User talk:GraemeL

I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
If I posted something (other than a warning) to your talk page, I probably added it to my watch list. I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. However, feel free to reply here if you want.
If I missed an update on your talk page, please poke me with {{Talkback|your username}} on this page.

I am: OUT

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

CARNet page

Dear Sir, I am writing to inform you that I am an employee of Croatian Academic and Research Network - CARNet. I am employed as a member of the Editorial board of official CARNet’s website. CARNet Executive Committee has given me the task to update the CARNet site on Wikipedia in Croatian language and English language. So, I have adapted texts from the official CARNet’s website for Wikipedia in Croatian. Texts are now published on the CARNet page on Wikipedia in Croatian. We translated the same adapted texts for Wikipedia to English language. I put these adapted texts on CARNet’s page on Wikipedia in English language yesterday. Therefore texts are not copied from the web, they are adapted for Wikipedia. Could you please inform me what is the procedure for getting permit for publication of these contents? Would it be enough if we sent you a license for publishing content and photos signed by the CEO or we have to follow some special procedures?

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Ljerka Culina lculina@CARNethr Lculina (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medisweans

Thanks for deleting this. This was the second time its been deleted to day, and it keeps coming back every two or three months. Did you think to salt it? It looks like the pattern of work of a professional spammer. --Kudpung (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't salt it because the two times today were the only occasions that this particular article has been crated by the user. I did watchlist it though. I seriously considered blocking him indefinitely, but ended up with just a 24 hour block. If he comes back and spams again, an indef block will be in order. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report

where can I make a note urget?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchingcriminals (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably mean 'urgent', but then again, your English is much better than my Italian. English Wikipedia is not really the place to air problems that you have with another language project. The admins here have no authority on other projects. Following the dispute resolution process on your own project would be the best procedure. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but unfortunately on wikipedia.it, this does not happen, there is a very heavy electronic dictatorship. Some admin does not allow the debate and do not follow the guidelines of wikipedia, just to get a short pause. To whom it may report these cases of abuse? --Searchingcriminals (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)FindingMladic[reply]

The only place I can think of that might be of help would be searching at Meta-Wiki. That's the over-arching project. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, one last question, how did you know that I'm Italian?:-) --Searchingcriminals (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Searchingcriminal[reply]

Just presumed you spoke it since you were having problems with admins on the Italian languge wiki ;) --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok;-)--Searchingcriminals (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Searchingcriminals[reply]

Sorry for intruding, but unfortunately the English Wikipedia is unable to intervene with disputes on other projects. The best way to resolve your issue, since it involves an administrator, is to either contact a Checkuser on it.wiki, or a Steward on Meta. Nakon 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each intervention is welcome, unfortunately, the gentlemen in question: Demart81 and Vituzzu have great power and have many friends among the admin. It was elected as an admin a psychopath called Demart81 who loves to persecute people who are not nice. Some time ago, attacked several people with bad words and thanks to the intercession of Vituzzu returned to the site and makes all the moralist. He caused a lot of controversy with many users and has the support of Vituzzu, these people operate as if the wikipedia site had them. They do not listen to the versions of the accused and threatened to expel those who transgress their laws. Some people agree with me but are afraid af deal freely, they fear the block. You could not report these cases of abuse occurring at the headquarters of the project wikipedia.it wikipedia?

Thanks for the help --93.43.161.65 (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Searchingcriminals[reply]

Censorship

The censorship on this site is ironic, to say the least. You seem to want everyone to contribute, with the caveat that it must be things that you personally approve of. This site is as hypocritical as Wikileaks, who believes that nothing should be secret except for their operation. What a farce, and one of the reasons that Wikipedia is considered as a joke of an information source. YOU decide what is "neutral", which from many points of view is quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.129.18 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Hopefully, upon near-certain conviction, he will be executed for treason. belongs in an encyclopaedia article? I think not. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Internet Suraksha

