User talk:Quadell

This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet.

Request for Interview Regarding Wikipedia Bots

Greetings Quadell-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. As a member of BAG and the bot community, I would very much like to interview you for the project at a time and in a method that is most convenient for you (Gchat, another IM client, Skype, email, telephone, etc.). I am completely flexible and can work with your schedule. The interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you to set up a time to chat. Thank you very much.

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon

UOJComm (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm willing to answer any questions, I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help. I haven't been an active member of the Bot Approvals Group for several years. I wish you luck in your dissertation, however, and I hope many active BAG members are willing to assist you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quadell...Thank you very much for the response. I am interested in talking to BAG and bot community members past and present, so if you're willing, I'd definitely like to send you some interview questions regarding your experiences, or set up a time to chat online. At your convenience, please let me know if you'd like to participate, and thank you in advance! Randall UOJComm (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I have replied on your user talk page. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back...

Saw you were back, thought you could do with a beverage .... Failedwizard (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Failedwizard! Good to see you again. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget about the January Move to Commons drive. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get right to it. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another Bond-related media request!

Hi there, I wonder if you could give some advice again? I'm trying to get List of James Bond novels and stories through the FL process at the moment (the review is taking place here) and one of the reviewers has put up two media related comments. Would you be able to have a look and comment on these two points please?

• Can we get an image expert to verify that the fair-use rationale for the lead image is okay? I remember what happened at the last Bond-related FLC and would like to avoid such a long debate if possible.
• I may not be an image expert, but I doubt that two non-free images in a list can be found to pass muster. The second image perhaps could pass the criteria for Ian Fleming's article, but not for a list like this.

Many thanks indeed for any input you could provide! - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there, though I fear my input may be disappointing. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, although I was afraid you'd say something like that! There's a photo I'd like to use which I think will be okay on one level (but possibly not on others) which is at the bottom of this page, titled "An Exemplary Set of Ian Fleming First Editions". Firstly would something like this be OK and secondly is this image as it stands OK? Many thanks once again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

An image like that would be perfect, I'd say... but not this image specifically. You'd need a freely licensed photograph (of copyrighted book covers), and not a copyrighted photograph of the same. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case! Thanks for that - I'll see what I can dig up from somewhere! If I can't find a decent licence free copy I'll take a pic of the pan paperback editions I've got, which should be copyright free as the spines are a fairly plain text. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the new image should be ok - it's copies of the books, but the spines only, showing only a common typeface and little in the way of original design. If you think it'sOK, would you mind dropping a note on the review page again? Sorry to be a pain - and many, many thanks once again! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it needs a copyright tag. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops! (Can you tell I'm entirely ignorant when it comes to the picture side of things!) I think I've put the right one in there now. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Once again I find myself bowing to a font of copyright knowledge! Thanks so much for yet more help and advice! SchroCat (^ • @) 20:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of your GA experience?

As you are my go-to guy for this sort of question, would you checking my working on something? I reviewed the Catenary article for GA as part of the backlog elimination drive and because it was over christmas and new year have been very flexible about the timescale for improving the article (it is gradually improving in a pleasant way and the nominator appears lovely). My questions are a) do any development points jump out at you for things I should handle better in the review and b) should I be a little more firm on timings and start poking for action? Failedwizard (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a very thorough review, and I think it covers all of the article's shortcomings adequately. (To be honest, I shy away from math-related articles, since I honestly am not sure how many equations are appropriate or how best to incorporate them into prose. Congratulations on having the courage to review it!)

I don't think you can pass it until the citations are up to snuff and the lede is adequate, at a minimum. It was good to be patient over the holidays, but that is no longer relevant. If it were me, I would gently let the reader know that if all concerns are fully addressed within the next week, then it will pass, but if not it will have to fail this go-around. I always say something like "If you address these issues at a later date, feel free to resubmit the article then." But the timeline is completely up to you.

Thanks for reviewing GA noms! – Quadell ^(talk) 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi! Not sure if you remember but you originally reviewed the GA nomination for Yarborough v. Alvarado. Unfortunately because of real life stuff I wasn't able to implement your suggestions at the time. However, recently I have implemented the purposed changes and renominated the article. Just wanted to see if there was any interesting from you in checking out the second nomination! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 15:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look it over. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember... this was a fascinating case! It looks like you have improved all the areas I mentioned in my review. The only problem that jumps out at me is the lede. It's still a little short, and though it describes the case itself fully, it does not summarize many sections of the article (such as Subsequent developments). If it were me, I would modify the lede as follows: I would leave the first sentence as it is, and then I would add two or three sentences about why the case was important and how it was received. Then I would begin a second paragraph with "Michael Alvarado helped his friend". I think that would improve the flow of the lede, while expanding it enough to fulfill the requirements of WP:LEAD. But of course it's up to you and the actual reviewer.

Thanks for going back and improving this article! It's an important case, and I'm glad it's covered so well on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot for all your feedback! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 14:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Mammals

Q, a bunch of mammal articles created by your Polbot have inappropriately capitalized titles (e.g. Aztec Mouse). Do you have a way to semi-automatically fix this? Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

When Polbot created these articles (back in 2007), I talked with all the various wikiprojects about what the best naming conventions were. The consensus at the time was that mammal species should have the first letters capitalized in all words in the common name. I don't know if the consensus has changed since then or not; either way, Polbot is no longer in operation, and I would have no way of mass-changing the names of these articles. Perhaps you could try Wikipedia:Bot requests? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Tute (GA)

Thanks for the message, much appreciated.--GDuwenTell me! 19:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Old work on surname disambiguation

I recently made this edit about a surname disambiguation effort made in 2008 from a database dump at a page where you do similar work. Would you be able to comment on the feasibility of the proposals I've suggested and what the current state of name disambiguation pages are like, or suggest the best place to ask? Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll comment there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention; it sounds interesting. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I reposted my proposal here, as it got collapsed at the template discussion. You might want to repost your comment at the TfD over at that village pump. I can think of several places to try and get interest going in this. What I really want to see is a way to get a single category (probably a hidden one) on all biography articles, so that the dynamic category listing can be used to inspect all the articles we have on Smiths (say). Though maybe you think that bot-lists or database reports are better. Anyway, probably best discussed at that Village Pump. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Global account username change

Hello, Quaddell. I know that you're no longer a Wikimedia steward, but since you've had experience on that front I'm wondering if you could give me some advice. I would like to change my global account username to User:DCI, and am not sure how to go about this without having to change my username tediously on each wiki. The other problem is that there are two dormant accounts out there called "DCI", and I'm not sure how I could get those two. If you have any ideas on where I should go, that'd be great. Thanks, dci | TALK 22:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your best course of action would be, but I have contacted an active steward on your behalf. We'll see what he says. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Quadell and DCI. You have to know that the process of global renaming is something really boring, since stewards only have the rights to rename you on wikis without active local bureaucrats. But in your case, you don't have contributed to a lot of projects and that won't be so hard to do : just request a renaming on every projects you have at least one edit, being renamed on projects where you don't have any edit does not worth it. Feel free to ask me if you need some help. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Commoncat listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commoncat. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commoncat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This seems like a useful simplification to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, it's copyright questions (again) ;-)

Have run across some things recently I'd appreciate your opinion on re: PD-pre 1978 or not.

• City News Bureau photos. At times you find them and since they're distributed to about anyone who asks, free or not if not copyright marked as this one?

• Photo services' photos without copyright marks, as in this example?

• Clearly the property of the television network it aired on but has "scanned to AP" on it, like this?

