User talk:Alyo/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Megaman en m (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * Thanks for the welcome Megaman en m! Nolelover

Thank you for your edits to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Thank you for your edits to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and, equally importantly, your discussion on the talk page. I have read your user page and am impressed with your willingness to help out (I gather your primary interest is football). I hope that my questions and comments are constructive. And I fully support the principle of eliminating game cruft and you can seek my support if anyone protests. Feel free to respond on this page. I support your goal of getting the article featured by Christmas.

Vyeh (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Video games and football...yup. And thanks for the welcome. I've been on Wikipedia for a while (though not on this user) and usually I can never get major edit passed without some admin reverting them. It's nice to find an article where they actually accept my edits. Nolelover (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm no admin, but the two articles are sadly in shape of reworking. You will see that I have put forth a merger proposal and there seems to be a consensus that the two should be combined. I have also rewritten the Storyline. If you have access to the manual, you might want to take a look at it and add some more. There is an appendix to the manual that contains the story about xenofungus and mind worms. I have also gone into Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and drastically cut out game cruft. Since I think it will be merged into Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, I think it is appropriate. Anyway, I encourage you to cut. Once the existing material is cut, then there is plenty of relevant material to add. Some kindly editors have provided reliable sources to read.Vyeh (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I've had the game for years and have long since lost the manual. Thanks for hitting the storyline section. I was going to edit it next. It simply went way too in-depth.
 * I do not have the Alien crossfire expansion and know very little about it. I don't think I can be much help in rewriting that section (or at least the plot and gameplay stuff). Also, because of the computer and security I have, I can't go on other sites looking for and puting in sources, reviews and other information. I'm hoping someone else can spend some time adding citations and outside links. Nolelover (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the manual in PDF form. You do not need to register at that site to download it. I'll be happy to put in sources and citations if you will work on cutting out the cruft and putting in the material you think should be there. I assume you know the tags for indicating that you believe a source is needed, e.g. . Good job on cutting down the faction info in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. At least we aren't getting much of an argument on eliminating game cruft. Vyeh (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and incorporated the Alien Crossfire article into the Alpha Centauri article (after eliminating most of the cruft first). It looks pretty good. Section 5.1 does not overwhelm Section 5.2. Let me know if you want me to look at any sections of Alpha Centauri. Vyeh (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the manual. I realized in 20 minutes how little I know about the game. And I'm still worried about 5.2. I'm think we make it a short sec. 6 and so forth. Lastly, I think we should get the bases section. I can't get it right now and probably won't be on over the weekend. Nolelover (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I have turned 5.1 and 5.2 into 5 and a new 6. I have severely reduce the base section. Feel free to add material back; I think I have eliminated the game cruft. Vyeh (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I think re-adding a couple rewritten sentences will help though. In my opinion, at least one or two sentences each on citizens and resources is necessary. Nolelover (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I'd like to stay away from sentences that one citizen = 100,000 people, but I think a sentence that says each citizen is a worker that can harvest the resources of one square or a specialist that can keep order, increase research or income is fine. For resources, a sentence that says each square produces a combinations of three resources: nutrients that create new citizens, minerals that build units, facilities and secret projects and energy, which fuels happiness, technology and income. Why don't you think about the sentences over the weekend? And then put them in. Vyeh (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is still a lot of cruft in the gameplay section. What do you think? Vyeh (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do :) Nolelover (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I just want to let you know my preliminary thoughts. I think Gameplay needs to be given similar treatment to Factions. I know that I hate spending hours only to have someone who hasn't put in the time swoop in and delete material. I'd like to see us use Civilization (series) and Civilization II and maybe even Civilization II: Test of Time and Civilization: Call to Power to indicate how SMAC differs from these. I don't think we should be addressing SMAC players (we can give them some references, e.g. Gamespot, for more details). I am interested in Civilization players and gamers in general (I really don't see non-gamers reading the article). I am trying to go through sources (I've noticed that you have also looked at some sources) and hope to replace primary source (the manual) with secondary source. I have a copy of Prima's Strategy Guide and I will see about referencing that work. I also have a book copy of Vel's Strategy Guide and i will see about using that. I think a couple of books will give more weight to the article and I suspect that it will be harder to challenge books that have gone through a publisher (and the copy editing process) as being unreliable or a primary