This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
COI
Hi Davidwr, you mentioned starting an RFC for the proposed changes on COI; will you be starting that soon? It looks like momentum is building for a certain specific version amongst a limited number of editors and I was hoping to seem more eyes on it. I'd do it myself, but I've been battling the flu the past few days and can't quite get my mind together. Thanks! Dreadstar☥ 18:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's the discussion I'm thinking of, there wasn't the overwhelming acceptance that I was looking for. Then again, the last time I checked was about this time yesterday. Also, like you, I'm a bit out of pocket for the next few days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you
You asked what was wrong with the citation style of Red Brick Road. A lot of the citations are incorrectly dated, for example reference 2 shows up as:
Brook, Stephen (Monday 30th). "Lowe follows Red Brick Road". www.theguardian.com (in English). The Guardian. Retrieved 06 November 2013.
No year is showing up. I think the problem is that the date parameter is set to "Monday 30th" when it should be (according to the template documentation) set to "full date (day, month, and year) or partial date (month and year, season and year, year)." --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
About the New Editors of Education Assignment
Dear editor,
A course page has been added (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course_Page), explaining the tasks that students have done, which have been solely for educational purposes. I am the instructor of the course (Prof. Sean Xu). You can find my Webpage (including my contact) on the course page. I am grateful to your supporting our educational activity and ask for your agreement that our students can add back pages that got deleted. These belong to their term projects. Please let me know if you need me to provide any additional information. --- Uttsinghuajoint2014 (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
First, neither I nor any other individual can "agree that the students can add back pages that got deleted." Wikipedia is a community project and no single individual has that kind of power. Having said that, if the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines - which is not the case for some of these companies, then a well-written article that clearly shows that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and our other policies and guidelines is very unlikely to be deleted.
Whether a page is allowed to be be re-created or undeleted depends on which deletion process it went through. You can find out the deletion process and the deleting administrator by clicking on the "log" entry for each page.
If the reason for the deletion is "expired PROD" then the student can go to Wikipedia:Request for undeletion and ask for the page to be restored and it will be restored. Once the page is restored, the student should add the "course project" and the following lines to the top of the talk page:
{{old prod full|con=|condate=|conreason=See [[User:Uttsinghuajoint2014/Course_Page]] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavidwr&diff=590943430&oldid=590744392]}}
but with the student's Wikipedia login after "con=" and the date of the undeletion request in the "condate=" field.
If the reason is anything else, such as "A7" or "deleted after a deletion discussion," the student can ask the deleting administrator to userfy the page so he can work on it and get it "up to Wikipedia standards." The administrator is under no obligation to restore the page. If he does not, the student can open a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If the page is restored as a "user page," then once it is "up to standards" it can be moved to the main encyclopedia.
Before requesting un-deletion or rewriting an article that has been deleted, the student should verify that the company meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. In general, if a company has more than a billion USD in revenue a year, it will almost always qualify. Companies included in major stock indexes that only include a few hundred companies or fewer, such as the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average, almost certainly qualify. Other companies may or may not qualify. In general, the bigger the company, the higher the odds of it meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The students should read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and organizations) and Wikipedia:Notability for more information. If a company does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, any article written about the company, no matter how well-written, will likely be deleted.
For the sake of simplicity, the students may want to make "requests for un-deletion" of all of the articles they wrote as a single undeletion request. Before making such a request, the student should make sure that each company whose article he wants restored meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and only request un-deletion for those companies that meet Wikipedia's guidelines.
If your students need help writing business-related articles, I recommend they ask questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business.
I look forward to reading the well-written articles about notable companies which your students will create. However, I and others will nominate articles for deletion if we do not see enough evidence that the article shows that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Finally, please encourage your students not to put lots of links on a page just to "prove" it is notable. For small articles, 2 or 3 "high quality" references are better than 6 or 7 so-so references when it comes to demonstrating that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed and constructive feedback. We will proceed accordingly. In particular, you mentioned firm notability. When we asked students to start their term project, we paid particular attention to creating entries for firms with notability. Firms listed on major stock exchanges should be notable since they have already passed the requirements of listing as required by the US SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) (http://usequities.nyx.com/regulation/listed-companies-compliance/listings-standards/us) including size and liquidity. In particular, a listed firm 1) has notable public signals in the financial market, including stock prices and trading volumes; 2) discloses notable public information required by the US SEC; and 3) has at least a substantial number of public shareholders according to the SEC rules and once the stock is held by a fund, the number of people interested in this company will grow exponentially. So for those listed firms, there are a guaranteed big number of notable investors that pay attention to this stock. Uttsinghuajoint2014 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The term "notable" in Wikipedia-speak is verbal shorthand for "meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria." It is not precisely the same as the common everyday meaning of the word "notability." This difference in meaning sometimes causes confusion, even among experienced Wikipedia editors.
