Jump to content

User talk:Versageek

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.194.223.118 (talk) at 19:05, 10 September 2007 (→Link removed: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is an OTRS member.This user is an OTRS member.
This user is an OTRS member.

If you leave me a message here, I will reply to it here. Please check back for a reply.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will check your talk page for a reply.
This way, we keep conversations all in one location, making them much easier to follow. Thanks!
To leave me a new message, please click HERE

A Note About Advertising and Conflicts of Interest

If I reverted your link addition or removed your links from an article, please read this:

Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.
Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam


If you have additional information to add to the article, why not simply add it rather than having an external link?

Archive Jul06-Jun07


To leave me a new message, please click HERE.

bad image on Sabotage (album)

Thank you for noticing that the image at Sabotage (album) was a fake. I found a good version of the album cover and added it to the article. --Eastmain 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dzi bead article

You removed two links from the external links on the Dzi bead article, just before I realized what they were and was about to do the same. Actually there seems to be a large edit war going on to have (what appear to me, at any rate) spam links in the article. Possibly the article should be protected for a while. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 05:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, only full protection would help as the user adding most of the junk is a registered user, the IPs have been removing the junk. Let's see how they react to the changes that we made tonight.. if the warring continues, I'll request full protection. -- Versageek 05:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall of China

Hi. The information I am adding is actually factually accurate. I am currently searching for sources to verify this, but once I have located them I shall post you a link here, and then restore my version of said article. Thanks--Emperor Tony X. Liu 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's the source: http://www.wereallneighbours.co.uk/idlechat/message.php?id=19306&start= --Emperor Tony X. Liu 19:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

i got your message that some of external links additions are advertising something. See quote below

"but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes."

I am not advertising a sale or anything. I am just informing people. How can one tell if i was promoting something? I am just informing people of a new website they might or might not be interested in. I think my links are eligible because they dont involve anything that is bias or otherwise.

Vanshizzle 02:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the links are promoting is the website. The page they link to is merely a sign up form and doesn't include any information that adds encyclopedic value. Please read the external links policy. In particular Links normally to be avoided --Versageek 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is that the website is not finished yet. Just make people aware that it exists is not advertising. And it doesnt force you to sign up anywhere.Vanshizzle 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Versageek, I appreciate very much the work you do to keep spam off wikipedia. I am writing to you because I believe you made an error in deleting the external links on the [opinion] page. I compiled a list of three web sites that are focused on users opinions on a variety of subjects and are prominent sites with opinion driven content, though I know opinions are ubiquitous on web pages. In wikipedia's search to find everything fact, I think it imperative to have these sites as the fact remains that they are web sites all about opinions on the web. Further more the first site on the list opnation.com is trying to be a site that wants to take users opinions of every topic imaginable and then have a digg style ranking algorithm that would order the opinions in terms of what the general public agrees upon. This site would replace traditional style public polling, which is easy biased and not a good indicator of true public opinion. I will be adding these links back to the opinion page and I hope my words to you here have persuaded you to understand that they are hardly spam.

Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Micfri (talk • contribs).

Rather than adding them as external links, why not created a section in the article about websites that gather and rank opinions/opinion driven content, and use these as references or examples, your explanation to me of why they should be included would a good start for that section. --Versageek 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did put in a link at the index fund page. You over zealously took it away. The page lacks information about index fund clubs I added one http://indexfund.se. I could not just add the text because of copy right issues.

Sincerely, David Winther — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.81.35 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you could add a note to the talk page that the article should have information about investment clubs and see what others think. The content of the linked site is a sales pitch trying to get the reader to sign up for that particular investment club, links to sites with that sort of content really aren't permitted under our external links guidelines. --Versageek 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

itemsoft.com

Hello,

I see that you have been deleting our links... we understand. However, there are other companies listed that appear to be keeping their links ... t-cubed, and bqr. Why are they remaining?

Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnqtodd (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 July 2007.

I missed a few of those - they have now been removed, as well as links to polimore.com which also appears to be a software company. --Versageek 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist.--Hu12 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cortes Island (Hansen Airfield) Airport

Thanks for catching that. I can't believe that I got it right in the box and the rest of it wrong. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take credit for finding it, a resident of Cortes Island emailed OTRS about it. I just verified the proper spelling, did the move, cleaned up the double redirects and thanked the gentleman for letting us know :) . --Versageek 07:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well if you can send them my apologies for making the error in the first place. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is the information site for the best hosting so i add up in the external links if it is not appropriate then i will not add it up but tell me what is the defect in this information site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.189.96.14 (talk • contribs).

Please select one or two pages where the links might be most helpful and ask on the discussion pages if others agree that your links should be added. Adding the links to multiple pages will usually result in them being removed as spam. Also, please read our External Links guidelines, and know that Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. --Versageek 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you removed a link from the Handmade Jewelry page. Not that it matters that much in this particular case and I won't place the link back, although it has been placed there by several different editors and admins in the last year or so. More importantly however: I *would* like to draw your attention to the fact this page is part of the wikipedia jewelry/gemology project and we use a number of sources for different pages, as well as monitor the pages. Whilst it is very much appreciated spam is removed, I would appreciate it if you could leave a message before doing so (unless it's clearly a commercial link) to one of us... after all we're all trying to build the best possible encyclopedia here, and so always helpful to coordinate things. Thanks

Gem-fanat 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, looking at that site now - it's clear I wasn't as diligent as I usually am with my cleaning efforts. It's good to know that the Jewelry/Gemology project will help clean up pages. I was in the middle of an edit war between two users over external links on Dzi bead back in June. I'm still not sure if the blogspot link that is there is worthwhile since blogspot isn't considered a reliable source. I have re-added the long-standing link that I removed from Handmade jewelry. --Versageek 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, I appreciate the fast and kind answer. Let me check the blogspot, because unless it is an expert in the field (and there are a few gem-dealers who would qualify as such (but this means they published books in the area, and are decade-long experts with links to gemlabs etc.). It would definitely not qualify as such. If you have more problems.. don't hesistate to "call".

Gem-fanat 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I see what you mean. For lack of a better resource, and it being quite educational (in terms of explanations and counterfeit images etc.. and not really pushing a commercial agenda here (some at the top, but I have seen much worse as wikipedia reference) I would suggest to keep the blogspot in. Although I do remember a rule somewhere about blogs/discussion groups not acceptable. I think such a rule is a bit too harsh considering everyone and all makes use of a blog and there;s a difference between an educational blog (also for lack of better resources) and a teenager high school blog. I WOULD suggest however to take the other link out, since it has already been mentioned in the referencs and would like to stick to one link per page policy.

spam issues

hello.

i have seen that you notifyed me about some spam issues. I don't intend to spam, please tell me where is the exact problem in order to make all the necessary corrections.

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Googleboy.live (talk • contribs).

I replied on your talk page. Also, please sign your comments with --~~~~ , Thanks --Versageek 02:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of Cais-soas.com

Hi!

On Meta talk:Spam Blacklist you said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red&action=submit
This discussion moved to here, please continue discussion there. --Versageek 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..I don't understand what you mean with the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red&action=submit (unless it's not by you? Or just a mis-paste?), or why cais-soas.com is to be blocked (I found some useful archeological references there!) - could you elaborate? Thanks! flammifertalk 07:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on meta. --Versageek 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albania's page

Thank you for your support and cleaning the vandalism.Cheers Taulant23☻

sorry about...

Hello, sorry about external links added to the page Free software. What I can do, that my link will be add to the page Free software, because my page only about free software.

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sokrato (talk • contribs).

I really can't think of anywhere on Wikipedia that your link would be appropriate. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links.--Versageek 03:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same one?

Hi. I am a part time wikiPedian and A full time wikiHowian. Are you the same Versageek that's on WikiHow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blabla96 (talk • contribs).

yep, that's me :) --Versageek 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark registration...

Australian TM Reg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude4012 (talk • contribs).

Yes, I'm aware of this. I left your note at the top of the article about the Australian Trademark, as well as your link at the top of the products list. While Wikimedia isn't interested in challenging your Australian trademark, it should be noted that attempts by others to trademark this phrase as a wordmark (without stylized text or a design) in the US, EU and Germany have been rejected as too generic.. --Versageek 02:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark..

I dont want to debate trademarks, there is a whole industry which does this.. Suffice to say that as long as we have a registered trademark, I expect it to be acknowledged and not used as a generic term.

Australia has by-lateral and multi-lateral agreements/treaties in place which provide for mutual recongnition of trademakes within the countries you mention.

Australia, is not like the USA, and has a strong IP process; there has been very little success with any appeals against an Australian trademark issued by IP Australia..

In particular we have recently forced Google to stop infinging our trademark, and will defend it against any current and future infingment..

Bottom line, please ensure that at a minimium the acknolwedgement, and reference with the registered trademark symbol are included within this entry..

Otherwise we request that this entry be removed from Wilkipedia as it voliates our registered trademark in both form and intent.

Thanks.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude4012 (talk • contribs).

alright

Looking for a second opinion

Hi. You might remember me from the Dzi bead article last month :O)

I was just looking for a second opinion (or just a second set of eyes) on the Title IX article. I removed a link last night (my time) that I came across when I was watching Recent Changes. Now I have no real problem with that, and you can see my reasoning on my talk page, but the user that posted that link, although he didn't repost his link, removed another link on the same grounds, which I think probably is a legitimate link. (If you can follow my tortured prose at this stage.)

I have restored that link, but if you have a chance, can you look at the Title IX article history and the conversation on my talk page? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a good faith addition, however linking to the main page of the law firm rather than directly to the slide show would have led me to remove the link as well. Apart from that, the slide show seems to give undue weight to the 'athletics' aspect of Title IX, as that is all it covers.. it doesn't even mention other things. The .info site covers the athletics and many other aspects of education that have been impacted by Title IX. It has more than enough quality information to offset the annoyance of a small fund-raiser advert. --Versageek 06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(A bit late), but thanks for that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Stuff

Hi Versageek,

I love your contributions and think your broad knowledge is impressive. You police the sites very well and is something I am trying to learn more about.

I would like to know how you do it and how (if possible) shed some light on what I could to better. My sites are all start ups and we focus mainly on the Australian online market.

I would really appreciate any help you may be able to give on content writting and how to link from Wiki without coming across as a spammer, our websites do have advertising banners but this is not our goal or what the sites are built to deliver. We provide good content and comparisons on financial services, an independant reviewer if you like.

I would love to chat and if you have time my email address is *snip* alternatively I can contact you or just talk here.

I look forward to hopefully chatting soon

Kind Regards

Peter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.111.71.63 (talk • contribs).

AmerinRio

I was just wondering how an organization gets recognized or mentioned in WikiPedia articles? Or adding external links or Organizations and Campaigns. I was not aware of the rules and nobody bothered to inform me that WikiPedia had rules and regulations that pertained to editing pages. When I created a user name I didn't know that it had to be something other than the company or organization you represent. I apologize for inadvertently stepping out of bounds. But I think that everyone that is an administrator or other should use a little diplomacy and infrom someone that they are out of bounds when editing. I do not beleive that undoing someones edit without explaining the reason is totally unjust. I would have gladly followed procedures had I known about them. It would appear to an outsider that Wikipedians that keep a vigilant eye on WikiPedia could be bought. I am not saying that anyone at WikiPedia would do that but for an outsider it seems kind of peculiar that someone puts an external link to a web page that might be of interest to the general public and then all of a sudden it is undone without any explantion why. Yet at the same time organizations remain with links to their websites. It makes me wonder why and who placed the link there. Help me and other newbys understand why their edits are being undone. Please don't consider it a star under your belt for undoing an edit. I am not concerned with what goes on here at WikiPedia but I am concerned with the millions of people that die every day from the causes of poverty, whether it is HIV/AIDS, starvation, lack of medical facilities, or what ever the cause is that leads someone to die in poverty. I have seen men, women and children die becasue of this epidemic. I have seen millions of dollars spent doing studies and research, but what I don't see is anyone doing anything about it. Oh I see the media doing their thing to boost their ratings and movie stars doing the same. Again what I don't see is anyone doing anything about it. I see a lot of talk but very little action. Our organization will be in the news and we will make a difference. We have no boundaries at Global Poverty Minimization. People are dying everyday and all we ask is that we are mentioned somewhere in WikiPedia someday. When I travel to other countries and I meet the people I am truly amazed at the hope that I see in their eyes. Again I apologize for not knowing the rules here, but I really don't have time to sit down and learn the ropes and this is probably the last thing I will ever contribute at WikiPedia unless someone wishes to ask me, How we plan to minimize poverty? Or Why can't poverty be eradicated? Eradicate poverty, or End poverty forever are only pipe dreams and people have not done any real homework on the subject. Ask me how to minimize poverty and I will tell you. Developing countries account for 90 percent of the world’s disease burden (Gottret and Schieber, 2006). Roughly, 16 million deaths in 1998 were directly attributable to communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and maternal and prenatal conditions, childhood infections, tobacco-related illnesses and nutritional deficiencies (WHO, 2006). Let's put that into real perspective here. That is the total population of at least 4 major US cities. Imagine the headlines Miami, Los Angels, New York and Chicago Ghost Towns becasue of Poverty or the effects of Poverty.Italic text donald918—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donald 918 (talk • contribs).

GM'S BOT

Hey, sorry it took me so long to respond, I was speaking of User:GeorgeMoneyBot --danielfolsom 01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot I guess I missed you - well whenever you can I would really appreciate the attempt - thanks for all your help! --danielfolsom 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GMBot-status

Dont suppose there's any way to convince the bot to unban me from #GeorgeMoney-status, accidently joined before I was registered and the bot banned me :-( Q T C 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sorry for all the bot troubles, I'll come on IRC soon and will give instructions for when something happens again. Thank you for the hosting and all the help :) GeorgeMoney (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed ya

I have emailed you via this user page, enthusiastically accepting your specific offer to help resolve what has needlessly become a huge mess. I sent it privately, because BLP disputes aren't supposed to be discussed in detail on Talk Pages and User Pages, for obvious reasons. I need sleep, so if you need to communicate with me before or after proceeding, there may be silence on my part for the next few hours. Thanks again for your help. Serious username 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arnold Murray and the Unencyclopedic Comment

You censors seem to want it both ways, there is an article on 'soldiers of the cross' which is unrelated to arnold murray's organization. When an entry for 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' is created, it is deleted with the comment that it is of no significance. However, the book, 'the encyclopedia of white power', one of the premier books on white racism, felt it was significant enough to include it. When the article was created, the external link was included to avoid this kind of issue.

However, I can see that you and the other person who deleted that article are insensitive to racial issues. On the one hand, the article is deleted, on the other hand, no comment can be made that further information is not allowed.

Keep up the good work.65.87.185.73 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments go on the talk page, not in the article. Feel free to add your comment there.. however, I suggest you limit it to information about how the other organization is not related to Murray. --Versageek 01:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How the other organization is not related is only half the issue, the other issue is people like yourself will not allow more information about it. If I read a comment that a wikipedia article is not related, then my next question would be, why not create a new entry which is related? By including the comment that an article about arnold murray's organization, 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' is not allowed, it prevents duplication of work and you or someone like yourself will not have to delete it again. It was my mistake to think that articles about white racist organizations are allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.185.73 (talk) 02:33, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
At this point, it is unimportant, I've marked the relevant articles with a note that wikipedia considers the topic insignificant. This is a process I do not intend to go through again. It is a waste of time trying to convince uninterested, 'I am only following procedure' type people to include something. I can see one of wikipedia's main weak points. Too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.185.73 (talk) 06:18, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
I never realized that this is a major weak point of the wikipedia. Trying to get an article past someone's scrutiny who:
1. Has no knowledge of the subject material and is therefore completely unqualified to weigh the importance or unimportance of an article/subject.
2. Does not care about it, and expresses no interest in it, as stated by the person who deleted it.
3. Has responses like, I have a headache, troll, 'go away'.
4. Uses the ultimate excuse of, 'I am only following orders' but in the form of, 'I am only following the sysop guidelines'.
. . . is actually a ridiculous situation and answers my question why there are so many holes in the content of Wikipedia.65.87.185.73 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist? New GFDL*. article publisher needs your help! Additional pages omitted

A history of dental restorations and the advances that have been made in recent years, by Judy Johnson DDS

Traditionally, metallurgical materials were used for restorations. This was a very well established practice for the best part of 150 years. In the case of fillings, silver amalgams were used to a large extent worldwide. These amalgams are 50 percent powder - composed of silver, tin, copper and a trace amount of zinc, and 50 percent liquid - which is pure mercury - amalgamated to form a paste, which is placed into the cavity. The silver amalgamates by reacting with the free mercury, while the copper interacts with the tin to create a cupric-tin complex strengthening/hardening interphase and the zinc acts like a scavenger to rid any unreacted metallic oxide residue. This material is not very technique sensitive, with near zero handling/manipulation error characteristics, so it’s advantageous to the clinician due to the fact that it can be placed in a slightly moist environment, forgiving to isolation technique acuity, in lieu of deleterious effects to its tooth-margin interfacial integrity. However, there are serious disadvantages to this type of silver amalgam material in comparison to the modern poly-ceram composite fillings.

The importance and advantages of using optimum materials and products with high aesthetic quality and state of- the-art materials in modern restorative dentistry. Firstly, they are easier to use, secondly, they require less machinery and equipment in the laboratory and thirdly, chair-side time is significantly reduced. There are other advantages of modern restorative materials, if we look at a dental restoration in a chronological manner from infancy to adulthood, from pediatric dentistry to geriatric dentistry. We start out with a little tiny one-surface cavity, that escalates to a two-surface filling, then possibly leaks and has to be repaired and becomes a pin-retented three - or four-surface silver amalgam filling undermining the surrounding enamel, and then onward to a crown (usually poorly adapted or sealed), followed by endodontic treatment and a post/core build-up encapsulated by a crown prosthesis and possibly an extraction, even a bridge, usually non precious alloy (porcelain fused to metal), subsequent alveolar bone resorption and then possibly a removable prosthesis; partial or denture followed by ridge augmentation and possibly an implant.

The main disadvantages to this more sophisticated material is that it requires a dry field of operation during the momentary placement procedure, however, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages due to the fact that one has a material that is functional, aesthetic, matches tooth color, that is serviceable and is biocompatible, healthier overall compared to the traditional silver amalgam fillings and the standard crown and bridge alloys; nickel chrome, chrome-cobalt and silver-palladium products. With traditional materials it takes two to three days and an innumerable amount of equipment, instruments and adjunct materials before a crown or a bridge is fabricated, whereas with our materials one is able to fabricate a rather vast or large restoration in less than one hour. So from a time, effort and equipment perspective, this is the preferred methodology for the laboratory.Judy Johnson DDS, (www.dentalvisits.com) 01:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I must admit, as much as it pains me to engage you, buy I need your assistance. Thank you! Dr. Judy Johnson (www.dentalvisits.com) 06:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs) Would you mind advising me about posting my article or would you prefer for me to post the content of the entire article here for your review? (Dr. Judy Johnson (www.dentalvisits.com) 04:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs) [reply]

I suggest you request assistance at WikiProject Dentistry, they can help figure out where your content fits into the overall Dentistry coverage on Wikipedia. One thing you may want to make note of is that you need to steer away from using phrases like with our materials. Encyclopedic tone is usually "in the third person", and generally doesn't include the our, us or I perspective. --Versageek 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly for all your assistance so far! By my estimation, you've certainly earned that Wiki Ribbon posted on the next thread. I wanted to post the remainder of my article in this talk forum, but I hesitated and decided that I would post the link here, http://www.dentalvisits.com/blog/ so as not to offend or violate any spam rules. I also took note of your few mentioned corrections and was wondering perhaps, if you could review just this article on my blog and further comment on its presentation before I submit it for publication on Wikipedia. Thank you kindly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defender of the Wiki Ribbon

Defender of the Wiki Well earned!--Hu12 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) -- Versageek 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, under "Web Hosting Service", I was attempting to leave a link for "http://www.gogetithosting.com/wiki/tiki-index.php" which is a Web Hosting Service Wiki. It may be beneficial to your users and does not promote any hosting website as it is in its own frame with no links promoting anything.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Versageek&oldid=156981596"