Revision as of 20:17, 18 January 2008 editMichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users60,150 editsm →Are you a sockpuppet of Cumulus Clouds?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:09, 16 June 2023 edit undo2607:fb91:44e:a822:dc7e:e64:17bf:57bc (talk) →paver71: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic | ||
(272 intermediate revisions by 95 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{bots|optout=afd}} | |||
] | |||
]<br> | |||
== Re: ] == | |||
]<br> | |||
]<br> | |||
'''Some Quick Notes''' | |||
#If you're about to leave nothing but a template on my talk page, ]. They irritate me. I'd much rather get something typed out than copy/pasted. If you must slap a template down, please also include a personal message. | |||
#I keep an eye on my watchlist. If any pages I still am concerned about are put up for an XFD, chances are I know. I appreciate that you're bothering to give me notice, but I probably don't need it. | |||
#Since you came here, I'm going to assume you want the answer to your question or concern here. If you want a reply on your talk page (or somewhere else, even), just ask and I'll go there to comment. | |||
#If it's about a ] I removed, go and read ] ''carefully'' before coming here to argue about what it says. Make sure you read all of it. Honestly, your time would be better spend setting the article up for AFD rather than fighting for a Prod that won't go through (and can be overturned at ] in a matter of minutes). | |||
#I don't feel like joining any Wikiprojects, so if you're inviting me to join one, I appreciate the invitation...but I don't feel like contributing in that way. | |||
#If you need help with ''anything'', I'll do what I can for you. Unless you're a jerk. If you are, forget it. | |||
:I'm aware of the circumstances. I don't think the article is eligible for proposed deletion at this point. ] (]) 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:*It is, since it wasn't really ever contested legitimately. Until you did, anyways. But meh. I'll AFD it. --] (]) 07:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Why don't you...? == | |||
== Re: ] == | |||
Can you have another look at this article. The article reads awkwardly because I believe it is a machine assisted translation, and although the English version, at what I presume to be, the source site predates the wikipedia version, the original Spanish version there dates the 2nd to 3rd of April 2007 some two weeks earlier than the Misplaced Pages version. | |||
Since I can't create subpages (Which deletion processes require). Thanx, ] (]) 16:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Looking at the Spanish wikipedia version ] the earliest version dates from 10th of April, and arrives at Spanish Misplaced Pages fully formed. (The French versions both date from May the 11th, all three articles on all three wikipedias were created by the same user, or three users using the same name). The introduction at the source site is rather garbled and almost unreadable but the "El valor arquitectónico del Mercado." at both the Spanish Misplaced Pages and the source site are identical, allowing for minor evolution of the Spanish Misplaced Pages article due to input from other editors. | |||
:Thanx, I've filled in the rationale. ] (]) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
"El Mercado de Salamanca entronca en sus líneas generales con la familia de los grandes mercados, estaciones y pabellones de exposiciones de la primera arquitectura de hierro. Para la fecha en que se proyecta, la tipología de mercado que impone principalmente los Halles de Paris (1854-1866) del arquitecto Baltard, ya se había desarrollado suficientemente en España. En Madrid como los Mercado de La Cebada y de los Mostenses, construidos entre 1870 y 1875, del arquitecto Mariano Calvo y Pereira; en Barcelona con el de Born (1874-1876) del arquitecto J. Fontseré i Mestres, o el de San Antonio del arquitecto A. Rovira y Trias, aproximadamente por la misma fecha. También en otras provincias se construyen mercados de hierro coincidiendo con el crecimiento demográfico de las ciudades y por lo tanto con mayores necesidades de abastecimiento, es el caso por ejemplo de Valladolid en donde se construyen tres mercados de estas características siendo el de Portugalete (1878-1881) una expresiva muestra." version at 02 de abril de 2007. | |||
== ] == | |||
"El Mercado de Salamanca entronca en sus líneas generales con la familia de los grandes mercados, estaciones y pabellones de exposiciones de la primera arquitectura de hierro. Para la fecha en que se proyecta, la tipología de mercado que impone principalmente los Halles de Paris (1854-1866) del arquitecto Baltard, ya se había desarrollado suficientemente en España. En Madrid como los Mercado de La Cebada y de los Mostenses, construidos entre 1870 y 1875, del arquitecto Mariano Calvo y Pereira; en Barcelona con el de Born (1874-1876) del arquitecto J. Fontseré i Mestres, o el de San Antonio del arquitecto A. Rovira y Trias, aproximadamente por la misma fecha. También en otras provincias se construyen mercados de hierro coincidiendo con el crecimiento demográfico de las ciudades y por lo tanto con mayores necesidades de abastecimiento, es el caso por ejemplo de Valladolid en donde se construyen tres mercados de estas características siendo el de Portugalete (1878-1881) una expresiva muestra." Spanish arrives fully formed 16:40 10 abr 2007. | |||
While Shaliya waya's comments at that DRV are out of line, responding in kind isn't going to improve the situation. Please consider refactoring or withdrawing your comments. I have warned Shaliya waya separately. ] (]) 08:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
"The Salamanca Market rooted in its broad outlines to the family of the major markets, stations and exhibition halls of the first iron architecture. By the time it is planned, the type of market that imposes mainly Halles de Paris (1854-1866) of the architect Baltard, had already been sufficiently developed in Spain. In Madrid as the Market The Barley and Mostenses, built between 1870 and 1875, the architect Mariano Calvo and Pereira; in Barcelona with the Born (1874-1876) by architect J. I Fontseré Mestres, or San Antonio architect A. Rovira and Trias, by approximately the same date. Also in other provinces are built iron markets coinciding with the population growth of cities and therefore most in need of supply, is the case of Valladolid where he built three markets of these features being of Portugalete (1878 - 1881) an expressive sample." Google machine translation of current text at . | |||
