User talk:Awilley/Archive 2

AFD for Mormonism and violence
I removed the section headings from the discussion page for the AFD nomination of Mormonism and violence. Section headings screw up the daily log page for AFDs. In the case of this article, that daily log page can be found here. I don't hang around AFD much these days so I'm not really knowledgeable on how it should be done exactly but it was clear that what you did was broken so I fixed it as best as I could. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed your fix, and it makes sense. This was my first AFD, and though I tried to read up on it, I only found the real instructions after I had created the page and written the sections. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the camping trip. Just got a new camp stove/oven and need to get out and do the same! Thanks for making the AFD. See ya at the article when you get back.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Breanna Manning
Hi.

I've moved the article Bradley Manning to Breanna Manning due to major BLP concerns about how we identify Manning; from a reading of the sources in question, and of MOS:IDENTITY, I believe there are major BLP issues with how we refer to Manning as "he", despite sources also saying that her identity is female.

Please direct the discussion to the thread on BLP/N; this is a cross-posted notification. :) Sceptre (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's much consensus for that move, but I'm going to stay out of the discussion. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the Manning review on. My comfort level dropped out the minute I started reading it and I was not going to argu for or against any of what i was seeing, I decided it should not be dropped as to look like a second GA was initiated after a first decline so if you can see about getting that cleared up it won't innaccurately show this as a GA2. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I had followed the Wikileaks controversy in the news as it was happening, and had read a few NYTimes articles on Manning, so I already had an interest in him. I still had your talkpage watchlisted from my earlier post, and it looked like you were pretty busy, so I was happy to take over. As far as I understand, GA reviews frequently go inactive, so I don't think anybody's going to assume that it failed the first and had to have a second. I'll have a look at the old page and see if I can write a note or something to clarify that. I don't think I'm allowed to make any major changes or move/delete the first page though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to email
I say nail em to the wall whoever they are. -- Avanu (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I'll see what I can do. It's a minor issue though, and it's old, so I doubt much will come of it. At this point I'm mainly curious. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem. Not sure what the main issues are, but I have no problem with you doing what you need to. FYI: Just to be clear, that person isn't me. I looked at what you described in the message you left and checked out contributions, but I don't see the connection, but as I imply above, I'm just me. Kind of a disappointing thing about the way the semi-anonymity of the Internet works that we can't easily just prove that by saying, but do whatever you feel needs to get done to show anything, you've got my full permission. -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate your response, and I am satisfied now. Thanks for your understanding and patience. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to Inquiry
Thank you for your question. This is my only active account and I rarely edit Wikipedia. Why do you ask? M3I5K7E 03:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I'll respond here, since you seem to like a clean talk page, and I like to keep conversations in one place. I asked about alternate accounts because your edit history seemed rather odd for a new user. For instance, your first edit was a talk page comment arguing against deletion, and two hours after creating your account you had created for yourself a user page and talk page with a very nice header template with talkpage guidelines, and a fancy signature. Your article edits have been scattered, but positive. Your talk page comments show a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures. All of this suggests to me that you have had previous experience on Wikipedia and perhaps even previous accounts. If this is the case, I'd encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy on Multiple Accounts.
 * Please note that my interest in you is mainly curiosity. We have only interacted once, and that was a year ago when you placed an edit warring template on my talk page (so far you're the only person to have ever done that). I was suspicious at the time, but I forgot it until I archived my talk page yesterday and decided to look you up again.
 * Anyway, if this is, in fact, your first and only account, I compliment you on your knowledge and skill, and hope that you'll become a more active editor in the future. If this is an alternate account, I hope you'll take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that you're following Wikipedia policy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I try to keep things positive. My signature and other trappings are shamelessly copied from other users. M3I5K7E  04:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Imitation the sincerest form of flattery
Thanks for fixing my error. As you can see, I liked your format but was a little too hasty. So what else is new :)--John Foxe (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I actually copied most of that from other users along the way. I couldn't help but laugh though. Not a whole lot new since we last talked. The editor(s) at 208.81.184.4 have left us for the time, which I found quite sad. I'm probably going to try to take over some of the wikignome work they were doing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those folks were always a pleasure to work with, but I don't understand why they just didn't get a named account. Maybe they will.--John Foxe (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My best guess is that they were allowed to edit from work during down-times, but weren't allowed to log into an account by some company policy. I am personally glad they didn't get a named account, because it helped me appreciate that IP editors are people too, and helped to get rid of my knee-jerk tendency to automatically discount or revert IP contributions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're very welcome. I've experienced the frustration of wanting to make a simple edit but not being able to, and then having to wait around forever for somebody else to do it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Secular Islam Summit - quotes in footnotes
Kwamikagami has reverted my implementation of your suggestion that we put the extended critical quotes in footnotes, and has asked instead that you be the one to make the edit. Here is the diff to be reverted. Thanks in advance! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I'd be happy to make another edit, but I'm going to try to stay away from making a simple revert, since I suspect there may be other concerns mixed in besides the footnote quotes, and because hard reverts (in my opinion) make the place feel like more of a battleground, and I'd like to avoid that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Gwen Chan 22:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is certainly embarrassing. I decided to take STiki out for a test drive today, and it fed me this edit as a case of potential vandalism (it was actually a revert of vandalism). I saw the bit about POO being the best food and hit revert. When I realized my error I immediately tried to correct my mistake, but not before STiki fed you my edit (oh the irony) and I got tagged for vandalism. Anyway, I apologize for the confusion I've caused, and I will certainly be more careful in the future.
 * I've taken the liberty of collapsing the template per WP:DTTR. I hope you don't mind. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe I am test-driving it too. I am partially at fault I guess for templating a regular though so don't feel bad - it just looked like such a blatant vandal edit that I didn't look at the "editor." No harm done, it is all good now. Gwen Chan 23:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Although I just had a good laugh when I saw this just now (I had watchlisted your talkpage). And then I busted up again when I saw this. Perhaps STiki (or Cluebot) has achieved self-awareness and is now pitting us humans against each other. That's four good editors who just got templated by STiki. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We laugh now, but when STiki eventually, inevitably, develops Skynet Vandalwatch we will rue this day hehe. Gwen Chan 09:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * five. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please odd this article at (in other languages)
thank you for reply. but my scope didnt it. Please odd this article at (in other languages) in the text of article — Preceding unsigned comment added by პატრიოტი (talk • contribs) 18:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are asking. Adding ალაჰი to the article makes ქართული appear in the language bar at the left of the article. Is this what you want? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Malaysian and Indonesian language

