User talk:A Nobody

Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Happy 4th of July

How nice, thank you! Oui, je suis bien Americain, happy 4th of july to you too! -- Geĸrίtz (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Tres bien!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Same to you! Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm always happy to spread some wiki-love to help make our project more pleasant. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its unanimous. Citrus, I always appreciate your greetings. Best, Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to read that! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm nice because I agreed with you? :P Have a nice weekend too. Not entirely sure I should be supporting you, considering that it's a celebration of you guys getting out from under the Brit's grasp, but I'll let it slide. Naerii 01:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who agrees with me is okay in my book! And for the record, I personally am quite fond of the many British people I have met. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't really celebrate that here in Australia, but thanks for the well wishes. I hope you have a happy 4th of July. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 02:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and yes, I saw a massive hot air balloon lift off and fire works and had some Dairy Queen as well; and I even saw a big basset hound. Plus, my pumpkins are doing great this year! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You too! Happy Independence Day. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as well, if you are an American (and even if you are not; I can only assume that you are a citizen of a nation of freedom yourself, as you are such a strong champion of freedom for people who work on articles whose "notability" is called into question) then I wish the same for you as well. No need to limit that to "nice" people though, as even non-nice people deserve the same rights to independence as the rest of us!  :) BOZ (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Yes, I am American and I like helping people, whether it's giving them nice greetings or defending their work. If you notice, I changed my signature for the day to "Happy Independence Day!" So, hopefully even those with whom I disagreed in various XfDs also felt some pleasantness. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the well wishes, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles! I had a very nice Independence Day, I hope you did too! Knowitall (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and yes, as indicated above, the Balloon Fest was cool as usual. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not an American, but thanks anyway. Nice list you're keeping ;) --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think it's important to show appreciation for those who have helped make editing Wikipedia more pleasant for me (hence, the list) as I truly believe that Wikipedia:Editors matter.  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. VartanM (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm Canadian, but I hope you have a great weekend and Independence Day! Happy editing! --Silver Edge (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Canada is without a doubt one of my favorite places to visit (I love Montreal with its Restaurant Bonaparte and La Ronde; Niagara Falls for Clifton Hill; the Wheels Inn near Windsor; and the great fishing elsewhere). Plus, I have always found Canadians pleasant when I have visited, whether it be Ontario or Quebec. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Same to you. :-) — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks right back!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just enjoyed the Disneyland fireworks. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

We (my parents and I) went with the Ashland Balloon Fest. --Happy editing! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Happy Independence Day indeed--independence from alcohol, by the grace of my Higher Power, for 22 years, 4 months, 23 days, 22 hours, and fourteen minutes--but who's counting! I only wish all of the practicing drunks in my life could have this gift... Qworty (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not an American (though I did watch Independence Day the film yesterday...Okay, well, not quite the same...But it's a great film. :D). I hope you have a great celebratory weekend. All the best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not Amercian but my wife is, so that's enough reason to celebrate!:)Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you LGRdC. Rudget (logs) 15:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to all! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I hope you had a good fourth of July as well. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and I did!  :) --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your dog

File:Bandaged basset tail.jpg

Photograph of my basset hound whose tail is bandaged due to a tumor that burst on Sunday.

I'm really sorry your dog is blind and that she appears to have had some other major surgery on her back as well. What exactly happened? Were the two related? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate that. She lost her eyes due to glaucoma, which is common in bassets. The other surgeries were tumors. On Sunday, a tumor on her tail burst and is currently bandaged up. Unfortunately, according to the vet, it may be cancerous and so there is a strong possibility that part or all of her tail will be amputated. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to talk about your dog when i saw your user page. I too have dog. He is a lab. We named him Juno. I had a dog before he died on Dec 2006 due to gastroenteritis. No idea how he got that. We gave him clean food and water. So we brought another. I still think about my old dog and miss him :(. Anyways take care of your pet and love him/her. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I will and I'm sorry to read that about your dog. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope her tail surgery works out well. I'm not really a pet person, so excuse my ignorance. Is it common for a dog to have so many maladies or is this just a tragic streak of misfortune? Is she old for the breed? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Glaucoma is common in bassets and I suppose older ones do get lumps and bumps, but this dog has been particularly unlucky. With that said, I do not give up on anything I care about. By the way, are you a real doctor and if so, what of? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't me mentioning this Proverbs 12:10 "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." :). Caring for animals is good. Also Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles your pet will be just fine. No matter how many bad things happen there is always a good side. :). Take care of yourself too. See you. Iam sorry for hijacking your post Doctorfluffy. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind thoughts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a doctorate in Awesomeness. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm for real working on one in history (most likely 2009). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment to thumper on his page - how awful! I'm a dog man myself and have a couple of whippets. Chin up and all that. Regards --Allemandtando (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists and italics

A couple of days ago I did some work on List of magazines in South Africa, including removing the italics from magazine titles. Only now do I notice that you specifically italicized those very same titles back in December.
(a) Sorry. I should have checked the history first.
(b) I know periodical titles get italics as per WP:MOSTITLE, but it just seemed wrong to have an entire page made up of virtually nothing but italics; it didn't scan well. That is just an opinion, so I went looking for policy or consensus. WP:LIST is no help, and my searches haven't turned up any other policy or discussion, not even in the daunting Manual of Style archives, so
(c) If you can point me to a resource I'd really appreciate it. If not, could you take the time to run me through your thinking on the matter? That would be a great help.
9Nak (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), "Italics should be used for...magazines". So, it's just a matter of being consistent across all articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess consistency is important, and having recently come across WP:CREEP I have to admit that an exception could do more harm than good – even though I still prefer the way it looks without italics. Thanks for the help. 9Nak (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia School Team

Hi;

The Wikimedia School Team was started to provide special distributions to school districts in the United States. Would you be able to lend your educational expertise to this project? Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to help. What would you like me to help with? --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We need a educator to make a framework or curricula for a school to use. Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What kind of school? My experience is in college history. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whither disengagement

LeGrand. It appears over the past few days that past disagreements between you and me have come to a head again. You and I have had completely opposed stances toward the encyclopedia, so we were destined to come down on opposite sides of issues, but it appears that we are now on directly opposing sides of an argument in several places. Since our past disagreement, we have been able to correspond in relative calm on most issues. Sometimes we have done so by avoiding our principal disagreements. Sometimes we have done so by acknowledging those disagreements but working around them or (more rarely) compromising in order to engage with an issue. It appears, however, that this isn't sufficient.