*I meant what I said, and I don't think I was out of line. I'm not gonna "withdraw" it or try to couch it so I seem "nicer", he doesn't deserve it. I won't escalate things any further, however. --] (]) 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
== AfD nomination of Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination) == | |||
"The Market of Salamanca connects in main lines with the family of the great markets, stations and pavilions of exhibitions of the first iron architecture. For the date in which it projects, the typology of market that mainly imposes the Halls of Paris (1854-1866) of Baltard architect, already had been developed sufficiently in Spain. In Madrid like the Market of the Barley and the Mostenses, constructed between 1870 and 1875, of the architect Mariano Calvo y Pereira; in Barcelona with the one of Born (1874-1876) of architect J. Fontseré i Mestres, or the one of San Antonio of architect A. Rovira and Trias, approximately by the same date. Also, in other provinces iron markets are constructed relative to the population increase of the cities, and therefore with greater necessities of supplying. This is the case in Valladolid, where they constructed three markets of these characteristics. The Portugalete (1878-1881) is an expressive sample of this." Original en Misplaced Pages version May 3 2007.] | |||
]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. ''']''' '']'' 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:Adw --> | |||
I actually now doubt that the article is an outright copyvio that I presumed (especially because of the dates of French versions). I now think that all three articles are promotional tracts written by someone associated with the market. However I have residual concerns that although not a copyvio of the english version, strictly speaking the Misplaced Pages versions are copyvios of the Spanish text at the market site.] (]) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Polish National Top 50 → Polish Music Charts == | |||
*I agree, the copyvio seems unlikely, because I think it's the same author writing the Wiki articles and the source articles. That makes it a good candidate for AFD under OR (I wouldn't try speedying it), unless you think a good article can be made from it and notability can be proven. The copyright problems of Spanish Wikipeida are Spanish Wikipeida's problem, but I suppose a copyvio tag can be added there if the source clearly predates the article, but I wouldn't bother...once again, I'm guessing the article was written by the source's author. --] (]) 16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
The Polish National Top 50 was deleted per afd as being non-notable, so 'stubify' is probably not a good idea. ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Re: Banned users == | |||
Why can't I restore the prod? The reason for its removal was not valid in any way by the anonymous user. ] 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Feel free. While consensus was against deletion, I don't believe there were strong feelings about the specific target. I don't see any issues if you change it. Thanks. --] (]) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Just saw ]. the first removal of tag was vandalism. ] 14:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::It doesn't look like vandalism. Just because it's an anonymous editor doesn't mean their edits are less valid. They're disagreeing with you, saying they feel the subject is notable. That right there makes the deletion contested. Unless you can show that this anon has a history of removing prods to disrupt things(I checked the contribs, they don't), the prod should be removed and the article should go to AFD. In fact, I just did that. ]. --] (]) 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
== Removal of PRODs == | |||
As much as I am for keeping user pages of even the most mildly active users, no matter how self-promotional, the key fact that appears to have been missed is that this editor has precisely one (1) edit to his credit, that edit was to create the self-promotional user page, and it was created on 31 October '''2007'''. So that nomination came exactly ''one year'' and ten minutes after it was created. I'm not clear on the review process for MfD but it might be worth revisiting this decision. - ] (]) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Howdy! == | |||
I noticed you removed the PROD tags from the user pages of ] (] '''·''' ]) and ] (] '''·''' ]). I added these tags not because there was anything objectionable, but because the page was (I believe), as you will find if you check the page histories, were created accidentally by another user attempting to warn them. The users they are for have never edited them, and don't appear to have any intention of doing so. I even considered requesting speedy deletion of them, as making a case for that is not unarguable. ] <small>]</small> 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Well, I would give them some time. Myself, it took me over a year before I had anything more than a sentence on my page. As long as there's nothing against the rules going on, I say let the user decide what he wants or doesn't want on his page. I don't think "blank" is a good deletion reason. As for the warning, I say just remove it if it bothers you. --] (]) 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
**My primary concern here is that the current set-up which was left by another user may mean people that leave a message to the user may do so on the user page rather than on the user talk page, which can cause them to miss a message. Deletion would leave no prejudice to-wards re-creation by the users they are for. However as a compromise, I will blank both pages and leave it to the users to decide what to do with them. ] <small>]</small> 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello again, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... | |||
== Template:Db-bio and Twinkle re: CSD A7 == | |||
Just thought I'd ping you that I'm still around, and still using ''']'''. :-) | |||
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... Please contibute your 2¢ worth at ] on the Twinkle discussion page ... Happy Editing! —{{User|72.75.72.63}} 18:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
So, how's life at ''your'' end of the swamp? | |||
Happy Editing! — '''{{#if:72.75.110.31|{{User|72.75.110.31}}|] (])}}''' <sub>15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)</sub> | |||
==Kaltura== | |||
*Yeah, I keep tabs on you, believe it or not...it's always good to know which numbers you're hiding behind this week. You should put your current IP on your "named" page. I'm not up to much except wading a bit deeper into the XFD wars. --] (]) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
