Sir Nicholas <Shirt58 bows and tugs forelock, as base colonial convict type cannot afford a hat to doff>, it would appear to me somewhat odd that there are seven different universities of the same name in Cambodia. Is there some central coordinating body analogous to the University of California system of universities? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about the oversight. No, this was not discussed with a CU. I know the user personally and he let me know if a IP block affecting him whilst he was editing from a shared IP from an institution. We can either remove the rights now as they may not be required or log it in. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for speedy deletion and other users removed it saying it was not a candidate and suggested I add it to the "Articles for Deletion" page but when I did a 5 year old previous deletion with no consensus popped up with a comment by you saying it needed to be re-written and that some time should be granted, but 5 years later that page is still a total joke. What now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_7
If you think this article should be deleted, please consider nominating it for WP:AFD. However, in case you believe that this article would survive such process, consider trimming the content of the article so that only assertions backed by reliable and authoritative sources remain on the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear but what I am saying is that I already attempted to add it to WP:AFD, but when I do that instead of creating a new case it pops up that 5 year old No Consensus one you commented in that I linked to above, making it seem like there is no further steps that can be taken in that direction. BillyTFried (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit[1] you revert my edit using twinkle without supplying an edit summary or a reason for the reversion. That is not an ok way to revert good faith edits, especially not edits that have been explained in the editsummary of the one who made them. Twinkle reversions are for obvious vandalism. Recersion of any edit that is not obvious vandalism requires that at least you provide a reason in the editsummary, and at best that you start a discussion at the talk page. I was not impressed with your post to my talkpage suggesting that I am not allowed to edit the article without prior discussion. I am. And everyone is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had left a notification on your talk page. The article has been edited by several users before and there are many portions of it which are currently in dispute. In such a scenario, it is always courteous to leave a comment on the talk page before jumping in and making changes to the lead section of an article. The biography article is about an individual, not the organizations that he is affiliated with. The qualities of the organizations are best described on their own pages, which is the practice on Wikipedia. For instance, Barack Obama's page does not say that he belongs to the left-liberal Democratic Party in the United States. The would be wide generalization. Leaving English translations of the names of organizations is neither helpful nor the practice on Wikipedia. If you require assistance with editing, it is always best to seek help on the talk page of the article so that other users can, if possible, support you with your request. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "notification" amounted to a threat that I was to discuss any edit with you or you would revert it without offering a reason. And you used twinkle to revert what was clearly not vandalism. If you would like help to understand our basic policies of WP:OWN and WOP:VANDAL and WP:TINKLE, I am sure the nice administrators at ANI will help you out of you post there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the Najib Razak article apparently because of FRINGE and BLP, and to move the discussion to TALK. There actually exists a discussion about this. In fact recently the french courts are investigating the bribery claims plus the upcoming elections meant that there's been new reports about the cases in the various news outlets, which means it is no longer FRINGE. (And the new links mean the old deadlinks can be replaced). Its hard to talk about it on TALK when I am having a onesided conversation as no one else wants to discuss there. Also I've tried to cover that section objectively as I only stated the facts and the official denials by government, so I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might be going about the writeup wrong. My objective is not what the subject is accused of, but to mention that the opposition parties are raising this issue aggressively, especially with near the coming elections, and the subject/his government's reaction towards the investigation and allegations. Its the allegations and reaction that's being reported by the sources I listed in any case. The substantiality of the allegations is not the focus. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this subject for deletion review. The subject is notable. It was not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. If it was too promotional it should have been fixed, but at the very least and Articles for Deletion discussion should have taken place. If you agree and want to restore it and/or take it to AfD I am happy to delete my nom. But I think this should be sorted out quickly because the subject is part of timely issues that are in the news. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Framing the act of incinerating pilgrims inside a train as merely "Train Burning" is not objective nor is it neutral to those who died. Come on, why are you doing this!? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)11:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mrt - thank you for your comments. I appreciate the fact that you have devoted a substantial amount of your time to the dispute resolution process, but at the same time I find that you are emotionally invested in the issues surrounding the incidents of violence that took place in 2002. I can empathize with that, but as Wikipedians we have to ensure that our contributions as objective as far as possible and in line with consensus and practice on Wikipedia. The reason why I think that the current title is neutral is because the incident was primarily one that involved "train burning" even though it was later established in a court of law that it was a communal mob that was responsible for the carnage. The article, in itself, details the facts, and this ensures that the reader is able to make up their own mind and opinions based on the content provided in the article backed by authoritative and reliable sources. For a detailed explanation see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look
