User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2015/April

Thanks for the AWD reference fixes and some questions

Thank you for going over all the references in the Alliance of Women Directors article. From the corrections you made I think I've picked up these tips:

• Using the "|last1=______|first1=______|last2=______|first2=______|last3=______|first3=______" format is preferred over the "|author=_____ ________" format
• I need to add "|format=pdf" for PDF references (just before "|accessdate=_______ __,_____" when referencing a PDF format article/paper/book/etc.
• I should Wikilink Journals/Publishers in References where such articles exist.

However, I have a few questions about some of your edits, and I would appreciate if you could answer them, or point me to where I can find the answers:

• When should I use "|Website=_______" vs "|Journal=_______" vs "|Publisher=_______" vs "|Work=_______"
• When should I use "cite journal" vs "cite news"?
• Is "|author=_____ ________" format ever appropriate, or has it been deprecated?
• Do spaces in references cause any problems? (I have gotten into the habit of using spaces between "|" and text and between "=" and text because it makes it easier for me to read references as I type them.)

Thanks again for cleaning up after me! Carl Henderson (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Carl. I think there are quite a few acceptable ways to format the parameters of citation templates. I tend to look at the examples given in each template's documentation and just try and copy them when I think it's OK. Using such templates is not mandatory, however, and some editors actualy prefer to cite stuff in other ways. So, I usually try and stick with the format chosen by the first original contributor per WP:CITEVAR whenever possible unless there's some obvious problems. Other stuff that's helpful to remember are WP:CITEHOW, WP:PLRT, and MOS:DATEUNIFY. Now for specific answers to your specifc questions.

1. I think you can use the "author" parameter for the name. I just switched them over to "last and first"so that the formatting was consistent for each citation. I've seen both done. I do think using "last" and "first" might make it a little easier to keep track of everyone when there our mutliple authors and leave the heavy lifting to the template. Maybe it's a matter of personal style. Maybe it has been deprecated, but people still use it so it still works.
2. I think that the "format" paremeter might be leftover from a time when pdfs were harder to link to. Not sure if it's needed, but it's there and the template makes use of it, so I figure why not. Maybe there's actually a technical reason for using it, but I don't know much about the technical workings of those templates.
3. Wikilinking is just one way of providing a little more info to the reader. When they hover their cursor over the reference number, they'll see the citation info. They then can click on the Wikilink or the source/publisher/author if they want to know a little more info. It's not required and once again some people don't like to do that since they feel it can take the reader away from the article. But, it's easy to assume that everyone has heard of Time , Elle, The New York Times and forget that not everyone is from the same generation or same culture/background. So, I tend to link only the first mention and then leave the others alone. Also, Wikilinks don't work if you try to wikilink something to itself or if there's no Wikipedia article to link to, so you sometimes have to check before adding them.
4. I'm not sure if there's particular rule about using "website", "journal", "work" since they all essentially accomplish the same thing and are often just "alias" of each other. I just try to be specific where I can, so if it's a magazine, I'll use "journal" or "magazine" and if it's a webpage, I'll use "website". I think "work" pretty much covers both and I have seen the other two changed into "work" by other editors. "Publisher" is slightly different though because the markup doesn't use italics. Not sure why I changed the "Alliance of Women Directors" from website to publisher other than it seemed better without the italics. Also, if the "publisher" and the "work" convey essentially the same info, then there's really no need to use both.
5. In many cases, you get the same result regardless of whether you use "cite web", "cite news", "cite journal", etc. Technically, each template works a little differently and may allow other paramters to come into play. Generally, I try to use "cite news" for anything that seems like an official major news site such as a newspaper, TV news, etc. and "cite journal" for anything that seems to be a magazine or journal such as Time, Variety, The Journal of So and So.
6. I don't think spaces are problematic as long as they don't wreck the formatting. Some editors actually prefer to write out their template parameters vertically because it makes things easier to read. Just personal style I guess. I have, however, seen a few cases where another editor or bot has cleaned up templates and removed spaces, but I'm not sure if there's a specific technical reason for doing so. Maybe adding spaces creates the possibility that someone will accidentally mess up the formatting by adding something in that space that shouldn't be there.