*I have replied on the article talk page: ]. --] (]) 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== |
== quick thanks == | ||
Thanks for all of the feedback and help on this. I will go in and make quite a few changes based on your input. I do work at the company and didn't think I was hiding it in any way, but I'm happy to be upfront about it and appreciate the comment. In any case, I'll go back into the draft article and try to make the wording even more neutral. The point of the article is really not for advertising, but to be included in Misplaced Pages as a reliable source of information. | |||
So - I'll make those changes, and would love if you could take another look and also let me know how we can go ahead and get this posted as a real article. Thanks again and Happy New Year. Lisa ] (]) 09:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
*I've updated the draft, please take a look and let me know how I should proceed. Thanks! ] (]) 10:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
**Looks good to me. I think it needs a little more work, mostly on minor stuff (organizing sources and the like) but it at least looks like a viable article now. I'll do something with it later on (if my wife doesn't steal the computer from me all night). What I would do at this point is get at least another opinion besides mine, preferably one of the admins involved (I noticed you contacted at least one). Then, request undeletion at DRV again, with a link to the draft, and see what consensus is. If it's OK, then it will be moved from your userspace into the main space, and the page unprotected. --] (]) 17:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
*** Will do, thanks! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
thanks for helping me out, and pointing me in the right direction. much appreciated! ] (]) 06:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Signshare== | |||
Thank you I appreciate what you did. You are the only friend I have on this site. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
*No worries. I do suggest that you read ]. The album will eventually have enough info to be verifiable, and then the article can be recreated (generally, I'd go with when the album has a name. In that case, redirect the page to the name of the album), you'll need those guidelines when you do. It's also a pretty weak redirect, but I think it should work for now, there's no real harm in it. And please lay off the ] on others. They're just doing what they think is best too. --] (]) 22:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Mass redirects == | |||
==Thanks== | |||
For simply doing the next step and ]. ] (]) 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (a.k.a. BQZip01) | |||
Would you mind commenting ]? Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 23:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
==bios and a7== | |||
ANY assertion or indication of notabiliity or importance, no matter how minor, passes speedy. If you think it is insufficient, use WP:PROD or AFD. ''']''' (]) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
*Is this in reference to ] or ]? If the former, it's just proposed new wording, debate as you will, I don't expect it to be adopted anyways. If the latter...well, I don't see ''any'' indication of notability there, and I don't consider "committed a crime" one. I ''do'' see assertion of notability for people who aren't the subject of the article, though. Unless I'm missing something? --] (]) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Image Criteria== | |||
== Are you a sockpuppet of Cumulus Clouds? == | |||
The creator of that image is a sysop for ED. I am an admin. It was made for use for ED sysops/admins.--] (]) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
*Firstly, it is not a copyrighted image, it is the product of boredom and photoshop. Secondly, can we have this conversation without the memes please. I am going to reupload it tomorrow. If you would like an Email from the creator of the image let me know where to send it. --] (]) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
::*My bad. --] (]) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Secret Service Codenames reference== | |||
You seem to be following him all over Wiki of late to "second" every poor choice he has made. Did you not even notice nor care that without waiting for consensus he de-constructs articles he claims as non-notable to thus make them non-notable? He did this same thing on the Paris Hilton page when he used his personal ] to tag a set of cohesive, inter-related facts as "trivia" and then without consensus de-constructed the section to turn it into the trivia he claimed it was. Yes... yes... yes... stuff put up by sockpuppets... but he was unaware of that at the time. Their deeds were not discovered until after his de-constructions. They were wrong to do what they did, yes... but their being wrong does not make him automatically right. Cumulus Clouds has been acting in bad faith long before the first of these puppets made any contribution to any Wiki pages. So if you are his puppet, or have been acting as his puppet, I would ask that you cease. He has already shown that puppetry is wrong... but his bullying others to make his opinion appear as fact is equally wrong. He is using Wiki to create his own reality. Your own past actions appear to be above-board and true to the spirit of Wiki... but this person is just plain wrong and detrimental to everything Wiki claims/hopes/wishes to be... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
*Sheesh, apparently I'm a sockpuppet of everyone this week. Anyways, let me explain. I check the ] list daily, or close to it. At the bottom, it shows prods whose dates don't match up, this is a good way to find prod tags that have been removed and re-added (you still need to check, sometimes the mismatch is from something else, like a page move or a blank). The articles in question had the prods removed by a sockpuppet of a blocked user ''while the user was blocked'' (I did check), and blocked users are not allowed to edit, so I considered the prod removals voided. I also happened to agree with those prods, so I added a prod2 to them. I admit, however, I did not go back into the history to find out if he had pruned the article beforehand. Anyways, in short, I don't necessarily support him or what he's doing (and I am certainly not him), I just found the stuff while doing maintenance and...there you go. --] (]) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Hello there, added the location names from William Manchester's book. I'm working from the Swedish translation of that one - could you please check the footnotes and see to get the right page number - it's at the start of the book? And please see to collapse it into one source note, referred to from all the names - that's SOP but for some reason, it came out as a number of identical footnotes all with different numbers. ;)] 25 November 2008, 08:35 (CET) | |||