I don't wish to edit anything singlehandedly that is why I want to be doubly sure. Could you review this large undiscussed edit made by Soham321 (might I just add in light of the recent vituperation I received for wanting to add two three valid numbers, I frankly find that edit to be excessively verbose)?diff BTW, about Soham's edit Drmies previously said[2],
"These edits constitute a BLP violation, basically: undue negative information of a fairly trivial kind whose effect can only be to disparage the subject.",
also this edit was never discussed in the article talk. His edits worry me. While you're at it, take a look at this one too[3]. He included "others" (plural) although that seems to be a personal synthesis of one person (i.e. Lyla Bavadam) source. What do you think? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This editor Soham321 has been waging a political war against a certain section of indian politicians. especially narendra modi. The user seems to have a single agenda in mind - i.e. to probably vandalise the BLP page and references to that political party. I have brought this up to Vandal Admin page, but to no avail. I had added a note with reference in the digvijay page and noticed what happened to it. This user has also removed most negative warnings placed in their talk page and does so regularly in the name of keeping the talk page clean. This is what i would call the new age of political advertisement in India especially knowing that WP stands in the top websites and especially comes up first in searches of any persona :-) It is an edit war out there with this editor and 3RR occurs every hour.Amit (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Amit[reply]
This all started when I started editing wiki page of Markandey Katju. Since then he has called me everything except for calling names. I would like to tell you that he was blocked for 3RR on that page. I saw that you had asked him not to remove warnings from his page but he has removed that post itself. When I post a warning or suggestion on his page, he removes them and posts on my page asking me not guide him and saying that I should also learn from him. Since that edit, he had been stalking my contributions page and had been editing all of them including Arun Jaitley, Ashok Malik, Gulbarg Society massacre, Ehsan Jafri etc. -Mohit Singh (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They do appear to be a single-purpose account that has been recently created for making changes on multiple pages related to Indian politics. Please keep an eye on the account and gather evidence of disruptive and unconstructive behaviour off-wiki so that it may be used later in the event they are reported on the administrators' noticeboard or if a request for an RFC/U is made. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up
Did you know RegentsPark wrote this about you:
″Mr. T, I meant that as a bit of a joke. But, since you ask, it does seem to me that Nick has a very definitive idea of what the article should look like and is working very hard to see that it stays that way. By very hard, I mean replying at length to any and every suggestion that does not fit with his ideas, quoting at length from policies and guidelines, and accusing others of bad faith. If I hadn't had prior respect for Sir Nick, I would say that he is being borderline tendentious on this article. So, no, I'm not equating him with Sitush″.
I could have posted a reply but I thought you're best equipped to respond to this implicit allegation that you're resisting any and every proposal out of hand simply because they do not fit with your preconceived idea of what the article should look like, that's what is being said. I would take this as a serious allegation if I were you. cheers . Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)15:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, An editor has asked that this article be restored at WP:AWNB#Clean Energy Finance Corporation. From looking at the deleted article's history, I tend to agree - it wasn't high quality, but covers an important and notable topic and should be easy to fix up. Would you mind restoring the article? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington:
I just find out that you have deleted the page of Charles Xiaolin Wang. I am a reporter from china, and very interested in this man.
It seems that he has been offline for two weeks at his weibo, a china version twitter.
I would like to apologize to you for saying certain things somewhere which may have offended you (if you saw my words). I have removed the offensive words. Sometimes, in passionate discussions (about which one feels strongly about), one forgets to be civil and courteous. Please forgive me. I will try not to repeat my mistake. Soham321 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:LEAD. Message added 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Couldn't see you on IRC again, so just letting you know, Davey and his friend Charles have turned the tables and are accusing me of intimidation. [5]. Assistance appreciated. Regards, Sir Rcsprinter, Bt(gas) @ 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then seeing how it was getting "oppose" responses, he unilaterally created Anti- Muslim pogroms in India with the content:
Anti- Muslim pogroms in India refer to actions often carried out with the states tacit approval[1] against the minority Muslim population.[2] Since Partition there have been several pogroms carried out against Muslims such as in Gujarat in 2002.[2] Since partition these pogroms have been endemic in India.[3]
If this is not biased then I don't know what is bias.