Sorry if some of my answers were kind of general. I think in most cases its a judgement call as to how much clean up you should do to references. You try to be a little bold and see what happens. As long as things are formatted consistently and work, then pretty much any style is OK. Unless there are warning messages or some other major probelms, a complete overhaul is usually not needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate the time you took. It seems that as long as you are thorough in your citations, there is some wiggle-room on the exact format. (For example, I always thought of "journal" as more for an academic source, and "news" as more for something like "Time" or "Elle".) I will be applying the "|last1=______|first1=______" convention in the future, as well as most of your other suggestions. Thanks again. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Little Angels International School

Thank you for fixing the errors I made regarding the # of Indian students and the source for the kindergarten opening in 2004. I realized that it was Saito's article that says the Kindergarten opened in 2004, so I set Saito as the citation for that.

Re: "Day kindergarten" there are people who use "day school" as opposed to boarding school. However I realize it was good to remove "day" from "day kindergarten" since the Little Angels school never took boarding students. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also glad you left the comments on the talk page, since there are a bunch of inconsistencies with the secondary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have tons of experience working on school articles, so I just tried to build on all of the good work you did. Glad I could be of some help. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wimbledon Council Arms

Hi there Marchjuly, just to let you know as a courtesy, that I have uploaded another version of the image to include the changed rationale which is not under the fair use policy. As these images were originally uploaded en-masse, last decade, the fair use claim (I think they were all uploaded with that rationale), was not relevant for this pic anyway as the copyright had expired. Plus it needed a separate rationale for each use as you have pointed out.Roganjosh3 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Roganjosh3. No worries. All that the image was needed was a specific rationale for that particular use since it was being licensed as non-free. Anyway, I'm glad that things have been sorted out. Finally, since the File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg seems (at least to me) to be essentially the same as File:Arms-wimbledon.jpg, the later probably no longer satisfies WP:NFCC#1 since the "new" image would be considered a free equivalent. If that is the case, then the "new" file should replace the "old" file on Municipal Borough of Wimbledon too. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the Council one should ideally be replaced and the original tagged for deletion. I wasn't sure if it was possible to change the non-free into free, so I uploaded another. Perhaps you would like to do the necessary?Roganjosh3 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind, but I think all that needs to be done is add a "1" to the old file name so that the article uses the new file. As for deleting the old file, once it is replaced it will become an orphan and automaticlally fail WP:NFCC#7. It can be then marked for speedly deletion per WP:CSD#F1 or WP:F5, or it can simply be left as is since another editor or bot will eventually catch it and tag it for speedy deletion. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, sounds sensible. ThanksRoganjosh3 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Carl Henderson. I think most people involved in that debate were really here to try and build an encyclopedia. Things tends to remain civil when you stick to discussing policy and guidelines and avoid all of the other noise. Unfortunately, "noise makers" do often show up in such debates and things then can deteriorate quite rapidly. (One editor was even indefinitely blocked because they were deemed to be using multiple accounts to play "good cop/bad cop" in that particular debate).

I can't say I totally agree with the close from a policy standpoint, but I'm do agree with the process that was followed. One thing to remember is that a "no consensus" is really just a "keep by default". It means that the article still has some (serious) issues that should be fixed. Articles can be nominated for deleteion more than once, and "no consensus" closes typically tend to be the ones that are renominated. It would've really helped if the AWD understood that the debate was not about whether their organization is more notable or more relevant than toilet paper orientation, etc. That kind of thing makes for a great social media buzz, but it is not what Wikipedia is about. Editors are people too, so talk page rants and claims of conspiracy as well as off-Wikipedia Twitter "campaigning" tend to do more harm than good.

What the AWD really needs to do, in my opinion, to ensure "their" article is safe is to realize that (1) it's not their article in the first place (i.e., avoid inappropriate COI editing), and (2) focus on getting better and more coverage in reliable sources. Tensions with other editors will disappear once the former is realized and "notability" issues will disappear once the later is achieved. Anyway, sorry for that last bit of a rant. You did good work on the article. Good luck with your editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC); edited 02:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I could see the points of the Delete position, too. I'm going to continue to an eye on the article—and on the AWD via Google and Twitter. If good sources come up, I plan to improve it.

I had a talk (just after I started editing the article) with one of the AWD principles on twitter and did my best to explain Wikipedia's rules and processes to here there and what an article needed to be notable and what the standards for reliable sources were. (I explained what a "no consensus" close meant as well, today.) I think the informal nature of the conversation helped, and I'm confident they now understand they don't "own" the article (and no one does), plus they are working on improving their media profile. After all, the press is good for their cause, not just for staying on Wikipedia, and that's what they should (and I think are) focused on.