Sir, I have not used any copyrighted information, and the article whose content I have used in the page has been written by me itself for the Times Of india supplement Ahmedabad Mirror. So I dont think there is any harm in posting my own article again. And that I have created this page for advertisement purposes is not true. This is a non-profit organisation and I have written about my research which aims to create awareness amongst people. I hope that my article will be a part of Wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshkashiparekh (talk • contribs) 05:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the article is a word-for-word copy of a newspaper article which claims "Copyright © Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. All rights reserved.". Unless you can prove that you own the copyright and not the paper, we cannot expose the project to potential legal claims. Please have somebody from the paper go through the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials if they wish to donate the material for use under the license used by the project. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have now edited some portions of my article. Please review it. If you still believe that I rewrite it totally its fine with me. As I had written the article for the newspaper myself, as the mention it on the article itself " The writer is a class XII student of Swastik School and has been trained in cybersecurity at Techdefence Consulting Pvt Ltd." But as you have said sir, I have edited some portions and I suggest you may edit some parts if you wish to. But I really hope that people realise how dreadful SMS forging is as there isnt any article on Wikipedia regarding this as a part of hacking and that it was a research of Internet Suraksha I hope it is included in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshkashiparekh (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Street Art

Hi, I am new to wikipedia, so I just noticed it wasn't such a good idea to include all these websites in my edit. I still think your page was lacking reference on Invader who is really one of the most important figures of street art all over the world, and given the size of its influence in Paris, it was important to mention the city then. I will try to find more reliable sources today. Valeriar (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Invader part is probably worth including as he has an article here which establishes his notability. I don't have a problem if you add the mention of Invader back (you don't need to reference that, just add a wikilink to his article). You can add the others in, if you can find news sources to use as references, but please don't add the links to their sites back in. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moors

Hello GraemeL,

I am writing you about the moors page, these "two" closely related people user talk:ITSENJOYABLE and user talk:SISPCM have been vandalising the page (and others for months now) making race based edit removing information about Black Africans from the page information that is sourced in the article. You protected the page shortly after this vandalism occured. They is no reason why that information should be taken out of the article. Please restore it. Thank you Botsystem (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually a contractual requirement that the admin protect m:The Wrong Version.

Get a consensus on the talk page and post {{editprotected}}. I'm not taking sides in an edit war. If you get me involved, I'm liable to start by blocking all of the edit warring parties. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see how me asking you to restore it to the orignal is sort of like asking you to take a side. That was not my intention and I'm definately not asking you to get involved in an edit war, I think edit wars are down right foolish. I'm just frustrated with this because its not just about the moors page. There are several pages they do this on. Again this issue have been going on for months, If you check the history of the discuss page you can see that "this topic" was dealt with. I have asked the user several times why he makes his edit and have never gotten a response. I wrote to you because as administrators you intercede and help with situations like this. I honestly don't know how to deal with someone who doesn't try to comunicate the purpose of their edits and doesn't seem to be care about warnings or the blocks they get and just continue to vandalize pages. Anyway if you do not want to get involve, I respect it Botsystem (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting an RFC might help, if you haven't tried that already. That could get a wider consensus forming group together to hopefully break the deadlock that exists at the moment. After that, there would be a clearer picture of which version was considered best. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the wikilinks on my user page. They do look better. Grafen (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I hate the arrow thingies. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice re Delicious carbuncle

Regarding your comment here, the user is attempting to deflect an earlier ANI report about the user's BLP violations, to change the issue to be an attack on me. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) has engaged in abuse of process, and forum-shopping, disrupting multiple pages to push his attack on me across many different pages: ANI, NPOVN, WT:SCN, BLPN, etc. This disruption by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is ongoing on a topic under sanctions of probation (WP:COFS) and other remedies (WP:ARBSCI) What can be done about this disruptive behavior pattern? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he posts again to WP:BLPN without trying to either edit the article or raise the issue on the article talk page first, I will block him. He's tying up too many people for things that almost certainly wouldn't be controversial if he just did the edit with an appropriate summary, or asked on the article talk pages. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even more forum-shopping [1]. The pages Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) will disrupt in order to violate WP:POINT (history of that already, see his block log) is seemingly endless. Despite my repeated attempts to address the issue, and to point out that the user escalates issues before even attempting to address them at the articles' talk pages, the user continues the ongoing disruptive behavior. He has already been warned, and he has already been given notice of the existing remedies from WP:ARBSCI. What can be done about this? -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the on-going posts there, I beg you to follow through... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this warning. Please see the ongoing POV pushing about this, which in light of the user's response to my report about his BLP violations at ANI, seems to me basically to be motivated by WP:POINT. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have Jimbo on my watchlist. I was giving him a pass on that because it was possible that he posted the question there before he had seen my warning to him. Hopefully, he won't show up elsewhere on my watchlist that isn't an article, or article talk page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is still engaging in the WP:POINT issue at Jimbo's talk page and at WT:BLP. He has not rescinded, redacted, or refactored any of his attacks against me - either 1) at ANI or 2) at BLPN. He has not acknowledged that his edits to article page Jamie Sorrentini were BLP violations. He has not stated he will change his behavior re-adding disputed sources to BLP pages in the future. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Disruption still continues after your warning, see [2]. Can something be done about this? -- Cirt (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see diff, and diff, and diff. Can action be taken with regards to this user? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request declined

Hi there, you declined my request for the article Get 'Em Girls (album) to be semi-protected. I think it should be up for semi-protection. Have you checked through the older history? Many IP users have been adding unsourced information. ozurbanmusic (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older history is not important. Protection is only used to deal with current problems, not previous or future problems. If you want to nominate it again, I'll let another admin deal with the request, but I honestly don't feel that it needs protection at the moment. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the notice. That I did not know. I guess I should've requested it ages ago. ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AE

Regarding above involving Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), now at AE, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Delicious_carbuncle. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had logged out for the night shortly after my last comment in the thread above, so I didn't see your additions until a short while ago. I've commented on the enforcement request. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slots

GraemeL, I got carried away by seeing the slots hero site adding 6 references (have not checked if there are more) for which I have strong doubt this is allowed. I have a well written article about several slot machine manufacturers if it is useful for a reference on Wikipedia. --Bingwiki (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it would pass muster as a reliable source for use as a reference. In any case, hunting around articles for suitable text to add your site as a reference to isn't the way to go about things. Expanding articles where they are in need of more detail and adding references to that text may be the way for you to go, but keep in mind that you have an obvious conflict of interests if you include your own site as a reference for anything you add. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are written by research and all are 100% unique. I see what you mean and I totally understand your point of view regarding Wikipedia's guidelines for RS and COI. There would be no problem for me adding more general content to a specific Wikipedia slot page which is in need to be more informative but as you mentioned before my site will most likely have a COI in case I use an article as a reference just like the slotshero site has done with too many in my opinion, but I am not to judge here just seeing like it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingwiki (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hello, GraemeL. In this edit I have expressed a different view than you, and I thought you might be interested in seeing it. If you have any comment to make about what I wrote, positive negative or neutral, I shall read it with interest. If, on the other hand, you have nothing to say, fine. (I admit that in this case it is an academic point, as there is another reason why I agree with you on not taking any action, but it might make a difference another time.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and was about to post to your talk page when you landed here first. You're right in your interpretation, I should have done more than just blow it off as stale, it is a slow edit war. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eczema revision

Dear GraemeL, Please could you let me know why you have deleted my edit to the eczema page? thank you, JennyST (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Jenny Stalker.[reply]

My reason was in my edit summary "rv spammy addition". This was posted to a medical article with no sources, never mind reliable sources along with multiple links to commercial companies selling the alleged treatment. It was unacceptable for both being unsourced and advertising individual companies. I'll post some links to your talk page so you can read a few policies, if you reference your addition and don't talk about individual companies treatments, it may be a good addition to the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences‎

I'm sorry, I just noticed that I inadvertently stepped on your toes there; I didn't know you'd done any revision deletions when I declined the revdel request, and didn't mean to take over. Feel free to do whatever you think best, I think I did the right thing but this is not my area of expertise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, I actually started and then backed out when I realized that there were over 50 revisions with the copyvio and suppressing them would involve hiding a lot of useful edits. I left it for somebody with more knowledge of the appropriate policies to deal with. Your response in your edit summary when you removed the template seems a reasonable one. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Gambling

Links were perfect as a substitute for missing links. Gambling Info is a free gambling collection of info, similar to wikipedia but targeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaWatkins (talk • contribs) 00:07, December 15, 2010

When you show up and replace 4 (admittedly broken) references with four references to the same site it looks like you're pushing the site in question.

When you revert back to your version with a misleading edit summary claiming to be reverting vandalism, you start to look like an out and out spammer.

Please take it to the article talk page if you think the site is a reliable source to use in references. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business card

Hey GraemeL,

I see you revised the business card of the Custom Die Cut card on the page. The reason I posted it on Wiki is because there were 3 of the same types of cards. Where now days in 2010 there are many forms of business cards and even like the one I posted a Die Cut card. If you like I can remove myself from the account and get the design team to post it like what Pure sounds in Darwin did :) The die cut card is very original and Wiki worthy :D

P.s I know its not related to wikipedia at all but assange is on bail! :D happy days :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshfoti (talk • contribs) 10:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though a die cut card image may be a worthy of an addition to the article, the image that you're adding appears to be for your own business. You clearly have a conflict of interests and should take the question of whether it should be included to the article's talk page and only add it back if there is a clear consensus for inclusion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Shui

The sentence and the link you deleted is not spam.Nature following and the Tao (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a foreign language link. Those should only be used in cases where no English site is available and there are lots of Feng shui reference sites in English. If you think the link is the only valid source, then please get a consensus for using it on the talk page of the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Just letting you know that I changed the heading level of your comment at AE, here, if I misjudged your intention please revert. u n☯mi 22:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it hit the top of my watchlist just as I refreshed it. You did the right thing. Thanks for the notification --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nuh uh

it is too a how to guide. prove that it isnt....

132.3.49.68 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)GOD[reply]

I already provided you with links to the policy on your talk page, please read them. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i can respect that a commercial reference should not be included

- however I do not believe that its right to delete the other info which have as much basis in fact as the other page infoAsoutter (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything past the first paragraph was blatant advertising of a commercial product. The first paragraph was unsourced. The whole thing has no place in the article, unless you can find a reliable source to back up the first paragraph, then that paragraph could be included. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fertility Lubricants

Hello, not sure why the addition of fertility lubricants is not acceptable. The reference provided gives full details of the clinical poster published the ASRM, unlike others on the page including the "Organic" which is purely commercial and refs their own PR. --Alex.lanni (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Alex on this one. It doesn't seem to be a soapbox, nor a self promotion. Just my two cents. --TwistOfCain ^(talk) 00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey

i will send 50 dollars on thursday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.40.236 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, I'll happily take $50.--Gnowor^T_C 00:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-start Tony Curtis (Irish poet) talkpage?

Hi GraemeL! You G8-ed Talk:Tony Curtis (Irish poet), 15:41, 11 December 2010. Your fellow Admin Deb has also been working on the now re-started article. Should the talkpage possibly now also be re-started? xxx --Shirt58 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why don´t you like any of these companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.193.102 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes on System of a down

Hello, You added pending changes to System of a down at my request nearly a month ago. I just wanted to report that it is working excellently, and that despite it being a somewhat ignored article before hand, pending changes are accepted/rejected often before I even get a chance to check because of how watched it is now.

If there's any way to keep it going indefinitely, that would be really great; its curbed all vandalism without inhibiting IP contributions. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of internet radio stuff from Drum & Bass

You removed an important topic from the Drum & Bass section.. When I rewrote that piece I added information about various influencial radio stations that exist for this genre, and now that whole section was removed. There are other sections in on this page which refer to artists websites and such.. I removed the links to all the radio sites I mentioned. Hopefully this is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.4.167 (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account-Question

hello, can you help me, please? it is better for me, to become the same username as in my home-wiki in germany, so i can unite the different accounts under one name. i have seen and searched, the user TRS here is not active?!? or perhaps, you have the possability to unite (merge? unify? ;) ) my accounts? thx and greetings – TRS de (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted.

My article got speedy deleted. I'd like a copy of the article so I can edit it, make it satisfactory under all wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you very much. Gael mamindorf (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA), ie, brain dump.

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
Categories representing overcategorization

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

userfy an article please

Hello, An article I created has been deleted. I want to recreate it correctly, but would like to be able to refer to the original content. Could you please userfy the article? It's "The Center to Prevent Youth Violence" Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allllllison (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.114 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Xeno (talk) at 15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Does simply editing my own talk page count as activity. If not, I guess I'll let it lapse. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sure does. Cheers, –xeno^talk 19:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

it is actually mentioned in the same article, that the occurrence is 10-30%. I have started to notice similar patterns in many wiki pages; different information within the same article. So, do you want me to cite the wikipedia article itself for the information (which wasnt cited before)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.23.41 (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That sort of thing happens when vandalism gets missed. I'll check it out and change it back, then remove the warning from your talk page. If you fill out the edit summary box, it makes it less likely that you'll be reverted. thanks for pointing it out to me. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]