User talk:Art LaPella

Thanks

..for keeping an eye on me This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions --Ida Shaw (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My best guess is you mean Passiflora edulis, although I didn't change your edits. Art LaPella (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

This unexplained revert was undone by Ucucha. I presume it was some kind of mistake, because nobody would object to all of that long list of uncontroversial Manual of Style changes and such. Art LaPella (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was accidental on my part, and I was unaware that it occurred until you brought it to my attention. (I can only assume that I somehow clicked on the "rollback" link from my watchlist in the process of following a different link.) I sincerely apologize. —David Levy 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent this from happening again, I edited User:David Levy/monobook.css to add code that suppresses the "rollback" link from my watchlist (where I don't recall ever intentionally using it and envision no situation in which I would). —David Levy 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unit area template

Thanks for your message & the edits to Mendip Hills (which I didn't know was going to be main page). The edit was made using the User:AndyZ/peerreviewer script which obviously hasn't been updated to take into account the correct superscript formatting. I will leave another niote on the talk page for the script - however it looks as if this may not be being maintained anymore.— Rod ^talk 09:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preps

Even I see several (minor) style errors there :-) Please feel free to amend them despite inuse tags (they only mean to hold promotion to queues for now). I will reshuffle all sets in prep1, 2 and extra for composition, but most hooks will be unchanged. I'll keep track of your corrections, which are always more than welcome. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might save some of your time: Double spaces in DYK prep files are inevitable, as they're introduced by personal computers of various users. The new bot automatically replaces multiple spaces by single one before moving to the main page (and the wikimedia software treat multiple spaces as single - we've experimented with that). The new bot also handles well dollar, apostrophe ($, ') and other signs which the previous bot couldn't, thus no need for {{$}}, {{'}} in most cases, but '''[[John Doe]]''''s should be '''[[John Doe]]'''{{'}}s. A longer discussion can be found at User talk:Shubinator. Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think you meant ` not ', that is, '''[[John Doe]]'''{{`}}s not '''[[John Doe]]'''{{'}}s. If not, then H13 should be changed from ` to '. The reason for {{`}} and {{'}} is to prevent bolding the apostrophe, not because of a bot problem; even on this (unbotted) page you can see the difference between John Doe's and John Doe's. Art LaPella (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm .. to me, those different apostrophe signs are ambiguous, because they might look either same or different on different screens and because they sometimes produce different and sometimes the same output. I believe their usage may, in some cases, be favored by the specific keyboard. Thus for myself, I would change them all to ' or {{'}}, depending on the situation. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between {{`}} and {{'}}, along with a rationale for preferring ` to other alternatives, is explained at Template:`. As always, if the consensus is against any rule including H13 (which I didn't even write), then I hope somebody changes it. Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and/or

I have no objection to your edit, but "and/or" is no longer forbidden by the MoS. The wording was significantly softened last year. Tony (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In general ... use x, y, or both". You could say "forbidden" is an exaggeration, but so is "significantly softened". Anyway, the rest of us have no way of guessing when "in general" rules aren't intended to apply. Suppose it was your duty to defuse land mines, and your instructions said "In general, don't touch the red button." Art LaPella (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra dot

I have not yet learned how to construct the dots myself. I have to import them by copying and pasting. When I have many items to enter into a template, I sometimes import more dots that I can use at one time. I been leaving them there for future use. You can remove them when you find them, if they look messy. I will try to bring over only the dots that I need. Tanks.Fsmatovu (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll

I did a quick Google check and the death toll for the Dam failure has risen to 40. I updated the casualties ref in the article.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has been fixed by Dumelow. Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:How to copy-edit

Thanks for bringing to my attention an interesting and useful page which I did not know existed! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style discussion

I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comma

For this edit, I enforce that rule often, so perhaps you could explain to me the difference between "On January 15, 1947, she began tertiary study." and "Targets of the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike; still frame from the full length video". Art LaPella (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the former instance, the second comma follows an introductory phrase.

In the latter instance, it follows an essential phrase (thereby setting it off from the entity whose nature it clarifies). The AP Stylebook (which presumably played a role in determining our usage) instructs against this. It includes the example "They ate dinner with their daughter Julie." It's explained that "because they have more than one daughter, the inclusion of Julie's name is critical if the reader is to know which daughter is meant." Likewise, the inclusion of the date is critical if the reader is to know which airstrike is meant.

In explaining when to treat the year as a parenthetical, the AP Stylebook provides an example clearer than ours: "Feb. 14, 1987, was the target date." Here's an alternative rendering (for illustration):

February 14 (1987) was the target date.

February 14 (1987) stands alone as the entity described as "the target date."