*I fixed it. See ] for the proper way to do your citations. To collapse them into a single note, you need to name them...that's one that'd hard to explain (I just copy/paste it from other areas and change the name). You don't need the page numbers for the cites, but to do it properly you do need the publisher and the ]. --] (]) 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Gavin.collins RFC/U == | |||
My most sincere and humble apologies. I appreciate your insights and courtesy. Your professional demeanor has done much to molify. I did not mean to burden your talk page, but I am new here and thought I had to respond at those places where I felt I was being abused. I ask that you visit my talk page and make comment or invite me back here to do so. ] (]) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
*No problem. If you ever have any questions, I'll do what I can. Two things I can help you with now, though. First...yes, we are ] around here. It's a bad habit, expecially when we're yelling at new people about ] and ] and other arcane stuff. If you don't know what those things mean, just ask, or generally, you can search for '''WP:''ACRONYM''''', for example, ]. That should direct you to what police or guideline someone is referring to (the ones above are "Original Research" "Conflict of Interest", and "Neutral Point of View".) | |||
*Second, I'm under the impression you want your article deleted now? I don't think that's possible. It's one of the downsides of having an article created. Once you make it, you don't ] anymore. All biographical articles must follow ], but if it's determined that you're notable enough for an article (and discussion ] shows it's likely), there's not much you can do besides keep an eye on it to make sure it's accurate. You're not the first, and won't be the last, who got a bit more than they bargained for with a wiki article. | |||
*However, you said in your talk page post that there was personal information there? That's not right. Things like home addresses, phone numbers, and pretty much anything that's an invasion of privacy or your family's privacy should not be posted (your website, however, is fair game). If someone has posted any of that stuff, please let me know where it is, I will see what I can do to help you remove it. Things like that are some of the few things that can be permanently removed from the site.--] (]) 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Hello. A ] has recently been filed regarding ]. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U ]. Thank you. ] (]) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Rule 34 == | |||
...And why does ] need a mention of this at all? It's just gonna sit there with {{tl|fact}} forever, because there ain't no sources out there that'll ever verify such a thing. It's a major Internet meme, sure, but there're plenty of memes (at last count, ''over NINE THOUSAND'') that are well-known on "teh internetz" that should never have articles. For the record, in no way am I trying to get rid of "teh pr0nz", just "teh uns0urced". ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
As far as being ], you folks make the governments look like rank beginners. Wiki is not exactly the easiset place to figure out. You guys ought to have a mini-wiki just to educate in simple terms the ins and outs of the big wiki. You guys must have the strangest dreams and nightamres after a long day. | |||
*What article? I don't see an article. I see a minor mention in a disambig page that explains just what this "Rule 34" is for someone who saw it someplace and looked it up. I do not see the problem with this. --] (]) 05:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:*How about the fact that it's unsourced and never will be sourced? ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
::*Stop trying to apply article guidelines to non-articles. --] (]) 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::*] isn't an article? ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::*I thought we were talking about the redirect...and ] looks like a disambig/list to me. I'm sorry, you're just not making a convincing argument to me. --] (]) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::*Don't lists have to be sourced too? ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Oregon trail Game Link to Virtual Apple ][ == | |||
As for the article about me... well, the events of this last week had made me sick to death of Wiki, angry in the extreme, and so tired of the controversy that yes, I was of the opinion that it would be the best all around if it were gone entirely. With the help of cooler heads I have calmed. In reading the page on AfD, I realized that there were actually wiki-ites out there that had heard of me... that watch TV once in a while... that actually have lives away from their keyboards. Their support made me feel pretty good and helped my reaching a state of calm. I will not lobby for the removal of the article. If it stays, fine. If it goes, fine. I wish to clarify that there was never personal information in the article itself, beyond the life/career/backgound kind of thing. The personal information to which you refer had been placed on my talk page (early version) and I had the entire page wiped through an email request to Wiki Oversite. It had to be removed as quickly as possible. I did not/do not know if there was/is another way to have gotten it removed without drawing even more attention to its existance. | |||
Please do not delete the link again. It has been posted there by various users due to the fact that teachers use the link for their classrooms. First of all, it is not pirated and we have originals of every item on the site. Secondly, the items in question are for a machine which 99.99 percent of the companies including the one that created this game are no longer in existence. | |||
I do have a question, that I do not wish to sound dumb... as what I know of the Wiki world is but a drop in the ocean... and I do not want this question to be seen as contentious or controversial or rancourous... and if I am incorrect in my thoughts, I would hope you will tell me gently... | |||
] (]) 10:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
It has to do with the article in question. It is now at Afd. When it was first tagged as non-notable, it contained a lot of stuff about me... promotional or not, none of it was untrue and as far as I have been able to research, most of it was sourced properly. Call it article "A". Okay... I can understand how an article can be thought non-notable and then go to AfD. That happened to our article "A". However, and even though it is presumed that article "A" is in AfD, the one in there is actually article "D" or "E" or "F". Let me explain. I have studied the history of article "A" after it went to AfD. Over the last few days the article "A", sitting over at the article "A" page has been chopped and edited so severly that I barely recognize it as being one of me. Every relevent external link has been removed... everything that was up about my life and career has been removed... every piece of my film career has been removed... and there is only a couple sentences left about a time I spent as a model for a painting show. If I were to see that for the first time I would not even recognize that it was about me. My impression, and please correct me if I an error, is that on the AfD page, when an editor wishes to comment they will click the link at take a look at whatever is being proposed. They will often them make a call based upon what they see there. I may be wrong, but these seems logivcal. When following the history of "A" on the AfD page, I have seen how an editor might vote "keep, the guy was on Kimmel" or "keep, the man has a 100 projects on IMDB". But when going back to the "A" page, I see that the same editor who called it non-notable has removed that information about the Kimmel show... or the list and references to the IMDB success. I have watched with raised eyebrows as someone says something supportive, and then seen that editor removes that supportive evidence from the article. At first I thought the editor might have been jumping the gun after proposing it for deletion, by his deleting it just a little as a time. But it seems that he is simply making sure that any evidence that supporters of "A" feel make "A" notable are removed.. thus ensuring that "A" be declared non-notable... or if not, then what remains is less than a hollow mockery.. it is an insult. His actions are so amazingly blatant that I have to ask a question.... and sorry about the long set up... My question: Is this removal of evidence and information, to turn an article into whatever you at first claim it to be, the proper procedure at AfD?" | |||
*You need to brush up on your copyright laws. You're distributing commercial software that is not public domain, and you can still purchase Oregon Trail in stores. It's also a ] link that serves to add nothing to the article..."an easy eay for teachers to have the link in their classroms" isn't a valid reason. And in particular, these links do not beling in the body of the article. --] (]) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
First off, I believe it is you who needs to check the copyrights. Two, it is no longer being sold, nor has it been sold since 1999 when the company was closed. The computer it runs on also has not been sold since 1993. But I suppose you are too young to know that. I also suppose you need to check the history and see who added it. You are NOT the sole authority on this issue. Every time someone like you has removed it, others have added it back in order to keep the page up as a resource. I also suggest you check the talk history on the page itself before you delete anything you decide to delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Oregon_Trail_%28video_game%29 ] (]) 04:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Oh yeah.. as second real quick question: If the article were to remain on Wiki, would it be the original article "A", or the stripped down and insulting article "E"? As the subject of the article I am not in any position to return information and Article "E" would be an affront. | |||
*I bought a copy in 2006. The page itself says there was a release in 2009. No, the IIgs is no longer sold, but Oregon Trail is still clearly being sold as a commercial product. I don't see any convincing reason to keep it in the article on the talk page there, only that there was a minor editing skirmish. I also don't see any Misplaced Pages policies that would warrant inclusion, though I see a few, mainly ], that would exclude it. And if you want to bring the conversation to the talk page of the article, feel free. --] (]) 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thanks and sorry to be so windy. I'm sure that someone better versed would have simply written a halfdozen glyphs and you would have known exactly what they were asking. ] (]) 08:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
You might have bought a copy on EBay but it has not been sold since 1999 commercially for the Apple II series. There was no release in 2009. It was a re-make of the game for the iPhone, not a program made by MECC or The Learning Company and is not related. It has already been in the Talk page. As far as commercial, your being able to buy it on Ebay or any other close out type facility does not prove it commercial. You ability to purchase it online from a publisher or from the company themselves does. So keep trying to prove it, but you will get laughed at for trying to say Oregon Trail (1985) for the Apple ][ is commercial or that it is pirated. One additional note for you. Just because it says something on Misplaced Pages, does not make it true. You are dealing with a flawed product that anyone can edit. You, Me, or anyone else. | |||
**An answer: The criteria for inclusion on Wikipeida is ]. In short, that means that the statements in articles must be backed up by a peer-reviewed or fact-checked source, like a newspaper, book, or a popular website. IMDB is usually not considered a reliable source under these guidelines, since anyone can create info on the page, but it's often used to gather info that is cross-checked elsewhere. A lot of your sources seem OK at first glance, but when checked, you need to make sure they're about ''you'' or something that supports the article, not just a passing mention. | |||
] (]) 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
**Remember that anyone can edit Misplaced Pages pretty much any time. Other people do as well, and in AFD discussions, smart people will check older versions of the page first...yep, in case you didn't know, every version of a page is saved (usually). I reverted CumulousClouds's changes, they didn't seem appropriate. So, in short, people in an AFD are seeing page "E", but will also see "A", "B", "C", and "D" too, and use that in their decision. | |||
*Did I ever say "for the Apple II?" No. The program named "Oregon Trail" is copyrighted, no matter what platform you put it on. And for the record, it doesn't matter at all whether or not it's still being sold. "Abandonware" is a term with no meaning, you cannot abandon your copyrighted program without specifically doing so (they have not, and trust me, the rights to the program are owned), it is just a term used to justify downloading old games. Please do not assume I don't know what I'm talking about. And even assuming it is legal and such, you still haven't shown a valid Misplaced Pages policy that allows it on the page. --] (]) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