As for the Civility Barnstars, I'd made up my mind (if the current rules allowed it) to pass them out to those involved whether the article was kept, deleted, or no consensus'ed. And if your last response was a rant, it was an astonishingly polite one! I'm also enjoying editing after having been away from 2006 to late 2014, and learning how much has changed has been interesting. I like to hit random article and fix stuff that catches my eye, and have three longer articles in various stages of completion in sandbox. So far, it's enjoyable. Thanks again! Carl Henderson (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries Carl. It was nice of you to take the time to explain Wikipedia to the AWD people. I hope this experience hasn't totally soured them on the project and that they decide to stick around. It seems like they have lots to offer and could become valuable contributors to WP:FILM or Wikipedia in general. Happy endings are the best, and it looks like this ending is going to be a happy one for all concerned. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator

I removed an non-free image from this article per WP:NFCCE because it did not have the specific, separate non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. If this was a mistake, then it was made in good faith and based upon my understanding of WP:NFCCP. However. this has led to me being accused of trying to wreck an article, vandalism, bullying, making things personal, ranting, acting out of malice or for revenge, being dissmissive, trolling, being manipulative, arrogance, being destructive and power hungry, ruining someone's Easter holiday, worsening someone's health condition, etc., etc. as well as seeing my contribution history being misrepresentated and having my personal life commented upon by another editor at WP:NFCR#File:Angie Watts.jpg and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 April 4#File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg. I have done my best to remain civil and explain things in an attempt to keep the discussion focused on policy, but I do admit that I am not totally without blame. I did, however, sincerely try to make amends and diffuse the situation, but it seems to have only made things worse and led to more personal attacks. I removed some files that shouldn't have been added to articles, but I did not delete them or nominate them for deletion as is being claimed. I also did not knowingly "trick" (my word) this other editor into uploading a file whose licensing would later be scrutinized just to create more problems for them. I realize I have the option of bringing this to WP:ANI, but would like to find another solution if possible. This other editor has made it clear that they do not wish to interact with me, so I am hoping to find an administrator who is willing to look at things impartially and intervene if necessary. I understand WP:BOOMERANG and accept that said adminsitrator may find it necessary to warn or even block me, but whatever mistake I may have made was, once again, made in good faith and is certainly not worthy of the response I have gotten in return. Thank you in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_April_4#File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg "You have firstly and apparently deliberatly conflated two different issues, the first is the removal of image which I accepted without comment as can be seen on your talk page, with your comments on the discussion page for the second arms image. This will mislead an admin into sympathy which I expect you are well aware of. A)You are persisting in your persecution of me. You have not left me alone as I have asked you to do more than once. B)I have nowhere commented on your personal life: apparently your have chosen once again to give the narrowest of possible meanings to a word: world. C)You have not presented anything I have said in it's context which is misleading and I would say calculated to portray me in the worst possible light, whilst making yourself out to be completely innocent of attracting such comments. This is I would say, devious.....better add that to the list too, why dont you. D)You have blatently and incorrectly implied that I have accused you of tricking me into uploading another file: what I said was "I also suggest you learn the rules properly that you so dearly love. You have recently deleted a considerable number of arms images from articles yet you don't seem to have actually bothered to read c:COM:COA ie the basic principles of the copyright rules pertaining to them, so you actually had no business accepting the out of copyright image as that was wrong and led me into this mess". In no way does that imply that I have accused you of tricking me into the uploading of the file but as someone who has made it their business to delete many of the same genre of arms pictures from articles (not from Wikipedia, I have never stated that so that accusation is also incorrect), you should have known not to have accepted that file. You clearly have had it in for me on this page the moment you came here because of your inability to cope when you perceive even the merest hint that someone might have the timerity to not show complete acquiescence and silence towards your application of rules and therefore power. Clearly you seek to have me banned as your ultimate need to suppress, now by the use of accusations which are blatently untrue. I have tried to stop this nonsene but you continued it on another page by finding another picture to dispute on the same article and now on your talk page. I asked you to stop this, but you cannot and apparently will not leave this alone. Your use of the word trick is deliberately inflammatory and grossly incorrect. You don't seek "intervention" what you are really asking for is a judgement against me in your favour as the ultimate defense of your hounour even if it means you have to falsely accuse me of accusing you of tricking me. Intervention would not be necessary if you just stop this, but it isnt stopping this that you really want, it's judgement and so even your request for an admin is not honest. Please once again, you are making me ill over this, please stop this."Roganjosh3 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not persecuting you or out to get you so I wish you'd stop saying that I am. I am not trying to get you banned, but your personal comments directed towards me are not appropriate per Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. I have explained my reasoning for removing that particular file and other similar files multiple times: WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCCE. c:COM:COA is Wikipedia Commons policy and it does not necessarily apply to non-free images used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Commons and Wikipedia are part of the same foundation, but they are not one and the same and each has their own set of policies and guidelines. When I first saw the file, it seemed fine to me and I assumed in good faith that you had licensed it correctly. I have already said that any problems associated with WP:NFCC#1 did not cross my mind, until it was brought up at for discussion at "WP:PUI" by Stefan2. You uploaded File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg file to Wikipedia because you felt the copyright had exprired, not me; Therefore, you are responsible for making sure that the licensing is correct, not me. You are responsible for familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's Image Use Policy before uploading an image and adding it an article, not me. You are responsible for familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policy for using non-free images before adding a non-free image to an article, not me.