source. My goal is to get C class by the end of the summer. In addition to you and me, I have a message on my talk page from Peyre, who offered to look at the article for grammar and touch up and I hope we can keep Loohcnuf involved in the nitty gritty. What do you think? Vyeh (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. We have to remember that just because non-gamers might not read the article, it still has to be written for them. I also left a note on the talk page of User:Vantine84 to review it. Nolelover (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be premature to review it. It will take awhile to go through all the sources. Vyeh (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. . . he is helping though. And I think it will be good to have another outsider review it. In my opinion, it'll help a lot. Nolelover (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, he is joining us! Let us be careful about asking for a PR or an assessment (it would be nice to ask for C class and get a B class). Vyeh (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the article is still only a C-class? Nolelover (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We're still legitimately Start class until we have gone through sources and made sure there is on OR in article. I believe content will be good once the material in the sources we know about have been integrated. And organization is good, although there are a couple of single subsections (Critical Reaction and Inspirations we should look at). And I think we need to shift Gameplay from a recital of game mechanics, but I think that will happen as we go through the sources. From C to B, we will have to get feedback on what content should be added and then hunt for sources (which might not mention Alpha Centauri but might be about Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds, Firaxis from the same time period). In addition, there is a massive amount of clean-up that we will need to do (but there is no point in doing clean-up until we know what material will remain. I think the two biggest things right now is going through sources, which will be slow and overhaul of the Gameplay section, which we should discuss. In my opinion, we should be using Civilization (series) and Civilization II as baseline. I like the approach in the second paragraph under Critical reaction and would like to look at those sources for specific comparisons between SMAC and Civ II. Of the existing content, I'd axe the Datalinks, Terrain, Bases, Society entirely. I'd focus Units and Combat on Psionic Combat. I like Native Life although we might consider moving parts of it to Storyline and merging the rest into the preceding section to get a new section "Native Life and Psionic Combat." The Diplomacy section should contrast with Civilization and needs tightening. Social Engineering is distinctive from Civilization and should be addressed from that viewpoint (as I said, we need to go through sources). And I think Victory Condition should highlight the difference in Victory Conditions from Civilization II. Vyeh (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Guyinblack25 hit the Legacy section; once we wikify and source the sandbox gameplay section, the article will be looking pretty good except for Notes cleanup. Vyeh (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been watching him. We're close! :)  Nole  lover  21:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Patch paragraph was removed for not having secondary source
The patch paragraph n has been removed (not just moved) for failure to have a secondary source. I believe the last cite is a secondary source and I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. Vyeh (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! or Diannaa TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! Diannaa TALK 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Back from your Vacation
Welcome back! Can you look at the Development section in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. In particular, could you look at the Inspirations subsection and the last 4 paragraphs of the Development section before the Inspirations section. And the Legacy section will need work (not sure what at this point). Note Guyinblack25's July 1 comment on my talk page. Leave the citations in the lead for now. If there is something you really want back in Gameplay, give it a try (I will add to Gameplay as I go through sources). Go ahead and combine 1-2 sentence paragraphs. Anyway, Guyinblack25 says we may be able to reach Good article and you deserve a lot of the credit! Vyeh (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was nice to get away for a few days. I'll work on the Devel./Inspirations when I can. As for gameplay, should we include the datalinks as a sort of manual? Something we can say will go more in-depth? Just a few sentences explaining what it is. Also, I think "storyline" is too big. I think some of it could be moved into the gameplay or other sections. That especially goes for the second to last paragraph; it doesn't fit. Those are my suggestions. Anyway, if we can get to GA by the end of Summer, FA can't be far away. :) Nolelover (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything in the introductory section should be mentioned elsewhere. I think it gives a bit of connection from the introductory sentence to the Storyline section. I tried reworking it a bit to replace it, but I like the first sentence without it -- "sequel" gets the concept across. I would be happy to discuss it further here. Vyeh (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying you're okay with taking out the "Civilization space-race victory" phrase? I agree with the "sequel" phrase but the clause I deleted was kind of awkward. Plus it was (and should be) mentioned elsewhere. While I'm here, what does the "com" in "comparing the plot com to the works..." mean. It's in the third paragraph of the intro. I'd delete it but I figured it must be some weird lingo. Also, GJ on the "laptop" ref. Nolelover (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm OK. "com" should come out. Thanks. Vyeh (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. Nolelover (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

