User talk:GeneralCheese/Archive 3

User Home
Talk
Guestbook
Contribs

The time is 01:34 on Wednesday, November 13, 2024

GeneralCheese is

Offline

My Planner
My Handbook
My Sandbox
My Templates

GeneralCheese's Talk Page (Archive )

This is Archive 3 of GeneralCheese's talk page. It contains old discussions which are no longer active.

Archive 3 contains discussions 1-9, ranging from 5 February 2010 to 27 February 2010.

Please do not edit the contents of this page

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page. Thanks.

Charles L. Jones

You mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles L. Jones that you couldn't find anything about Jones on Google. When you are doing a Google search on someone with a common name like Jones, it often helps to include the person's name, location, profession or employer in the search. This Google News archive search asks for "Charles Jones" Whirlpool , and it generates a number of useful responses. I found that omitting his middle initial helped as well. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well for some reason on my end i couldn't find anything!--Written by GeneralCheese 03:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try my techniques on other Google searches you do, and you may get better results. You can filter a search with site:, most commonly if you want to restrict the search to one website (site:nytimes.com, for example), but you can also use site: to restrict a search to just the .gov or .mil top-level domains (if you are looking for information on a U.S. federal government official or some military technology for example), or just a geographic domain like .nc.us (that's North Carolina) or .uk (the United Kingdom) if you are looking for someone or something associated with a specific location. The more you experiment with Google searches, the most productive your searches will be. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i would mostly consider it.--Written by GeneralCheese 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snugger Fit Condoms

It is very possible my "Snugger Fit Condoms" article is not up to par with wiki standards. If it needs deleted, please at least consider making a new and better article for the same topic. Thank you. Dontknowhow89 (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the author of that article do you need me to request speedy deletion?--Written by GeneralCheese 04:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete it. I will work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknowhow89 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im a bit confused here, you said that you dont think it meets the guidelines for wikipedia, and if you think that and if others do too, i must request it for deletion, ill see what others say, this is the reason i tagged it for proposed deletion. Please dont remove the tag, its the only way ill get answers about this article, so we will know if it needs to be deleted or not. Thanks,--Written by GeneralCheese 04:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this. I hope that you do not delete my article, but if you must, I am asking that you find a way to make a better version of this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknowhow89 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont delete your article, i nominate it for deletion, if it is deleted, i will be sure to make a better version. If i have time.Happy Editing--Written by GeneralCheese 04:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to edit my "own page"

Hi, my name is Justine Bateman. I attemped to make some edits on "my own page" and was informed that you have found them to be inaccurate or something and have "reverted them". I sincerely hope this is a mistake on your part and that Wikipedia is interested in reporting accuracy in your pages of "known people". I hope that you and others can see that I know more about myself than "anonymous" and others as far as posting "facts" about my life. Please let me know that I can sucessfully make my "own page" accurate. Thank you, Justine Bateman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.235.14 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no proof that you are Justine Bateman, the only reason i reverted the edit was because you removed some content of the article without a summary and that is know as WP:Vandalism. The next time you remove content from articles please be sure to add a breif summary of why you did so, or else it must be reverted by a Rollbacker, like me. Happy Editing,--Written by GeneralCheese 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. No no no no no. Vandalism requires bad faith. I see no indication of bad faith here. Please be very careful with the "V" word and make sure you've fully read the policy on vandalism. Philippe Beaudette, Facilitator, Strategy Project (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you are Ms. Bateman, please email info-en-q@wikimedia.org and attach my name (Keegan) to the subject line. We can sort this out in a reasonable fashion. Keegan (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've conversed with Ms. Bateman before. I'm emailing her. GeneralCheese, do try to be more, for want of a better word, "professional" when dealing with new editors. Your response was not helpful at all, there are more constructive ways of handling possible subjects of our articles. Keegan (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean i was not helpful? I told the user the reason. I did everything i was supposed do. What did i fail in doing?--Written by GeneralCheese 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this might be a little on the long side, just so you know.

Using automated tools to work at cleaning up Wikipedia is a fine and accepted practice, I can see how the page blanking was confusing and would be undone at first glance.

Now, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and its function, is at core the assumption of good faith, not biting newcomers (which includes IPs), and civility. The use of warning templates when dealing with living people (and anyone really, but in particular) is going to be problimatic. This is why I don't use templates in general, they are cold and sterile.