This is my user talk page and I don't need your permission or approval on what I post here. You are welcome to post here and discuss things, but I do have the right to delete or archive things I find inappropriate and to prevent my user talk page from being turned into a battlefield. So, I politely ask that you try to keep things civil and refrain from just copying-and pasting stuff you've posted on other pages, which for reference is something that may be seen as inappropriate if done too many times; A simple link will more than suffice. I have tried to make amends and diffuse things, but you found that to be unacceptable which is your perogative. If this, however, is really making you sick and you really have no further desire to interact with me, then don't come here looking for a piece of me. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not looking for a piece of anyone. You lied on this page that I had accused you of tricking me....how is that civil? Whether or not you use the phrase "my word" the implication and the accusation is exactly same. I notice you make no reference to that. I have done with you and your games, your quoting of rules when it suits you, but your deviousness and dishonesty are plain to see. Roganjosh3 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I clearly said that "trick" was "my word" and I used it because that's sort of how this seems to me. You uploaded the file of your own accord and chose what you believe to be the correct licensing at the time. You then added it to Wimbledon Manor House to replace the image I removed. When I wrote All that the image was needed was a specific rationale for that particular use since it was being licensed as non-free in User talk:Marchjuly#Wimbledon Council Arms, it was what I believed at the time and what I would have advised if asked before you uploaded the file. This may turn out to be incorrect, the discussion of the file's licensing is still ongoing. All I said about your choice of licensing for the file was that Wikipedia takes copyright protection quite seriously and the licesning was only being discussed to determine if the image is "free" or not. I did not "condemn" or "attack" you for possibly uploading a file with the wrong licesing. Yet, you seem to be angry at me and are blaming me because I "accepted" the image and didn't check it more carefully or know enough about coat-of-arms copyright issues to point out that imagine might still be copyrighted after you uploaded it and added it to the article. You also seem to be claiming that I am not here to help build an encyclopedia, but am a vandal only insterested in pursing my own personal agenda, which is something that couldn't further from the truth. You are continuing to use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 April 4#File:Arms-wimbledon1.jpg as a forum to comment about me and my qualifications (or lack thereof) to participate in Wikipedia, even though that page is specifically for discussing potential licensing issues for possibly unfree files. Pages such as that are primarily for discussing content not the contributor. When discussions are heated things sometimes get said out or irritation or anger. That is understandable, but you continue to use the page to make comments about me and not about the file's licensing. You have a user talk page. If you which to discuss my behaviour then do it there or do it on my talk page here. If you feel my behavior was so wrong that it should be sanctioned, then open a case at WP:ANI.

Finally, if you're going to post here or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter, then please try and be careful and use only one account. I am assuming that you simply forgot to log in when you posted as here on my user talk and at PUI page . It's a mistake that can happen to us all, but it can create confusion because it is not always clear who is speaking. I also suggesst that you use wikilinks and diffs instead of copy-and-pasting from one place to another. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed my ip address both from my post and your post as it was posted inadvertently by my browser due to it logging me out without my noticing it. But even though I had already deleted it and then properly signed it before your reply quoting it, you of course have gone on to make an issue of it including retrieving it from the old page and posting it here....that is below the belt.

Oh good grief, really???....day 4 of this. I don't care any more, say what you like, you will anyway. Go ahead, you will only be talking to yourself. Grow up.Roganjosh3 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing "below the belt" about my previous post. The IP address was there for everyone to see. It is still in the page histories of this talk page and the PUI page for everyone to see. The posts of anyone using that particular IP address will be indicated in the same way and listed as such the accounts contributions page. I assumed the IP was you, but you verified it was you. If you logged out in error and don't want the IP address to be shown, then you can go to WP:RFO and ask an oversighter to remove it. Just follow the procedures on the page, and they will be happy to help you. There is also a way to help reduce the chance of the same thing happening in the future that I am more than happy to share with you. I did the same thing a few times when I started using Wikipedia, but I was able to help prevent that by adding something to my user page.