Christians in Indonesia and Malaysia also use Allah to refer to God in the Malaysian language and Indonesian language (both languages forms of the Malay language which is referred to as Bahasa Melayu).

Mainstream Bible translations in both languages use Allah as the translation of Hebrew Elohim (translated in English Bibles as "God").[39] This goes back to early translation work by Francis Xavier in the 16th century.[40][41] The first dictionary of Dutch-Malay by A.C. Ruyl, Justus Heurnius, and Caspar Wiltens in 1650 recorded "Allah" as the translation of the Dutch word "Godt".[42] Ruyl also translated Matthew in 1612 to Malay language (first Bible translation to non-European language, only a year after King James Version was published[43][44]), which was printed in the Netherlands in 1629. Then he translated Mark which was published in 1638.[45][46]

The government of Malaysia in 2007 outlawed usage of the term Allah in any other but Muslim contexts, but the High Court in 2009 revoked the law, ruling that it was unconstitutional. While Allah had been used for the Christian God in Malay for more than four centuries, the contemporary controversy was triggered by usage of Allah by the Roman Catholic newspaper The Herald. The government has in turn appealed the court ruling, and the High Court has suspended implementation of its verdict until the appeal is heard. In other scripts and languages

Allāh in other languages with Arabic script is spelled in the same way. This includes Urdu, Persian/Dari, Uyghur among others.

Bengali: আল্লাহ Allah Bosnian: Allah Chinese: 阿拉 Ālā, 安拉 Ānlā; 真主 Zhēnzhǔ (semantic translation), 胡大 Huda (Khoda, from Persian language) Greek: Αλλάχ Allách, Θεός Theós (God)

add it here

Hebrew: אללה‎ Allah Hindi: अल्लाह Allāh Malayalam: അള്ളാഹ് Aḷaḷah Japanese: アラー Alā, アッラー Allāh, アッラーフ Allāf Maltese: Alla Korean: 알라 Alla Polish: Allah, also archaic Allach or Ałłach Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian: Алла́х Allakh Serbian, Belarusian, Macedonian: Алах Alah Spanish, Portuguese: Alá Thai: อัลลอฮ์ Anláw Punjabi (Gurmukhi): ਅੱਲਾਹ Allāh (archaic ਅਲਹੁ in Sikh scripture)

Typography

The word Allāh is always written without an ʾalif to spell the ā vowel. This is because the spelling was settled before Arabic spelling started habitually using ʾalif to spell ā. However, in vocalized spelling, a small diacritic ʾalif is added on top of the šaddah to indicate the pronunciation.