New ubox and top-icon for WikiGryphons

 * Please forgive the talk page spam. There are new userbox and topicon selections for editors who identify themselves as WikiGryphons; see User:Ling.Nut/Gryphontopicon2 and Template:User wikipedia/Gryphon2. Cheers! &bull; Ling.Nut 02:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from the GOCE
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Island: Tahiti
I think you're misunderstanding. This has nothing to do with Poptropica; it's a madeup fan game. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh...I trust Google too much. Thanks for explaining.  Nole  lover  20:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikify Drive
Since you signed up for the September 2010 GOCE event, I wanted to invite you to participate in a similar event: the September 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. In case you didn't know, "Wikification" is the process of formatting articles using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and adding internal links to material. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors. Thanks!

 ℳ ono

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 00:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

Hannibal (Mercenary War)
I think you were too hasty to label this as a hoax (although it was certainly unreferenced). The original contributor has been around for years, and a few minutes with Google Books allowed me to find references establishing the existence of this person. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I spent a while trying to look it up, but couldn't find anything that definitively spoke of another Hannibal. I also looked up the book, but most reviews I read seemed to speak of the more famous Hannibal. That, specifically, is why I labeled it as a hoax - because it didn't look like the book was discussing a separate Hannibal.  Nole  lover  19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

== GOCE drive has begun ==

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

GOCE drive has begun
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Your comments at AfD
I was looking over AfDs that needed closing, and some of the comments I saw you made were not particularly beneficial to determining consensus at times. Not that they were necessarily bad comments, just that they didn't really make much of a difference in finding consensus or really affect the discussion, which AfD is. Some examples include "per nom", harshness doesn't matter; notability does, sort of failing one a notability guideline and definitely another?, several opinions without any particular reason, more per above, except per almost all of the above, which means, uh, what?, per someone, what you say doesn't matter unless it's policy-based, time doesn't matter that much, notability does, why does your gut say that, and why is it weak?, random useless comment, if it needs better references, maybe it should go or maybe not; why do you think it should stay?, reason is notability; if there are a few more sources to add, you can add them to prove notability, looking bad is not a valid deletion rationale.

I strongly, strongly advise you to read this page, as your comments just don't really mean much to the closing admin in the end. When an admin looks to close the discussion, he or she examines what consensus has formed, but that doesn't mean it's a vote. Many AfDs have been closed as delete when there were many more comments in favor of keeping. It's all about the reasoning and basis on policy, and your individual opinion, not "per that guy" or "seems OK".