Thanks! We hope (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. In all these cases, we need to be sure they were first published before 1978 without a © notice. "Publication" is a tricky word to define, but if a City News Bureau photo is distributed openly to anyone who asks (not just to a select group of confidants) then it has certainly been published. If it had been previously published (before being so distributed) with a © symbol, then it's a copyrighted work; otherwise, it is ineligible for copyright protection. This is also true for photo services' photos: if it was never made available to random members of the public (either for free or for purchase), then it may not have been published and it could be copyrighted... and if it was first published with a © notice, and only later distributed without one, then it might be under copyright... but otherwise it's in the public domain. Finally, "scanned to AP" is not a legal copyright notice. Before 1978, a work had to be first published with either a © sign or the word "Copyright", and a year. If either of these was missing on first publication (even if it was an oversight), the work was not published according to legal conventions and is not eligible for protection. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For being the kind of guy you can talk it over with over coffee. As always, many thanks! We hope (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Delighted! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Quadell,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

Extended content

So a few things about the interviews: Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes. Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.) All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so. All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time. The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly. Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead. If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you. Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you. Sincerely, Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have sent you an e-mail regarding this. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

image:Guru Gopinath

I tried to upload an image of "Guru Gopinath", saw a message File deleted, I found an image from www.thehindu.com, what if it uploaded under "Non-free use rationale".Thank you. -- Raghith 10:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears I deleted this image five years ago for not having a license tag. If there is a "public domain" photograph of Guru Gopinath, then we can use that photo. "Public domain" is a specific legal term -- it means that the photo is not legally covered by copyright law. The image you mention above is not likely to be "public domain", even if it is commonly reproduced on the internet. Any photograph published first in India before 1952 will be "public domain", however, so your best bet is to find a photograph from before 1952. This page seems to have several photos of him from this era, and you may be able to find higher-quality "public domain" pictures as well. Since "public domain" pictures of him exist, we cannot upload non-free images of him to Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I uploaded commons:File:Art77c.jpg from the page. Please confirm that my upload is in correct form, and have correct licence. -- Raghith 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you-- Raghith 08:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have commented there. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Augustine theodicy

Hi Quadell, I was wondering if you'd review an article for me. I am thinking that I will nominate Augustinian theodicy as a featured article soon, but am looking for feedback before I do so; would you be able to give me your thoughts? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. First, a word of warning, as I see you have not nominated an article for Featured Status yet. It's not a pleasant process. While the GA process tends to involve guiding an article through improvement, the FA process is in practice more a matter of intelligent people trying to find reasons it should not be featured, and the nominator scrambling to improve the article quickly enough. And that's if you're luck enough to get FA reviewers to actually read it; if not, it times out after a month due to inactivity, which can be frustrating. I've seen many people (including myself) discouraged by the process. So if you do submit, brace yourself, and accept at the outset that a first-time nomination is not likely to succeed. If you're prepared for that, then go for it!

Right away I'd say the footnotes need to be tightened a bit. Augustine's "Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean" is also available at Wikisource and should be linked, and both it and "City of God" should probably be linked in the bibliography, not the footnotes. In fact, all links to works should be in the bibliography (not footnotes) whenever possible. Tooley's "Problem of Evil" is referenced twice, with different formats; both should just be "Tooley, 2009." in the footnotes, it seems to me, and should be done in the bibliography like Zaccaria is done. You'll need to clean up spacing, dash formatting, and punctuation in the footnotes.

Both image captions have problems. In the first one I'm not sure what it's saying, and I would reword it entirely. If it's a complete sentence, it needs a period. In the second, it isn't obvious how the caption relates to the image. Perhaps "...the Augustinian concept of Hell, vividly depicted in this 12th-century painting by Herrad von Landsberg." or something.

I'll get to the content sometime this week, I hope. Thanks for thinking of me, and congratulations on your continued improvements to this important topic! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate it. I have started to look at some of the sources; my only problem with the Tooley source is that it is a website, rather than a book, and the two references have slightly different URLs (linking to different sections on the page). Should I still put him in the bibliography; if so, how shall I link to the different places?