Earlier today you and I got into two (basically) arguments. The first was at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/100_Japanese_respected_by_the_world. The second, at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Eaters. Both revolved around specific claims I made about your edits or questions I raised about the same. Later, at a talk page neither yours nor mine, you chose to interpret those arguments as "harassment"([1], [2], [3]). That is unfortunate. I regret starting those two conversations (at the afds listed above). In retrospect, it wasn't all that helpful and didn't provide any new information. I don't feel that those can be constituted as harassment. You obviously feel otherwise. You also, as is clear from the back and forth in this section (User_talk:TTN#Initiate_a_RFC), that my comment on these editors amounts to a breech of a covenant I was placed under following our disagreement. I don't agree with that interpretation. I also don't think that is an issue for today. If you feel I'm forever barred from speaking with admins who might seek community review of your actions, I can't disabuse you of that notion. If I feel that you were in the wrong in our original dispute then you are probably not likely to convince me that it is a closed matter.

I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to follow up on comments I made here, here, and here. The people who disagree with you about articles are humans. They deserve to be treated with the same respect you would demand.

Please, please, please, consider that making a copy/paste response to each AfD, responding didactically to each "just not notable" or "cruft" with an essay link, or refusing to answer questions/further the process is deeply infuriating and profoundly disrespectful. The reason (I won't link diffs here, but I can if you ask me to) that editors like A man in Black and EEMIV have taken time out to mention this is because it is a perceived problem. This doesn't stem from my "issues" with you (which, apart from what I have noted above are almost zero). This stems from the premise that you are not interpreting WP:CIVIL in the same fashion as some other editors. Each editor in the AfD process has a right to be there and their opinions have a right to be heard. If you feel that some positions are weakened by limited argumentation, then please consider that not every person wants to hear from you on the subject. If you feel that nominations are too perfunctory and are undertaken with too little due diligence for searching, please say so. Don't interpret this problem as an opportunity to copy and paste a 'keep' rationale in protest. This is what I was trying to get across (partially) during our WQA/RFC dispute. I interpreted your actions there as a total lack of respect for me and others. I was not along in this interpretation. I'm sorry I filed that WQA. I should have just instead disengaged. But don't interpret that regret as some concession of facts. I don't think I was wrong. I think you were out of line. And I'm sticking by that assessment. This (I'm not digging through talk archives to link the diffs) is echoed here--it is felt that you ought to act as though you treat people who want to delete articles with respect. We are human. We are usually pretty intelligent. We can see through lines like "sincerely" or "cheers" if the text of the actual message doesn't reflect the sentiment of the signature.

I don't mean stop posting to afds. I can't ask you to do that and even if I had the power I wouldn't. As I've said a dozen times, AfD needs your voice. We need you to remind us that not all articles are worthless piles of cruft and that some articles can be saved (Like Star Wars PEZ for just one of many examples). We need you to dig through sourcing because you CARE about the article in question, and sometimes deletionists (or regular editors) don't. Also, it doesn't matter if we "need" you to be there. You have a right to participate (I know WP:NOTDEMO, but the idea is the same). That right shouldn't be abridged because I don't like how you are contributing.

I mean please accept the impassioned pleas of other editors who are asking you to contribute meaningfully. Please don't see something like an RfC as a vicious character attack from determined enemies (unless it actually is). Please see some criticism as a call for change, not an attack on your positions or values. Please, PLEASE treat us with the respect you want us to afford you. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that we have been able to work successfully in some instances and we should focus on those efforts as models for how to colloborate in the future. So long as people treat me respectfully I will do the same. So long as people do not post copy and paste AfD nominations, I will not post copy and paste arguments to keep. I can tell when comments made to be are biased or self-serving and I can tell when they are neutral and constructive. In the later cases, I will indeed gladly take them as valid suggestions. I hope of course that others will do the same. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, here I'm going to echo what AMiB said. It doesn't make a bit of sense to reply to copy/paste AfDs with a copy/paste response. It makes much more sense to point out (as you have in some occasions) that the AfD is broad, undirected and incomplete, not respond in kind. It also makes sense to allow superfluous votes to stand unargued most of the time. If I make an AfD comment that something should be deleted because it is cruft and you reply with an essay entitled WP:Do not call things cruft, I am liable to interpret that as an imperative (also, that is a terrible title for that essay, it really ought to be changed, as it doesn't reflect the content, IMO). If I interpret your request as an imperative, I am liable to raise my hackles for no good reason. I understand your frustration but I don't think it reflects well on you to operate in this fashion.

As for the larger issue, I wish we could talk about that. Meaning that I think your response to criticism has been to dismiss the criticism as harassment or to pick a specific point and argue that without taking into account the whole. Sometimes you are correct--lots of editors have taken it into their heads that you are to be harassed or bothered otherwise. Sometimes points of criticism have really boiled down to specific claims about your actions and were properly addressed at that level of specificity. But most of the time this wasn't the case. When I ask you to treat participants in the AfD process with respect I mean that I wish you would operate without the condition that people are respectful to you. In other words, people will always be assholes. They will be dismissive, unfriendly and coarse. I think it would reflect better on you (and me) to behave the same irrespective of that behavior. That is what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get across with my RfC. That civility means an attempt at mutual respect and that certain practices erode that respect.

I really like working with you and I respect you. As I've noted a half-dozen times (but will repeat), I will have to be around 3 years to begin to match the contribution you have made to the wiki. You have suffered through more harassment and vandalism than I will likely see in a decade here. You have done so (largely) with wit and aplomb. Dealing with you on talk pages and article-space has been a treat. But talking to you on AfD pages is like speaking to a different person. You don't treat me or other editors with the same respect you offer on talk pages. One of the reasons this came to a head between you and me again was because the contrast was so jarring. To go from collaborating over the Cheshire Cat article to being given the cold shoulder in AfD debates seemed stark and rude. I got the feeling that you thought the WQA/RfD debacle had been a comment on my behavior specifically and that we were to continue as before but with an admonishment to me for the temerity to raise a complaint. All in all, this was pretty frustrating. And when you admonished me to "stay on task" for remarking on your AfD contributions, it was specifically frustrating.