Please avoid editing the talk page posts of other users as you did here. Doing so is almost always considered to be unacceptable talk page behavior, except in some very specific cases.

In addition, please avoid editing or adding information to posts you have made which have already be replied to as you did here. You have also done similar things to posts at the "WP:PUI" page. Each post is signed and time stamped so adding information after the fact could cause misunderstanding and affect the meaning of not only the original post, but also any replies. This is also something that is generally considered to be unacceptable talk page behavior. If you made a post which has already been replied to that you feel needs to be clarified or corrected, then typically the best thing to do is simply add a new post and explain things. If, however, you feel it is absolutely necessary to go back and edit the original post, then please do so in accordance with WP:REDACT.

Most editors are more than happy to simply offer friendly advice when stuff like the above happens for the first time. If, however, the same behavior continues, it could be considered disruptive editing and lead to a stronger warning or possibly even a block. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Retiring "Users may choose to retire after specific unpleasant experiences" I have decided to retire from Wikipedia and have placed the appropriate tag on my user page.Roganjosh3 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That is truly unfortunate and is not something I was trying to accomplish. Hopefully, you will reconsider your decision and decide to continue contributing. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I can't really tell what you need from an administrator, and based on the fact that no one's responded to this yet, I assume no one else can either. Disputes happen and can get heated, but the vast majority of these situations don't require administrator intervention. Many forms of dispute resolution exist. Severe disruption, incivility or personal attacks may warrant admin action, but in those cases you should concisely explain the problem and provide evidence; generally if the evidence doesn't speak for itself you're just wasting time slamming out paragraphs. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Swarm. I mistakenly thought it would just be easier to link to pages where the PAs (at least what I believe to be PAs) were made instead of providing a diff for each and every one, since there were quite a few. If that is what is needed, then I can do that. The situation, however, seems to have petered out, so I don't know if there's really any point in doing so anymore. Your point is noted though and I will keep it in mind just in cases things ever heat up again. Should I "deactivate" the "admin help" template or does that have to be done by an admin? Can I also just leave this thread on my talk page and let it get archived automatically like everything else? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and deactivated the template but for future reference, you'd be free to deactivate/remove the template as you wish. And yeah you can absolutely leave this thread of course, or delete it, or whatever. It's your talk page. And yeah, many admins are pretty motivated and will gladly get involved in complicated disputes, but the easier you can get them up to speed, the better chance you'll receive prompt assistance. It's kind of hard to sift through walls of text trying to deduce what the core of the problem is and what the appropriate response would be, and if we're talking PAs, like I said, most of the time we won't action them, so it's not necessarily the way most of us want to spend our time. Dispute resolution is primarily the best way to deal with this and admin intervention usually comes into play after all other avenues have been exhausted. But yeah, the moral is that diffs are your friend. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm. I tried not to bite and just ignore since it seemed to be a case of unintended consequences, but it was starting to disrupt other pages and turn them into battlegrounds. So, I tried to diffuse the situation by striking out and apologizing, but that was seen as insincere and further proof of my guilt, and only succeeded in making things worse. Since the problem was more about behavior than content, I thought my only remaining options were "admin help" or ANI, with ANI being the final option. Ideally, I guess I probably should have just continued to ignore, but there seemed to be no end to the comments being made about me on multiple pages. So, I added the template. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A&N International Media

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks for your attempts to find a new source for the file. I'm quite happy for it to be deleted to be honest, as the company has changed name and the logo is not particularly important in terms of identification. I appreciate your efforts though. Cloudbound (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the reply. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar, well deserved!

		The Purple Barnstar
		It looks like it has been a rough couple of days for you, but you seem to have kept your cool - don't let the tough times get you down! ScrapIronIV (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Your Message Regarding Oakwood Friends School

I only blanked my talk page for cosemetic reason, i keep a archive of the page on my computer so need be any past messages need to be seen, i have a record. MattVoorhees15 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MattVoorhees15. Thanks for the message. There seems to be some confusion. I am not referring to your user talk page. I am referring to the article talk page Talk:Oakwood Friends School which you blanked with this edit. It seems that you just blanked the page by accident, so I re-added the information and it should be OK now. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah you're right- my mistake, thank you for catching that for me, I must've mistook it for my own talk page. Thanks! MattVoorhees15 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries MattVoorhees15. We all make mistakes. Happy editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

	Teahouse Barnstar
	Accurate, helpful answers are our stock in trade. Thank you so much for helping to provide them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)