**Don't forget you ''can'' edit your own article, just make sure you follow the guidelines at ], which explains how to avoid conflicts of interest. --] (]) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
I dont have to guess or assume anything about your lack of knowledge about the game, as it shows when you make a statement like "The program named "Oregon Trail" is copyrighted, no matter what platform you put it on." | |||
The program name "Oregon Trail" cannot be copyrighted. There were multiple public domain versions of the program released on many platforms by various authors prior to any commercial version being available. Also the name Oregon Trail itself is in the public domain. That means anyone can write a program and call it Oregon Trail and the program itself is copyrighted by that person. However, once again, the name cannot be copyrighted nor any such claim to trademark be made over it. | |||
You can copyright a work but that copyright is only enforceable when a company or author is in existence. MECC has not existed since 1999 and The Learning Company, which bought MECC closed its doors as well. The product Oregon Trail (1985) also has not been available since 1999 and thus cannot be considered a commercial product under current copyright enforcement laws. | |||
???? My eyebrows went waaaaaaaay up when I read that I might (albeit within tight guidelines) be allowed to edit informations on a page about myself. I am doing a lot of reading in my small pieces of free time, in order to give myself a better understanding of this strange world here... and I can see the fascination it holds for so many... however, I continue to be very concerned about the promise of continued rancor should I ever try to edit something about me. Please read my response on the ] and either comment there or back here. You have done much to answer many concerns, and I appreciate your calm. You may even smile at my inclusion of a touch of irony I discovered in my reading. Thank you, ] (]) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
*Meh, people get grouchy at the ] sometimes. Time heals all. --] (]) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
I suggest highly you read the (talk) on the Oregon Trail Game page itself before making any further blanket statements. I also recommend highly that you take a look at the changes in copyright laws from 2006 concerning works that are abandoned or for which no author or license holder is in existence. | |||
**I returned from a location shoot and discovered that the still image of me (]) was deleted by ]. This is the image that had been nominated to IFD as uploaded by a sockpuppet and as a "copyright violation". I answered that nomination in great detail, proving the allegations as incorrect... no need to recount here. But it was deleted anyways. What gives? Is there a way to return it? Or is there a way I could re-upload it without invoking a shout of COI? ] (]) 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 03:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
*You're wrong, but it's moot. You still haven't shown why the link should be on the page. --] (]) 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
No, it is you who is wrong. You are the one who deleted it and you have not proven that it is commercial or that it is pirated. I have made a valid argument here and you think the only answer is "you are wrong"?. I am going to write the admins on this one as your opinion is NOT the only one that matters even though from your completely uninformed argument, it is apparent that you believe so. | |||
] (]) 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Feel free. Drop me a link to the discussion. I gave up on trying to convince you about the legality of it two paragraphs ago. There's still nothing I see in Misplaced Pages policy that allows a link to that page even if it is legal. --] (]) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Your comment == | |||
Located , came to my attention. Aside from a short apology for being 'a pain in your ass', I couldn't help but laugh, as your reaction was mine as well. --<u>]<small>]</small></u> 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Hah, I remember that! I found that when googling my name for the hell of it. I don't know how I could be accused of being a sockpuppet of anyone (though it's happened before from clueless people). I don't really share a "style" with anyone, as far as I can tell. --] (]) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Oh, and you did ]? One of my favorites. --] (]) 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Thats how I found it (well, searching for my name, not yours.) And yeah, i had a bit of fun typing that one up :) --<u>]<small>]</small></u> 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Ping! :-) == | |||
Hello again, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... I'm still here, and you can track my IP changes by bookmarking ] ... Happy Editing! — '''{{#if:70.21.2.219|{{User|70.21.2.219}}|] (])}}''' <sub>09:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)</sub> | |||
==] of ]== | |||
] | |||
The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
:'''Lack of content, the bit of content it has is already mentioned in the Origami article. Notability is also questionable.''' | |||
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> will stop the ], but other ]es exist. The ] can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
== You are now a Reviewer == | |||
] | |||
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010. | |||
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. | |||
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ]. | |||
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 01:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691991546 --> | |||
== List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 15:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I've reworked the article using newspapers and magazine sources. ] (]) 21:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
== paver71 == | |||
blue truck ] (]) 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:09, 16 June 2023
My First Archive! Hooray!