Please take this advice into consideration when next participating in AfD discussions.  — fetch ·  comms   01:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take Fetchcomms' advice to heart. Your input is not well-grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will likely be discounted by the closing admin. What matters is Notability, Verifiability, Biographies of living persons, and What Wikipedia is not, not the passage of time, or whether the article looks good or bad. Many AfDs have been closed against the majority opinion because the majority did not base their arguments on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines: In Articles for deletion/Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, the closing admin discounted all the non-policy based keep arguments. Because none of those supporting retention provided sources to establish notability, the article was deleted despite the fact that 7 editors supported retention and only 5 supported deletion. In Articles for deletion/Death of Gerry Ryan, the debate was closed as "keep", despite the fact that 9 supported deletion and only 2 supported retention. This closure was endorsed at DRV because the consensus at the DRV was that those supporting deletion had weak, worthless arguments that weren't policy-based. Keep in mind that AfD is not a vote. Before participating in another AfD, consider whether you are providing valued input or whether your argument is something that the closing admin will discount. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear god, were they all that bad? A couple, I can understand were bad, and two or three you misunderstood, but all? O, well. Maybe AfD isn't for me. :) First off, Thanks for telling me. I infinitely prefer that to me continuing to make useless comments. And thanks for giving me the the link to ATA. I wish I'd seen that sooner. I do understand that it's not a vote. You don't have too worry about that. Two quick questions though. Why is "per _____" so frowned upon. I said that because both times, the other person had already explained exactly why I would or wouldn't keep the article. Other question is regarding this one. If there is no good reason to delete an article, why should it be deleted, and why isn't that a valid argument? Thanks, -- Nole  lover  15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per X doesn't add anything to the discussion itself, and is somewhat ambiguous at times. You should at least repeat the particular reasons why it should be kept/deleted, etc. For Articles for deletion/Data Design Interactive, why is there no real reason (i.e., it has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus indicating notability)? I don't really think AfD isn't for you, but I just wanted to alert you that it would be much more beneficial to others if comments and rationales were policy-based and/or clearly explained.  — fetch ·  comms   21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh...well, thanks for explaining everything. I'll do my best.  Nole  lover  00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting the hang of making policy-based AfD comments takes a while. When I started participating in AfDs, I frequently said "Delete per nom", which did not help much in determining consensus. I recommend that you read through a couple of AfDs to see which arguments you think help the closing admin establish consensus and which do not. Then, try to emulate those rationales. For example, some people provide links to sources that they found on Google News Archive or Google Books to establish notability. If they cannot find sources, they link to the searches they performed to support their position. Cunard (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ros Beiaard Dendermonde
Your edit here made me laugh. Whether or not the horse is dead it is not exactly a "person"!  Oreo Priest  talk 07:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping someone would notice that edit. I was so focused on it not being alive... :D  Nole  lover  14:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ;)  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for my first trout...  Nole  lover  15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm stockpiling my trout at the moment, you'll have to make do with this instead.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)




 * * Shrudder* - You have scared me straight, Giftiger...This will be one of my most cherished awards.  Nole  lover  17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing I didn't break out this then...  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) [[Image:Melanocetus_johnsonii.jpg|200px|center]]
 * Happy to help.  Oreo Priest  talk 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

creating
Reason: You said you wanted a trout. So here. I also thought the edit you made was funny. Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * =D  Nole  lover  20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Guild of Copy Editors at 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

Thank you
I hereby award Nolelover the Barnstar eaten by a bear award for performing "the worlds most tedious edit". Your work (and humorous edit summary) are appreciated. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC) LOL, and thanks! Re-typing every single access date was awful. Just out of curiosity (and because I'm making an FSU version), how long did it take you to write all that?  Nole  lover  20:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It took hours. Maybe there is a better method, but what I did was copied and pasted the info from the source (that was the easy part) and then manually typed in the links and the formatting for the tables (I think I got carpal tunnel syndrome). If you start putting something together, let me know and I'll stop by and lend a hand. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. I've started in my sandbox. I'll take all the help I can get - I'm gonna try getting an article for every year and fixing the others up. I just ask that you don't move it to mainspace though. ;)  Nole  lover  17:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You have  new messages ( last change ).  — fetch ·  comms   03:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Nolelover (cool name), I wished to thank you for the support vote in my RfA. Your comment resounds (when you wrote "looks trustworthy"). Will hope and work well to better that :) Sincerely.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  19:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. I've always thought that content contribution was a little overrated in RfAs. After all, being an admin will only cause you to have even less mainspace edits. Anyway, your percentages (97 on CSD, etc.) looked good, and thats why I supported. Best of luck!  Nole  lover  23:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted :) Regards  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  10:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You removed my comment on Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
G'day Nolelover.

When you cast your vote on Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage you deleted my vote for closing the project. Don't do that! If it was unintentional try and be a lot more careful in the future, will you? Qwrk (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad! I had an edit conflict, and I copied and pasted onto a new tab. I'll try to be more careful in the future.  Nole  lover  18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that speedy reply. No hard feelings.  Qwrk (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Vyeh will be on vacation for a month
Nolelover; I have really appreciated the help you have given me. Unfortunately I will be on vacation for a month and I will have no internet access. I am really sorry about and you have been a great help.
 * Have a great time! I'll work on finishing the article up.  Nole  lover  12:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Azanian People's Liberation Army
Im taking over the copy edit for this page because the tag has been there for 5 days -- its says if its been there for a couple of hours without an edit it can be changed.Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I had totally forgotten about copyediting that article.  Nole  lover  13:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ ;)(Lihaas (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)).

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 05:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC).