User talk:Gigs/Archive 15

Hey Gigs. More interesting discussion going on related to WP:COI, specifically whether/how to cover the recent cases in Europe which suggested some forms of corporate editing may be against the law in those jurisdictions. Curious if you have any thoughts: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.23Covert_advertising:_2012_German_court_ruling. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gigs, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, it seems BP has been rewriting the article about itself since last July, with the help of a small number of editors who agreed to insert the company's drafts. See here for a description of what happened.

Smallbones has started a discussion about it at WT:COI to try to introduce a rule change to stop this kind of thing. I'm trying to round up some sensible editors to take part in the discussion. If you're willing, see Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#BP and large company editing in general. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, Slim has suggested that because I'm very involved in guidance to COI editors that I should become more familiar with the academic literature on conflicts of interest. I was wondering if you could point me to (or even better email me a copy of) a suitable overview of the subject. If you just have a link, that's fine, because I can likely get it through WP:RX. Thanks and best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My main academic exposure to it was through many business and computer ethics courses in college. The texts for those courses I would not recommend if your interest was primarily in only COI. I would start by reading various codes of ethics put out by professional organizations such as IEEE, APA, NAR (realtors), advertisers, etc. This would give you a better idea of the ways that COI is defined in the wider world. Gigs (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)A "COI" assumes the editor maintains multiple competing roles - one as an editor and one as a PR person and has decision-making authority in both roles. I think this is a poor conceptual framework for PR on Wikipedia. Instead, I would compare it to the relationship PR people have with journalists. Instead of reading about real-world COI, I would suggest talking to journalists (a lot of them edit here) on their relationship with PRs and use the PR-Journo relationship as a North Star for the PR-Wikipedian relationship. My two cents. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gigs. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate breakfast foods. My office. Gigs (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be a killjoy, but a photograph of a photograph is probably not OK to release under a free license... J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll nominate it for deletion in a day or so. It's a gray area, but in a case like this where the photograph is mostly the other photograph, it's probably not ok. Gigs (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gigs. I have a request that didn't seem quite right for 3O, AfD, or Proposed mergers; I happened to see your sig on Talk:3O so I'm reaching out to you.

There is a proposal at Talk:American English#Merge proposal to merge American Accent into American English. The discussion seems to have stalled, with no edits since 15 April following a flurry of edits April 2-6. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to close the discussion, since I participated in it, but I don't know who to ask about closing or moving it.

Feel free to reject my vague request, but any help or advice you might provide would be appreciated. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Cnilep (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. I was hoping to get a second opinion on potentially creating an article on United Country Real Estate. Here's my dilemna:

• They are over 80 years old
• The source material itself suggests their significance: "the country's only nationwide rural real estate organization" and "oldest real estate franchise system."
• They are significant in their size: 550 offices and 4,000 affiliates

However:

• The best sources that have significant profiles are sort of like analyst reports. I have PDF copies, but they are not easily checked by an impartial editor
• There is not enough source material to create more than a couple paragraphs

In the past I have seen us decide to keep similar articles, where the company is significant, but as the sources say in this case "quiet". However, I feel that the same article written with a COI may have a leaning in the opposite direction.

I have a COI in that the requests came from one of my PR agency partners, but I would probably do it pro-bono given how small the project is. I also note that since they are 80 years old, there may be sources lost in time. CorporateM (Talk) 19:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a tough one because it's pretty easy for a franchise to have 550 offices, and merely being 80 years old isn't necessarily notable. A company I've worked for that's 125 years old with about 6 factories across the US and about 600 employees doesn't have an article, and I haven't created one for it (though it might pass notability, barely). Gigs (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just told them it was borderline, but if they want we can submit to AfC and leave it up to an impartial editor to decide. I think I myself would genuinely decide to keep the article, since the sources themselves suggest their significance. But editors may naturally presume my judgement is corrupted by COI and hold a speculative position.

I'm also working on Publishers Clearing House if you're interested in watchlisting it and participating. A neutral article contains a substantial amount of controversy for them, so I would say their COI is more significant than most my clients. However, the current article is so poor, it seemed there was reasonable alignment in that both parties would want to repair it. On the other hand, they were very good in that their only input in the material I drafted for them were copyedits, so I feel pretty good about our content. CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning in the essay that VnT has actually been taken out of WP:V policy. Last I looked, it was only mentioned in a footnote. Andreas JN466 15:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The concept and slogan will live on for a long time. I'll see if I can work in a note regarding it not being mentioned explicitly anymore in the main policy text. Gigs (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't actually seen anyone quote the slogan in a fair old while. Perhaps I was just lucky! :) Andreas JN466 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not by name, but I know that I have personally and somewhat recently encountered resistance to removing claims ranging from physically impossible to highly implausible, because it was cited to things like newspapers. There is a phenomenon of "false trust" that can happen, such as a blog post on an obscure blog gets picked up by a more trustworthy blogger, a wire service then picks up that story with very little or no fact checking, and then the "reliable source" newspapers just cut and paste the wire article without any additional fact checking at all. This doesn't often happen with "important" things, but it does happen all the time with "human interest" pieces or "weird news". Gigs (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If it were up to me, Wikipedia would put far more emphasis on scholarly sources vs. media sources (excepting quality journalism where someone actually did first-hand research – there is nothing wrong the The New Yorker as a source, for example). Won't ever happen though. Andreas JN466 22:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, NATO EPVAT testing uses partly the same Pmax as C.I.P., the 9 mm NATO and 12.7 mm NATO actually have higher Pmax than allowed by the C.I.P., so we can not state that EPVAT uses the same Pmax as C.I.P. That SAAMI measures Pmax differently yielding differing results is explained in the C.I.P. and SAAMI articles. The results are however not only caused due to different measurements methods. European ammunition like 6.5x55mm or 7.92x57mm is generally loaded to lower pressure levels by US manufacturers than customary by European manufacturers. This is done to make such ammunition safe for use in historic rifles and/or by non properly trained users. Such problems make generalizations in Wikipedia articles hard.

I think it is a bad idea to use Wikipedia for reloading purposes and remind Wikipedia is not only read by US citizens. I am going to a European jurisdiction soon, were using any Wikipedia data for reloaded purposes is illegal by law. I would have to circumvent C.I.P. rulings in C.I.P. member states to reload using Wikipedia as a source. How I will not discuss in a Wikipedia setting. In the US the general public can generally experiment with fire arms and ammunition until they find out the hard way that after fixed comes loose. In some other jurisdictions gun owners even have to study and pass examination to earn the right to reload for themselves. It is the allways ongoing more freedom vs. more restricted but also more trained and safe firearms use debate in action.

That the US military does not load their service rounds up to EPVAT Pmax does not surprise me. Many militaries stay well under Pmax. Sweden for instance used to load their old 6.5x55mm service ammunition at 320 Mpa and not at 380 MPa. Germany used to load their 7.92x57mm service ammunition at 360 Mpa insead of 390 MPa.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand. The US military does load at or near EPVAT Pmax, with a specified velocity of 3000fps with 62gr projectile. EPVAT Pmax is 55,000 PSI when measured using SAAMI transducer methodology, which is the methodology used on nearly all of our other articles on cartridges. The maximum pressure of 223 Remington and 5.56MM NATO are the same, and this is reflected in the CIP specifications that show them as the same. It is dangerous and misleading for us to use CIP/EPVAT methodology pressures on the 5.56 article while using SAAMI methodology pressures on every other article. Gigs (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Pressure paragraph in the 5.56×45mm NATO article can and generally does explain all relevant things quite well. I do think that for the 5.56×45mm NATO article the EPVAT Pmax can be used best in the infobox, since it is a NATO chambering ruled by NATO EPVAT. You explained that C.I.P. and SAAMI use differing methods to measure Pmax which is correct. C.I.P. does however not rule 5.56×45mm NATO, so I would mention NATO EPVAT instead of C.I.P. first in the 5.56×45mm NATO article Pressure paragraph and point out that Pmax EPVAT happens to be equal to Pmax C.I.P. for this chambering. You must have read that there are also NATO cartridges for which Pmax EPVAT = Pmax C.I.P. is not true. NATO militaries can and do legally deviate from C.I.P. rulings if they desire that, since those rulings are not binding for the militaries of C.I.P. member states. We do not live in a perfect world, so Wikipedia ammunition articles use SAAMI and C.I.P. Pmax in their infoboxes. I see for European cartridges the C.I.P. Pmax rulings are generally used in the infobox, for US cartridges the SAAMI Pmax guidelines are generally used in the infobox. You can often read the Pmax from both SAAMI and C.I.P. somewhere in the text. That is a good solution, since Wikipedia readers come from all over the world.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There has to be a solution better than using CIP (or EPVAT) on some articles infobox and SAAMI on others, with no way for readers to tell that the numbers are not comparable without reading the article text. I know there is no SAAMI standard for 5.56mm explicitly, but the US mil spec is a citable source for the 55,000 PSI when read using a SAAMI-style method. I am afraid we are misleading readers if we mix CIP and SAAMI type methodologies and simply call both "PSI" without qualification. They will, and clearly have in the past, come to the wrong conclusion regarding this, as can be seen around the web where many people incorrectly cite 5.56mm as a higher pressure round than .223 Remington. Gigs (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the ammunition infobox could have entries for both C.I.P. and SAAMI nomenclature and Pmax as they tend to differ. It does not and I once suggested it for nomenclature and found out I mostly received a lot of criticism. To read more about pressure measurements and how differing procedures correlate I recommend reading: http://www.shootingsoftware.com/ftp/psicuparticle2.pdf. Wikipedia tends to stubbornly follow its own methods and hence it is a bad idea to use it as a reloading reference. How the autoconversion in the ammunition infobox works is unknown to me, but the conversions of round figures like 60,000 psi or 400 MPa tend to be very course. I found out that adding decimals helps to improve these conversions. I am afraid that due to the lack of a worldwide (civilian) standard regarding ammunition the confusion around cartridges like the 5.56×45mm NATO/.223 Remington will remain on the internet. Luckily the 5.56×45mm NATO/.223 Remington chamberings (like the 5.45x39mm) have relatively small bolt face diameters, so they do not exhibit high stress on the breech reducing the chance of catastrophic receiver failures. The low pressure 7.62x39mm with its larger bolt face diameter actually stresses the breech more. Cautious reloaders can always have their preferred handloads professionally pressure tested and fire arms proofed at extra high pressure levels.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think listing both pressures, or at least adding a parameter for method used would be an excellent solution. I don't know what has been discussed in the past, but I think we have compelling arguments in favor of some solution. I agree that the issue is a confusing one in general, but we do have the opportunity to reduce the confusion by presenting the full picture. I will begin work on an article specifically regarding small arms pressure test methodologies, which we can link to from the infobox to help clarify the meanings. Gigs (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Copper units of pressure Wikipedia article might interest you as a source. As you probably already read the C.I.P. CUP and piezo Pmax values can be remarkably well converted. SAAMI CUP and piezo Pmax somewhat less well. Do you know if the US military currently uses non EPVAT methods? The references of non NATO EPVAT standards like MIL-C-9963F seem to be pre-21st century.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to know what the US military currently uses because the "G" version of the mil-spec is marked for limited distribution. I signed up for the DLA's standards document program, but then hit another wall because I need a DoD ID card to get the limited distribution specs. The information is not classified, but it is just marked for limited distribution. Someone who worked for a DoD contractor could get the information for us. Either way, I think it would be useful to include SCATP 5.56 limits of 55,000 so that people can see that the CIP pressure is not really higher than the SAAMI pressure for 223 (with the caveat that from a 223 leade chamber, it will be higher).

I would use caution with the "fudge formulas" for CUP to Piezo... They are not an exact science, even though they can be close. I will check out that article before duplicating too much of it. We may be able to do a summary-style section with a "Main article" link at the top. Gigs (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am curious how other editors will react to mentioning EPVAT and the MIL-C-9963F pressure specifications. I took the liberty of adding a See also section mentioning two pressure related articles, though in C.I.P. member states the CUP methodology is almost eradicated by law nowadays. By reading articles and references (like the Bramwell study) Wikipedia readers can judge for themselves how well CUP can be translated to MPa/PSI. Maybe adding links to the C.I.P., NATO EPVAT and SAAMI articles in the See also section is a good idea. At http://www.hbm.com/en/menu/products/transducers-sensors/pressure/p3mbp-blueline/ you can see a sensor by Hottinger-Baldwin Messtechnik GmbH that can be used up to 15,000 bar/1,500 MPa. The sensor was used to launch an advertising campaign by Blaser pointing out they had proof tested their then new Blaser R8 hunting rifle receiver with .375 H&H rounds by the German DEVA (in a special test rig) from 5,200/6,500/8,500/10,000/11,200/12,600/13,400 up to 14,400 bar. From 11,200 bar the Blaser R8 straight pull actions came out locked and could not be opened. The Hottinger-Baldwin Messtechnik sensors are not normally used for ballistic measurements, but Kistler does not produce 10,000 bar plus capable sensors.--Francis Flinch (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I saw no bad response to your new Pmax templates I have introduced the C.I.P. and SAAMI pressures in the 6.5×55mm, 7×57mm Mauser, 7×64mm, 7.62×39mm, 7.92×57mm Mauser ‎and .303 British articles. These metric rifle cartridges are mentioned in a SAAMI document dealing with SAAMI MAP piezo I used as a reference in the articles.--Francis Flinch (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Should not be too controversial since those are metric cartridges to start with. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this. It's nice to have stuff that the usual Russavias and MattBucks can't dismiss as Wikipediocracy propaganda.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Speaking of which, would you allow us to run your op-ed as a post on the Wikipediocracy blog? I think there might be interest. (I know your piece is CC-BY-SA and all that, but we wouldn't run it without your express permission, and would credit both you and the Signpost if you agreed.) Best, Andreas JN466 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free. Might have to remember my password over there, been a while since I got on. Gigs (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Andreas JN466 06:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Small arms ammunition pressure testing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pascal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Just some potentially clumsy wording being added in good faith. Copyediting to make the policy make sense, despite the seemingly incompatible compromises is pretty difficult! See talk. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Gigs. I've replied to your message on the Argosy University Talk page. You can see my message here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Gigs. I see that you updated the introduction to the Argosy University article, and thanks very much for doing that. Meanwhile, User:Ɱ and I had discussed, then made a few changes to my draft, and now ɱ seems to think it's about ready, but hasn't yet updated any other sections. Ɱ appears to have been busy elsewhere lately, though I'll follow up with him or her in a moment. Anyhow, if you have any specific thoughts or concerns with the draft, please leave me a message on the article's Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs, thanks again for updating the introduction to the Argosy article. Not sure if you've seen, but Ɱ replied to my message from late last week to say that they are waiting on your review of the updated draft in my user space before proceeding any further. Do you still intend on looking at the draft? If so, I'd be glad to see your feedback when you have it ready. If you find that you no longer have time to look at this, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. I posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) to carry forward on a discussion at COIN that you posted in. I would appreciate receiving your comments at the PROF proposal. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I could not support your proposal. It looks like we agree on the problem with biographical notability, but I don't think that particular proposal is a good idea for the reasons I outlined there. It's a tough nut to crack, no one wants to give up the thousands of tiny micro-stubs on barely notable people that happened to play 1 season in the major leagues or made full-professor status. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gigs, since you commented on my request at Talk:Accenture both FeralOink and Stalwart111 have offered some thoughts, including a suggestion for moving forward on the Principal subsidiaries section that I agree with. Do you want to take a look and see if you have any further thoughts or are ok with the changes suggested? ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is  Done. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed your name at the WP:BLP talk page and assumed you've well versed enough in that project to comment on this issue regarding self-published sources in such an article. Can you? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. I think I can be quite the time-suck on the community in my PR role, with all my GA reviews and the higher degree of collaboration needed when acting in that capacity. But I have a tinsy favor and figured I haven't bothered you in a while if you have a minute to spare.

Was hoping you could take a look here RE notability. Its in the AfC queue but (a) that can take weeks and (b) I don't necessarily trust a random reviewer to make the right call.

BTW - after a year and a half of inactivity, I'm trying to get some things rolling on the McKinsey & Company article again. Kbob has a full plate and My2011 hasn't been active. If you're interested in participating there later, it would also be appreciated. It is a High Priority Start-Class business page and I aim to bring it up to GA eventually. Some of the topics are pretty heavy and are not the types of topics that are easy to do with a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable promoting WSM to main article space. While I agree that there is probably enough coverage to survive an AfD, all of the coverage seems to be fluffy PR-type coverage. I guess there is a deeper problem with the way we do notability that it's not too difficult to promote your site or product to the media and get that kind of superficial coverage, since these days the media is no longer constrained by a finite amount of column-inches in a newspaper or magazine. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to take a look. I'm not sure if that means I should take it down or wait it out, but at least I'll have some feedback to send them. CorporateM (Talk) 14:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that the user WWB Too rather wants that Argosy page updated. You said two and a half weeks ago that he should wait for your okay before he has anything changed, but it's been long enough with you absent from replying. I have been and I still am ready to make his edits. I plan to do so tomorrow unless I hear from you why not to.--ɱ (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are neutral and approve of them then go for it. I didn't mean for him to wait for me in particular. Gigs (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI - An article that you contributed to has been brought up to the GA standard. CorporateM (Talk) 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Congrats. Gigs (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that you recreated the redirect of Wikipedia:BRIGHTLINE to WP:Paid advocacy. Given the existence of Wikipedia:Bright lines, which has shortcut Wikipedia:BRIGHTLINES, this is confusing. Your redirect was created a year before the new proposal by SilkTork, so I don't hold you responsible for creating the confusion. In fact, one possibility is to rethink the naming of Wikipedia:Bright lines. However, it is my opinion that neither qualify as a Bright-line rule, as neither meets the standard of objective factors which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. Both have their merits and challenges, and meeting a bright line standard is not a requirement for existence, so my hope is that both the SilkTork proposed policy name and the Gigs redirect are changed. However, the most important one to change is the redirect. I guess I could be bold and do it myself, but I thought I'd discuss first, in case there is a better option.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You can delete WP:BRIGHTLINE as far as I'm concerned, I only moved it to point to No Paid Advocacy because what it linked to before made even less sense. Gigs (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 16:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 16:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. I'm gradually (re)learning how to work with Wikipedia. Can you help me to find the the feedback I received about trimming the "prominent people" section down? I've hunted through history and some key earlier versions - and looked this up in the Ayers & Co book "How Wikipedia Works" but I can't find a way to search for that specific text string in all the comments I have received. It all seemed a lot easier when I originated en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Computer_Science a couple of years ago. Maybe I'm just getting old! Jid (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Gigs (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this article we've both declined because of NPOV and other issues. I'll keep an eye out. Libby norman (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Gerard Fowke. Either you made a basic error in writing the hook, or I made a basic error in reviewing it, so I'd appreciate it if you'd either repair the hook or show me where I messed up. Nyttend (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Response. Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)