So where is this going? Partially, I want to keep the dialogue up. Partially I want to diffuse this and prevent it from becoming a repeat of the past issues. But I also want to declare that my complaints are legitimate. They are not harassment. And while I won't file another RfC absent some unprecedented change in behavior, I don't consider discussions of one with others (particularly when the subtext of my contribution is to implore the participants to calm down) as harassment a priori some evidence of that. While you may act out of frustration I don't appreciate the lecture. So lets see where we can come together. Protonk (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The cruft essay and all is intended to encourage editors to provide a real substantiated reason for deletion if they reply as such then they wind up strengthening their stance, if they reply defensively then it further shows that their reason is indeed subjective. I do not dismiss critciism when it comes from neutral editors; when it comes from those who have themselves been cautioned, warned, blocked, or sanctioned for civility or who never or practically never argue to keep then I take it for what it really is. Thus, in AfDs, I usually know which editors see their purpose on wikipedia as being solely to delete stuff or other singular purposes. And I know what kinds of venues are conducive toward gaining mutual understandings or proactive ideas and which devolve into partisan mudslinging that escalates matters and makes editors dig in. And thus I do what is necessary to keep discussions in productive venues and to make sure that whatever discussion there is remains worthwhile. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It saddens me considerably to read that response. Again you have drilled down to specifics where I raised broad questions. Again you have claimed the high ground without room for exception. I'm not out to smear you or to troll you. In asking you to be receptive of criticism I'm only asking that you reflect upon comment regardless of the source's stance toward the wiki. If you break up editors based on their stance in deletion debates and accept criticism based largely on that dichotomy that has the same effect as ignoring the criticism. I'm not out to get into a pissing contest. I want a real response to my questions and my concerns. If that requires days or weeks, I am happy to oblige (I hope you know from our parallel conversation on my talk page that I know this is low priority). If you don't want to give a response, then please say so. Consider my pleas above as a call for you to embrace some self-reflection on this subject. I don't expect you do change when I (or anyone else) demand it nor to expect cries for reflection to be answered immediately, but I feel this is important. But please reflect upon this before responding. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to be brief at present as I am bogged down with my dog and grading and so my edits today have to be quick ones; i.e. welcomes or one sentence replies, quick grammar fixes, etc. unfortunately. My mind is elsewhere as far as reflective comments go today and probably for the next few days. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, take your time. Like I said, responding to this at length or following some thought should fall pretty low on the totem pole. I don't think I have status to demand an immediate and detailed response. Please respond at your leisure. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. By the way, what do you think about starting an article on Reptilian humanoids in culture from such sources as [4] and [5]? --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest the subject doesn't interest me enough to put the effort into it to make a new article. There is room for a GA in there somewhere (and I'm sure there is already a "reptiles in mythology" or "reptiles in fiction" article out there) should someone want to dig through sources, but I probably wouldn't do it justice. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the open-mindedness. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm eager to please. I hope that I usually live up to my promise of reversing my position in the event that facts change. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying for some good natured humor at User talk:A Man In Black#A moment of levity to cheer everyone up. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good talk

Take care of your poor pooch, I have a dog myself so I completely understand, it's good you have your priorities straight on that. Back to what you said in AFD 101, I think we are now in agreement. If you can either demonstrate notability in the manner I showed you, or you have a good feeling there is notable information in existence about an article that you can access, I won't nominate an article for AFD, or if you need time, I will withdraw it. But this understanding must extend the other way, that if you can't find anything or don't have a good feeling, which means the article really doesn't have a leg to stand on, we should delete and possibly redirect. Besides, a lot of this material eventually comes back, such as when they do the Warhammer 40,000 main article and discuss the plot. If a massive amount of material is found about how the characters and worlds of Warhammer were created, all these articles would come back in a much better form, so it's not like the earth is salted for them.

And perhaps I will run some articles by you if you are game, as that would make this process more efficient. At the moment, the Warhammer 40,000 series has a vast amount of fictional articles associated with it, which you will notice in topics on one of my userpages. They have so far demonstrated no notability, and I have a feeling they will not. In this case, if you could look in print media for information regarding how the creators of the Warhammer 40,000 series created/dreamed it up/designed the worlds and characters, that would be great. I can look on the net, you can look in the library. And if we don't find anything, the major consolidation that others are trying to instigate should go through unopposed by either of us. But if we find something, we can build them up and keep them. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, she's almost assuredly losing all or part of the tail on Thursday in surgery, which has me down. The Warhammer articles I believe can be merged and redirected at least into lists, transwiked, etc., where I just don't think outright deletion is the path to take, i.e. I don't think other options have yet been exhausted. Deletion really needs to be a last resort when the articles in question can't even be redirected or transwikied. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Sorry to waste your space with this, but your festive signature was quite a joy to see, and I'm glad that someone around here remembered... nah... Anyway, Happy Bastille Day! Leonard^(Bloom) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A nice comment is never a waste of space! Thanks and Happy Bastille Day to you as well!  :) --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, Le Grand, is there a code you use to generate these daily holidays? Or do you update your sig manually? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I do it manually. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK this is getting silly

_{sorry edit watchers that edit summary was for fun}

OK, I think our interaction is getting out of hand at the moment and is causing problems - so I'm going to suggest the following:

1) I will *not* AFD any more Warhammer articles - while I think they have problems and *should* be AFD'd, I'd like to reach out the hand and say "ok you have concerns that they are not and I'm going to try and listen harder" - so that's my way of listening harder - I will *not* AFD any of the ones currently at ARS and will post a notice to that affect to the rest of the ARSes _{(heh - I couldn't help myself with that one - did nobody notice the pun when you came up with name?)}

2) In fact, I will not AFD ANY article for a period of six weeks and will concentrate solely on clean-up, article creation and sourcing etc. I have got this rep as some AFD crazied nutcase. That's really not what it's about and I frankly haven't done a very job of convincing people of that.

3) As a further boon and sign of goodwill - I will assist the ARSes _{(I'm sorry I just love that pun)} on clean-up and rescue of articles for a period of at least six weeks. Because let's be clear about this - where are we going as a project - this division between "them" (delete!) and "us" (keep!) is getting us nowhere. Maybe by working with the ARSes _{(ok stop it now Alle..)}, I can get a better understanding of the perspective there and hopeful people can get a better idea of my talents.

How does this sound?

--Allemandtando (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I am always happy and willing to work with others to help improve articles. By the way, about "reputations," I have been called an "extreme inclusionist" even though I have argued or even nominated or prodded to delete over forty articles! --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the ARS page but give me a knock if you need a trawl of academic and other databases to see if there are any good sources for any particular article. You never know what can be turned up --Allemandtando (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

okay, will do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New weapons have been announced for GoW2

See this exclusive page on the new weapons being add to the new game. King Rock (Gears of War) 01:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good find! Have you added that to the weapons article in my userspace? If not I encourage you to do so; if you don't want to do so, let me know and I will. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to do it. I'm just trying to gather info from the site and then add it. King Rock (Gears of War) 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding! Keep up the good work and let me know if I can help! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added info on Gorgon, please add more for I'm not sure how much to add to that. I will add more on the other weapons soon. King Rock (Gears of War) 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely keep an eye out. I found a weapons reference for a different article, incidentally. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Urhm... Hello Back

Bonjour le Roi,

Thanks for your welcome message, but I did not make much contributions. Additionally, I'm looking for a username, like you can see. I've already found Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations, perhaps this is the right thing for me.

Greetings from Germany (commons:User:Sven, de:Benutzer:Benji), --87.166.249.52 (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from America!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		A Nobody, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, congratulations, and good luck!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I withdrew my RfA. Thank you for talking part in my RfA. Your !vote was oppose. Le Grand, I didn't know about WP:JNN, WP:VAGUEWAVE, and WP:PERNOM. Somehow I missed Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions! Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. However, I also feel that you should have focused on articles created by me. Some of your arguments are interesting. Deleting some article can undo years of work of other editors. Many admins don't realize this. I will take care about the concerns you raised and apply again after sometime. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and in a future nomination, my focus is likely to be on edits since the previous RfA, which means you certainly have a realistic chance of receiving my support in the future! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I make mistakes in AfDs. I focused overly on the current state of the article and didn't revisited AfDs after my vote. I learned a lot after looking at your edits. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and you're more than welcome to look through my own AfDs at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, I've already looked at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. It's a useful subpage. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Huggle

WP:HUGGLE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check the link. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I've seen you around: you are obviously a wonderful user and person! Maybe we'll see each other around sometime! Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How nice! Thanks!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

let me know if you consider this a problem. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A humble request.

Le Grand, I know that sometimes we've agreed on issues, while other times we've not seen eye to eye. However, as someone who works hard on doing what the encyclopaedia needs - building and maintaining articles - I would appreciate if you would do me a favour. I'm currently requesting an editor review, and I'd really appreciate your views. Please be frank, open and honest what what you think I'm doing right and what you think I'm doing poorly. I'd really appreciate your comments and value your opinion. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do so and will comment momentarily. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to do this, it's much appreciated!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome as I am always happy to help! You are also invited, but under no obligation, to add your own comments to the talk page for User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions under the appropriate section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations again!!

		The Resilient Barnstar
		In recognition of the work done to save and improve the Clover (creature) article to Good article status, and for your continued productivity and growth as a Wikipedian while dealing with the turmoil of real life, I hereby award you the Resilient Barnstar. Wear it in good health! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, congratulations, and good luck!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A musical AfD

Hey, believe it or not, we have an AfD discussion with a show tunes spirit! Check it out: [6]. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked online and it seems legitimate: [7] and [8]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you could participate in the discussion. Your input, as always, brings class to the proceedings. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

B-W

Just looking over your user boxes, and saw that you went to B-W... my cousin just graduated from there and I went to one of your rivals... OWU! But that was quite some time ago...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

One of many schools I've been to to undertake considerably renovations just as I leave! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the destruction that you leave in your wake.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shameful canvassing attempt

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Items seems like an AFD in the area that you tend to concern yourself with. (If you comment there, it would be fair to say that I suggested it, in the interest of full disclosure.) Stifle (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have commented there, but I strongly urge you to add a reference section to the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just ...

thank you for all the info. I will keep editing the articles anonymously if I can. (o: I have kind of feeling about you. I spent one whole summer in Ohio, with all these Buckeyes, farmers, wise people... At some point I can see this Ohio style in the acting of a guy who is playing Ted Mosby in How I Met Your Mother. What do you think? And I go to France often and love their culture from top to bottom. Trying to "perfectioner mon Français" all the time, whenever I can... So, it looks like we have something in common, I guess. (-: And I love history and non-fiction books as well. Btw, how do you like Québec and Francophone Canadians and do you travel to France and Europe ?

A bientôt,
(peter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.184.121 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000:Judgement Day

Ok, I am at some point going to look for references to the Warhammer 40,000 articles, and if I don't find any, I'm going to propose all of the fiction articles (characters, places, objects) up for deletion, and after this recent batch went through, I'm pretty confident they will go through. Now how much time do you need to look up this topic to see if it is notable? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Which specific ones would you like for me to look at first? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Allemantando

That AN for alle was exceedingly poor form. Please consider retracting or ammending it to reflect the nature of the case. I also think you should reflect on your accusations of him being single purpose and your constant references to his old username. I'll provide diffs if you need me to but this isn't really an accusation, just a request. At the time of the RFCU and his retirement, alle was doing good work and attempting to work with you. He didn't need to withdraw plans to nominate those articles he listed at ARS. He didn't need to engage people. He didn't need to make the mainspace contributions he did. Please show him some latitude and entertain the notions that the articles deleted would have been deleted anyways and that they aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. Not dragging an editor through the mud is more important than those articles. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given your apparent effort to assume good faith and be positive in the numerous AfDs in question, I'm massively disappointed that you would stoop to canvassing admins to throw out AfDs with clear support on procedural grounds because it happened to suit your position on some arguments. While I could accept that your recent derailings were based on a genuine desire to keep the articles in question, using a checkuser to further your ends when the result would have been the same regardless of the nominator is beyond the pale.

Incidentally, my girlfriend's family will be without their four-legged member as of 11am tomorrow. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Le Grand Roi, thumperward has been less than helpful in this affair, I'd disregard his comment about "canvassing admins." The comment at AN/I was premature, though, a formal decision had not been made, and it's still possible that the formal decision which has now been made will be reversed. Allemandtando has been blocked as a sock of Fredrick day. Lars confirmed the sock puppet report as "likely," which, in context of the behavioral evidence, makes it quite silly to continue to insist that this was some wild speculation. I agree with Protonk that Alle was doing some good work. But he was also divisive and disruptive, and those who backed him up in that must bear some responsibility for the outcome. If he had behaved himself, he'd still be editing, even though he was Fredrick day. In fact, I believe he is *still* editing, he's stated before that he has other accounts and more or less dared me to find them. I might. But it is not a priority, I only look at disruptive editors who wave a big red flag in front of my face, as Koc originally did merely with his user name and his early behavior (you have to work hard to be the subject of so many AN/I reports so quickly). As to the AfDs, I have not looked at them. You do have the option of filing a mass DRV, but I'd consider carefully, it could backfire. You'd want to be able to show that the identity and behavior of the nominator unduly influenced them. From a general knowledge of this editor's behavior, it's possible. Here is what I'd do: make a general DRV for all the articles you think have any reasonable chance of being undeleted. Notify all the editors who voted in the AfDs (that is legitimate if the notice is rigorously neutral). In your nomination, offer to consider striking a particular article, that they voted on before as Delete, if they ask you to (which they can effectively do by voting to confirm the deletion in this DRV). Ask people who are interested to watch the AfD, but don't pile in to reverse the deletion until some time has lapsed, to give those delete editors a chance to object. Don't be contentious, this is an attempt to find a reasonable consensus on a reasonable list. You would then have a smaller list, probably, less contentious, and it might go through en masse. Then deal with the others, if you think it a good idea, with individual DRVs. If, on the other hand, keep-deleted editors pile in, leaving nothing, and you don't have a clear basis to claim bias on their part, (*don't claim bias, but you could refuse to withdraw because of such !votes) withdraw the whole DRV, as to your intention (it might not be accepted), and then when it's closed, file individual DRVs for each article, and possibly ask for a copy of the article to go in your user space pending, so people can see, and continue to edit that article, if you can or others can, to make it the best.

Where an article is likely to fail AfD or DRV after, though, it's better to get a copy for your workspace, and find sources, fix problems, etc, and then go for DRV later, when it is ready, simple recreation maybe (then DRV if someone objects). And it is a whole lot less fuss, and if it is in your workspace, you have extra control over, say, an editor who removes all sources -- each one of which might be marginal and vulnerable, and who will edit war to maintain that -- and then, in AfD, argues that there are no sources. Happens. Allemandtando did it, for example. It's not been established, clearly, but I'd argue that if an editor has a working copy of an article in their workspace, they are defacto admin over it and can revert without limit (but not to maintain incivility, copy vio, etc.) A draft article may contain lots of unsourced stuff, if it is in user space and not harmful. (I'd suggest getting AN/I confirmation if someone edit wars with you on a draft article in your user space, before you pass 3RR, and you could go to AN/I based on as little as 2RR or even less.)--Abd (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The {{anon}} tag

Haha, been awhile since I've had one of those thrown at me, and now I've seen two today. Had a good laugh. Cheers. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Project News A fact from Porkchop Cash and Armageddon (2006) were featured on the Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 11, 2008 and July 17, 2008, respectively. December to Dismember (2006) is currently under Featured Article review (link). WWE No Way Out (link) and 2008 WWE Draft (link) are current Featured List candidates Backlash (2003) (link), Backlash (2004) (link), Survivor Series (2004) (link), and Unforgiven (2007) (link) have been elevated to Good article status. Cyber Sunday (2007), Dark Angel (wrestler), Juggernaut (wrestler), Royal Rumble (2007), SummerSlam (1988), SummerSlam (2004), and Vengeance: Night of Champions are currently Good article candidates. SummerSlam (2003) (link) and Survivor Series (2007) (link) are currently under Peer Review. Per this edit and the discussion here, date linking is not mandatory in articles. This mainly applies to the project's pay-per-view expanded articles. Please take this regulation in notice and apply it to the project's expanded pay-per view articles. New parameters have been added to the {{Infobox Wrestling event}} template, for the discussion explaining these parameters, see the discussion here Current Events Ashley Massaro was released from WWE on July 9. Taylor Wilde won the TNA Women's Championship on the July 10 edition of TNA Impact!, defeating Awesome Kong. This Month in Wrestling History July 9, 2000 - Booker T defeated Jeff Jarrett for the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. July 11, 1961 - Gene Kiniski defeated Verne Gagne for the AWA World Heavyweight Championship. July 12, 1992 - Jimmy Snuka defeated Johnny Hot Body for the ECW Heavyweight Championship. July 12, 1999 - Hulk Hogan defeated Randy Savage for the WCW World Heavyweight title. July 16, 2001 - Terry Gordy died of a heart attack at age 40. July 17, 1988 - Bruiser Brody died in Puerto Rica after being stabbed, aged 42. Professional Wrestling Article Stats Our goal is to get the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is 625. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 6 14 21 GA 5 18 51 74 B 1 14 66 203 284 C 1 9 56 66 Start 2 50 202 1734 1988 Stub 1 23 601 625 List 2 20 572 594 Assessed 3 74 346 3234 3657 Total 3 74 346 3234 3657

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 401 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. On the calendar: 7 - Alex Roggio's and The Hybrid's birthdays 13 - TNA presents Victory Road 19 - ProtoWolf's & The Founders Intent's birthday 20 - WWE presents The Great American Bash 22 - Darrenhusted's birthday 27 - Sundogs' birthday 29 - Kris Classic's birthday 31 - Normy's birthday Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for July 20 through August 2 is Chris Jericho. The Featured article collaboration is Torrie Wilson. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on August 3. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Articles for Deletion Current: Taryn Terrell (wrestler), and List of wrestling championships. Kept: Redirected/Merged: List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships. Deleted: Jack Korpela (2), Velocity Championship Wrestling (VCW), List of Ring of Honor events, Marc Loyd, Tna Wrestlers Payroll, TNA INCOME, TNA payroll, Beer Money Inc., The Badd guys, and Cyme Tyme Cenation. From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: IMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) SRX (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

Delivered: 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Another Day, Another Dolla

As This Album Is Listed As A Debut Album, I Thought It Shouldn't Be Deleted. I Didn't Realise It Was A Mixtape. This error should be corrected.

HeardEmSay (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)HeardEmSay

Please link to the article in question. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.getrightmusic.com/2008/06/25/dj-shabaaz-dolla-another-day-another-dolla/

This is confirmation that its a mixtape.

http://www.ballerstatus.com/article/news/2007/05/2523/

This is an article showing that his debut album is named ATLA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Day_Another_Dolla

Lol, got the links, but the page has been deleted!! Oh Well

Afd

That isn't a conditional. I'm not interested in having you set conditions. I'm asking you to refrain from responding to my comments in AfD. Whether or not I participate in a DRv you bring to the community is beyond irrelevant. If I nominate an article for AfD (exceedingly rare, I've only done it once), then I hope that you will respond to the nomination because it is a call to consensus for the community. I would not want to issue some declaration that you may never respond to community issues that I respond to. If, in every AfD from now until the sun burns out, we both comment on the issue, I will be happy. If, in any community issue, both of us have something to say, I hope that we will not refrain.

HOWEVER. This is not what I'm talking about. You seem to be incapable of treating me or other AfD participants with respect. Specifically you have responded to repeated requests that you not comment on posts in AfDs with a declaration that you will simply continue to do so. I've asked you more than once to not lecture me. I define that broadly. If you think you are going to teach me something when you hit reply to me in a community discussion, please don't. I don't want to hear it. Period. I do not want you to respond to me directly in community discussions. This isn't contingent upon any condition you set.

If and when you can treat me with respect on AfD pages like you treat me on my talk page, then we can come to some agreement about where we might be able to talk to each other outside the confines of our talk pages. Until that point when both of us agree that we should engage in direct discussion at AfD or DRV then I am going to ask that you simply pretend my comments don't exist. If you can't do that or you feel that you need to set some sort of condition then we are at an impasse. I need to be treated like my requests and thoughts matter. If you can't treat me with enough respect to acknowledge that my requests have merits then we are at an impasse.

Let me repeat for clarity. I don't care if you copy/paste your keep rationale to every AfD from now until eternity. It used to rile me up but I'm over it. I don't care if you respond to other users by linking some section in AADD. That too used to bother me but that is an issue between you and the other users. I CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT HAVING MY REQUESTS DISREGARDED. So here is what I am asking:

• Do whatever it takes to not respond directly to any post I make on AfD or DRV.
• Please feel free to respond to a community call for consensus. I can't enjoin you from participating in those and if I didn't want you (or anyone else) to respond to an AfD I wouldn't bring it up.

In return:

• I will do whatever it takes to not respond directly to any post you make on AfD or DRV.
• I will, however, continue to respond to community calls for consensus, no matter which editor brings them up.

If there is a problem or this is somehow unacceptable to you, please respond here or on my talk page letting me know as much. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For one thing I have never "lectured" you. If you perceive that, then you are mistaken. I strongly urge you to avoid posting immediately after me in a DRV then if you would like an agreement on the above, i.e. not being the very first person to post in them. I would similarly avoid being the first to comment in any such thread you start. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The first comment in a thread isn't a "reply" to the poster. Neither is the "next" comment in a thread a reply to the previous poster. We both indent to delineate to whom we are replying, so I suggest we treat direct replies like that. And I'm pretty unhappy that your response to this was a stern warning to me along with an incidental response. Whether or not you feel you are lecturing me is unimportant. To be crystal clear here, I am asking you to not respond to me in AfD or DRV but I don't care (and it would be improper of me to ask) if you comment otherwise. Likewise I will undertake to follow the same restriction. With respect to that exact question where do we stand? Will you treat my wishes with respect or not? A yes or no will suffice. I'm not particularly keen on discussing whether or not your were lecturing me and I'm also not keen on discussing replies to the community at large. Will you agree to stop commenting directly on my posts at AfD and DRV? Protonk (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, because I don't appreciate being accused of what I did not intend and it's unlikely to get me to acquiesce to what comes off as demands when presented to me in such a manner as in this thread (see below as a more persuasive way of how to approach me). In any event, yes, as I've said before, I am perfectly fine with mutual avoidance to ease tensions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD discussion

I tried responding in AFDs, but I think we should have this discussion here at this point, rather than cluttering up the AFDs. First, let me say that it is not my intention to try to remove you from community discussions, such as AFD or DRV. Secondly, I think Wikipedia benefits from having a wide variety of editors, including those who take a hard stance on notability, and those who interpret it loosely.

What I would like you to do, if I could convince you of it, is to take a look at the way you are approaching these discussions. Wikipedia benefits when editors sometimes labeled "inclusionists" and "deletionists" (although I hate those labels, personally) are at odds and reach a compromise—a half-way position. We don't include everything, and we don't exclude everything. If someone says "Delete per WP:N" with no explanation, and you would like to point out that this doesn't further the discussion, that's perfectly fine. However, if you respond with a simple "WP:JUSTAPOLICY", how will the editor respond to this? If he clicks on that link, he will read this: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised." If I were him, I would think to myself, "Why should I follow his advice if he doesn't even follow it?" Do you see my point? Likewise, you will respond to a "Delete, not notable" with a "WP:JNN", even though you might have said keep due to notability without saying why the subject is notable in the same discussion.

Another issue is that you only target those who are in favor of deletion, as you say here. If I see a string of "keep, notable" statements followed by one "delete, not notable" and you only point out WP:JNN to the delete, it makes your words ring hollow. This is creating an image that you have an "us vs. them" mentality, and that you're attacking "the other side". To be clear, I'm not saying you do have this mentality—I'm just saying that your selective responses are giving this impression.

It's clear from this talk page that you're ruffling a few feathers, no? You seem like the kind of guy who doesn't lose his cool, and I love that. I'd like to work with you to reach a place where we can all express our opinions in community discussions (even if we disagree) without anyone getting upset. I've changed the way I've behaved at AFDs over the past year myself, and I think some positive things have come from that. Pagrashtak 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pagrashtak, thank you for making the above suggestions in a clear and polite manner. I see a number of accounts in AfDs over and over again that demonstrate the following problems that make it nearly impossible for me to take them as serious editors: 1) accounts with pointed single deletion only purposes as evidenced by such names as User:Killerofcruft (that particular account turned out to be a sock and is now blocked), 2) accounts who have outright said they would "never argue to keep" or that inclusionists are "evil" or that it's their "mission" to delete (multiple accounts have outright said these things!), 3) accounts who wind up being socks of other editors (consider all the hyperbole and rhetoric tossed at White Cat and I about are suspicions regarding Jack Merridew only for that account and subsequently a few others to indeed turn out to be part of a sock farm), 4) accounts who copy and paste "rationales" to delete just about every fiction related article they see (by contrast, I have nominated, tagged, and/or argued to delete over fifty times now, including some fiction related articles, and many of the accounts I go back and forth have argued to keep, if at all, far less than I have argued to delete), 5) accounts who admittedly come to AfDs I participate in to disrupt them (one admin admitted on-wiki he just wants to "annoy" me and another said off-wiki that he closes AfDs and DRVs I participate in "as delete regardless", which only furthers my likeness to DRV AfDs with even somewhat questionable closes, etc. I have participated in enough AfDs now to more or less know who falls into the above categories and whether or not they should be legitimized as serious editors. A number of these accounts will tendentiously even dismiss reliable sources, because they simply do not want us covering certain kinds of articles. When I asked one of these accounts to at least be sure to notify the article creators of the AfDs, he replied that he's more concern about efficiency than courtesy. To be honest, I have never played nor do I have any interest in Pokemon or Warhammer, but if I don't argue to keep these kinds of articles than those single-purpose delete all fiction accounts will try to cite those as precedents for articles concerning topics I am interested in. Moreover, it does not seem logical or even right that a half dozen odd editors in a five day discussion can somehow cause an article for which maybe scores of editors worked on and even thousands of readers came here to learn about. And articles that are not hoaxes can almost always just be redirected somewhere (why not redirect to other wikis even?) without having to go through a deletion discussion, which sometimes come without even first attempting a merge discussion or asking the article creator and main editors if they have any additional sources. Also, I am far more concerned with the reality of what our larger community of editors and readers believe Wikipedia is used for than a vocal minority in AfDs and DRVs. With that said, I understand your point about how to cite the ATAIDD article in the future and will do so as you suggest. Please do keep in mind and take notice of those who aren't even open to reasoned arguments and even the discovery of secondary sources and instead just focus on trying to "win" the discussion. Finally, I am always open-minded to working with others in a proactive fashion. Have a pleasant night! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with you that there are editors in AFD who could stand to improve. I can understand how it's tempting to not take them seriously. Maybe you even see me that way, although I hope not. I think a large part of the problem is that this is happening on both sides. When you say "very strong keep" at an AFD such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon moves that is clearly game guide content (if you don't remember, this was the article that was a table of moves with statistics like power:40, accuracy:100, etc.) I'm afraid other editors may see you just the way you see them—an editor who will vote keep even on the clearest game guide article. (I don't want to argue about this article in particular, so even if you don't think it's game guide content, at least concede that it is what most experienced editors consider game guide content.) If you don't view someone as legitimate, and he doesn't view you as legitimate, then what chance do we have of a reasonable discussion? None. This only breeds conflict—the current situation.