WP:A10 is applicable, there is already an article which discusses this exact thing in detail (cf. 2002 Gujarat violence)
Nick, do you think I have repeatedly or intentionally failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia? And is this a pre-emptive self-certification? "adding myself to acknowledge my awareness, not because I've done anything to warrant notification." - big claim. Should I also certify myself? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)13:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[6] ← Mr. Administrator do something about it. It's classic example of tag bombing. That IP wanted to unilaterallyblank a section of relevant, sourced info (without any discussion whatsoever) and edit-warred about it too. When I told him "Tags should be added as a last resort." he behaved utterly uncivilly with me on my talk based on bad assumptions. He was given a final warning [7] by me but he reverted it[8] and continued disruption. Take appropriate action please. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing can be done if you do not know the Sockmaster. Looking at the way the IP comments, he is for sure some guy with experience. -sarvajna (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly since you are involved in a dispute with the concerned user, it is not advisable for you to place him on notification or issue him a warning. I will note that I do not have any objections to Neo. being notified, however this is best left for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether they need to be placed on notice or not. — Nearly Headless Nick{c}09:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on, DS? I can also add you there. Is that page designed for reports and counter-reports by involved users? I am studying this ArbComm thing as I am new to it. neo (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Neo.! Nothing to be worried about those templated warning put by DS on your page. Its just a variation of you-will-blocked stuff that they keep saying every now and then. He had pulled this act before also; twice actually and many admins had objected that. Had you been aware of such a template, you could slap it on his page. Its like school time; you run and call it as yours; no logic whatsoever. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check the recent talk on page for Aam Aadmi Party. 2 editors (One is an Admin-Qwrxyian and I'm not sure about the other-Sitush) are very set about what can and cannot go onto the page, and are saying they will revert all my edits to the page on sight. I don't want to take this to a notice board as I am now seeing that such boards are battlegrounds.TheWikiIndian (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Hi Nick. I want an admin's opinion on my edits to the article on Arvind Kejriwal. Please check the talk page, there is a section titled POV. Please let me know what you think about my edits; whether they were appropriate or not. Thanks. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Ahmedabad article for which you are a main contributor. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding sourcing and MoS. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I'm letting you know in case you're interested in helping to resolve the concerns, though you are under no obligation to do anything. See Talk:Ahmedabad/GA2 for more details. SilkTork✔Tea time14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! This is a special barnstar from me for uploading a picture of Narendra Modi i.e, File:Narendra Damodardas Modi.jpg, you really did a great job. The image has became so valuable that it has been made in different versions and are assigned in most of the Wikipedia languages. Today a cropped version of it has been uploaded by an user and has been assigned in the main page of English Wikipedia. HPDtalk16:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]
In last couple of days, at english language wikisource project, I have worked quite a bit on (Indian) Copyright Act, 1957 to update the same to include changes of copyright amendment act 2012. Please note on most of internet as of now Copyright Act, 1957 may not be uptodate with 2012 amendments, and en wikisource would be one of those few (and also free) places where people can refer the updated document, Provided that it is peer reviewed for accuracy.
People suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."
I plan to use the WikiOffline and OpenZIM content library as the basis of the content launched into outer space.
I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.
Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Hello, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
Hello, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Poojnm1985 (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)poojnm198507:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to create an article here. ITS been deleted with the speedy deletion tag, mentioning that its an advetrtisement. BUt i just intended to add the page for the school " SAMVED SCHOOL" under this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_in_Bangalore
I see there are lot of pages for different schools. I just intended to add one something similar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethany_High
for the school SAMVED SCHOOL, I never wanted it to be an advertisement. Could you please let me know, How can i accomplish that task.
Regards
Pooja
Poojnm1985 (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history
Nick, thanks for asking, Im not sure yet, but hopefully can arrive Cam in October, Ill be in touch if this happens. I may be interested in anything you develop on distance though. Ill ask a friend in Cambodia, who I know contributes to enwiki now and then, if he is interested. If you visit Soriya Mall, or Sville now and then, you may know him. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Nanipalkhivala.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Obituaries
