Jump to content

User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: clean up tag Sir Robert Bell (Knight)

Please consult the talk page. I understand why you have placed tha tag, but please read my comments concerning the artcile. Thank you. User:Wales 14:23 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty-Association

I feel that the article is balaced toward sovereign, that the Money issue is not true, that balancing the demonization of Parizeau with the Demonization of Federal politicians should be pointed out, and that the Quebec Minority point of view is important

Watchlist

Heho, yesterday you have corrected four articles (Albert Oram, Baron Oram, David Simon, Baron Simon of Highbury‎, Norman Blackwell, Baron Blackwell‎ and Olive Nicol, Baroness Nicol‎) I had created as stubs before, within few minutes. I am curious; may I ask you how you found them? Have you used Special:Newpages, my contribution list or was it simply chance? Greetings Phoe 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Now I know what I have to do to give work to your spies. ... Many thanks for the notice, information, explanation ... whatever Phoe 21:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Government type in Infobox of Canada page

When you re-added the phrase "with parliamentary democracy", you said that this was a compromised reached on the talk page. However, User:Arctic.gnome only added the phrase "with parliamentary democracy" yesterday (Oct 26), and I could not find a discussion of this on the Talk:Canada page. Is it in one of the archived talk pages? Could you point me towards it? Thanks ---thirty-seven 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that it was deleted some time ago and re-added by Artic.gnome yesterday. The discussion is archived at Talk:Canada/Archive4#Form_of_government. It goes back a ways. I guess the point is that "constitutional monarchy" reflects only one part of Canada's government, and the other part is equally or more important. Deleting "parliamentary democracy" seems to be a favourite hobby of a few people who want to promote the role of monarchy. This encyclopedia article should reflect the reality of government in Canada, rather than be used by one side or the other in the monarchy vs. republic debate. "Constitutional monarchy" is correct. "Parliamentary democracy" is correct. Let's use both to keep everyone happy, and help inform the reader. Regards. Ground Zero | t 17:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your reply. I deleted "with parliamentary democracy" because I thought it was a recent addition and I wanted to keep the Canada infobox consistent with similar country articles, not to promote any position. The compromise of including both phrases seems perfectly reasonable to me. --thirty-seven 00:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favour/Favor

GZ,

I'm not certain that the change on the Anthony Perruzza page was appropriate, since the Americanized spelling was taken directly from a newspaper quote (although I'll acknowledge that I'm not completely certain of copyediting protocol on this point). CJCurrie 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of YouTube Material on Canadian Income Trust Issue

Groundzero, Ive noticed your edits on the Income Trust page. Can you offer an opinion on this please?

I'm not sure its appropriate for this material to be posted on Wikipedia so I won't insert it into the article until I get a ruling.

The two clips are on YouTube and show Prime Minister Steven Harper promising not to tax income trusts. On October 31 Harper's broke that promise and this lead to Trust Investor capital losses of approximately $25-30 Billion Canadian Dollars.

I think the YouTube material is relevant and newsworthy but I want other points of view before I insert it into the main article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9mibZYpVPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtiykp-WDG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SD9rfeZxLE

Regards DSatYVR 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London

I tried to explain in the edit summary, sorry if it wasn't clear. I can't see that it is necessary to spell out everything in the article, so I was following the lead of how the articles are arranged: London (the article) is London, England, so I don't believe we have to spell out that it is London, England in the article. If it was London, Ontario, I would spell that out as that is a variation of London covered on the disambiguation page (but I wouldn't spell it out as London, Ontario, Canada for the same reason). There's a purpose for wikilinks - if you aren't sure which London it is you can check. I was referring to the Great Fire of London article as a model as it neither uses "London, England" in the text nor is entitled Great Fire of London, England. Anyway if you want to change it back again, I won't object. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are different styles for titles and intros. Let's not confuse the two. The London article is not called "London, England" because most readers searching for "London" are looking for the one in England, so Wikipedia policy is name the article that way. That doesn't mean that other articles shouldn't clarify which London they are referring to in the intro. Indeed, the London article does clarify that in the first sentence. That is a precedent that makes much more sense to follow. I still see no reason not to spell it out in the article. It provides a clarification for the reader, and a more formal writing style fot he article. Ground Zero | t 16:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malta article

An issue has arisen after a long time regarding the deletion of an article on a Maltese magician At that point in time, and to date I never heard of the magiician, though apparently, it now appears there are some articles in the local press about him. I don't beleive all magicians should have a place on wikipeidia, and I proposed deletion and it was accepted.

Can you please help me out in the matter by seeing the talk page? Isn't threating an offence on wikipedia? Should I initiate wikipedia conflict procedures? Maltesedog 13:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maltesedog 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Article

After the previous discussion, I assume that you are watching my deletion Discussion with reference to the article I wrote about Brian Role, i.e. myself. I must admit the article was a quick note I wrote to start off with, since I was travelling extensively from Venice to Istanbul and back again every week for a whole six months. It was a project I wanted to work on, whenever my busy schedule permitted me to. I am also amused that the first person to comment was actually Maltese who considered me as Not Notable, and mostly offensive 'Infamous'. Apparently he doesn't follow the news much neither does he see television, which would be quite understandable since he is still (or was) a student and busy studying at the time.

I have appeared on Maltese television too many times, have been featured in local newspapers many times too and have contributed more than my share to the magic fraternity in Malta, especially since I am the only Magician on the island who performs on a professional basis, meaning that this is my actual living. I am also the first Maltese magician to perform on an International basis plus I have sacrificed my whole life, including a job others would kill for, such as any professional would do in order to reach the point where they stand today.

Now I wish to know, since I am quite new here, if ever my page is relisted, what can i do to list any acheivments, any information which may be referred to by others interested in the art of magic and information i wish to share with the public in general, without being seen as advertising or without being seen as bluffing my way into fame?

I saw two postings about Biographies and Autobiographies, have looked around but cannot see any relevent guidlines that I can follow. Can you please help me? Also I would like to make a general appology to my legal threat, I didn't know any policies and did it on impulse, but being described as 'Infamous' (altough I understood the sense it was written in, but also understand that others may not) could be very damaging to my daily living. Thank You. Rolemagic 08:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Club

What do you think? --SandyDancer 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pipelinking obscuring what is being linked

Hey there. I note that in your editing of Bernard Tancred, you stated that links shouldn't be obscured. Is this policy? It's just that some of the changes you made (in my opinion) tend to detract from the accuracy of the article. To use one example, I referenced Derbyshire. In talking about cricket, people generally refer to simply Derbyshire rather than the name of the club. Please note that this is not meant to be criticism but merely a question. --Roisterer 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is possible to link words that are not exactly the same as the linked article title — for example, English. However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link."
In talking about cricket, English people know that "Derbyshire" refers to the Derbyshire County Cricket Club. People who are not familiar with English cricket clubs won't mak that connection. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. One of the great joys of Wikipedia is that readers can read on a mind-bogglingly wide range of topics. We can assist readers who don't already know about a subject, especially those in other countries by not assuming that they know a lot about the topic to start with. The Wikipedia Guide to writing better articles encourages us to "think of the reader":
"Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them."
I hope this helps. Regards, Ground Zero | t 05:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Poverty in the United Kingdom

Hi there. I had no intention of reverting your (very much appreciated) changes to the article. I had various problems with my browser timing out as I worked on the article, and in some cases I had; to copy the text in the section I had been changing from the edit box; paste it into my wordpad; restart browser; paste it back into Wikipedia. This happened a couple of times in the "political parties section" so I assume I simply didn't notice anyone else had been involved and I would be OK just planting my edits back in (rather bullishly).

I hadn't anticipated anyone making changes in the interim as I'd stuck the in use boiler up.

Sorry for the confusion, and I am very grateful to you for putting the ref bits in. I have been away from WP for quite some time (away from internet access altogether in fact) and I'm stumbling about a bit re-acclimatising myself. Respect and regards --bodnotbod 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fed election issues article

Hi there. I saw you made some edits to Issues in the Canadian federal election, 2006. I'm proposing this article be deleted under prod because it's entirely obsolete, and hasn't had any human edits since April. Just wanted to let you know, in case you think it's worth saving. -Joshuapaquin 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T. John Lesinski

Thanks for the help in editing the article that I created. - tjl82090 | talk

FYI re: Michael Shapcott

This long-term vandal to whom you gave a warning appears to be doing the same thing from an IP address. I went straight to a last warning. I'm not an admin, so if you want to block either, it's up to you.--Kchase T 02:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on the last bit of vandalism at Gerry Ehman (two different IPs right after our old username), it appears that he's on a dynamic IP address. Perhaps a complaint to his ISP is more in order.--Kchase T 02:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Party

[Re: prod of Sex Party (British Columbia):

ok I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot, generally I post at the bottom but this says Please post above, so if I was supposed to post at the bottom sorry. Anyways with reagrd to this non notability thing, I thought wikipedia did have a policy on nonnotability I mean really, I shouldn't have an article on the wiki causeI've accomplished nothing of note to the world with my life. I still maintain this polticial party is fringe in the most extreme sense. I also had an article deleted because it was non notable (and it wasn't like promoting me or a tiny business or anything) it was about music from a mainstream band (billy talent). anyways cheers I guess, I'll nominate her up later. TotallyTempo 01:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TT, the status of the Wikipedia guideline on notability is disputed. there are editors who think that it should not be a guideline. In any event, it is not a policy. THe proposal/guideline says, in part:

The primary notability criterion
One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not1, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
What constitutes "published works" is intentionally broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc.
The "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias.2
"Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.3

Both the Sex Party and BC Patriot Party articles are about topics that have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." you can read about their results in newspapers and on the Electiosn BC website. I have provided the sources for the info in the articles. Ground Zero | t 18:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Patriot Party

In case you hadn't noticed, British Columbia Patriot Party has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Ebanks

Nice clean-up job on the new article. You really are a tireless worker when it comes to keeping things ship-shape. Good job as usual! Keresaspa 16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party of Canada

Hello. Could you give your opinion as to whether or not one particular paragraph should be deleted from this article? CJCurrie 05:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie dispute

Hey, I apologize if we have gotten off to a bad start. I'm trying to resolved a dispute over content with CJCurrie and it would be helpful if you did not get involved. We are currently at an edit truce on the Judy Marsales article and we are about to engage in a MEDCAB case to resolve it. I was obviously frustrated with him over the reverts without discussion and I hope to reconcile the differences between he and I so we can get back to fruitful editing. Alan.ca 07:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if you want to get into a discussion about why I didn't want your intervention, it's probably best served to be had either here or on my talk page GZ. Alan.ca 12:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just tagged British Columbia general election, 1952 and British Columbia general election, 1953 for possible copyright infringement ; they both incorporate text which was directly copied and pasted from a footnote on this page of the Elections BC website. If you could take a look at this rapidly to have the tag and the copyrighted material removed as fast as possible (it goes back to the very first version of the page, I'm afraid) it would be much appreciated. Thanks, and have a good day. dh ▪ 2¢ ▪ 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Again

Any decision yet on Napa Chic? Thanks

Your edits to "Karlson and McKenzie"

Hey, I don't mean to capitlise and link things incorrectly; but at least let me know how to link and capitalise. Again, I don't mean to annoy you. I'm just not 100% familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style or Wikipedia's standards.