Conversely, your example results in the following:

Targets of the July 12 (2007) Baghdad airstrike

Essential information is set off from the entity whose nature it elucidates. —David Levy 12:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 15 WP:SA

You seem to also be an interested party in the April 15 WP:SA. I made a comment at User_talk:Zzyzx11#Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries.2FApril_15 that needs an administrator's attention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzyzx11 is an administrator.
As his user page states, he is "the primary contributor (some say de facto director) to the OTD/SA pages."
My contribution to On This Day, and other Main Page areas, is the same kind of copy editing you've seen me do at MOS. I seem to be able to defuse battles sometimes, but other than that I have a low tolerance for politics.
"I don't think you should stand in the way of [your award]" rubs me the wrong way (if that's an obscure Americanism, here's a definition). Shouldn't Zzyzx11 and Wikipedia run the same copy regardless of who gets an award for it, and what would an award mean if you got on the Main Page by telling people you need the award? Art LaPella (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not online and it is going to go up at the end of the day. I guess, I will wait and deal with him.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored endash question

Hi Art LaPella. I moved your question about endashes to a new section as it seems better to discuss it as a specific issue rather than as part of the audits. Hope you don't mind (and that I chose the title correctly)? I answered as best I could but must confess I don't really know what the rule should be and haven't found any definitive answer, yet. I hope others wade in to give their thoughts! --Jubilee ♫clipman 20:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spell check on Clipperton Island

Thanks so much for checking and correcting the spelling on the Clipperton Island article. I've been making a lot of edits to that article recently, most of them very late in the evenings, and I admit to not having checked the spelling as carefully as I should have! Thanks a lot for going in after me and fixing my mistakes (believe me, I need the help!)! - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll use some more software on it. Art LaPella (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the German name translation, I have no idea, as I didn't translate it. I'm rather curious about that one, myself....-Ecjmartin (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dash

Concerning this, I must say I am a bit confused: isn't the article's title "Austria–Hungary" (where, incidentally, it was moved after an "Austria-Hungary" period)? It's really no big deal, but how can something be both correct and incorrect, and which standard are we at long last supposed to follow? Dahn (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know it had been changed before, or I would have explained it better. But WP:ENDASH says: "An en dash is not used for ... an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade)." So to me this should definitely be a hyphen. "Austria–Hungary" should be a dash, but "Austro-Hungarian" should be a hyphen. Art LaPella (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tutorial version, but the rule is WP:DASH (and WP:HYPHEN above it). Art LaPella (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll try to comply with this in the future. Thanks. Dahn (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk

My dad said his mother told him "the Norwegians are the finest people in the world." Sca (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uff da. Art LaPella (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear program of Iran

Hi, this article is protected for edit, but I think your last edit was ok.---Nutriveg (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice links to a protection policy that says: "...should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial ..." My changes relate to the Manual of Style, such as changing hyphens to dashes, not to make any change that would favor either side of the dispute. Thus I have complied with the intent of the protection. Art LaPella (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2010

Hi. This is the FAC nominator of Iravan. You edited the Tomorrow's FA of Iravan, so contacted you too (Have left a note on Raul654's talk too). I propose a different draft for the TFA, which IMO gives due weight to topics in accordance to Iravan's importance in them. Iravan (known as Aravan in Southern India) is popular because of his marriage to the transgender Alis (Koovagam ceremony has wide coverage in LGBT literature and sources like BBC and Indian media). Actually, the Aravan name is more popular in LGBT related affairs. Can you please check? Thanks.

Iravan (Aravan) is a minor character from the Hindu epic of Mahabharata. The son of Pandava prince Arjuna (one of the main heroes of the Mahabharata) and the Naga princess Ulupi, Iravan is the central god of the cult of Kuttantavar and plays a major role in the cult of Draupadi. Both these cults are of South Indian origin, from a region of the country where he is worshipped as a village deity. The Mahabharata portrays Iravan as dying a heroic death in the 18-day Kurukshetra War, the epic's main subject. However, the South Indian cults have a supplementary tradition of honouring Iravan's self-sacrifice to the goddess Kali to ensure her favour and the victory of the Pandavas in the war. The South Indian cult focus on three boons granted to Iravan by the god Krishna in honour of this self-sacrifice. Iravan is also a patron god of well-known Indian transgender communities called Ali. In Koovagam, Tamil Nadu, an 18-day festival holds a ceremonial marriage of Iravan to Alis and male villagers (who have taken vows to Aravan) and followed then by their "widowhood" after ritual re-enactment of Iravan's sacrifice. Iravan is also known in Indonesia. Independent Javanese traditions present a dramatic marriage of Irawan to Titisari, daughter of Krishna, and a death resulting from a case of mistaken identity.(more...)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raul has changed to a version similar to this, though please check it as it may need a copyedit. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main contribution to Wikipedia is simple copyediting. From that standpoint, the text looks OK (the word "focus" seems as if it should be "focuses" but that's an oft-repeated WP:ENGVAR issue). Art LaPella (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Art LaPella's Day!