One exception may be in the pre-Islamic Zabad inscription,[47] where it ends with an ambiguous sign that may be a lone-standing h with a lengthened start, or may be a non-standard conjoined l-h:-

الاه : This reading would be Allāh spelled phonetically with ʾalif for the ā. الإله : This reading would be Al-ʾilāh = "the god" (an older form, without contraction), by older spelling practice without ʾalif for ā. — Preceding unsigned comment added by პატრიოტი (talk • contribs) 11:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

 * Thank you for the notification. I had noticed the backlog, but unfortunately I won't be able to help out for the next couple of days, as I'm heading out of town for a long weekend. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Urgent Request from the office of Shri Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi
Dear friend,

Myself is Ravi Prakash Mishra, Private Assistant to Shri Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. Mr. Naqvi would like to update his Wikipedia Page. Can we have a telephonic conversation on +91-8285858512.

Urgent Request.

Ravi Prakash Mishra C-1/12 A, Pandara Park New Delhi 011-23388850 011-23388917 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravimishra53 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't do phone calls. If you see a specific problem, or have a specific edit you'd like to make to the article feel free to contact me here or simply use the template on the article's talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Micah True
Buenos Dias, This question is in response to your inquiry regarding Micah True. I was his Partner for almost three years. I was with the search and rescue team in New Mexico, and traveled to Boulder, Colorado to participate in his Memorial, Running tribute. Can you please revise his Date of Birth? He was born November 10, 1953 in Oakland, California. I am now the Co-Founder of the Caballo Blanco/Micah True Memorial Foundation, which will continue his legacy of Running Free with the loving Tarahumara families of the Copper Canyons of Mexico.

Peace Always, Maria Luisa Walton - Phoenix, AZ(La Mariposa Apache (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).
 * Very nice to meet you. Thank you for that. I've updated the article to reflect that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * PLEASE USE THIS MESSAGE! I sent the incorrect web address!! Can you please revise Micah's new web-site, which will link everyone to the Copper Canyon Ultra Marathon, and his Foundation? www.caballoblanco.org
 * And add to references: an article by writer Nick Heil? The article was featured in the daily beast.com. Here is the link   http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/19/the-final-run-of-ultra-marathoner-micah-true.html
 * Thank you once again for your follow up. Peace, La Mariposa Apache (La Mariposa Apache (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)).
 * Thanks for the link. Looks like the article has some good information. I'll add the reference to the article, and then add more information when I get a chance. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing updates regarding Micah True
Adjwilley,

Thanks for your advice regarding editing Micah's information. You have been so helpful, and quick on your follow up. On the personal web-address, can you change that to the current site, that now continues with Micah's continued message peace and hope for the Tarahumara families of the Copper Canyons?

the new web-site is: www.caballoblanco.org

Have a wonderful weekend. Thank you for all you do.

Peace, La Mariposa Apache (La Mariposa Apache (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)).

June 2012
Your recent editing history at Micah True shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: I made an error and did not count the 31st, thus this was a slow edit war, not a 4RR violation.

I apologize for the error. I have made corrections below. --Guy Macon

Adjwilley: Material introduced 14:55, 22 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR 02:28, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 1RR 16:40, 30 May 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR 23:26, 30 May 2012

Adjwilley 2RR 23:39, 30 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's first revert 02:28, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's first revert 16:40, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's second revert 23:26, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's second revert 23:39, 31 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 1RR (3rd revert)00:35, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (4th revert) 01:05, 1 June 2012

Adjwilley 2RR (4th revert) 03:36, 1 June 2012

Hypesmasher 3RR (5th revert) 20:05, 1 June 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 2 June 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:35, 2 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (6th revert) 05:58, 2 June 2012

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to be an error in your timeline. You left out a day (May 31). If you include that day you'll see that I never made it over 2RR. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I am sorry for the error. I have corrected it on both talk pages and both noticeboard entries, and the article talk page. Again I apologize for the dumb mistake. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting that. I am very conscious of the bright-line 3RR rule, and most of the time I actually try to limit myself to a voluntary 1RR. I had made an exception in this case, partly because the removal of sourced material seemed so blatant, and partly because of the cite error it kept causing. Thank you again for your vigilance against edit warring. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One final comment...as has been pointed out elsewhere, Hypesmasher was conducting a simultaneous edit war which I was not involved in, over the inclusion of True's girlfriend in the article. He made one revert on May 31 that went unnoticed in the above timeline. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Talkback. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Micah True
Good morning, Adjwilley,

I have noticed that my name is being deleted, on a daily basis, as a surviving member of Micah True's family. Our three-year relationship can be verified by Micah's surviving siblings,as well as several journalists and friends of Micah. I was with New Mexico's Search and Rescue Team, as we recovered his body. On behalf of Micah's family, I attended his Memorial in Boulder, CO. Would another source delete my name from his page? Can anyone in the public, modify this page?

I am grieving immensley for his loss. Micah was an important part of my family's life. It's surprising to see these changes. If there's nothing you can do, I understand.

Thanks for you assistance.

Best Regards, La Mariposa Apache (La Mariposa Apache (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)).


 * Adjwilley and La Mariposa Apache, would you like me to follow up on this, verify the information, and get the page fixed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that Hypesmasher was repeatedly purging the name of True's girlfriend from the article, but I was trying my best not to get involved in that fight. During the 36-hour period you cite above, Hypesmasher removed the name at least 5 times . I never reverted him on that, though others did. I wasn't crazy about Mariposa's edits (particularly the controversial capitalization of the word "Partner") but numerous sources mention True's girlfriend by name, and I disagree with Hypesmasher that it should be completely removed from the article. That said, I'd rather not get involved in this particular battle, other than perhaps suggesting specific wordings on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have moved this over to User talk:La Mariposa Apache Everybody, please respond there. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A big improvement
Manually archived to here from User talk:Awilley/sandbox9 I think you've done well. I had basically stripped the article down to its bare bones, removing hype and nonsense, such as {paraphrasing} "True was considered a legend among ultrarunners and a pillar of the running community" and "It was there that True discovered a better way to run, shedding his running shoes in favor of Tarahumara tire-sandals", etc. You have started to put meat on those bones. Who would have imagined that the article should have a Born To Run section?

There are a few things I've noticed that are still wrong or questionable. For example, you still have the boxing record wrong (ignore if that's an old draft). I think its important to clarify that the dives, etc., took place in a dives situation, i.e., during informal, unlicensed bouts, possibly at seedy venues like fairgrounds, etc., and not while he was a licensed middleweight. He apparently just lost those 11 pro fights, mostly by KO. I'm guessing he just wasn't that talented, and probably not very well trained. I expect his forte was an ability to take a beating.

If Walton must be included (I still don't see why she should be, as no formal commitment appears to have been made by either), I'd rather it was as part of the life-changing result of the publication of BTR, which, I suspect, it was. Many readers of that book became enamoured of True's persona as presented by McDougall. They fell in love with the idea of True, again as presented. Of course, the truth of the matter was likely nearer to his having a desire to escape from a) the Colorado winters, and b) certain aspects of the "American Dream" that he couldn't stomach. His serendipitous pairing, as pacer, with one of the Tarahumara runners at Leadville just provided means for that escape. I don't believe his life in the canyons, or anywhere, was anything like as romantic as it appears BTR (or True himself on his website) would have people believe (or as trapped 30-40-something going-nowhere people interpreted BTR). I believe True put up with a lot of hardship in order to effect that escape, swapping psychological discomfort (including being exactly nobody of interest or import in his community or family) for even greater physical discomfort and lack than he would have been accustomed to. It really is the archetypal "I'd love to run away to a desert island" badly-thought out 'dream'. When you got there, nobody would be serving you tropical cocktails as you swayed in your hammock, caressed by a balmy breeze. From day one, you'd begin descending into depression and madness.

I feel that BTR's impact on True was to begin bringing him back in from the cold (to the cold), in order to serve the economic interests of different facets of corporate America. It's obvious that his life in the canyons was going to be increasingly imposed upon by the very society he had sought to escape from. It would have been interesting to watch that unfold. It is my guess that sooner or later, like the Tarahumara have done historically, he would have been forced to retreat further and further into the "wild". I mean, the CCUM was already losing its point, with the race being sponsored by a foreign mining company operating locally. What was that all about? I'm pretty sure True would have blown up eventually on the talk circuit. The Times story confirms that the rot had already set in. The fact of True was being sold out from under him, using the legend, and it was a trainwreck waiting to happen. Somebody would eventually have been sucker punched.--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you're saying there at the end, as that's the feeling I'm getting from the various articles. What would you think about this change for the dives sentence? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The dives issue doesn't have to be included at all. Basically, its inclusion was my reaction to the near deification of the man and his sporting ethics that I was witnessing on early versions of the article and in the various "news" articles. In a more reasoned article it needn't be included at all. However, if it is, the fact that he admitted it took place should be included.--Hypesmasher (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As for how Walton met True, I think what happened is she read BTR and then emailed him asking him to help her train for an ultra. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I guessed. I would further guess that she hadn't run further than a 10K prior to that (possibly not even that far). I've seen comments under articles where people describe being "inspired by the book to take up running, and writing to True to ask to participate in the CCUM". That is, they never ran a step in anger in about 30 years of life, then decided that they wanted to run a 50 mile trail ultra, in heat, up and down canyons, in deep rural Mexico, after, perhaps, a year or so of any kind of historical training. Sheer madness! What I expect people like this actually did was WALK a long, hard, hot way in one day and take a lot of running photos to show people back home.
 * However, this is the most important facet of the True/BTR phenomenon. The book (not True) made people hungry for a piece of what they believed to be True's "action". Akin to people yearning for the "freedom" of the boxcar willie, or a life under the Yukon stars, as described by Robert Service. For some reason, they never suspect that the 0.001% romantic dream may be accompanied by a 99.999% nightmare of hardship, which, incidentally, describes a 100 mile trail ultramarathon actuality for most mere mortals. I don't believe True saw his life as being romantic (although he may have tried to sell the tourists a little of that in his guide ads). The economically-important fact here, however, is that you can sell many people that "dream" vicariously, via a pair of running shoes or some other piece of gear, or a guidebook on how to run in your bare feet (even as you wear shoes the rest of the time). Many people are basically disappointed with life, but trapped. Other people (I wouldn't include True, but he did seem to be being swept along for a while) were poised to cash in on that. Feature writers and "reporters" have begun cashing in on it. A new True is probably being rapidly sought out, or manufactured. Look out for copycats springing up to replace him. I absolutely dread the release of that movie, which is probably being re-written and re-shot as we speak.--Hypesmasher (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you're talking about. I read (well, listened to) the book myself a year or two ago, and it sure made me want to take up running. I'm afraid I'm not very good at that though. And, as horrible as it is to say it, in a way True was lucky to have died before the movie came out. I don't think he would have enjoyed it at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be surprised to see "Barefoot Ted" trying to cash in a little more :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool, Version 5
Hey all :)