Preston47 14:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • (repsonded on user's page)

BNP Query

Ground Zero - you have edited an entry on the UKIP page claiming the BNP to be right-wing not left-wing which is factually incorrect and simply following a deliberate media misrepsention. The BNP is a left-wing, technically authoritarian left party, as the 'wing' used to describe a party is the economic not social one, and as the BNP support a state-run economy thatm akes them far left. This is accepted by most political scholars and is detailed very well by the political site politicalcompass.org (http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright) which shows how the BNP is actually a left not right-wing party. (unsigned by anon editor)

  • Um, no. It is not "factually incorrect". The British National Party article itself identifies the BNP as "far-right". This has been subject of some debate there. The "Political Compass" is an interesting map of political ideologies, but it is not authoritative. The common definition of fascist/Nazi authoritarianism is "far-right". You are free to disagree with that definition, but don't expect everyone to agree with you. I will, however, in the UKIP article that we are talking about the authoritarian right so that people are not confused into thinking that it is libertarian right. Ground Zero | t 14:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of British Columbia clean up and disambiguity

...i've been adding repeat links though out the article because it is too much effort to move back and forth in the page (intelligence, knowing and effort has no value at that point, although i understand it is better for readability and a consistent format) ...and i'm thinking the value of Wikipedia is disambiguity (its a great finder) and there isn't much more ambiguous than acronyms and abbreviations? you left links to abbreviations in and took out all the links from acronyms? I have the time to revert the acronyms if it would be a good idea to add them to disambiguity lists? ...the distance trivia was a reminder to work on a map or graphic, thanks for the edit, Happy New Year--John Zdralek 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • John, thanks for all of your work on the Socialist Party of British Columbia article. I think that it would be useful for you to review WP:LINK and WP:CONTEXT. These guidelines have very useful information on Wikipedia standards for linking, and explain it better that I would be able to. In particular, the guidelines discourage overlinking, such as making repeated links in the same article, or creating "low value" links, such as links to disambiguation pages. I do not see the value in linking to lists of acronyms and strongly discourage you from creating those links. It is always a good idea to add to those lists, but you can get to them by typing the acronym in the search box on the left of your screen. It is not necessary to create a link just to get to an article. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you and thank you for the links. Bookmarked. I was wondering what the purpose of a self-link was without knowing what it was for except to make something bold. I guess there was no purpose. The links to disambiguation of acronyms I still find useful as an interesting way to read. At random. Without thinking of paper. Links to other identical acronyms whether the articles are finished or not there yet. I think that's how I started Socialist Party of British Columbia. A graphic showing how substantially complete an article is considered to be or could be compared to other similar would be interesting. Like a vertical donation bar. I will continue on seeing if I can format the article with more information comparable to others and maybe even a real trip to British Columbia. However I don't think I will find any BC Socialists. Apparently the snow is Bolshevik this year (whatever that means) and there isn't as much in Mexico.--John Zdralek 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPBC

I'll address this shortly. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to devote as much time as I would have preferred to Wikipedia over the last few days. CJCurrie 04:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to A. Ross McCormack's Reformers, rebels, and revolutionaries : the Western Canadian radical movement, 1899-1919 (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1977)? CJCurrie 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)3[reply]

Regarding edits made during January 4 2007 to Adam Yosef

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Matthew Baird 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have:

These edits are not nonsense, and are not vandalism. I have therefore undone your reversion. Your accusation of vandalism and nonsense is ridiculous and insulting. Ground Zero | t 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yeah, I never really bothered to look at those links. Did you fix some of them by any chance? I'll remember that for next time.VitaleBaby 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style

I'm not saying this to offend you in anyway, I just want to make sure, are you positive that the first time you mention the topic in an article you don't make it bold AND italics (you took the italics out of Emory Folmar, that's why I'm asking).

Again though - I'm pretty sure your right, but I just got through a discussion over email where i let a guy convince me i'm wrong and it's both ... just want to make sure.--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Manual of Style reference for you: WP:MOS#Article_titles:

Use boldface for the first (and only the first) appearance of the article title and any synonyms of the article title (including acronyms). Use three apostrophes to produce the boldface – '''article title''' produces article title.