For example, there is some disagreement among Wikipedia editors as to whether "merely being listed on an exchange" or even "merely being listed on the NYSE" is sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of the editors who has been monitoring this situation believes that it does. Personally, I do not think it does. It boils down to different interpretations of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I tend to favor an interpretation that excludes "pro forma/routine" and "purely local" coverage, on the grounds that an interpretation that allowed for such coverage would "open the barn doors" to many things such as "every elementary school" and "every public officeholder, no matter how minor the office" that receive "pro forma/routine" coverage by virtue of their mere existence and which also receive significant, in-depth but purely-local coverage by virtue of being "an item of local interest."
I read a different page which listed the NYSE listing requirements you linked to a couple of weeks ago when the editor I mentioned above said that being on the NYSE was sufficient to demonstrate that a company was notable. After reading it, I replied saying that I disagreed. I will concede that a large portion of the companies on the NYSE - perhaps over 75% - would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Remember, the purpose of the SEC listing criteria is to provide transparency and protection to investors, not to ascertain whether the company is "notable enough to be listed." The purpose of the NYSE criteria that go above and beyond the SEC criteria is to provide a means of providing an "investment quality floor" for listed companies. In sort, the NYSE doesn't want to list "penny stocks." Even if 75% of NYSE stocks meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it's important to remember that an "investment quality floor" is not the same as "having received a certain amount of significant coverage from reliable sources, independent of the company" and NYSE's "investment quality floor" is not the same as "meeting Wikipedia's notability standards." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Editor,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about notability. We agree with you that more discussions on “notability” in the Wikipedia community will be helpful.
You suggest that Wikipedia materials must "open the barn doors" to many things such as "every elementary school" and "every public officeholder, no matter how minor the office". This sounds debatable, at least according to the current practice of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia has included thousands of professional terminologies and jargons in various disciplines of science and social sciences, such as “Fixed-point theorem” in Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-point_theorem), “Arbitrage Pricing Theory” in Finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage_pricing_theory), “Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachycardia-induced_cardiomyopathy) in medical science, and “Accarezzévole” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accarezz%C3%A9vole) in Music, etc. These are very helpful Wikipedia pages. They, however, would not exist anymore should your definition of “notability” be applied to them.
The spirit of Wikipedia is collaborative contribution. As mentioned by Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia differs from other online media platforms by “allowing structure to emerge according to the needs of the users” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki). In this spirit, the “notability” should be defined by the “collective wisdom” of users instead of censoring of any individual.
We do hope and believe that our students can make positive contribution by improving Wikipedia’s coverage of listed U.S. companies. Wikipedia allows users to learn by making mistakes, discussing and then correcting mistakes. Therefore, every user is in fact a student in the Wikipedia class. At this moment, we are grateful to editors’ understanding and patience so that students in our classes can continuously work on those newly created pages. We welcome any normal revisions (i.e., additions and deletions) and questions by editors and other users. Massive deletions of pages, however, will make it impossible for students to learn and, more importantly, the massive deletion of pages based on an discretionary assessment of “notability” is not consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia and is detrimental to the future of Wikipedia.
Again, we thank you for sharing your thoughts with us and we are grateful to you for your future support to students in our courses!Uttsinghuajoint2014 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whisoseryus (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Zeke Durden
Hi Davidwr - forgive my unfamiliarity with Wiki. I'm a journalist trying to track down this meme character known as "Zeke Durden." Apparently, there was once a wiki entry for him, but it was deleted, I'm not sure by who. Is it possible to see what the old Zeke Durden wiki page looked like? And I'm curious as to why it was deleted. Thanks! Steve F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.80.179 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf12) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on January 30. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 4, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 6 (calendar).