My Second Archive! Yahoo!
My Third Archive! Joy!
Some Quick Notes
- If you're about to leave nothing but a template on my talk page, please don't. They irritate me. I'd much rather get something typed out than copy/pasted. If you must slap a template down, please also include a personal message.
- I keep an eye on my watchlist. If any pages I still am concerned about are put up for an XFD, chances are I know. I appreciate that you're bothering to give me notice, but I probably don't need it.
- Since you came here, I'm going to assume you want the answer to your question or concern here. If you want a reply on your talk page (or somewhere else, even), just ask and I'll go there to comment.
- If it's about a prod I removed, go and read WP:PROD carefully before coming here to argue about what it says. Make sure you read all of it. Honestly, your time would be better spend setting the article up for AFD rather than fighting for a Prod that won't go through (and can be overturned at WP:DRV in a matter of minutes).
- I don't feel like joining any Wikiprojects, so if you're inviting me to join one, I appreciate the invitation...but I don't feel like contributing in that way.
- If you need help with anything, I'll do what I can for you. Unless you're a jerk. If you are, forget it.
Why don't you...?
Since I can't create subpages (Which deletion processes require). Thanx, 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanx, I've filled in the rationale. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Tragedy DRV
While Shaliya waya's comments at that DRV are out of line, responding in kind isn't going to improve the situation. Please consider refactoring or withdrawing your comments. I have warned Shaliya waya separately. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I meant what I said, and I don't think I was out of line. I'm not gonna "withdraw" it or try to couch it so I seem "nicer", he doesn't deserve it. I won't escalate things any further, however. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Q. Schmidt, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Q. Schmidt (2nd nomination). Thank you. Schmidt, 17:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Polish National Top 50 → Polish Music Charts
The Polish National Top 50 was deleted per afd as being non-notable, so 'stubify' is probably not a good idea. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Banned users
Feel free. While consensus was against deletion, I don't believe there were strong feelings about the specific target. I don't see any issues if you change it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joelporter
As much as I am for keeping user pages of even the most mildly active users, no matter how self-promotional, the key fact that appears to have been missed is that this editor has precisely one (1) edit to his credit, that edit was to create the self-promotional user page, and it was created on 31 October 2007. So that nomination came exactly one year and ten minutes after it was created. I'm not clear on the review process for MfD but it might be worth revisiting this decision. - Dravecky (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Howdy!
Hello again, UsaSatsui ...
Just thought I'd ping you that I'm still around, and still using User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Anon sig. :-)
So, how's life at your end of the swamp?
Happy Editing! — 72.75.110.31 (talk · contribs) 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I keep tabs on you, believe it or not...it's always good to know which numbers you're hiding behind this week. You should put your current IP on your "named" page. I'm not up to much except wading a bit deeper into the XFD wars. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
quick thanks
thanks for helping me out, and pointing me in the right direction. much appreciated! Randomran (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Mass redirects
Would you mind commenting here? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Image Criteria
The creator of that image is a sysop for ED. I am an admin. It was made for use for ED sysops/admins.--Zaiger420 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly, it is not a copyrighted image, it is the product of boredom and photoshop. Secondly, can we have this conversation without the memes please. I am going to reupload it tomorrow. If you would like an Email from the creator of the image let me know where to send it. --Zaiger420 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- My bad. --Zaiger420 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Secret Service Codenames reference
Hello there, added the location names from William Manchester's book. I'm working from the Swedish translation of that one - could you please check the footnotes and see to get the right page number - it's at the start of the book? And please see to collapse it into one source note, referred to from all the names - that's SOP but for some reason, it came out as a number of identical footnotes all with different numbers. ;)Strausszek 25 November 2008, 08:35 (CET)
- I fixed it. See WP:CITE for the proper way to do your citations. To collapse them into a single note, you need to name them...that's one that'd hard to explain (I just copy/paste it from other areas and change the name). You don't need the page numbers for the cites, but to do it properly you do need the publisher and the ISBN. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Rule 34
...And why does 34 (number) need a mention of this at all? It's just gonna sit there with {{fact}} forever, because there ain't no sources out there that'll ever verify such a thing. It's a major Internet meme, sure, but there're plenty of memes (at last count, over NINE THOUSAND) that are well-known on "teh internetz" that should never have articles. For the record, in no way am I trying to get rid of "teh pr0nz", just "teh uns0urced". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- What article? I don't see an article. I see a minor mention in a disambig page that explains just what this "Rule 34" is for someone who saw it someplace and looked it up. I do not see the problem with this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- How about the fact that it's unsourced and never will be sourced? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Stop trying to apply article guidelines to non-articles. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- 34 (number) isn't an article? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought we were talking about the redirect...and 34 (number) looks like a disambig/list to me. I'm sorry, you're just not making a convincing argument to me. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't lists have to be sourced too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
118.20.52.173 (talk) spam link that serves to add nothing to the article..."an easy eay for teachers to have the link in their classroms" isn't a valid reason. And in particular, these links do not beling in the body of the article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, I believe it is you who needs to check the copyrights. Two, it is no longer being sold, nor has it been sold since 1999 when the company was closed. The computer it runs on also has not been sold since 1993. But I suppose you are too young to know that. I also suppose you need to check the history and see who added it. You are NOT the sole authority on this issue. Every time someone like you has removed it, others have added it back in order to keep the page up as a resource. I also suggest you check the talk history on the page itself before you delete anything you decide to delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Oregon_Trail_%28video_game%29 118.20.52.173 (talk) WP:EXTERNAL, that would exclude it. And if you want to bring the conversation to the talk page of the article, feel free. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You might have bought a copy on EBay but it has not been sold since 1999 commercially for the Apple II series. There was no release in 2009. It was a re-make of the game for the iPhone, not a program made by MECC or The Learning Company and is not related. It has already been in the Talk page. As far as commercial, your being able to buy it on Ebay or any other close out type facility does not prove it commercial. You ability to purchase it online from a publisher or from the company themselves does. So keep trying to prove it, but you will get laughed at for trying to say Oregon Trail (1985) for the Apple ][ is commercial or that it is pirated. One additional note for you. Just because it says something on Misplaced Pages, does not make it true. You are dealing with a flawed product that anyone can edit. You, Me, or anyone else. 118.20.52.173 (talk) UsaSatsui (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont have to guess or assume anything about your lack of knowledge about the game, as it shows when you make a statement like "The program named "Oregon Trail" is copyrighted, no matter what platform you put it on."
The program name "Oregon Trail" cannot be copyrighted. There were multiple public domain versions of the program released on many platforms by various authors prior to any commercial version being available. Also the name Oregon Trail itself is in the public domain. That means anyone can write a program and call it Oregon Trail and the program itself is copyrighted by that person. However, once again, the name cannot be copyrighted nor any such claim to trademark be made over it.
You can copyright a work but that copyright is only enforceable when a company or author is in existence. MECC has not existed since 1999 and The Learning Company, which bought MECC closed its doors as well. The product Oregon Trail (1985) also has not been available since 1999 and thus cannot be considered a commercial product under current copyright enforcement laws.
I suggest highly you read the (talk) on the Oregon Trail Game page itself before making any further blanket statements. I also recommend highly that you take a look at the changes in copyright laws from 2006 concerning works that are abandoned or for which no author or license holder is in existence. 118.20.52.173 (talk) UsaSatsui (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is you who is wrong. You are the one who deleted it and you have not proven that it is commercial or that it is pirated. I have made a valid argument here and you think the only answer is "you are wrong"?. I am going to write the admins on this one as your opinion is NOT the only one that matters even though from your completely uninformed argument, it is apparent that you believe so. 118.20.52.173 (talk) UsaSatsui (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comment
Located here, came to my attention. Aside from a short apology for being 'a pain in your ass', I couldn't help but laugh, as your reaction was mine as well. --M 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hah, I remember that! I found that when googling my name for the hell of it. I don't know how I could be accused of being a sockpuppet of anyone (though it's happened before from clueless people). I don't really share a "style" with anyone, as far as I can tell. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and you did WP:NOONECARES? One of my favorites. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thats how I found it (well, searching for my name, not yours.) And yeah, i had a bit of fun typing that one up :) --M 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ping! :-)
Hello again, UsaSatsui ... I'm still here, and you can track my IP changes by bookmarking User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/WikiGnome#Recent IP accounts ... Happy Editing! — 70.21.2.219 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Paper crane
The article Paper crane has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Lack of content, the bit of content it has is already mentioned in the Origami article. Notability is also questionable.
While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Buxbaum666 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game. Since you had some involvement with the List: Oldest Pitchers to Start a Postseason Game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Princess Maker 2
I've reworked the article using newspapers and magazine sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
paver71
blue truck 2607:FB91:44E:A822:DC7E:E64:17BF:57BC (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)