I hope that clears things up. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, the otehr guy sent me the same link, but i guess I shouldn't have believed his quote ... sorry bout that, --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 15:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party candidates, 2003 Manitoba provincial election

User:Jerzy and I have a difference of opinion that you may wish to review. (Sorry that I haven't looked into the SPBC page yet). CJCurrie 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Danny Graham

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Jerry lavoie 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan

I noticed that you changed the punctuation in the Ronald Reagan article to reflect British English rules for where to place periods and commas in relation to quotation marks. I changed the punctuation back to American style English, per WP:ENGVAR, which says, in relevant part, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." If you believe my edit was in error, please let me know. Cheers, JCO312 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must be wrong about this, because Jonthunder is fairly confident, but what am I missing here? How does WP:ENGVAR not support the position that American English is appropriate here? Thanks, JCO312 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter

Would you have any interest in reviewing a fascinating discussion I'm having with GoldDragon on the Joe Volpe talk page (last section), or would that be cruel and unusual? CJCurrie 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Thanks for the tip. Going further, I guess that its also a responsibility to remove it if I notice if, rather than just leaving it in even if it suits my initial thought. Remembering the last time CJCurrie and I tangled before taking a break, peace is nice but neither of us are willing to let each other prevail so that is why the edit warring can go on for some time... GoldDragon 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon AN/I

This may be of interest to you. CJCurrie 23:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CJCurrie did renege on Joe Volpe by undergoing a stealth truncation just days after we had agreed upon a version that would have ended edit warring on both parts. And the recent NPOV tag was inappropriate because all of the material in question was never debated previously on NPOV criteria, it was strictly stylistic differences and what he claimed to be "unimportant". Lastly, CJCurrie jumps me in Stephane Dion, even though we had no previous disagreement on that page, so he drew first blood in that dispute... GoldDragon 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the Volpe dispute doesn't seem to be going away, I'd appreciate any assistance you could provide. (On another matter, I've finally found my copy of the Ross MacCormack book I mentioned earlier.) CJCurrie 06:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current status: [2], [3]. CJCurrie 02:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder: I've been distracted with other matters as of late. There's actually a fourth point of debate, but I was holding off from raising it until some further progress was made on the other three. I'll address it shortly. CJCurrie 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(even though I think Joe is some kind of scuzzbag, although maybe not the worst kind)
I had been trying to put my own feelings about Volpe into words for some time ... CJCurrie 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: [4] CJCurrie 01:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: [5]. GoldDragon has, of course, misrepresented my position. CJCurrie 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and patience, there's another dispute brewing at the John Baird page. CJCurrie 03:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

Hi there. Do you think you could help us out by voting to keep this article? Thanks. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For improving my slapdash copyediting at Politics of Oregon and for being a champion of the that/which distinction. Bravo! I usually have an oversupply of commas, but if I ever need some I'll stop by. :) Katr67 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also

for the cleanup of the Tom Tancredo page. It had recently gone through a big rewrite, and thinkgs like my spelling errors got ignored. I hope it was fun... PS: If you use the +, it drops the message below your request. Just an FYI. CodeCarpenter 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the clean-up on Chippenham AlanD 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller

hey dude.tell me what exactly is the problem with this.According to Porter Airlines,as reported by 680 News in Jan/07,Porter has created 225 jobs as well as spinoff jobs and will continue to create further jobs as Porter expands to New York and Chicago - unsigned cmment by User:Myfro 10 February 2007

  • It just doesn't belong in the David Miller article. (I think that's where I deleted it.) It really looks like you're trying to argue a point here. It can go in the Porter Airlines article, but the David Miller article should be about what he has done, not and be loaded down with extraneous information intended to make him look bad, or look good for that matter. Also, it was really poorly formatted. Ground Zero | t 13:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)It is an extension of what Buzz Hargrove is saying in the same paragraph,i am not the one who opened the door on the island airport here but who ever did write it left the door open for additional comment.What is so bad about creating 225 jobs for the city?.I am going to continue to add it to the page,you and others can leave it or delete it.If you don't like it remove any reference to the island airport from the page.[reply]

AfD Progressive Bloggers

You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ground_Zero/Archive_8&oldid=1221602355"