Jump to content

User talk:Shiatsushi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

[edit]

Sorry about that, but Wikipedians are really concerned about verifiability and reliable sources. See here for information about citing sources.

Agent 78787 talk contribs 23:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

My sources are more reliable. Ernst's book doesn't cite one single source or reference. It also contradicts this article when mixing Namikoshi with yin/yang. Kishi's book cites at least six different sources.Shiatsushi (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shiatsushi. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

[edit]

Your recent editing history at Shiatsu shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC) Precisely my point. I'm not affiliated to any organisation. But YOU give a reference for the definition to ONE PARTICULAR ORGANISATION whose definition doesn't even match the definition in this article. That's biased. Then, my sources are reliable because they mention references and sources. Why do YOU INSIST on using unreliable sources? What do YOU gain from it?[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shiatsu with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jim1138 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shiatsu Yasuragi

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Shiatsu Yasuragi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Specifically 3rr noticeboard: [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. because some people, who seem to have several usernames to undo my editing, and who are unscrupulous enough to use the page to benefit a private organisation. See reference for definition.

Several different editors reverted your changes. You were asked many times to take it to the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I did. I'd like a more neutral editor to check my references.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring on Shiatsu, POV pushing, and general disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Shiatsushi reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result: Indef). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shiatsushi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my references are more neutral. The reference for the definition in this article goes directly to http://www.wellbeingone.org/shiatsu-essex-suffolk which is publicity for a specific business and not a source. Mine was http://www.ishiyaku.co.jp/search/details.aspx?bookcode=240110 which is a real source and doesn't publicise any business.

Decline reason:

You are not allowed to edit-war, even if you are right - have a read of Wikipedia:Edit warring. And this is not the place to continue your content argument. You need to address your own edit-warring, convince a reviewing admin that you will not do it again but will instead follow the appropriate dispute resolution guidelines, and that it would be of benefit to the project to unblock you. And only then, if you are unblocked, will it be appropriate for you to further pursue your content disagreement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shiatsushi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like a more neutral administrator to check my sources and references. I have explained all about them on the talk page, proving they are more neutral, much better referenced, and not expressing a point of view, but I still get blocked by some administrators

Decline reason:

Technical decline - only one unblock request at a time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shiatsushi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, it was very wrong of me to begin edit-warring. The reason is that I am new at using wikipedia and couldn't find my way around to express content disagreement except in my talk page, which I did. I have now read the information pages and I'll try to be more careful and find my way around better Shiatsushi (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I also find that "not knowing" is a bit false - you did make 3 separate posts on the talkpage at Talk:Shiatsu Yasuragi before that "article" was deleted. You have also been provided a number of warning, and links to policies. As I do not believe that you are beyond hope, I have added a welcome template to the top of this page, full of helpful links to Wikipedia policies. You'll need to take some time to read, review, and understand them. In a couple of days, when they all make sense, please re-read WP:GAB and apply what you have learned in the policies to formulate a new unblock request that will convince us that you understand. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW are the biggest (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


You seemed to have no issues using the talk page on another article which you created (it was speedily deleted since) but not on the article where you were edit warring (and there was a talk section there). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]

Hi, as indicated in email, I unblocked your account, under the following restrictions:

Conditions for the unblock are:

  • No further edit warring
  • A 1 revert rule. Don't make more than one revert to any article per day
  • On talk pages, feel free to express your point, but once it is clear consensus is not with your point of view, please leave it at that. Don't keep pressing the issue if people keep disagreeing with you

If any administrator feels you have not kept to these conditions, you can be reblocked immediately, without the need of any further warnings. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

[edit]

Your addition to Shiatsu has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be making a lot of bold additions to the article. I suggest you discuss further additions on the talk page first as two of your bold additions have been reverted so far due to issues with the changes. Consulte WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to copy text, that is a copyright violation. You must paraphrase sources in your own words. You commited the copyright violation here: [1]. (You can reply here, I am watching this page) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Request for help

[edit]

Hi Shiatsushi,

Sorry I've run out of time to look into this any more tonight. I'll try to get back to you some time tomorrow.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note

[edit]

I have reviewed your editing after your unblock, and I'm very close to blocking you now. Before I do, however, I will give you a chance to voluntarily step back from the Shiatsu article; essentially, a self-imposed topic ban. If you won't do that, I will block you until you're willing to do so. Your presence at that article has been very disruptive, and you really need to find something else to edit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion I have any stake in the shiatsu article; my interests in Japan are rather far removed from alternative medicinal practices. I'm also unsure as to why you've decided I'm a mindless drone; I reviewed the subject myself, and came to pretty much the same conclusion IRWolfie- and Yobol did; that people are tired of having to repeat themselves doesn't mean they haven't answered you. And I'd also recommend that brevity is the soul of wit, if you catch my drift. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy verbatim your statement because I think it has enlightened me: "I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion I have any stake in the shiatsu article; my interests in Japan are rather far removed from alternative medicinal practices. I'm also unsure as to why you've decided I'm a mindless drone; I reviewed the subject myself, and came to pretty much the same conclusion IRWolfie- and Yobol did; that people are tired of having to repeat themselves doesn't mean they haven't answered you. And I'd also recommend that brevity is the soul of wit, if you catch my drift" I NEVER, EVER, EVER, said that you had any stake in the article, how you came to that conclusion is a mistery to me. I NEVER said you are a mindless drone either. What I ACTUALLY said is that you seem to have supported someone without checking the facts. I NEVER - repeat - NEVER asked neither Yobol nor IRWolfie to repeat themselves. First IRWolfie claims "The text you added just isn't supported by the reference. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)" which is completely untrue as anyone who reads the reference http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/shiatsu can see, then as if this was not an excuse that I should have lapped up for no reason whatsoever except that I must believe him, he REFUSES to answer my question about being more specific. I have given two sentences in the source that support my statement. No reply from him. It seems my request for something which is not so vague, was not reasonable. But it gets better when he states "Sources are not always declared completely reliable. They are reliable for specific statements." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Does that mean that he can choose which part of the reference is reliable and which is not? And I can't? In which case, yes, I catch your drift. Whatever he says is right, whatever I say is wrong, only that you have expressed it in different terms. Any time you want, we can discuss these issues, if you allow me of course, since you have more power than me. Shiatsushi (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that you didn't take the hint in the last part of my comment, so I'll try again; being a bit more concise would go a long way. To the main part, however; you're pushing something that is obviously what's called a fringe theory on Wikipedia. We have a policy, known as WP:UNDUE, which talks about how to cover such theories. And finally, issues you have with IRWolfie- you should be taking up here, you'll have to deal with that between the two of you; I'm not a mediator or arbitrator either on Wikipedia or in real life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blade of the Northern Lights, if I am not concise, it is because some people in wikipedia keep harrassing me about my editing and apparently I must - unlike others - explain everything in detail. Even when I do so, they are allowed to undo my editing without giving much of an explanation. Question: if you are not a mediator nor an arbitrator, why threaten me? And finally, I have tried to deal with the issues I have with IRWolfie through mediation - as I have explained before, several times (it seems that I have to repeat myself although others don't, obviously), but not only nobody has volunteered to be a mediator, but I have also been threatened with being blocked BECAUSE I asked for mediation. Any suggestions for taking up those issues with him without being blocked? Shiatsushi (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking it up on his talkpage and just asking what the problem is. I can't guarantee it'll be productive, but it will certainly help your case to try. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Shiatsushi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  TowTrucker (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just read the message you posted on my Talk page. I am new to Wikipedia too so I like helping out other new editors. I went through your Contrib history I can see what you were talking about. I also found that this issue seemed to have been discussed at length on the Talk page and valid reasons have been provided about why your edits were reverted. You have to make sure that you use reliable sources when editing Wikipedia. Also, your your username is strikingly similar to the name of the page you were trying to edit. I think there might be a conflict of interest here. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any other questions. I am a newbie here but I will try my best to help you out. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! --TowTrucker (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have added this book to a disambig page even though it seems to have been non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

[edit]

It's a collaborative effort which requires some time to get article content in a state which balances all the points of view. Best option is to use the article talk page to discuss with your fellow editors.

Nobody Ent 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Shiatsu". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 May 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

[edit]

Hi Shiatsushi,

Following your recent attempts at requesting mediation via both WP:MEDCAB and WP:MEDCOM regarding the Shiatsu article and your interactions with User:IRWolfie-, I have looked at the discussions on Talk:Shiatsu. Your attitude towards IRWolfie is concerning:

I'm still allowed to reply after your attempts to block me because I don't agree with you

I had a look at your previous block, and it was because you were edit warring. Suggesting that IRWolfie attempted to have you blocked because of your disagreements on the subject matter of the Shiatsu article is problematic. He had you blocked because you were breaking Wikipedia rules on edit warring, see WP:3RR! Editors on Wikipedia frequently deal with controversial subject matter where people disagree on the fundamentals, but they do so by adherence to Wikipedia's home-grown rules and procedures. An important one of these is that people are generally acting in good faith. It doesn't matter what your views are on Shiatsu, there is a very reliable 100% guaranteed way of not being reported and blocked for edit warring: namely, not edit warring. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Morris, thank you for posting your impressions on 10:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC) on my talk page (shiatsushi), but either you haven't understood me or I haven't explained myself very well. I don't know what you have read or assumed. WHAT I am saying is not that IRWolfie had me blocked for edit warring or that it was an unfair decision. WHAT I am saying is that he TRIED to block me (not the first time I was blocked) when I opened Cabal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 April 2012/ because I disagreed with him. I believe you only need to look at the cabal I have just mentioned to see that I am telling the truth. He mentions my previous blocking as if that had anything to do with the disagreement in that PARTICULAR cabal. In fact, as anyone can see, he REFUSES to give REASONS for undoing my edits, and writes to Blade of the Northern Lights (09:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)) trying to get me blocked when this time I am NOT edit warring. So I am problematic because I refuse to edit war this time, and ask for reasons? Or because I ask for mediation because he doesn't allow any editing that doesn't agree with him? Shiatsushi (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

[edit]

So far, I don't see any harassment or maltreatment by a glance over your talk page messages. I'd recommend discussing disputed matters at Talk:Shiatsu. If you want some outside input about what sources are reliable, check out the reliable sources noticeboard. I'd also recommend reading the reliable sources guidelines for medical articles.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning Shiatsu, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad medicine concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad medicine, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad medicine concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad medicine, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad medicine

[edit]

Hello Shiatsushi. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Bad medicine".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bad medicine}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shiatsushi&oldid=1141024305"