I get the feeling when you look at AFD you feel like you're in for a hard, uphill battle—and you are. Those of us who are more inclined to delete feel the same way—and we are. We can't let our opposite stances allow us to dehumanize anyone. Something you've alluded to is that your behavior in AFD is a response to the behavior you've received. For example, you say you copy and paste responses because, say, editors copy and paste deletion nominations. I can understand that. When it feels like you're being ganged up on, it's hard to not respond in kind, I know. But please consider—why are they doing that in the first place? It, in turn, is very likely a response. They have felt like they were ganged up on at some point too. Keep in mind that all these editors that you don't take seriously—they've had their userpage vandalized. They've been harassed. They've been called "deletionist scum". They've had sockpuppets follow behind them and undo their work, whether legitimate or not. That doesn't condone rude behavior at AFD by any means, but at least know that there might be a reason that they act that way now. It's easy for you to suggest merges and redirects, but this results in more of the same. Being located on the talk page on the article, these are frequently flooded with fans of the fiction who resist these attempts and revert any attempts to write the article from a not-in-universe perspective. A while back, I was going the merge or redirect route with a related set of articles rather than AFD. There was heavy resistance at first, which made for very slow progress. Eventually, progress was made to where we could start merging and redirecting, and you know how that turned out? My userpage was vandalized and song lyrics like "THROUGH YOUR FACE MY FIST WILL PLOW, WATCHING AS YOUR BLOOD FLOWS DOWN" left on my talk page. The same editor made a sock and went through reverting the redirects and reposting deleted articles. When we blocked him and reverted, he would do the same, only with numerous socks, only doing five edits each to make it harder to find. It's a wonder that didn't turn me into the "Delete this crap, and damn what you say" type of editor. Long story short, a lot of us (including editors on both sides of the fence) are getting worn down, and we need to do everything in our power to stop that, even if it means giving respect where you don't get it. I'm really glad to hear that you'll approach ATA in a different manner, and I think that's a good way to start. Pagrashtak 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely know what it's like to be harassed (actually in real life to the point of requiring legal means of getting certain "people" to leave me and my family alone, but that's something I'm not willing to elaborate on online), but even with regards to Wikipedia, as you can see below, I've had my userpsace vandalized, been called an "extreme inclusionist" by accounts whom I don't believe I've ever seen argue to keep (by contrast, I've nominated, tagged, or argued to delete over 50 articles now), been targetted by sock farms both on and off-wiki (in emails, for example), and one admin even admitted off wiki that he closes AfDs that I participate in as "delete" just because I participated in them even if there wasn't an actual consensus to delete (hence, why I take certain discussions to DRV...). I know from comments in emails sent me as well who further in these discussions do not truthfully care about sources, they in actuality just don't like us covering fictional topics and so will argue to delete dishonestly or in rapid-fire style regardless of actual notability or verifiability. I consider emails private and so will not expose that, but for those ones, I am not going to pretend that when they make closed-minded arguments, they're valid. I actually don't disagree that many of these articles we disagree on need more sourcing and out-of-universe content; I just have greater faith that such sources and content can be added to the articles. I'd be less likely to say "very strong keep" if I didn't see hyperbolic "strong deletes" in such discussions. Really, we should reserve "strong" for deletes that contain seriously problematic content (libel, for example) as "strong" used otherwise just seems over the top. I don't like using "strong" in keeps, but it just feels as if it's needed to offset the exagerrated "strong deletes." Oddly enough, I don't really look at as a "battle" per se and those who think they're annoying me don't realize that off the computer some of their comments are more apt to get a chuckle as real life things like my dog's declining health or the ridiculous oil prices are far more apt to actually annoy me than something someone types online. Anyway, though, I'm not really that convinced that so-called "game guide content" is really that detrimental to our project as I think of information provided in tables or lists are to video game coverage as the periodical table of elements is to elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to the Oscars. Because I know editors are willing to work on such content and clearly readers come here looking for it, I see greater value in improving such content than in just outright removing it. To be honest, I do increasingly wonder if this whole idea can really work given so many drastically different opinions among editors and the abudnance of vandalism accounts and what have you. I recently asked my students to consider whether the philosophes of the Enlightenment are best desribed as dangerious libertines, naive utopians, or pragmatic reformers and we got onto the topic of whether or not the Encyclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert represented practical reform (it inspired many subsequent books and even our own project) or naive utopianism (can we really catalog human knowledge) and Wikipedia came up as to whether or not it too is naive utopianism in the sense of being edited by so many differently opinioned people, including having non-experts arguing with PhDs, sock accounts, vandals, etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Pagrashtak has a very good point here. You regularly point delete "vote"rs to WP:AADD, but very rarely send keep "vote"rs the same way. You complain above that people have been copy-pasting the same argument into multiple deletion discussions, but a lot of your own arguments are "Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is" or very close variations thereon. And finally, I think that several of your recent DRV nominations have been poorly made-out (or at least interpreted that way) and seem like attempts to have a fairly clear decision (with plenty of explanation from the closing admin) reversed because there was "clearly no decisive consensus).

Don't get me wrong, I think you're a very good contributor, even though we're at opposite ends of the inclusionism/deletionism spectrum. But it might be worth trying to make sure that your arguments are, how can I say... internally consistent.

Finally, might I respectfully suggest that "voting" Oppose or Neutral on RFAs because someone happened to disagree with you in an AFD or use one of the arguments on WP:AADD is a bit petty. How someone "votes" in an AFD really isn't anything to do with how they will be a good admin.

Thanks for taking this on board :) Stifle (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I try to only have a copy and paste keep rationale in AfDs where the nomination is a copy and paste or where there's a bunch of copy and paste delete comments, i.e. when the nominations and initial delete comments are repetitious and do not really merit an original response, but even then, because I engage editors in discussion and don't merely vote, my actual arguments come out in such a manner that makes the totality of my comments in an AfD more than a simple initial post and in many instances extend beyond the AfD to the article itself, which I typically also try to improve. I only list DRVs when I believe there was a serious problem with the close (regardless of what others think, after being harassed on and off-wiki by extreme deletionist sock farms, I am unwilling to humor sock accounts that nominate articles for deletion as legitimizing their nominations--we are making a tremendous mistake by humoring them just because some agree their arguments, because we are saying that they can in effect "get away with it" and I have a hard time accepting an account that came here to evade a block under the name User:Killerofcruft did not make pointed nominations; in instances where a sizable number of good faith editors argue to keep, even if it isn't a vote, I am still far more concerned that their efforts are acknowledged per Wikipedia:Editors matter, i.e. we don't discourage them; in some cases additional sources are found just as the discussion ends that should be taken into account and not turned away with some kind of "too late, AfD's cover" when we don't have an overall project timeline; and finally, as indicated above some admins have deliberately made comments on and off-wiki about closing AfDs I participated in as delete regardless of the actual consensus (I'm not going to say who here) just to "annoy" me--only in these instances am I willing to start DRVs). As I posted elsehwere, so long as it is okay for editors to keep nominating articles for deletion when they don't like the earlier keep or no consensus closes, I see no problems with being able to challenge deletion closes in DRVs. If you also agree that second and third nominations for deletion are "disruptive," then okay. Regarding RfAs, one of the three functions of an admin that distinguish them from the rest of us is deleting and undeleting. Thus, I want to be sure that potential admins will not be too quick to delete or be potential ones I'm going to wind up DRVing, because it is of the utmost importance to me that we do not turn away editors by undoing their work when just about anything that is not a hoax or libel could be at least redirected somewhere rather than outright deleted and similarly that we do not diminish our overall coverage and turn away readers and potential donors. With that said, I appreciate and respect that you like Pagrashtak have presented the above comments in a respectful and coherent manner and will of course think about them further. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the 40k AfDs recently, were you defending them out of any genuine interest in the welfare of the article content or the editors responsible for them then you'd have delved into the WikiProject archives and read over the history which led to the current situation, which mostly involved editors who wished to continue working on the addition of in-universe materal having articles transwikied across to more appropriate places. For instance, see http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Emperor_of_Mankind - an article which was already transwikied months ago.

It is excessively hypocritical to continue shouting out Fredrick Day / Allemantando / Killerofcruft at every opportunity while going on about being stalked or harrassed by "deletionists". That you're so keen on doing so also rather weakens your argument that you care so much for other editors - apparently editors who believe that Wikipedia should not be categorically inclusive don't count as full citizens.

Anyway, just to let you know that Commissar (Warhammer 40,000) is up for AfD, so if you've care to go along and link WP:Five pillars, suggest that it be merged with Commissar with full history or whatever fun stuff we're doing this week then we can begin this dance again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If these articles are transwiked then we ought to at least have soft redirects to those articles. I care for editors who don't create pointed accounts named "Killerofcruft" while evading blocks and I can't really take seriously any defense of such accounts. As for the commissar article, there is no legitimate reason why it couldn't be redirected somewhere without deleting the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, there's no legitimate reason at all why we couldn't soft-redirect it to a non-affiliated external site. Please bring that up on WT:AFD for community consideration. I wouldn't want us to keep this evidently acceptable solution to ourselves. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I already have.... --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking what I've said on board. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

...Visigoths, too

someone vandalized your user page repeatedly yesterday err....today, I was assuming you would read this tomorrow. Another user and I reverted all of it but we aren't sure if everything is the same now as it was then. Ok. Everything is fine now. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to both you and the other user; I appreciate it! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The per-nom vote problem.

I noticed a lone keep vote in an AfD vote from a few days ago which was deleted per WP:SNOW. Unfortunately, it was also the longest vote in the entire lot, being an entire two lines, and was set in a sea of "Delete per nom". Your short two-line vote made note of WP:PERNOM and was swiftly followed by two more "Delete per nom" votes. Then, the early close per WP:SNOW / early consensus. Perhaps it has simply crept up on me while I worked on articles instead of hawking AfD discussions, but it seems like WP:SNOW has become a substitute for legitimate discussion. I have been mulling over ideas for fixing this problem, and I wonder what your opinion on the matter is.

It seems unfortunate to me that votes are so heavily-weighted in discussions, and that discussion has become so rare. I have posed myself the question: what would be lost were votes to be entirely discounted? Two things: quick consensus (is that a good thing?) and a tool for determining consensus. The former is, in my opinion, more of a problem than an asset, but the latter is nearly essential. As such, I find it nearly impossible that this course of action would be taken. So, how can we modify "voting" to serve its purpose without disrupting the process? A simple suggestion would be to lock voting to the end of the discussion: only those participating in the discussion would be able to vote. That would, in essence, prevent drive-by voters from tainting the vote (not that I intend to accuse; it is simply a matter that many voters in discussions simply do not return to participate further in the debate after placing a vote). To do this, the process could involve a discussion and then a post-discussion vote by those involved in the discussion. However, I fear that such a complication would be too much to learn and might disadvantage users who only approach the article later. I'm fairly certain my musings are premature, but I'd like your opinion and any ideas you've come up with or come across for dealing with the problem.

Of course, I'm also running this by a friendly face before I create some larger discussion because I'm tired of getting slapped for wasting project time and being accused by certain users of being a sock puppet because I refuse to create a permanent account. I'm absolutely sure I'll be hit with more accusations in the future, but I am willing to deal with the consequences of remaining anonymous, even if those consequences should not exist by Wikipedia policy. Anyway, drop a response here and I'll check back (I use old IP logs to follow in my own footsteps). Cheers. --Same anon as above 83.203.183.112 (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to somehow take the edit history and article traffic into consensus as editors on the "keep" side, if we're going to consider "per noms" as having any relevance. Anyway, for other ideas, please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Various suggestions, as AfD is clearly seriously "broken" and desperately needs reform. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And exactly how would that work? Would my edit history of adding {{Notability}} to an article somehow imply a keep? I've put work into articles that I felt should be deleted, and I'd hate to have to stop that because I'm somehow imparting legitimacy. Also, please note that WP:PERNOM states "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by 'per nom.'" Therefore, "per nom" comments should not be criticized unless the nominator failed to provide a reason for deletion. Pagrashtak 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't. Not only did I do quite a bit of work on the Chaos Space Marine articles, I also then reorganised their complete category tree and wrote {{Chaos Space Marine Legions}} to keep track of them - then merrily voted to delete the lot. This is because nurturing WP's coverage of a domain does not simply consist of trying to increase the bytes WP's servers devote to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "per noms" are that many do that by just going down the list of AfDs never to return to the discussion to acknowledge one way or the other when others in the discussion attempt to improve the article in question. I have seen accounts toss even three per noms in AfDs in under a minute! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. There have been times in the past where I've seen three related articles up at AFD, spent time reading them and looking for sources, then commented on the AFDs at the same time. Just because you see three comments come in at once doesn't mean they weren't researched. Pagrashtak 19:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong is that many times such accounts never return to the discussion and thus you may have a final keep following a slew of deletes that actually found reliable sources and/or drastically revised the article only to have the discussion misleadingly appear as if the majority support was for delete. Yes, it may not be a vote, but not every admin actually approaches AfDs in that fashion and may be "blinded" by a string of deletes. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to do so, but not at the expense of being naive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate help

Regarding signing user name on talk pages... I am wondering how you got your user name to be a different color, and your "talk" link next to your username to say something other than "talk"? (yours says tally-ho). Thanks, Smuckers (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to "My preferences" near the top right of your screen. You should see a signature box that you can update accordingly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Now I'm just wondering what you write to change the color/font..it keeps saying "Invalid" whenever I try to change the color.

You need to write in a computer code (notice when you edit here how my user signature has the bit about "span style" and "color"). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent essay

I came across WP:NOPE today while reading a recent AFD discussion. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll check it out. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy!  :) BOZ (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pumpkins!

Here's some pumpkins for you! Pumpkins somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How nice! Thanks!  :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 19:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)