutral citations being, as they are, (a) American and (b) self published.

Although Americans like to believe that they are the greatest nation on earth, that belief does not make it a reality. 86.178.181.182 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:V and WP:RS DC T•C 13:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your conflating "people claim it's X" with "it's X." They're two different things, the first, while an opinion, is verifiable. The second isn't. DC T•C 14:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an opinion is verifiable is eactly that - a verification that it's an opinion. It is not a verification that that opinion is a fact. The very fact that it is an opinion (however right or wrong) makes it resolutely NOT A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. The verification of the opinion comes from biased sources being as they are AMERICAN (and therefore Self published which breaches wikipedia guidelines). There are plenty of other sources of verified opinion that other deliberative bodies are the 'greatest deliberative bodies on earth, but they are stil not NPOV however you like to dress it up. 86.178.181.182 (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 revert rule does not apply to reversion of vandalism. In my view repeatedly inserting material which is clearly Non NPOV is vandalism. I have now created a vote on the discussion page, we shall see what the overall concensus is (not that it wasn't clear from the original discussion). 86.178.181.182 (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not vandalism, not even close. DC T•C 14:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodog - joke or real?

I see from the Bodog article that they had some odds on news issues, but when I looked at the site all I saw were some boring-looking gambling games. Were you kidding when you said they were betting on Wikipedia? If not, it would be interesting to see a reference. And it would actually be rather worrisome, because I firmly believe that anything you can bet on will be fixed. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it as a joke. Sorry for the confusion. DC T•C 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St John's

You are reverting edits on the St. John's page without discussing them. Your actions are against Wikipedia's 3R rule, its neutrality rule, and its Bold rule. Take into account the opinions of others. For weeks, multiple people -- to whom I have no affiliation -- have reverted your edits for a reason. Discuss them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAtruthwatcher (talk • contribs) 03:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to explain. But if you really wish to promote St John's, see this (and for the love of God please sign your posts with 4 tildes ~~~~) DC T•C 03:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection - look at my talk page, all I do on Wikipedia is find articles I think have been taken over by individuals with a POV. You say I'm promoting the school; I say you're doing your best to portray it in a negative light. The middle is where we must arrive. CAtruthwatcher (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that at all. Either way, you're the one who's been reverted by multiple editors, so I suggest you kindly back off. DC T•C 03:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

AGF

Accusing good faith editors of "being the God Save the Queen" crowd is completely unacceptable. Please stop.--Merbabu (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:U2

Hi DC, just wanted to give you a heads up that I am bailing from that discussion. Far too much nastiness being spewed. Yours points were valid and interesting, though, so kudos for trying to maintain a healthy debate. The Interior(Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh P.S., with Firefox, your flags as currently placed make navigation difficult (Can't....reach...my...watchlist....tab..) The Interior(Talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm sorry you feel that way though. And I have firefox too and they didn't cause I problem (I have a fairly wide screen though). DC T•C 13:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

John Lennon

Fair enough, but someone had originally added it to today's events, which was obviously the wrong place for it to be. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm not sure if there's a precedent for adding such celebrations, but if there is feel free to re-add it. DC T•C 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that myself. I know there was a lot of news coverage on yesterday's anniversary, but you're right in the sense it isn't a current event. I'll re-add it for now, but try to find out whether there is a rule covering it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a very informal survey. 9/11 was included. But neither Veterans Day nor Pearl Harbor were. I can really think of any celebrities who'd be on there besides Lennon. DC T•C 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only other similar entry I can find is one for Diana, Princess of Wales from 2007, the tenth anniversary of her death, but she might be a slightly different case. I've posted a question here so hopefully someone can help. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Best of luck in your new term. DC T•C 05:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DC/Archive_4&oldid=1090499143"