User talk:Lionelt/Archive 3

Delany

I responded on the article talk page - his (and Ginsbergs) positions regarding the organization are nuanced and require proper contextualizations. If the proper contextualization is too long for the lead, then no mention in the lead. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jade Chu

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jade Chu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: member of notable band. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Society of Construction Arbitrators's talk page.. Salisian (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys

Hello! Your submission of Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Naima Belkhiati

It's no trouble. Yes, anyone is allowed to create redirects or replace articles with redirects, but use common sense and judgment. Quarl ^(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

CatholicVote

Go ahead, please do! I only put basic information so please improve it. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you take another look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#CatholicVote.org? Thanks Smartse (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Outwrite

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Outwrite, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to journals or newspapers. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Instinto Asesino

Hello! Your submission of Instinto Asesino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Star Trek Concordance

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gamofites

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gamofites, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article survived a prior deletion discussion. Try an AfD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Instinto Asesino

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for CatholicVote.org

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Notyourbroom's talk page.
Message added 23:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Trackinfo's talk page.
Message added 20:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Bill Andriette

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The use of verbatim, unattributed quotations in articles is considered plagiarism. Whenever you incorporate the exact text of a source into an article, please provide appropriate attribution in the form of quotation marks, <blockquote>, or similar. Please note that addition of non-free text, without attribution as a direct quotation, is considered to be a copyright violation per se, even if it otherwise would have been fair use. (Excessive and/or unnecessary use of non-free text, even when correctly attributed, might still run afoul of the non-free content policy and guideline, and be considered a copyright violation.) Also, Wikipedia style guidelines discourage the excessive use of quotations, even when correctly attributed. All closely paraphrased text must adhere to the same attribution, non-free content, and copyright standards as verbatim quotations. I notice that you have added verbatim and closely paraphrased non-free text to Bill Andriette without attribution as a direct quotation, which I believe to be inconsistent with the previously described policies. Your text:

saying that the hatred of boy-lovers is a "reactionary ideology which the gay movement has happily adopted to burnish its own particular identity category."[1]

The original source text:

The hatred of boy-lovers, he says, is a "reactionary ideology which the gay movement has happily adopted to burnish its own particular identity category..."[2]

Your text:

saying his group's opposition to age-of-consent laws in is keeping with "the main tradition" of homosexuality.[3]

The original source text:

said his group's opposition to age-of-consent laws in is keeping with "the main tradition" of homosexuality.[4]

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Also, if you have added other verbatim and/or closely paraphrased non-free texts without attribution as direct quotations to Bill Andriette or any other article, please rewrite this material in your own words, or remove it at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mount Carmel High School (Los Angeles)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Blogs/reliability

I've reverted this particular edit (I don't feel strongly about it, but I think you're mistaken to assume that blogs are always unreliable), and policy seems to indicate to me that this is likely an exception. I've given a detailed explanation at the Talk page, but I figured I'd give you a wave to let you know what I did and why. Have a great day! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you did not know...

What I do know is that 2 reverts does not a war make; it doesn't even make 3RR. (Don't forget that the revert at 10/25 17:41 was per BLP.) Removed erroneous warning placed in good faith. Lionel (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: Men who have sex with men

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Talk:Men who have sex with men.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 19:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

books "further reading" removal at ADF

A collegial "heads up" that I removed that section, here's the diff [5] If those books really are about the Alliance Defense Force rather than about the beliefs of the head of the ADF, and that can be demonstrated with reliable sources, I got no problem with putting them back--but pages like this all too easily grow into the list of a hundred external links (which is what these more or less are) with everyone's favorite POV works. If I'm mistaken and either really goes into, say, the deep organizational history of the ADF, please accept my apologies and revert my edit. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

C'mon! It was a real pain adding those templates and looking up the publisher & ISBNs. Lionel (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old WP:ELNO #13! I know it well... Lionel (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the ACLU book. There is a running battle between ADF & ACLU, a battle with ample sourcing BTW. ADF wants to be the Christian version of ACLU. We really need to add a section on it. Anyway, the ACLU book is relevant. Lionel (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that--I do understand the effort, I've sourced quite a number of articles (my main pasttime here is sourcing unsourced BLPs), many with book references, and they are a hassle to fill out. Do you have reftoolbar? More info here: [6], it really helps deal with the cite template formatting, then I just go to the "about the book" section in Google Books at the book and most of the info can be cut-and-pasted from there. And as you describe it the ACLU book sounds very relevant, I'll take your word. Thanks for your understanding, I owe ya one, and I hope reftools helps ya. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WOW! That's cool! Thanks! Lionel (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! --j⚛e decker^talk 06:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Although I don't mention you by name, you should likely be aware of this discussion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Lionel (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to get familiar with fundamental Wikipedia policies to stop pushing silly propaganda sources into encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Opponents_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=394077090 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opponents_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Hansen_is_not_reliable_source.2C_removed_since_she_is_incapable_to_make_these_sort_of_statements_on_her_website --Destinero (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Silly? Seems logical to me. Lionel (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is logical to you to use unpublished work from the personal website of person, who is not authority and recognized professional in the relevant field as was proven in several court rulings I linked, and opinions of this person finds no support in the scientific literatuere as every mainstream expert body from all the world document, then you are not capable to contribute usefully to the Wikipedia, simply since you are pushing unfounded marginal propaganda views at the odds with the reality and actual state of things. --Destinero (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Following sources

You wrote:

• In 2003 he successfully completed the Pure Life Ministries residential program, where he is currently employed, to deal with unwanted homosexual attractions

You cited a source which says:

• Mike Johnston serves as Director of Donor and Media Relations. He coordinates media relationships for the ministry and production of audio content including the podcast. In 1989, Mike founded Kerusso Ministries and spent the next 14 years presenting a Christian perspective on homosexuality as it relates both to ministry and public policy. He has been with the ministry since 2003.

I don't understand how you got from that source to what you wrote. How do you know that he completed a residential program, or that it dealt with unwanted homosexual attractions? Neither of those are in the source. Are you acquainted with the subject?   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Added better source. Lionel (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, but do you think that is a reliable source for details about a living person's sexuality?   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. His current employer is the publisher. They also have published his biography here. This seems to be a common practice to use corp bios for BLP. The sexuality status may be pushing policy a tad, but it's not detrimental in this case. And there's this. Anti-exgay sources also put him at Pure Life. Lionel (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ex-Gay Lawsuit removal

Hi, you recently removed a lawsuit listed on Ex-Gay. It seems to have been relevant: "that many people have walked out of homosexuality into sexual celibacy and marriage through the help of Jesus Christ." - perhaps you confused the legal grounds for which the state won the lawsuit with one of the purposes of the ad campaign? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Saw the undo. And it's great to see someone's trying to clean up that article. As I guess you noticed, it needs work on both ends... uncited/exaggerated claims or lack of relevant ones. It's like people on both sides of the argument have each butchered the opposing viewpoints. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Lionel (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Speechless cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Speechless cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Homosexuals Anonymous

Hi Lionelt. I'm not sure if you've been following the DYK nominations page discussions for the Homosexuals Anonymous nomination, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that new hooks are being proposed and your input is welcome there. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Homosexuals Anonymous

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian Voice (UK)

Thanks for your good edits. Please keep up the good work.FrFintonStack (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lionel (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Günter Baum

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Günter Baum to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Think you made an error in one of your edits at Trevor Project

You said here the statement you removed was sourced, but there's a link, the link works for me, and appears to me to contain the quote. Anyway, maybe i'm missing something? Cheers, --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 03:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, figured it was something like that. Much appreciated, have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Van Dykes

Hi Lionelt

I see you nominated Van Dykes for speedy deletion on the basis of notability. As you can see at Talk:Van Dykes, and you could have seen in the entry itself, the topic of that encyclopedia entry clearly meets Wikipedia's general and subject-specific inclusion guidelines, which give the topic a presumption of meriting inclusion in the encyclopedia.

If you disagree, please use a more appropriate means of conveying your opinions, such as AfD or discussion on the article's talk page (I note that you elected not to notify the article's creator—me—of your nomination, which is generally discouraged).

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 15:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Please stop making big changes without proper explanation on the talk page

The controversy section on the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship page has been the subject of many edits, but seems to have reached concessus. Please don't jump in and make radical edits to it without discussion. Santa Suit (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

youtube is not a reliable source per WP:RSEX. And because the content is contentious and relates to a living person, it must be removed per WP:BLP. Talking about it doesn't change the policy. Note that 3RR does not apply per [7].

Please write your explanation on the article's talk page, as requested Santa Suit (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Communications with sock STL1989

February 2011 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ex-gay. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are the one mis-quoting rules and asking for quotes from videos. I supplies a link which is required to prove he has conducted media interviews. Please desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STL1989 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: in fact, 3RR not violated on the page in question; request has been made of STL1989 to self-revert this warning Lionel (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) February 2011 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The tag was placed in good faith; I want to make sure the interpretation of the source is accurate; your arbitrary removal is disruptive: this is not how we work here at Wikipedia. STL1989 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by STL1989 (talk • contribs) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: this warning may seem confusing. It is because I originally left this warning for STL on his talk page, and he merely cut and pasted it here on my talk page. That is why it makes no sense. I have asked that he self revert. Lionel (talk)

Re: Darryl Foster

Thanks you very much. Looks like I could learn some editing tips from you, man. Kennethtamara (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss

Do you feel like discussing major changes to articles before unilaterally making them on the pertinent talk pages? _WM^O 01:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My changes have been minor and well within the spirit of WP:BRD. Lionel (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor? I don't see how you could say this [8] is minor, in case you hadn't noticed its moved back and forth a number of times. _WM^O 01:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

At the time I moved it, it seemed pretty straightforward and obvious. Afterall, it is how they are described in the lede. Anyway, I didn't notice the ping ponging until after I moved it. However, I see your point and you can rely on me to fully discuss any major edit I plan on undertaking, however I've noticed a lot of people getting blocked so I won't be spending too much time on these articles. You've probably noticed my light-hearted approach (8x10s). Lionel (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind moving it back? I don't feel like making it look like I'm edit warring. _WM^O 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're gonna skip the "R" part of WP:BRD, it's time to discuss the move on the Talkpage. Lionel (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Notices for WikiProject Conservatism

Hi, I saw that you, as the originator of the proposal for WikiProject Conservatism, posted some notices asking for participants. How about posting a notice on the Sarah Palin Talk page, as well as the popular conservative talk radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Neil Boortz, and Laura Ingraham? I know that the Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh pages are high up on the list of most watched pages on Wikipedia, and I imagine that the others would be fairly high as well, with many active conservatives. Drrll (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, great idea! And Done! Lionel (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice personalized touch on the notices! Drrll (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

another editor's enemies list, your revert

Would you please explain this revert? Your edit summary was insufficient, especially since you seem to be sympathetic to LAEC's conservative activist causes. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What part of "LAEC specifically desired for this editor to remain on the list" do you fail to comprehend? Be careful, my friend, when suggesting motives for another editor's actions: it could be construed as NPA. Lionel (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems to think everything is a personal attack... just noting that the list is gone so this is a mute point. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

LAEC's desire is irrelevant. ".. keeping a 'list of enemies' ...is neither constructive nor appropriate.". Editors who so easily conflate disagreement with personal attack have no business working on a collaborative project involving controversial issues. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation

Thanks for the invitation to work on the Conservative project. First, can you teach me how to use Whisperback? I'm not as smart as I was 9 years ago, when I first started volunteering here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't work all that great anyway. It's an attempt to keep a thread on one user talk page. You're probably better off without it! That said, just edit a page and add {{wb}}. Simple as that! Lionel (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper closure of RfC

I noticed you just closed a talk-page RfC that administrator SlimVirgin started to try to settle a dispute at Right-wing politics. I took strong exception to that action for several reasons, not the least of which was that the "result" you offered was at odds with the !vote tally, which very clearly showed no consensus. I've reverted your closure. Please don't do anything remotely similar again. I've also taken the trouble to document the events that followed from your closure, along with additional reasons I considered it improper; see Talk:Right-wing politics#Non-admin super-vote closure of RfC (permalink). I would suggest that if you have any comments to make, that that same section of the article talk would be the place to make them; please make sure you've clicked on the "live" link I'm providing in this message, rather than the snapshot/permalink, so you don't inadvertently edit an old instance of that page, if you do choose to comment at article talk. This will be my only post to your talk page on this matter, but I did want to specifically request, here, that you not repeat any such an action in the future. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

While I AGF, I find your reasons for reverting the close do not stand up to policy. If you disagree with the result, you should open a new RfC. I respectfully decline your requests and will enforce the close. Lionel (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Benji

Hey, sorry, I've been bad at getting back to messages with all this PP drama swirling around. One the one hand, my mind was blown when I first found out but on the other, so much started to make sense. I wonder how often this happens on Wikipedia? I hope no productive contributors were cut out because of the range-block they had to put on San Francisco. - Haymaker (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe

The subject of this page doesn't appear to qualify as notable under Wikipedia guidelines, in particular, WP:1E. Can you find any other information to show he's sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article?   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming I put it in article space, do you think there would be enough time to get it to DYK before it's nominated for AfD? It would be nice to get something out of all the work I put into it...Lionel (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. If the article is already as good as it's going to get then it should be discussed for deletion. Is there anything else that qualifies this person for a Wikipedia biography?   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you believe... I have lots of stuff to put in there?????? Lionel (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Then put it in. I'm going to start an MFD thread, and those usually last about a week, so there's time to make whatever additions you think will help.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe

User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstood the reason for the Kelsey Grammer update request

Lionelt, I thought the note was because he was just married and so after adding that fact, deleted the notice. I checked the bottom of his talk page before doing the deletion and because there was no other mention of anything, deleted the update needed notice. Later, you added your reason for wanting an update. Just wanted you to know I was not ignoring your request for update rather trying to clean up when I mistaken thought the update had been performed. --Javaweb (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

No problem! I thought leaving the wikilink in the edit summary was enough - all's well...! Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No comment

Don't want you to think you're being ignored, but, as much as I'd like to, I can't comment because I promised to avoid confrontation (and I've almost lived up to it). I hear you, though. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No explanation necessary... Just good to have you back. Lionel (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Stub class ProtectMarriage.com

Hello! Your submission of ProtectMarriage.com at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)