When you are notified by the subject of the article about something they have done and you reply by questioning their authenticity and calling them a vandal, you are not going to have positive results for 1)the subject 2)the article leading to 3)the reputation of Wikipedia. When you go out to eat and have a bad experience, you tell a million people. You don't tell anyone if it was okay, and if it was positive and responsive you end up with positive results: rave reviews.

So when contacted such as you were, assume good faith that they are who they say they are, revisit the issue that they had with the article, and get in touch with them on the their talk page and help them. Or figure out the issue and raise it yourself on the article's talk page. What you cannot do is assume that everyone knows what Wikipedia is and how it works. The editorial and volunteer basis of this project is far surpassed by its page views per day. Many of these people are finding out that they are on here, and want to work to correct falsifications and misleading statements in their articles. This is not a conflict of interest, it's usually actually working to create a more neutral tone. Negative material inserted is often a cause of undue weight and thus does not progress the goal of an encyclopedic article.

In other words, subjects of articles are usually editing in good faith, and should be treated with that respect in mind. Justine is a nice woman, you can't expect her to know how Wikipedia works, and you should understand what it would feel like to remove misleading information about yourself only to be told you're a vandal without knowing a thing about Wikipedia policy.

You do good work in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, and I hope this helps to inform you of another way that you can help our reputation. It's maintenance in a different form, and a very important one. Happy editing, keep up the efforts, and do contact me any time if you have questions! Keegan (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but just so you know, id thought that the user was using im Justine just to get away with vandalizing, and i never did bite the user, i also included the reason in the twinkle template. If it may have seemed to the user that i was biting her, then i do apologize for that. Its just that i take pride in wikipedia and i work hard when it comes to situations like this.--Written by GeneralCheese 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes the level of pride and hard work you put in. But please point me to the place in our rules where it says that edits without an edit summary must be reverted by a rollbacker. In addition, please point me to the place in our rules where it says that we do not assume good faith when dealing with editors who claim to be the subject of a biographical article. I wish you the best with that... you won't find such a place. :)

Please please please, if there's one thing you should learn, it's this: vandalism requires bad faith. The very first line of WP:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. There's nothing about this that says it was a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. This was an over-zealous revert, and a less than sensitive reply to a BLP subject.

With all that said: we all make mistakes. I've done it. Keegan's done it. Jimbo Wales has done it. But without a healthy, strong community, we have no encyclopedia. Please - slow down. Think about what you leave. Disable the automatic tools if it will help. But you absolutely must treat subjects of Biographies more carefully. Most of the PR crises that we have are driven by BLP subjects. Please tread very very carefully there.

So, learn from this. Nobody's punishing you, and nobody's implying that you had anything but the best of intentions. Just be careful with BLPs. Philippe Beaudette, Facilitator, Strategy Project (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck yeah we all make mistakes. I almost got into some serious legal trouble because of a less than sensitive reply that I didn't even write. Thank you, Mike Godwin. Keegan (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it wasn't this one,this was last year. Justine is a very polite woman.

Keegan (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told in the IRC Chatroom on the channel #wikipedia-en-help that if part of an article is blanked by a user without a summary it is Vandalism. I never said not to assume good faith.--Written by GeneralCheese 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on cleanup/confusing

I saw that you've put "cleanup" and "confusing" tags on an article I recently started.[1] I don't really know what to do when I see vague tags like these. Could you specify what aspects of the article you'd like to see cleaned up or explained further? Note: I think it would be best to continue this discussion on the article's talk page (Talk:Huáng bǎi) Wnt (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i placed the cleanup by mistake. I really placed confusing on purpose, because i could not understand the article some, but now i understand. Removed both tags! No longer needed! I have also included this discussion on the article's talk page as requested.

Done--Written by GeneralCheese 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm rather confused—Why do you need the accountcreator flag when you don't have an ACC account at all? Also, you've expanded 19 articles and gotten them to DYK? Good job (I wonder what people like to write about...). fetchcomms☛ 16:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fetchcomms, i will be signing up for the ACC account next week, i haven't gotten a chance to do so, ive been busy these days. Written by GeneralCheese

(edit conflict)I am often in that IRC channel, and I am almost completely sure that no one has ever said that. If they did, it was in response to something different and you probably misunderstood. Again, as I have told you, GeneralCheese, you always need to read the policies, and I hope you at least read up about WP:N since our last conversation. You are willing to help in places like ACC, and willing to help is one half of it, but believe me--jumping into lots of things doesn't help. If it's anything helpful, I strongly suggest that you read the guidelines to writing a good article (including WP:N, WP:V, etc.) and take a break from reverting. Writing articles is always a good thing to do on an encyclopedia. fetchcomms☛ 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read the policies. The accountcreator right should only be oven to hose with a curent need for making more than 6 accounts a day. If you have not even signed up, some will view that as an attempt to gain power through rights regardless of your intent. Most starting ACC users don't need or get the flag. If the admin trusted you, that's fine, but I personally see no point. In addition, you have every right to remove the last message, but realize this--if you don't take away the advice, you will never get far here. Auntie E's advice is about what I would say--there has been just too much in the above thread to show that you are completely understanding the policies. fetchcomms☛ 21:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop! WP:BITE, even though im not a newcommer.--Written by GeneralCheese 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) in no way am I trying to bite. It's good advice, take it. Especially if you have 2 years of experience, biting?, I might add. I first started reading the policies when I realized how many there were and that I could not hope to learn them all along the way without making too many mistakes. And re the dyks, you really expanded 19 articles? I think going back to that would be a good idea for a month or so. I've enjoyed writing more than reverting, at least! fetchcomms☛ 21:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the only reason i dont like to write is because, i have nothing to write about, so i feel i should have something better to do, like handling WP:VANDALISM. Do you know a list of things that i may enjoy doing?--Written by GeneralCheese 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like writing yet you've written 19 dyk articles? How ironic. Here is the issue: you handle vandalism, but I just cannot see enough evidence to show that you understand how it even works, just like Auntie E pointed out. Taking a break now could save some serious time later on. You can try working on open tasks, {{opentask}}. btw, what dyks did you do? I can see what you write about. fetchcomms☛ 21:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i can only mention one, which would be LG CF360. I cant seem to remember the others. Is there anyway toolserver can show me?--Written by GeneralCheese 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the contributions page next to edit count. But we've had another misinterpretation. That was never a DYK article. See WP:DYK. Creating articles does not mean they are DYKs. fetchcomms☛ 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Have you read WP:NOTVAND? IF you have, and can say you understand it, I won't make a report. But if you just ignore this and erase it thinking it will go away, I will take it AN/I. I am really trying to avoid that. But I can't let you go unless I'm convinced you understand what the problem is. Please lets discuss this, and don't take my concern as an attack. Auntie E. (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, i have reviewed WP:NOTVAND. I wont take it as an attack, i agree 100% with your advice, i should review guidelines before i think about doing things ill regret. But i did stumble on something while i read it. It says that people who are inexperienced and they dont know wikipedia policies, it shouldn't be treated as vandalism, so if that's the case, do i just move on to the next revision i see on Huggle?

Here's what i mean:

Some users are not familiar with Wikipedia's purpose or policies and may start editing it as if it were a different medium — such as a forum or blog — in a way that it appears as unproductive editing or borderline vandalism to experienced users. Although such edits can usually be reverted, it should not be treated as vandalism.

--Written by GeneralCheese 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :Of course, that's the whole point of WP:AGF. Except, you go to that page and manually fix anything out of place. fetchcomms☛ 01:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't think I'm trying to attack you either--but do you realize why removing others' comments with rude comments in the edit summary is unacceptable now? fetchcomms☛ 01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fetchcomms, i was just getting so frustrated i wasn't even thinking clear. I didn't mean to do that.--Written by GeneralCheese 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in the future, if you are frustrated, consider taking a break instead :) fetchcomms☛ 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would most likely consider it! I am currently awaiting a reply from Aunt E. so she can have an update on the situation.--Written by GeneralCheese 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Cheese: just because it isn't vandalism doesn't mean it is a productive edit. I don't know how Huggle works as I use Twinkle, but it has an optional "leave an edit summary" button to use to revert non-vandalism. All you have to do is leave an edit summary explaining why the edit isn't productive, preferably with a link to the policy page in question. like "rv per WP:CHAT" for talkpage posts that treat the page like a forum, or "rv unsourced edit per WP:BLP" for unsourced edits to a biography of living persons. Check out my user history for examples. Also, check out WP:WARN for the templates to use for various policy violations. There's a lot more than just vandalism out there. I mostly do reversions too, not much of a writer myself, but most of my reversions are not to vandalism. If you learn about the relevant policies, you can help more to review whether changes are good or not. Just remember, if you do not leave an edit summary, you are essentially saying "This edit was so obviously vandalism it needs no explanation for removal."

Seriously, look at my history, search on "TW" to see my twinkle edits which is what I use for non-vandalism, my reversions, my reasons. Examples are always helpful when the policy pages can be unclear. If you have any questions, say you have a feeling an edit isn't good, but you can't think of the reason why, feel free to solicit my opinion. This is one area of wiki that I'm fairly competent. BTW, I appreciate the apology and your understanding of the matter. Good luck to you, and never be afraid to ask if you have questions. Auntie E. (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aunt E! Written by GeneralCheese 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Pro Wrestling NZ

Not only is it short - it's also re-creating an article deleted via an AfD. FYI. !! Justa Punk !! 09:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

I don't think I ever thanked you for the cheesecake. It is lovely... I do have to say, I am a huge fan of cheese. Sometimes a good Havarti will make me misty-eyed. :) Auntie E. (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im glad you liked it! :) Written by GeneralCheese 06:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account Creation Interface Confirmation

This is a confirmation to let you know that i successfully created an account on ACC.Written by GeneralCheese 02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GeneralCheese. You have new messages at Fetchcomms's talk page.

You can remove this notice at any time by removing this code. fetchcomms☛ 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Yoville.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yoville.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mike moral ♪♫ 04:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that is a screenshot i took myself while i was playing the YoVille application. For anymore concerns you may have for this image please let me know. Thanks, Written by GeneralCheese 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you took a picture of a software you yourself did not make. --Mike moral ♪♫ 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, oh and its a game you meant to say. Written by GeneralCheese 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still technically a software, a proprietary software, not free and all images and derivatives and the intellectual property of the creators of YoVille. Any usage of this image would have to be qualified under fair use policy and accordance with US law. --Mike moral ♪♫ 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then im requesting removal of the image. Soon i will contact Zynga the owner of the game and i will get permission to use it. Written by GeneralCheese 19:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company won't give permission. I'll write up a fair use rationale and withdraw my deletion request. Btw, I'm watching you page. --Mike moral ♪♫ 19:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source URL where you took a screen grab of the software? --Mike moral ♪♫ 19:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://apps.facebook.com/yoville/index.php?poe=1&src=bookmark&ref=ts Written by GeneralCheese 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Mike moral ♪♫ 20:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Written by GeneralCheese 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice

Hi.

I was getting a different type of error with the edit notice, which I think it probably due to something in my monobook.js - but I don't want to dabble with that. Others experimented, and it looks like the problem with yours was due to the width - which I think has been resolved here?

If you need any other help, you know where to find us. Cheers! Chzz ► 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Cafe World

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cafe World. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cafe World. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonefunkers

Hi, User:Theleftorium has found source coverage in Swedish, so I can't read them, I am willing to withdraw my nomination if you and the other user have no further deletion concerns. CTJF83 chat 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to withdraw the nomination, because more people think it should be kept instead of deleted Written by GeneralCheese 20:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to strike your delete? I don't want to close it early with out you, and the other user, striking your delete. CTJF83 chat 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let me go ahead and do that now before we close out the nomination Written by GeneralCheese 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done i went ahead and striked out my comment. Have you yet notified the other user about it? Written by GeneralCheese 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he hasn't edited in 48 hours. CTJF83 chat 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Well then, when he responds, i guess we can go ahead and close out the nomination. Written by GeneralCheese 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Yoville.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yoville.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Featured image cafe world - featured.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Featured image cafe world - featured.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

afd

Removing speedy deletion templates

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with IPhone OS4. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. I've also renominated it due to copyvio, since it was taken from another page with just punctuation changes. It's also a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and shouldn't exist for that reason, even if copyvio issues were addressed. Wait for it to get announced, or for something more than rumor and hearsay to confirm its existence. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of IPhone OS4

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is IPhone OS4. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone OS4. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]