User:Art LaPella has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Art LaPella's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Art LaPella!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSTS

Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I gave that proposal a basic copyedit, so I did the same for this proposal, except nowadays I use WP:AWB. Art LaPella (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I am intrigued by the edit summary for this edit. It reads "Typo fixing, mostly the automatable parts of the Manual of Style and sometimes User:Art LaPella/Citation template double period bug using AWB". There were no double periods in the article, and no typographical errors. I see you've used the same edit summary for other edits, such as this one, where all you did was to add {{nowrap}} around dates. These edit summaries seem a little misleading to me. If you're going to unlink geographical areas for some reason, or restrict the text which can be broken over lines, it would be better to say so, and explain why. On a more specific note, can you explain why removing all links to geographical areas in an article is desirable? Sure, people probably know where these places are, but why make them type it in to find out more, when we can link to it, cheaply and harmlessly? --Stemonitis (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the first example, I consider "pages= 254" to be a typo; it printed as "pp. 254", and you wouldn't say "I am referring to pages 254." But yes, I leave the same edit summary in AWB for all my edits. I wouldn't want to have to describe each of a long list of changes in detail; they often wouldn't all fit in one edit summary, and one of the advantages of AWB is the speed of doing several such edits at once. So maybe I should use a vaguer edit summary. Or maybe I should leave a link to one of my user pages, which could describe the overall purpose of my AWB editing in more detail. As for removing geographic links, I don't remove ALL geographic links; search User:Art LaPella/AWB list for "Pacific" to get the list I use. That is my interpretation of WP:OVERLINK:"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement,[3] and dates (but see Chronological items below)." (emphasis added). Similarly, Nowrap comes from the WP:NBSP guideline. My reliance on Manual of Style rules like OVERLINK is explained further at User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Intrinsically chronological articles"

I agree that someone who's looking at November 1910 might well want to look at 1910 as well, and I should have left it linked. However, I disagree totally about the value of the link to November, which is just an explanation of the history of the month and its name - an entirely different sort of article. And I'm not at all convinced that that a reader interested in the events of November 1910 would have any interest whatever in the events of, say, November 23, in some entirely different year, which is all that those month-day links will provide. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comma usage when a state name follows a city name

Art LaPella, I started a talk discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Comma_usage_when_a_state_name_follows_a_city_name that you appear to have had a prior opinion in case you wanted to comment further. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Art LaPella (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your AWB edits