Thanks again, I'll start to look at the rest (a little pushed for time right now). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tooley is a website, but the second link is to the page in general, while the first is to a specific section. The references also have different information and different retrieval dates. Should the second link be to a specific section that supports it, rather than to the document as a whole? In any case, I would definitely have it listed fully in the references with the general link, and the footnote should look something like "Tooley 2009, section 3.2" or "Tooley 2009, passim." Similarly, if you wanted to, a footnote like 15 could link to the actual section as well. I would also put Beebe and Mendelson in the bibliography as well, perhaps renamed to "Sources". This is just my opinion, and feel free to nominate with a different format if you like, that may work fine. But at the very least, you should not have Tooley with different formats in the two places. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the dashes; I wasn't quite sure what you mean about punctuation and spacing in the footnotes. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Some have "p.41" with no space. Others have "p. 18" with a space. I don't see any other punctuation problems now. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll fix that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the entire article again, I can't see any other obvious problems, but I'm no expert on the topic. Here are a few things to look out for. (1) Would an expert feel that this article fully covers all important aspects of the topic? Are there important repercussions, descendant ideas, or other aspects that might be missing? (2) Do the sources fully cover the material presented? In other words, if I had a copy of Birnbaum, would I find all the article's assertions supported by footnote 6 in the book itself? (3) It is probable you will find it hard to get enough reviews. Few FAC reviewers are at all familiar with the topic, and most will simply ignore the nomination, which could lead to it "expiring" and failing due to lack of support. To prevent this, it might be a good idea to let all related Wikiprojects and portals know that the article has been nominated, and that FAC reviewers are needed. (Just don't canvass.) Best of luck! – Quadell ^(talk) 16:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, and also for that advice, I really appreciate it. I'll have a final look through the article as you recommend, then nominate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No copyright notice, pre 1977

Am I correct in my understanding that there being no copyright notice on a movie poster published in the United States before 1977 makes that poster PD? I've been having a discussion with Aditya Kabir over Promises! Promises!, which is currently using a FU file despite the poster being on Commons (and sans notice). Crisco 1492 (talk)

The only way a pre-1977 U.S. movie poster could be copyrighted is if (1) it has a © notice, and they really never did, or (2) if it was a derivative work of a previously published work... and since the poster was pretty much always published before the film, that would only apply in very rare cases. In this case, the poster is clearly in the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly what I though, minus the rarely (finding these things has been my hobby for the past few months, and I must say that the major studios wised up eventually. The posters for all of the top grossing films in 1955 had a copyright notice). I'll ping Aditya. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Quadell!

Yea, it's me again (GDuwen). I just wanted to ask you if you could review my current nomination of Waylon Jennings, since you did a great job with Hank Williams. I'm currently trying to finish some of my articles because I might be inactive for a while. If you can't do it, would you know another user that could give me a hand? Thanks again for your time!--GDuwenTell me! 21:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have much time right now, but I see you've nominated it for GA status. I'm sure someone will see it eventually and review it. Thanks for working on this! – Quadell ^(talk) 20:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 Move-to-Commons drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Images and Media at 07:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Bill Clinton

Can you check out the propriety of this edit and let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It's clearly agenda-driven, but it sourced. I haven't checked the individual sites to see whether they back up the statements though. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, what I am saying is that it will remain in the article unless someone like you thinks it is appropriate to take action.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

PolBot articles do not attribute database, why?

I would like MadmanBot to stop slapping users for copying single declaratory sentences as copyright violations while the user is creating an article. While killing time on this mindless task, I noticed that PolBot creates articles and does not attribute the source.[1]

Where did the bot get the information and why doesn't it say that in the article? 68.107.135.146 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." It is not contentious that Oncosperma fasciculatum is a member of the genus Oncosperma; the fact is right there in the name.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning this in conjunction with MadmanBot. These are totally separate bots. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

plz help me with a deletion problem

I need you to delete the history of my talk pages. The one that sas my school Its zippy told me to ask you.

--:)- Slim hady 20:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)