Just a quick update on what we've been working on:
 * The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
 * On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
 * Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Adjwilley
I'm looking for an editor I can trust. I respect you as an editor and feel you do your job seriously and professionally. I am currently trying to get a page published myself about FreeTaxUSA.com, an online tax company founded in Provo, Utah. I would be honored if you would review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newtaxguy/FreeTaxUSA.com.

Please let me know, if this would work for you.

Newtaxguy (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Newtaxguy, Thanks for contacting me. I've read over your article, and I'd be happy to help you polish it up a little. (I'd rather not push it through the Articles for Creation process however.) I'm glad that you are going through the proper review process instead of just creating the article like most people do, and I'm sorry that the AfC is so backlogged right now.
 * I have one thought regarding the article that you might want to consider. Once you create it you're going to lose control of it fairly quickly. You probably won't be able to revert others' edits (per WP:COI) and I'd guess that many of the people who are motivated enough to edit will be disgruntled customers. Check out the article on Turbo Tax, for instance. Half of the "Overview" section is criticism, and there's still a section for "Controversy".
 * Anyway, I think the article in its current state sounds a little promotional (new articles usually are) and I'd bet that the pendulum will swing in the other direction later on down the road. Let me know what you think about this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for taking the time to respond so quickly. I greatly appreciate it. I would be honored if you could do a little polishing for me. Since I'm new to creating Wikipedia articles, I find it difficult to write them to Wikipedia's expectations. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Newtaxguy (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks, but it looks like somebody decided to review it today and declined the submission. I'd suggest reading over WP:N for ideas on how to demonstrate why the website is notable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the edits you made to the page. The entry sounds so much better. I'm grateful for all the time and effort you have devoted to improving the page. I will review the notability page that you suggested in order to improve the references for the page. Is there any other tips you can provide me with to help me with this process? Your help is greatly appreciated! Newtaxguy (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Adjwilley,
 * I just went through the revision process with KTC talk, and he helped me get references that show notability. He suggested that I re-submit the article and have it reviewed by someone else. If you get the chance, I would honored if you would review our submission at the appropriate time. Thank you so much for help! Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help!
 * Newtaxguy (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for contacting me again, and sorry for the long silence. I meant to make some edits to the article, but I've been pretty busy with other projects lately. I think I'd feel most comfortable not being the reviewer, since I have a mild WP:COI now, in the sense that I've been working with you on the article, so I should not be the one to patrol it.
 * In terms of demonstrating notability, I think it was more than the references that didn't show notability. The text of the article itself needs to say something about why the article is important. This is a little tricky doing that while avoiding Peacocking. Here's an example. A bad way of demonstrating notability would be to write "FreeTaxUSA is the best free tax service out there." A borderline way would be to write "According to SuchAndSuchNewspaper in 2010, FreeTaxUSA is one of the leading free tax services on the market." A better way would be to say it would be, "According to suchandsuch, FreeTaxUSA was the blank most used online tax service in 2010, after Turbotax and blahblahblah." The third way presents the facts in a neutral manner, while still showing that FreeTaxUSA is "notable." ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Adjwilley
 * I wanted to thank you for all your help and suggestions. I love your idea about finding an article that states how much people have used the service to file their tax returns. You're help has been greatly appreciated! Newtaxguy (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Our mutual friend Scott
This has been a problem for a while, a few months, and a couple people have talked about this on my talk page and other places. I'm not sure what to do. He isn't very talkative (and there are other concerns), but it borders on disruption. He keeps it below a block level, but the totality of circumstances is starting to add up. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  02:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah...it looks like a tricky situation. The anti-vandal work is nice and needed, but he seems to go a little overboard with the templates and warnings and stuff. Is there a way to take away Twinkle privileges perhaps? Maybe he just has a little too much power for his clue level at this point. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No way to take TW away from a tech stand point. The problem is he overlabels vandalism on edits that aren't, uses too strong of templates, seems to lack the ability to see the nuances and acts in a very binary way.  His history is one of making bold edits without talking until pinned to the ground.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Darn...I was thinking that perhaps his personal script file could be altered in some way to take away the tools...I'll keep an eye out; one of my personal pet peeves is when people revert IPs because they're IPs, regardless of the quality of their edits.
 * On a completely different note, how long does it usually take for a request for page protection to go through? I requested my first one yesterday and it's still in queue. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It used to be that way, not anymore. I have no idea why, guessing it is technical. It is being discussed as part of a larger discussion (and specifically here in the same discussion), but no one is taking the idea of being able to disable TW serious enough for my tastes.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  01:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I was actually wondering if anybody had discussed that, and I've left a comment there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw that. Not sure that it will get much traction in that particular discussion, but it helps to perhaps get the ball moving and find out who agrees, and perhaps a Village Pump discussion later on if it doesn't stick there.  I strongly support having the ability to remove tools from editors.  As an admin it would help me, as it gives me another tool to prevent disruption beside the block button.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  01:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the WP:CVUA
Hey, thanks for putting that little comment in about User:Scott_Delaney. In my Wikispree (someone really should write an essay about that..), I didn't check his talk page too thoroughly. Nonetheless, thanks for pointing that out, and I'll think he'll be a viable candidate for a student in the CVUA! Muchos gracias (that's about all the Spanish I know) :D  Theopolisme  TALK 02:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I made some observations that Theopolisme might find useful on my talk page.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  02:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

De nada :-). You'd have to have checked the talk page very thoroughly to find some of the material, since portions were blanked . ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks (both of you)! I've accepted his application to the CVUA - now he just needs to hunt down an instructor... Hopefully, this will help him out.  Theopolisme  TALK 03:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Favor to ask
Adjwilley, I already have a mentoree, plus I'm an SPI trainee, CSD mentored (long story, see RfA) and a rather full plate, but someone needs to watch over Scott a bit during this "test" period, and you seem like a very good candidate. He needs a point of contact for questions, and some who is familiar but not too familiar, to observe for a while. I don't think it will be very heavy work after the first week, just occasional observations and assistance, as well as being the primary voice should we end up at AN again (good or bad). Myself and others will still be keeping an eye on the situation and can serve as a third opinion, but I think a fresh set of eyes would be beneficial. It is more about observation than anything, for a few months. If you can, or you can recommend someone, please do at the WP:AN discussion. Thanks. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do it. I had stopped following the AN discussion (It's way too active to put on my watchlist) so thanks for contacting me here. I'll leave a full response there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to do this. I've answered there in a way that should give you the maximum opportunity to do some good.  It is in your hands.  If you need me, even if for questions, I will be here, but otherwise, I will not interfere in your process.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
My decision on your Mentor Request. --Scott Delaney (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The thanks is all to you. Never be afraid to be firm or polite.  They work wonders together.  For what it is worth, when I began mentoring YRC, I created a page off of his main page, to house discussion purely on mentoring.  This is what it looked like to start  although I don't suggest anything so verbose.  When I had to undergo CSD mentoring as part of my RfA (really) which is still ongoing, I might add, I did this, as it was mainly self guided.  A separate page might be useful as it is a bit out of the eyes of everyone and easier to work one on one with.  Just a tip.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fabulous idea. I wish I had thought of it. I had sent Scott an email letting him know that he was welcome to email me if he had any questions that he didn't want to ask in the public and indefinitely-archived forum that is Wikipedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I got the idea from someone else originally, my mentor.  I'm here to help where I can, without interfering.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  01:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring:Re
I have read the message you put on my talk page, and i thought it might be a good idea to send me some articles that might need improvement.Thanks!--Scott Delaney (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Scott, I've moved your reply to User talk:Scott Delaney/Mentoring, since I expect that will be a more practical venue for our discussions than our talk pages. I hope you'll forgive me for boldly creating this sub-page in your user space ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved all the discussions on my talk page to the Archives, So don't worry if you come by and the page is blank.--Scott Delaney (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply at User talk:Scott Delaney/Mentoring.

A pie for you!

 * Thank you. Much appreciated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work
My sent mail shows I didn't send you an email, so I'll comment here. It's jus to say good work with Scott! Keep it up! --Chip123456 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 release coming up - help us design a banner!
Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter
I'd like to applaud you on your work with WPLDS, in particular the GA for Mormons. Well done. I work on the Christianity newsletter Ichthus and was wondering if you would be interested in writing a very brief blurb about WPLDS for the next issue. – Lionel (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd be happy to write something up, but I'm not sure what I would say really. (I've never written for a newsletter before.) I figure I'm still one of the newest members of the Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, and during my short experience the project has seemed a little bit stagnant, for lack of a better word. The IP editor who was keeping it running retired a couple months ago and there hasn't been much activity there since. What sort of information are you looking for? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of "Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism". – Lionel (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mail call

 * Thank you. I have responded. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Anderson - what's up? 02:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your problematic edit
You made a very biased edit on the article God. Please address my concerns on the article talk page. Thanks Pass a Method   talk  18:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. As I explained in my edit summary and on the talk page, my edit was to revert of a string of problematic edits that transformed the Lead from being a general overview on the subject of "God" into a rambling essay. The string of edits had been made with little or no consensus, and I certainly wasn't trying to inject bias into the article, (especially since any bias I may have added existed already in the version I reverted to). ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Scott

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am sorry to see him go. if he wants to come back he is more then welcome to. but he needs more experience before he can return to Vandal-fighting. because i was looking through his contributions and most of them revolved around reverting vandalism.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 01:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was sorry to see him go as well. I liked Scott because he was so passionate about what he did, and yes, he was primarily a vandal fighter. I'm still not sure why he left, though I noticed his editing started slowing down around the time he got templated by Bwilkins. I often wonder though if I was being too restrictive in the mentoring...asking him to hold back on the vandal fighting until he got a handle on how the normal editing process works...
 * I'd be happy to see him back, of course, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did return someday. There's also the chance that he'll come back with a Clean start account, which would be alright as long as he manages to avoid the mistakes and false-positives that got him into trouble in the past.
 * What do you mean by "mistake"? Have you seen something in the edit history that makes you think that somebody was too hard on the guy, or something? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to say that this is a clean start account started by me, Scott. I Have shown a lot of improvement, and i have made hardly any mistakes. I felt that i needed a clean start so i could become much better at vandal-fighting without the pressure. i have also decided to communicate much more. I have started this by helping out at WP:PERM/R.Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a part of me that suspected as much, but I didn't want to "out" you if that was the case. I'm glad that you're back, and that you have made so much improvement. I see by your talk page that you've graduated (or are soon to graduate) from the CVUA. Excellent work.
 * As a side note, there are user boxes for clean start accounts if you're interested... check it out here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to mention it to Dennis Brown, Because i was worried that i would be indef blocked for evading editing restrictions.Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 22:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly clear, I knew it from day one, which is why you might notice I took an interest in you from the start. You have come a long way, and as long as you don't use the old account and keep moving forward, I don't see any problem.  You still need to work on the mistaken tags, but it is obvious that your efforts are sincere and your progress is notable. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your support.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 05:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TfD for Fcite templates quick Citation_Style_1
Per WP:CANVAS, after contacting positive to mostly negative editors, I am also contacting you, as a neutral party, about "Template:Fcite_web for discussion" which is the quick, 5x-times-faster version of {Cite_web}. Inspired by quick Vcite, I created Fcite to match Help:Citation_Style_1, as lightning-fast templates, but with some missing parameters, and there has been much debate if quick templates which do not have all "99 parameters" would be too confusing, and so should be deleted. See:
 * WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_15 (begun 15 July)

There is the possibility of adding more parameters, as a long-term solution. Again, I am contacting you as potentially neutral, per wp:CANVAS, after having recently contacted other positive, neutral (Jimbo) or negative editors (several). This is just an FYI, and feel free to ignore the TfD, or to advise Delete/Keep, or to remove this message. There are numerous mixed opinions, so whatever you decide is fine with me. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback newsletter
Hey all!

So, big news this week - on Tuesday, we ramped up to 5 percent of articles :). There's been a lot more feedback (pardon the pun) as I'm sure you've noticed, and to try and help we've scheduled a large number of office hours sessions, including one this evening at 22:00 UTC in the channel, and another at  01:00 UTC for the aussies amongst us :). I hope to see some of you there - if any of you can't make it but have any questions, I'm always happy to help.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is a discussion regarding an incident in which you may have been involved. The thread is. Pass a Method  talk  04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I've never been to AN/I before. I'm on my way to bed at the moment, and I'm out of town most of tomorrow, so I might not get a chance to comment there, but I'll see what I can do. I will say though that I most certainly don't believe the things you say I do. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted a similar post on here. Pass a Method   talk  05:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious violation of WP:FORUMSHOP. Don't bother with ANI Adjwilley, the complaint was over before it even began!!! Pass a Method appears to be getting desperate since his argument on the talk page is failing miserably. At this point I would recommend WP:SHUN and hope he goes away.– Lionel (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lionelts, what do you mean by my argument is failing miserably? The dispute has shifted to a completely different one to the last one from a week ago. I think you may be confused here. Pass a Method   talk  06:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous and extremely ironic that Pass a Method would report any editor for disruptive behavior and for one of the worst, if not the worst, biases he has ever seen. And that is because, as touched on by User:Avanu, Pass a Method is one of the more dispruptive editors, with one of the worst biases, this site has ever seen. He has various warnings on his talk page, including recent ones, showing just that. He is always edit warring, and has been twiced blocked for it. He hardly ever takes matters to the talk page first and is reluctant to do so even when twice or thrice reverted. He issues vandalism-warning templates to editors just because they have reverted him, meaning during content disputes and not for real vandalism. He adds in unsourced or otherwise biased or contentious POV, often using vague edit summaries to sneak those POVs into articles, as is touched on in this section (the "A suggestion" part), and he is always removing religious information from articles (leads or otherwise) and is often trying to promote deism, agnosticism, atheism and LGBT matters in biased or otherwise inappropriate ways. If anyone needs reporting, it's Pass a Method. Oh, and his claim that he is female is also very questionable due to some of his past editing behavior -- meaning that besides his behavior often being as testosterone-driven as every other male at this site, he didn't know certain simple things about female anatomy. Like I stated before, he is either a very clueless female or he isn't a female at all. 161.139.147.98 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's also been permanently blocked before, but came back under his current account. Evidence was presented tying some of his behavior to that other account; anyone with common sense who compares the two accounts can see that they are the same person, and a WP:CheckUser confirmed the likelihood of that. But Pass a Method denied that he operated the other account, and was allowed to continue editing here because administrators apparently weren't sure if the issues that led to his original block still persist. So the fact that he was blocked before and got around that by creating a new account, in addition to his continued disruptive behavior, means that he shouldn't be editing this site. 161.139.147.98 (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks IP for uncovering Pass a Method's sordid past. If Pass a Method was previously banned and disgraced and humiliated, why would he come back and start engaging in the same disruptive conduct again? Doesn't he know that his previous disgrace will weigh heavily upon him should he be dragged to ANI?--and by the sheer numbers of editors he has pissed off this may be sooner than later.– Lionel (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long delay. Looks like the AN/I case has already been closed, but I've responded here on the article talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thank you for your kind remarks on my talk page. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It always bugs me when I see IPs getting bitten. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

SteedLaw
We seem to be having a problem with this editor. I see you didn't leave a message on his talk page about his latest reversion. I don't know what to do about him. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't been paying much attention to that editor, though he's crossed my watchlist a couple of times. He seems to be editing in good faith, but so far he hasn't made any effort to communicate. The removal of sourced material is definitely problematic (I share your view about Bushman). Let me see if I can get him to respond on his talk page, and we can exchange a few words perhaps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work there. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

AFT5 newsletter
Hey again all :). So, some big news, some small news, some good news, some bad news!

On the "big news" front; we've now deployed AFT5 on to 10 percent of articles, This is pretty awesome :). On the "bad news", however, it looks like we're having to stop at 10 percent until around September - there are scaling issues that make it dangerous to deploy wider. Happily, our awesome features engineering team is looking into them as we speak, and I'm optimistic that the issues will be resolved.

For both "small" and "good" news; we've got another office hours session. This one is tomorrow, at 22:00 UTC in - I appreciate it's a bit late for Europeans, but I wanted to juggle it so US east coasters could attend if they wanted :). Hope to see you all there!


 * i am handling feedback, as i am a rollbacker.--Anderson - what's up?  06:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Break
If you are going on break, I would have to admit that you have more than earned one. If circumstances are less than optimal, I sincerely hope that you can resolve them quickly and effectively. You have been and are an extremely valuable contributor, and I think we all hope that from this point forward you get the kind of good luck and opportunity that many if not most of us think you deserve. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will certainly be back as soon as I can. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Time zone
If you want to know what the time is where i live, Follow this link.--Anderson - What's up? 04:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)