this seems a bit bizarre. Why nowrap date fields in cite templates? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Art LaPella/AWB explanation#Nowrap and nbsp, paragraph 2. Art LaPella (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that, but it still makes no sense to me. If those strings should be nowrapped, let the template code implement it for you, rather than editing every page. That's what templates are for. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think they could nowrap "date=6 November 2010" without nowrapping the 2010? If so, I'll ask them. I know the template people can't/won't fix User:Art LaPella/Citation template double period bug. Art LaPella (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it would need to avoid nowrapping "date=November 6, 2010", and I've often been told templates aren't as smart as BASIC programs. Art LaPella (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why avoid it? Is "November 6,
2010" somehow a more desired rendering than "6 November
2010"? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits would allow both of those line breaks. "November 6, 2010" differs from "6 November 2010" only because I wouldn't allow a line break within "6 November". As my writeup explains, to me a "more desired rendering" is one that follows the guidelines including WP:NBSP, which says "Use a non-breaking space ... in other places ... such as ... 12 November". Art LaPella (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, an examination of WP:CIT and WP:Citing sources does not seem to advocate the application of non-breaking spaces to citations. None of the examples given there use them. Perhaps a wider discussion forum would be in order if you really think WP:NBSP mandates these edits. To me, however, they seem to create more confusion than they prevent, which clearly isn't what WP:NBSP intends. Edits inside the parameter values of citation templates carry significant hazards of breaking the WP:V linkage to the cited source. This includes replacements in titles that would otherwise comply with WP:HYPHEN. By changing these strings, some search engines will cease to find matches without manual intervention. User:Citation bot is fairly robust, but it can be broken. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIT seems unaware of other guidelines besides WP:NBSP (search for "10-11" for example, which should be "10–11"). It wouldn't hurt to ask around, but I'm unaware of any citations malfunctioning due to Nowrap or nbsp, despite hundreds of such edits, each of which was monitored a while after the edit to see what people change back and why. I don't understand "replacements in titles that would otherwise comply with WP:HYPHEN". After a discussion at WT:MOS, I make such replacements to make them comply with WP:HYPHEN, not to prevent such compliance. Changing such hyphens to dashes doesn't interfere with search engines (unless for some reason you use Wikipedia's search to find a reference title) according to this discussion linked from my writeup. I've never heard of Citation bot, but I don't expect the rest of the database to stand still to make my software work, and presumably bot programmers don't either. But a "wider discussion forum" is fine with me. Where would you suggest? Art LaPella (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is a previous discussion on a closely related topic, inserting nbsp into a wikilink. Art LaPella (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying about the "10-11" usage, though I see that as a purely orthographic issue (not bibliographic) when it comes up in a date range or page range as shown. When applied to titles, however, it is a rather more serious issue. I do a lot of citegnoming, an endeavour that User:Citation bot is designed to help with. We rely fairly heavily on PubMed, WorldCat and Google Scholar for the validation of bibliographic metadata such as title spellings. If a title or author name is incorrectly spelled to begin with, it makes it more difficult to find the correct PMID, OCLC number, ISBN, or DOI for the source. Even changes from titlecase to sentencecase or the insertion of extra whitespace can mess these searches up. These fields should be direct quotes of the authoritative data, not some variation we come up with at WP. I would also be reluctant to see it used as a cause for changing URIs, which should remain conformant to rfc3986 in order to ensure that they remain operable. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got lost in rfc3986, but I think you're no longer talking about Nowrap; you're talking about my change of |title=Osteochondritis dissecans 1887-1987. A centennial look at König's memorable phrase| to change the hyphen to a dash. "changes from titlecase to sentencecase" doesn't "mess these searches up" on Google and similar search engines like Google Scholar. Neither do changing hyphens to dashes. I also found the title above on PubMed using a dash instead of a hyphen. The dash did interfere with a WorldCat search, but I think your main point is that changing that hyphen to a dash interferes with a search by Citation bot. And therefore you disagree with the conclusion of the discussion here. So if I follow you, I need to get you and the Manual of Style regulars together, since they're the ones who told me to go ahead and change the hyphens. Art LaPella (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I drifted OT a bit. Google's search engine is about as robust as they come, but others are not so tolerant. PubMed's is improving, but WorldCat's is still rather picky and many libraries' local (non-union) catalogues are even more so. Likewise, many newspaper and website archives have very finicky search engines. Please keep in mind too that MOS guidelines pertain to the text as rendered to the reader, not to the wikitext from which it is rendered. This is another argument for using the templates to make this sort of substitution. Finally, MOS is a guideline. WP:V is a policy. The former should conform to the latter. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a search engine like Google and Yahoo that notices punctuation, but if there are any I will have many uses for them. MOS is about text as rendered to the reader, in this case whether "12 November" should be on one line or 1887-1987 should be rendered to the reader as 1887–1987. Templates making a substitution would be fine with me, but isn't that making the perfect the enemy of the good? And WP:V is a policy; it requires the information to be sourced, not what kind of software is involved. But anyway, I'm probably the wrong guy to argue with. I'm leaving links to this discussion at WT:MOS and WT:Citation templates, and feel free to add other such links elsewhere. Art LaPella (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I also brought up the WP:DASH question to Ucucha for the same reason; I thought that citations were to have exact titles, but I didn't care enough to follow up nor to alter my practice of not changing dashes or hyphens in titles. —Ost (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the [Library of Congress Authorities] engine, which to all practical purposes is the gold standard for the spelling of authors' names. It uses what appears to be ~~either an unspaced endash "–" or a minus "−"~~ hyphen in names, e.g. "Hewlett-Packard" and in lifespans, e.g. "1809-1849" but I'm having trouble telling for sure. The help page for searching authorities advises against using any punctuation in the query but it seems to treat "-" as equivalent to a space in a name search. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue with MOS regulars, and the biggies seem to be on vacation, then don't use "Hewlett-Packard" as an example. I think they would hyphenate that too. A better argument for your side would be looking up something like "U.S.–Mexican War", which finds hyphens not dashes. Of course they would presumably tell you the gold standard is the Chicago Manual of Style. Art LaPella (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Authorities finds "U.S.-Mexican War (Television program)" with the same character as in Hewlett-Packard or "1809-1849", but I perhaps wasn't clear. I frankly don't care which glyph is used in representing it to readers so long as the stylists can agree. I do care that sources in the wikitext remain verifiable, and the best way to do that is to not tamper with the search string unless we have a WP:RS that says it is spelled differently, as evidence that the original contributor erred in spelling the citation. The very best sort of RS for this kind of data is found in the catalogue of a national depository library such as the BNF, the Library of Congress, and the British Museum. We should rely on the best sources we can get. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nsrs=?

-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive