User talk:Bleubeatle/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, Bleubeatle, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Cuisine of the Philippines has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. SJP (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. TheChrisD Rants • Edits 07:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon unmerge proposal
Hello, this message is being sent to inform you that a proposal to un-merge all Pokemon articles has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokemon. As a member of WikiProject Pokemon, your input would be much appreciated. Glass  Cobra  22:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/Personal Point of View and Problematic information on Filipino mestizo
The information you have provided on Filipino mestizo are indentified as NPOV, POV and weasel words. Your information are based on your problematic, confused issue and personal point of view. Jdcjds 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No it is NOT! Blueknightex (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Really? Do you have "facts"/or "reference" to support your information? This is a controversial issue. No reliable sources or facts have been conducted by scholars. No facts have emerged. This simply a foreign issue or a point of view. Can you provide a scientific and professional information conducted by scholars? Where is it?. --Jdcjds 14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism on Filipino mestizo
Your edits were reverted due to possible vandalism or sabotage on Filipino mestizo article. Can you provide professional research study conducted by scholars?. Jdcjds 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No original research on Colonial mentality or other
Once again, no reliable information has been conducted by scholars in regards to the information you have provided. Why are you linking Colonial mentality and Filipino mestizo, together. The Filipino mestizo article is not about politics. It is an article based on an ethnic group. Colonial mentality is a controversial issue, it is an issue written from a persons social and non-social point of view. A statement that discribes social issues or social problems in the society we live in. Jdcjds 09:09 7 May, 2009 (UTC)

Colonial mentality
I am not Jdcjds, and I have nothing to do with the stuff you said. I agree that the article Filipino mestizo should be placed there instead, but I didn't edit it.--Chocoforfriends (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE to all members of WikiProject Pokémon
Following a discussion on the Project's talk page, we will be updating WikiProject Pokémon's list of participants. To do this, all users previously listed as "Active" have been moved to the "Inactive" list; after this change anyone may add/re-add their name to the "Active" participants list. As your name was one of those on the Active members list, I am notifying you in case your active interest remains. Thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to keep our list of active participants as accurate and up-to-date as possible. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 04:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Kanto Gym Leaders
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Kanto Gym Leaders. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of Kanto Gym Leaders. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit re LHC
Your revision of another editor's (User:125.236.172.89 (talk) ) insertion concerning the LHC got deleted when that previous edit was removed. I have welcomed that IP editor, and explained what I assume was the reason for the reversion on his talk page, which you might look at if you have any doubts about it. Feel free to comment on the article talk page if you think this material can be augmented to satisfy Wikipedia's source requirements, but without something pretty solid to the contrary we normally consider the BBC to be reliable. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Examiner
Is it going to be removed? Yves (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, you could have used a more reliable source. That same information was published by Billboard, if I recall correctly. Yves (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Charice Discography - respect each others' views
Hi Bleubeatle and thanks for your contribution to the | Charice Discography merger discussion. Please try to respect each others' views on Wikipedia and accept that we are all trying to make Wikipedia better for all of us. Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bleubeatle, you might want to read the guidance and help pages on Mergers. Proposing a Merger is not the same as carrying out a Merger. The point is that you propose a merger and open a discussion, and if there is merit in keeping the two pages - as in this case - then the two pages are kept. If there is agreement that a merger is sensible, then the pages were merged. I proposed a merger when there was almost no content in the Discography page, and when the page was actually filled out with some relevant detail, I withdrew the merger proposal. Please don't be offended by the merger proposal, it was in the interests of keeping Wikipedia usable for all of us. Mr Sheep Measham (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Username change
Please place your request on Changing username. Andrevan@ 15:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charice-One-Day.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Charice-One-Day.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Bleubeatle. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Ok thank you so much. I will be very careful with it Bleubeatle (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop removing Big Bang's "Trivia" section
Big Bang's fans are obviously known as VIPs, and their official light-stick is crown-shaped and yellow in color. Many sources have stated that Big Bang do not have an official balloon color as well. It's either you find one from the official YG Entertainment website, or don't remove at all. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbigbangfan (talk • contribs) 11:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012 - Difference between Vandalism & Fancruft
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Miss A, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Opps sorry. I meant that it falls under WP:Forum and WP:Fancruft. I will use that instead next time instead of Vandalism. Bleubeatle (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for deleting BEAST members section.
You are really weird, why did you remove the members section? Yes, it's understood that the information can be found in the individual members site. That's why when people change it to a simpler version. I am alright with it. But I do not see any reason for you to delete it -_-" I will put it back again next month if you can't find any reason to convince me not to put it back :) Nicky456 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your use of Rollback
Your recent use of Rollback is not in compliance with the Rollback feature behavioral guideline. None of these edits—  —are blatant vandalism, and appear to be done in good faith. There is an undo button for addition of poorly sourced information, and Rollback is not meant to be used in these instances. If you can't properly handle Rollback, the feature will be removed from your account. — ξ xplicit  00:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanjay1996.
 * Those edits were made by a user who has been abusing his/her edit privileges here at Wikipedia. It has made several sock accounts which have been banned (see User talk:Ryanjay1996). The user has been trying to continuously re-add group positions which are unsourced and are simply WP:Fancruft. The user has been warned several times and has been told not to add group positions. The user has ignored all warnings therefore I had to use the rollback feature to undo its edits as this user is beginning to ruin the Members positions of several articles and has been using several different methods to re-add them(such as changing the table format of the Members section to written bullet points) which I think are considered Vandalism as this user erases most of the written information in the table and re-adds the group positions only.


 * Also be sure to check the contributions made by these users below:



✅ According to Vandalism guidelines, Sock puppetry in Wikipedia is considered vandalism and therefore I am allowed to use the rollback feature to revert edits made by this banned user. Bleubeatle (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Discussion on recategorizing
Hiya Bleubeatle,

As you've just joined the project, I felt it polite to also make you aware of an on-going discussion on the project talk page. Here is the original invite for it.

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision on the proposal of recategorising following the rollout exercise of the new navigation templates (navboxes) within Eurovision articles. The consequences of this discussion could have a large impact on how articles are reorganized in future to provide an easier index system, so all project members are invited to participate in the discussion.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Wesley ☀  Mouse  13:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Julia/Jaycee
One can play as Julia Chang (and her name will change to Julia Chang) by buying the remove mask option for Jaycee in the arcade version. I'm not sure how this will work in the console version since it hasn't been released yet.Garyoak99 (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So Jaycee is the only one that appears on the character selection screen? Not Julia? Bleubeatle (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Article related I hope - LOL. But just so you're aware, Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion (including user talk pages) should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopaedia, as outlined at WP:OWNTALK.  I've heard people been "told off" in the past, some even getting blocks.  Ridiculous I know, which is why I thought I best give you a head's up before someone else noticed it.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  23:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um lol it is. I asked it on a the Tekken Tag Tournament 2 talk page but got the response here.Bleubeatle (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations archives
I see that at Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanjay1996 you wrote "I've posted this already on the archive posts but I did not get any replies..." You almost certainly will get no replies. Normally, nobody checks all the archived pages of past sockpuppet investigations, and so your comments are likely to go unnoticed. Once a case is archived, if you want to bring up new possible sockpuppets then you need to start a new case. The archive page should not normally be edited, except by SPI clerks or checkusers archiving past discussions. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Bleubeatle. When you edited the archive, it went unnoticed as JamesBWatson explained. Also, when you edited Sockpuppet investigations/Ryanjay1996, it too went unnoticed since there was no case status tag included, so I have combined your report with a new one that was just opened. Please, in the future, only file cases using the procedures at WP:SPI or by using the Twinkle tool. Thanks! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Here Lies Love
Soundtrack, etc. You are correct that a soundtrack must use the same music, so the Jay-Z album you gave would not constitute a soundtrack, but in this case, these songs were composed with an eye toward the musical threatre performance and were debuted in that venue--the album was released after the fact. The contents of the two are more-or-less the same as you can see from the article. There are several theatre soundtracks which are not all cast recordings. The dichotomy between a soundtrack and a concept album is a false one: a single collection of music can be both and this one is. Sources such as the press reproduced on Byrne's site routinely refer to it as a soundtrack and of course, a simple Google search will show some other returns as well (bearing in mind all of the problems with that approach.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But my question is, what 'musical theater performance' are you talking about? I already searched the internet and couldn't find any production that existed. If there was then I would've agreed but I really couldn't find anything about it that's why I had my doubts to why you called it 'soundtrack' when none of its materials appeared on such productions. David Byrne and his record label maybe advertising this as a 'soundtrack' but the truth is that its just a concept album and wouldn't fall under that category. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See here It was performed and curated as a live musical before there was ever a commercially-available studio-recorded album. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I see. You should've at least stated this on the article then. The way it was written in the article seemed like it just a live tour/concert and the album was not presented like a theatrical performance. Bleubeatle (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure Sorry for any confusion--for what it's worth, it seems clear to me, but I wrote it! Feel free to change it yourself to reflect the nature of how this project was conceived, presented, and recorded. If you're not clear on its unique nature, then others won't be as well. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me though. Anyways I just did my research and it was just announced today that it will be adapted into a musical sometime next year. What a coincidence~! Bleubeatle (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow That's some weird timing! Please add content like this to the encyclopedia--I've been lax about updating the article on HLL. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum It appears you already did. It also appears that I unwatched this article somehow... —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2012
Hi Bleibeatle,

You recently reintroduced a trivial section to the above named article, which had been removed three times before as it was classified as trivial information. There is a discussion and brief explanation about this type of detail on the article's talk page; and details of this is going to be filtered out to members in the next edition of the newsletter to be published in a couple of days time. As part of a clean-up exercise while the 2013 season is still in early-days mode; members are being advised to undergo a clean-up exercise across the project articles and remove such trivial data. This will explain why they haven't been removed from 2010 and 2011 pages. Could you please be so kind as to self-revert your recent reinclusion of this data on ESC 2012 page. Thank you - Wesley  ☀  Mouse  11:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The talk page discussion in regards to this trivial section not being permitted can be found here.  Wesley  ☀  Mouse  11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bleubeatle, there are several things which have been done wrong here. Firstly, if you choose to edit an article regularly you should be keeping an eye on what is going on the talk page, which is used to allow improvements to be made, and if multiple editors are repeatedly removing a section, that is usually a strong hint that there might be something that needs discussion. These sections were never accepted as standard sections at all - there were simply mass added by another user under the radar without any consensus, which there should be for something like that. These sections have been badly formatted with various problems including inappropriate links in the section headings (discouraged in MOS:HEAD), a one entry table that could be in prose, no written explanation on what these tables mean, and most importantly, no sources. As an established user I'm sure you are aware that it is requirement per the Verifiability policy that content added to articles is sourced if it is challenged or likely to be challenged, which this is, and the burden is on those adding or restoring such material to provide sources. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wesley and CT Cooper, I understand what you are both saying but you are both jumping onto conclusions already.
 * First of all, the discussion you posted there only centered around the OGAE. The information that you removed from the page had nothing to do with that. The Marcel Awards and OGAE are two completely different things.
 * Secondly, from discussion Wesley posted, it seems like it was mainly centered around OGAE and barely about the Marcel Bezençon Awards so I believe that a consensus regarding the has not been properly ruled.
 * Lastly, if you read my last edit where I re-added the information you removed, I did not even add the OGAE again. I only re-added the Marcel Awards table and gave sources for it. CT Cooper didn't you also mention in that discussion that there were not sourced? Well there you go. Also these sources came from Eurovision.tv, a highly reliable Eurovision website. Go on have a look at it now.


 * If you guys still disagree with me then I believe that we should start a new discussion for the Marcel Bezençon Awards (not OGAE). Because I disagree that you consider this 'trivial' and that a proper consensus had already been reached. In that old discussion, most of the replies by other users were mainly surrounding the OGAE. CT Cooper was the only one who brought this up and stated that they didn't have any sources. But you see the Marcel Bezençon Awards which I placed right in the 2012 article actually did. So how can you call what I placed unreliable and trivial then give me a long explanation about "burden is on those adding or restoring such material to provide sources" ? Please read my edit again. The source is there. Its not trivial nor is it unreliable in any manner. . Bleubeatle (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already started discussion right here about an hour ago right after re-adding the information that CT Cooper removed so feel free do carry that discussion there if you have anything else to say here.
 * Well you went about it partially in the correct way. Opening discussion on the project page in order to build consensus on an outcome decision is correct.  However, to reintroduce the details before the consensus which you opened had even concluded is incorrect.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Common logic should prevail here Bleubeatle. Even though the discussion was about OGAE, the outcome would also be connected to other content/tables that are similar to the OGAE details - content such as the Marcel awards are very similar to OGAE; in the OGAE awards are determined by fans, whereas Marcel Awards are determined by press etc.  Like Cooper said, these details where added in the mid-2000's without any form of discussion requesting their inclusion to Eurovision articles, and that is so badly wrong.  Everyone knows that consensus is vital when it comes to the proposed addition of such new sections like this.  Just because they appeared on earlier articles, everyone else took it as standard procedure and included them to subsequent year's articles; without seeing if these should have even been included to start with.  A huge lack of communication has occurred here, and that is the main problem why this has now reached the situation that it has done.  There are already articles for OGAE and Marcel awards, to which such details on winners should be added to those; with a link to them being added to a "See also" section on the Eurovision by Year articles - that is a very logical solution, and covers all angles; whilst sticking to verifiability and whatnot.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  12:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You should've just explained this to me earlier. Several hours ago I left a message in the discussion page here because I was unsure if Marcel Awards is trivial or not (because Eurovision.tv reported about it) but I received no replies about that until I got a response from someone at my talk page giving me an explanation of something I already know how to do (from CT Cooper). I do know how to cite reliable sources. If you were reading my revert edits properly, you would've noticed that I re-added the Marcel Awards table and gave sources for it just before I left a message at the talk page of the WikiProject Eurovision page.Bleubeatle (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now Bleubeatle, c'mon be realistic here. I have approximately 1000 pages (articles; talk pages etc) on my watchlist; not to mention a busy schedule in real-life too.  So to say that I should have explained earlier before you reverted things is a little harsh.  Everyone (as far as I know) is aware of bold, revert, discuss actions.  Yes, you where bold in re-adding the content; but like Cooper informed you, an established editor would have noticed the edit history on the article and also would have seen why the content had been removed several times in the past.  With that in mind, common sense would have kicked in the discussion part before re-adding details again and again.  You must have known articles for Marcel and OGAE content is in existence, the fact that their respective pages where also wikilinked in the section headers is a bit of a give-away hint there.  If you view those pages, you will see that each article has a prose lead on them to explain what they are and a source verifying it, and then the list of winners are updated annually underneath - thus removing the need to keep adding sources to that list as there is already a source used.  And please don't accuse someone of not reading things properly, it is very impolite.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  13:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you should both know that what you both left in my page was not very pleasant to read at all. Also, to say that I was 'incorrect' on "reintroducing the details before the consensus which you opened had even concluded" was quite rude to be honest. Just to get make it clear here, that was not its original purpose. I made that page originally to ask people in the Eurovision Project if it was fine for me to add the Marcel awards like in the past articles and if it was notable enough. To be told off about having no knowledge of citations when I already do, and to come up with a reply explaining my side of the story/opinion of what should happen towards two users was a frustrating task. Hope you understand that.Bleubeatle (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "CT Cooper didn't you also mention in that discussion that there were not sourced? Well there you go. Also these sources came from Eurovision.tv, a highly reliable Eurovision website. Go on have a look at it now" WP:BURDEN is clear on whose responsibility it is to source information, which is a core policy of this project. If you know how to cite reliable sources, then why didn't you do it when you added the content? Sourcing means adding inline citations to the content you add, as WP:BURDEN explains, anything less is undesirable, and "providing sources on request" is not acceptable. As I said to another user, I don't think the content should be there and I have better things to be doing than going through a long list of articles where this features (it is not just in the year ones) and sourcing what other editors should have sourced themselves. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you know how to cite reliable sources, then why didn't you do it when you added the content?" Why are you still telling me this again? When I re-added the content after it was removed I gave sources. For your information, a few hours before you came to my talk page and left a paragraph explaining citations I already placed the sources right after re-adding the content. This should be enough evidence to prove to you that I have knowledge in citing sources and that I do not require anymore information regarding citations. Therefore, I did not "provide sources on request" as you originally perceived from me. The answer that I was looking for was the one that Wesley Mouse. This is all I needed to know: "Is the Marcel Bezençon Award notable and should placed in this page like the other articles in the past?"
 * If you look at this edit right here closely you will see that I was the one who sourced it. Again, keep in mind that I sourced that long before you came to my page so this was not done by request at all. Have a look at [61] here. Bleubeatle (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you cared to take notice to the project talk page, you will find there is an RFC discussion taking place regarding the entire layout style for these articles, to which Marcel and OGAE awards are also being discussed. In checking that page, you would also have noticed that this current debate has resolved itself over there too, and thus would have saved you time replying sarcastically to another editor about it. Thank you Wesley  ☀  Mouse  10:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already did many hours ago. I am only posting here to rebut some of the posts that have been made towards me. Thank you very much.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, I do beg my pardon. Wasn't 100% sure if you was aware of the RFC taking place, so thought I'd be polite in highlighting it to you.   Wesley  ☀  Mouse  10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)