The buttons used in pages like log-in, account creation and search are now using the same colors and styles. [3][4]
You can now link to diffs using [[Special:Diff/12345]] and similar links. [5]
There is no longer an option to hide tables of contents on all pages. [6]
Searching in the File: namespace on Wikimedia Commons is now faster, after a bug was fixed on January 29. [7]
All Wikimedia wikis now have high-resolution favicons. [8]
VisualEditor news
You can now see a list of keyboard shortcuts by pressing Ctrl+/ inside VisualEditor. [9]
Future software changes
Edits and files hidden with the Oversight tool will be moved to the RevisionDelete system. The Oversight tool will then be removed from Wikimedia wikis. [10][11][12]
For languages where not all sister projects exist, you will be able to link to other language projects using double interwikis (:ko:v, :v:ko, etc.). [13]
It will soon be possible to use the GettingStarted tool on other wikis than the English Wikipedia. You can translate it on Translatewiki.net. [14]
Greetings Davidwr, Can you please take a look at the Ebuka Obi-Uchendu's article and tell me what you think about the images added to the article? I don't think a declaration of consent form (for these images) were sent to OTRS. If that's true, the images must be deleted. versace1608 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Versace1608:Thanks. Done. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Umuohi. The next time this happens, you can log into the Commons and either nominate the files for deletion individually, do a group nomination as I did, or tag each of them as lacking permission (the Commons equivalent of "speedy deletion" - although it's 7 days, which isn't that "speedy"). See commons:commons:Deletion policy for more information on the deletion processes at the Wikimedia Commons. Note: Be sure you are looking at the Commons file before nominating it for deletion. Unless you've changed your preferences, you are be looking at the English Wikipedia "placeholder" when you click on a Commons-hosted image in the English Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I decided to bring it to your attention because I didn't know how to do it. Once I read up on how to properly nominate photos for deletion, I will be doing that myself. Most editors who join Wikipedia do not take their time to read and understand the policies that have been put in place (I know I was one of them from the beginning). versace1608 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, look again. I removed the image, you re-readded it. WilyD 16:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was viewing an older edit then looked at the edit history and just undid the most recent edit - yours. *reminds myself to pay attention next time*. I fixed it immediately. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf13) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on February 6. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 11, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 13 (calendar).
The Vector search box was changed to fix old display and accessibility issues; for example, you can now use full-text search even if you have disabled JavaScript. Please report any problems you see. The option to disable the "simplified search bar" on Vector will also be removed. [20][21][22][23][24]
You are now notified when someone adds a link to your user page on wikis where it didn't work before (wikis with dates in the year-month-day order, including Hungarian, Japanese, Korean and some variants of Chinese). [25]
VisualEditor news
You can now set media items' alt text and position, and directly set their size, in the media tool. [26][27]
The gallery tool was improved and several issues were fixed. [28][29][30]
Problems
On February 3, all wikis were broken for about an hour due to a traffic balancing issue. [31]
On February 6, some wikis were broken for about half an hour in total due to a problem with the Math extension.
Future software changes
Some methods from Scribunto's mw.message library will be removed after February 18. If you use them in your templates or modules, please check to make sure that things will not break. [32][33]
You will soon be able to use GettingStarted on 23 new Wikipedias. It helps new users by listing possible tasks and giving help. The new version was also added to the English Wikipedia on February 7th. [34]
You will soon see results from other wikis when you use the new search tool (CirrusSearch). [35][36]
The WikiLove tool was redesigned and should also load faster. [37]
bugzilla.wikimedia.org will be updated this week. You won't be able to access it from 22:00 UTC on February 12 until 01:00 UTC on February 13 at the latest. [46]
The <poem> tag will be renamed to <lines>. The old tag will still work. [47]
Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Talk:Glary_Utilities. Message added 06:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
btw, I could not find related records in the log in you cited in your comment you cited on 02:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC) ~ see conversation archive in section below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enquire (talk • contribs) 06:36, 6 February 2014
@Enquire: Regarding the logs: See [48], [49], [50], and "what links here" to each of the pages listed in all of those log pages, and the logs and page histories of those respective pages. Also, for the pages that exist, see the talk pages for possible discussions of page-moves, page-splits, etc. It's kind of a mess. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Talk:Glary_Utilities. Message added Enquire (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Davidwr: I looked at the logs, they didn't seem related at all. However, I did try to move the mainspace talk page to my user space talk page, but it failed, please see Talk:Glary_Utilities. Do you understand why the WP:MOVE didn't work? Please put further discussion on the Talk:Glary_Utilities for full visibility of other editors and admins. Also, note, I posted a request for assistance here:
Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Enquire's talk page. Message added Enquire (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Comments I left on another user's talk page.
Greetings Davidwr, can you please take a look at this thread and tell me If I was right for saying what I said: User talk:Jamie Tubers#Eminado? I think I am right, but just wanted to get an input from an experience user like yourself. versace1608 (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
@Versace1608: I'm just seeing a "thank you" and his reply that says "it's cool." Was there more? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
No, the link I pointed to was in regards to copyrighted images. To save you the hassle, Is the copyright owner of an image require to send a declaration of consent form to OTRS if they upload the photo onto Commons? I left several messages on Jamie Tubers' talk page. versace1608 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not currently watchlisting your talk page. And Yes. versace1608 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on this later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Schoolhouse Rock
Saw you de-Wiki linked The Preamble. Although this is a VERY minor deal, was just thinking that the Wiki link serves the purpose of allowing readers to go and see what the "The" Preamble actually is. Considering what is taught as "civics" these days, I'm sure there are alot of people who don't even know what it is. Just a thought. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Cool. I guess I didn't look as close as I thought - sorry to imply you undid something that was perfect. Some of these pages are hot messes and there is a fine line between allowing "stuff" to go on that you don't have the time/interest to correct and keeping them from descending into a chaos of pure OR. Take care - Ckruschke (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf14) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on February 13. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 18, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 20 (calendar).
The new search tool (CirrusSearch) now gives more importance to content namespaces if you search in several namespaces. [53]
You can now directly link to files viewed with MultimediaViewer, the new tool for viewing media files. [54]
You can read the summary of the Wikimedia technical report for January 2014. [55]
Problems
On February 9, Wikimedia Labs was broken for about 2 hours due to an XFS file system problem. [56]
On February 11, there were problems with VisualEditor for about 20 minutes due to a server logging issue. [57]
On the same day, for about 20 minutes there were issues with page loading due to database problems.
There were issues with page loading between 21:00 UTC on February 13 and 11:00 UTC on February 14 for users in Europe. It was due to a cache server problem.
On February 14, all sites were broken for about 15 minutes for users in Southeast Asia, Oceania and the western part of North America. It was due to problems with cache servers.
VisualEditor news
The link tool now tells you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. [58]
You can now change image display (like thumbnail, frame and frameless) with VisualEditor. [59]
Wikitext warnings will now hide when you remove wikitext from paragraphs you are editing. [60]
You will soon be able to create and edit redirect pages with VisualEditor. [61][62][63]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am suspecting that Seanord is a sock or meat account of Darreg. I may be wrong, but can you please get an administrator to look at the ip ranges of these accounts. I have a hunch about this because Seanord edited few of the pages Darreg created. Keep in mind that Darreg told me he was taking a break from Wikipedia for a while and I find it strange that Seanord left a message on my talk page, requesting that I help him/her answer a question. I don't believe in coincidences. Seanord also left the same message on Jame Tubers and Darreg's talk pages. versace1608 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and follow the instructions on that page. It may be helpful to read some prior sockpuppet investigations to get an idea of what kinds of evidence should be in the report and what things should not be in the report. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Please I am not the same as Darreg and my edit has never been abusive, misleading or deceived any Editor. I was pretty surprised when I got this notification because I don't think there is any case here. Seanord (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@Versace1608:I think the above message is meant for you. Please work this out with Seanord on either his talk page, your talk page, or, if you have already opened a formal sockpuppet-investigation request, on that page (my recommendation: If you have opened such a request, either withdraw it or ask that it be put on hold while you work with the editor 1-on-1). In any case, my talk page is not the best place to have this discussion. For that reason, I am marking this discussion as "archived." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure why...
you think that it is repetitious that Wiki-PR is still banned under the new name. If figure that's why they changed the name! Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Gruber
I restored all the earlier versions--there are slight variations, & I'll let you decide if there's anything significant.Sorry for not doing it earlier--it is still relevant, as the AfD was relisted. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, as you are quite correct regarding the dates. Somehow, I transposed the two dates, and came away thinking the article was written first. Blame my lack of morning coffee, or approaching senescence, or both. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Pending changes 2014 RfC Proposal 12
Hello! As a result of discussion with other editors regarding Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014, I have made a slight change to Proposal 12 to remove the so-called "exclusivity clause". For the change, see this diff. I am posting this notice on your talk page because you have already inserted comments on the original proposal, and I want to make sure you are aware of the change so that you may revise your comments if you wish to do so.
I apologize for the confusion. If you wish, you may slap me. Ivanvector (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Now it becomes clear who started the violence-related metaphors. But Ivanvector, I'm sorry to say, your reference to troutslapping is not as hilarious as David's turn of phrase a few weeks further into the proceedings:
With three, you have a built-in tiebreaker. With two, it's a wiki-cage match to the death um, I mean, they will have to work out any differences peaceably . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page, it's much appreciated. The post by Gerda is actually a good thing and is appreciated too...but thanks for watching out for me! Dreadstar☥ 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what happened. I didn't intend to make that edit. The only thing I can think of is either I pressed rollback in the wrong window or Twinkle got confused. I'm assuming the former. My apologies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
lol...I've made the same kind of unintended edit! No apologies necessary, thanks for doing so! Dreadstar☥ 01:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
I hereby award Davidwr this Barnstar of Diligence for his much appreciated eye on my talk page to help prevent possible abuse! Thank you David! Dreadstar☥ 23:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf15) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on February 20. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 25, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 27 (calendar).
The new search tool (CirrusSearch) was added to the Italian Wikiquote and all Wikiversity projects. Users can now enable it in their Beta options. [64][65]
Dear David, As an Italian "Group" is part of my last name. I hope you do not have any racist views against the whole Italian community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupclr (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Hello! As a result of discussion with other editors regarding Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014, I have made a slight change to Proposal 12 to remove the so-called "exclusivity clause". For the change, see this diff. I am posting this notice on your talk page because you have already inserted comments on the original proposal, and I want to make sure you are aware of the change so that you may revise your comments if you wish to do so.
. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
